Viral TDS outbreak threatens liberals, media members, with loss of sanity and common sense

There's a viral outbreak of a new strain of a mental illness called Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) that threatens the sanity of the American left and members of the media.

First observed late last week, when President Trump announced that he had tested positive for the Wuhan Chinese virus, the outbreak escalated into epidemic proportions Sunday afternoon when the president left his hospital suite at Walter Reed Army Medical Center for a short trip around the block to greet supporters who had rallied outside the facility.

The impromptu ride triggered the press into fits of outrage. The White House Correspondents Association, the self-appointed overseers of presidential press conferences, went crazy because they were given no notification of the little excursion. Never mind that their pool members were busy capturing video footage of the motorcade. Their reaction is exactly why Trump didn't tell them what he was planning, other than teasing it via a Twitter video shortly before he did it.

And when members of the White House PR staff announced their positive tests, one of the correspondents stated he felt more safe covering events in North Korea than the president and the daily press briefings. This may have been the most dramatic of all the drama queen moments of the last few days.

The contagion had spread the previous day, when media members were busy second-guessing the reports from Trump's doctors on his condition and progress, and speculating as to whether or not Trump knew he had the virus at a fundraiser Thursday before his positive test was announced, at a campaign rally Wednesday night, or even at the debate on Tuesday when he had to take on both Joe Biden and Chris Wallace in a two-against-one battle.

But it blew up on Sunday, as news of the president's trip out of the hospital spread. Liberals were aghast at what happened. They said that Trump was recklessly endangering the public and members of his Secret Service detail, spreading the Chinese virus all over Bethesda, Md.

If they could just stop for one minute and think rationally, they'd realize just how wrong and misguided they are. But logical thought is not something for which the American left is known. A little reasoning blows their arguments out of the water.

It wasn't like Trump was out shaking hands with the crowd of well-wishers on the street outside Walter Reed. He was inside a vehicle. He wasn't exposing Secret Service agents needlessly and putting them in a situation where they'd be forced to quarantine for two weeks. No one outside the detail that had already been with him at the hospital, or at the White House prior to his admittance, was involved. And he was isolated from his driver in the vehicle, as the passenger compartment is separated from the driver's seat by glass.

But the biggest thing to consider is this: By putting forth the argument that Trump put the Secret Service agents at risk, liberals undercut one of their biggest claims in this whole virus response effort; that masks work and people need to wear them.  We in Kentucky hear this lecture every day from the governor and our state version of Fauci Jr. We have to wear masks or we're all gonna die. During Sunday's drive, Trump was wearing a mask. So, too, were the Secret Service agents. So what's the problem? If masks work, then everyone's in good shape and there's nothing to worry about. But claiming that the Secret Service agents were endangered is an admission that mask-wearing is pointless, isn't it?

Trump's trip outside the hospital served two purposes. Besides galvanizing and thrilling his supporters, it sent a message to the press that the breathless speculation in which they'd engaged over the president's condition was out of line. Various reports had Trump on death's door and in grave condition. Showing up in public proved the doubters wrong. By Monday afternoon, doctors were reporting his vital signs were good, his temperature was normal with no fever, and he was to the point where he could be released from the hospital and sent back to the White House that evening. Indeed, Trump left the hospital at 6:30 on Monday and returned to the White House half an hour later. Live coverage of his trip dominated the evening network newscasts.

Franklin D. Roosevelt took great pains to hide his medical condition and paralysis from the public, with his Secret Service agents going so far as to actively block photography of him in his wheelchair. Back in those days, the press was cooperative with the president's desire to keep his physical condition a secret. Contrast that with the present day, when the media has run wild with speculation as to his health and actively questioning what the doctors are saying. The investigative sleuths even thought they had a huge scoop Sunday by claiming metadata embedded in photos of the president working from the hospital showed that pictures purported to have been taken throughout the day were actually taken just a few minutes apart; forgetting that the data changes when photos are downloaded from the camera, touched up in photo editing software, and then saved as new files.

The media reaction to Trump's diagnosis and hospitalization should be yet another embarrassment for them, but time and time again, the press corps has proved to be shameless. No act is too over the top; nothing is off limits; in the pursuit to chase Trump from office. And the "I hope he dies" reactions from many liberals exposes "the loving, tolerant left" for its true self.

As of now, it appears Trump gets the last laugh. As Congressman Matt Gaetz said, it's not a question of Trump recovering from the virus, but of the virus surviving after having the audacity to infect Trump. The president has made a quick recovery and says he feels better than he has in years. He's always seemed to be a bundle of energy, showing more stamina as a 74-year-old man than most teens and 20-somethings. No doubt he's ready to get back to the twin challenges of leading the country and campaigning for re-election.

In the meantime, seeing the left melt down and the never-Trump press convulsing in fits never gets old. If we can thank Trump's health issues for anything, it's another opportunity to witness it in real time.

The differences between 2016 and 2020

If I had $10 for every time I've heard or read the names "Merrick Garland" or "Mitch McConnell" since the weekend, I'd never have to worry about money again.

The premise being, of course, that there's something hypocritical and inconsistent between McConnell having the Senate sit on Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court in 2016 after the death of Antonin Scalia, and his planning to proceed with confirming a nomination that President Trump will soon submit to replace the deceased Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Anyone who cannot see the obvious differences between then and now is either ignorant, or being intentionally intellectually dishonest.

In 2016, President Obama was the definition of a lame duck. He was in the final months of his last term as president. It was a certainty that he would no longer be in office the next year since he was term-limited.

In 2020, President Trump is running for re-election with a very good chance, despite what the liberals in the press tell you, that he'll be inaugurated for his second term in January. There is no certainty that he will no longer be president next year.

It would be different, and like 2016, if Trump had chosen not to run for a second term. But he's on the ballot, and that changes everything.

Besides, in 2016, Trump was such a long shot to win the presidency that it could be argued that McConnell was saving the appointment of Scalia's replacement for Hillary Clinton. After all, just about everyone expected that she would win the election. According to those who know McConnell, even he was surprised at Trump's victory and was in fact already preparing to do business and make deals with her.

The statements that are being made about the Senate and presidency being controlled by different parties in 2016 and being controlled by the same party this year really shouldn't factor into the discussion. They are irrelevant, and McConnell does himself no favors by bringing this up.

If this was Trump's second term and he was for sure on his way out the door, then things might be different. If that was the case, as it was with Obama, then there would be merit to the argument that McConnell is being hypocritical. But the circumstances this year are completely different. And if you don't recognize that, you're either clueless or willfully blind.

For reasons known only to her, which she seemingly has taken to the grave, RBG chose to hold on to her associate justice position until her death. She battled cancer for years, and had a number of other health issues as she got older. She could have retired during Obama's presidency, giving him a chance to appoint another radical leftist in her place, but she hung on. It's been said that Obama himself made overtures to her that perhaps she should retire and step aside in favor of a younger liberal who could serve for decades. But mention that, and you get accused of being a conspiracy theorist and spreading baseless rumors by the same people who insist that Trump blackmailed Anthony Kennedy into retiring.

Trump has shown a knack for getting RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) and COINs (Conservatives Only In Name) to expose themselves, and he's done it again with his stated intentions to move forward with nominating a replacement for RBG. The usual suspects, Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski, have indicated they want to wait until after the presidential election to confirm an appointee.

Let that sink in: These supposed conservatives are willing to take the risk of allowing Kamala Harris (or whomever would actually be running things behind the scenes in a Joe Biden presidency, since he's obviously not capable of dong the job) to nominate a Supreme Court justice for a lifetime appointment, instead of giving Trump the chance to name a constitutional originalist. And odds are they'd side with Democrats to approve a Biden appointee.

I've felt from the start that McConnell mishandled the 2016 situation. Instead of sitting on the Garland nomination, he should have allowed the Senate to vote on it. But he was probably afraid that he couldn't keep the Republican caucus together to reject Garland or any other Obama nominee. Romney wasn't in the Senate then, but Murkowski, the late John McCain, Susan Collins, and a number of other squishy RINOs/COINs were. Even Lindsey Graham, who's emerged as an unlikely Trump ally, indicated that he would have been inclined to vote for Garland's confirmation. So there's certainly no indication that a GOP-controlled Senate in a Biden/Harris administration could be counted on to hold the line. Too many Republicans, especially a majority of those in the Senate, are of the "go along to get along" mentality, and it's why conservatives have such contempt for the establishment. It speaks volumes that McConnell is disliked by conservatives more than he is liberals.

My preference on a nominee? Of course, I like Ted Cruz. He's the personification of a constitutionalist. But I still want him to be president someday. Truth be told, I wish he was president now. And he's indicated he prefers to remain in the Senate, which is probably the best place from which to launch another future presidential bid.

Not knowing that RBG would die scant days later, Trump recently released a short list of potential appointees. In remarks since RBG's death, he's indicated that he will appoint a female to the seat. Amy Coney Barrett, a federal appellate judge, Scalia protege, and Notre Dame law professor, is frequently mentioned. Trump's list got a lot of attention in the Bluegrass State because it included Attorney General Daniel Cameron, but there's little chance Cameron will be considered. He's still early in his career and is being groomed to replace McConnell in the Senate when he likely retires during or after his next and final term.

(Possible scenario: McConnell goes all-in on the 2023 Kentucky governor's race, with the expectation that if the GOP ousts Andy Beshear, Cameron will be appointed to fill the vacancy when McConnell announces his departure from the Senate.)

But the fact remains, the circumstances surrounding this year's Supreme Court vacancy are vastly different than those from four years ago. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. There's nothing hypocritical about the way McConnell is handling this situation. And given that it's rare for me to praise anything McConnell does, that's saying something.

Why court protests shouldn't matter

Tomorrow morning (Thursday, Sept. 17), the Kentucky Supreme Court takes up a very important case. The court will be hearing oral arguments on a lawsuit that challenges the legality of several of the executive orders Gov. Andy Beshear has issued since the first Wuhan Chinese virus case was reported in Kentucky in March.

The governor argues that his actions have been necessary to save lives. The plaintiffs in the cases, which were originally two separate actions filed in Scott County and northern Kentucky but were consolidated for purposes of the appeal due to their similar issues, say that no matter how well-intentioned the governor's edicts have been, that doesn't matter because he exceeded his authority as outlined in the federal and state constitutions.

A protest rally has been scheduled tomorrow morning to coincide with the hearing. And while I agree with the plaintiffs that the governor's executive orders have been outside the scope of his legal authority -- and I further believe that the actions have been unnecessary overkill that have strangled the state's economy to the point where it may never recover at the cost of essential freedoms and liberties -- I don't agree with the premise behind the protest.

"We need a massive turnout of patriots at 9:30 a.m. at the capitol to show the court Kentuckians have had enough! This will influence the court's decision," states one promotional effort for the rally.

This is where I disagree. Courts should never rule on any case based on public opinion. Their judgments should solely be on the facts of the matter and the applicable laws and constitutional provisions.

We've all seen the footage of protestors in Washington, D.C., anytime the Supreme Court takes up a controversial case. We saw it in Kentucky a few years ago when federal courts were hearing matters dealing with former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis' refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It's long been my belief that these protests are futile. As they should be. The Constitution is not subject to public opinion. So, why should its application be based on public whims?

There's also been a letter-writing campaign to contact Supreme Court justices to urge them to rule a certain way on this case. It's a safe bet that most of those writing are not lawyers, so they can't speak to the issues in an informed manner that centers on constitutional issues. They can only offer lay opinions. Attorneys could, of course, offer amicus (friend of the court) briefs if they so desired, but only one has been entered, from Senate President (and attorney) Robert Stivers.

Judges are unique government officials. In Kentucky, Court of Appeals and Supreme Court members are elected on non-partisan ballots, from districts that look as if a drunk monkey drew them on the map. Most of them make less sense, geographically or socioeconomically, than does the state's 1st Congressional District, which stretches from the Mississippi River all the way to the Appalachian Mountains and was drawn 30 years ago for political reasons to keep Owensboro (Daviess County) and Bowling Green (Warren County) in the same district. (An abbreviated explanation for that can be found in the penultimate paragraph here.) Federal judicial appointments are also often emphasized in presidential and senatorial elections. So it's naive to assume that partisan or ideological factors don't come into play, especially when in Kentucky, an elected judge or justice that makes an unpopular decision can find themselves with an opponent the next time they're on the ballot. That seems to be the pressure that's being put to bear on the Supreme Court justices as they hear Beshear's challenge to lower court orders that struck down some of his executive decisions.

Lots of people I've come to know and respect over the last couple of years are promoting the protest and are urging people to attend. While I hope for the same judicial outcome as they do, I hope they'll understand why I can't join them in supporting this action. If the ends don't justify the means for the governor's executive orders, they also don't justify the attempts to influence what's supposed to be an impartial decision based on constitutional principles. I'll be praying for a certain outcome, but I won't be rallying for that outcome. To do so would violate my ideals as a constitutional conservative.

Some very capable attorneys are handling the case against Beshear's orders. Chris Wiest, in particular, has been extremely effective. He's spanked the administration in every case in which he's been involved, including at least one administrative action that isn't public knowledge. Attorney General Daniel Cameron may have been late to the game in pursuing legal action, but he's been on point with his arguments once he did join the fray.  They will be bolstered by a federal court decision, handed down just this week, invalidating many of Pennsylvania's executive orders. The plaintiffs have offered hard-hitting briefs in support of their positions, and have practiced and are ready for the oral arguments. They'll make a persuasive case. We have to have confidence in them that they'll convince the Supreme Court justices of the constitutionality of their positions.

Justice should never be meted out based on public outcry, especially if it comes at the expense of the facts or of due process of law. It would be wrong for Cameron to pursue criminal charges against the Louisville police officers involved in the death of Brionna Taylor simply because of loud, visible protests. It would be equally wrong for the Supreme Court to rule based on a crowd of protesters gathered outside while they're hearing the case.

I realize the foregoing opinion will not be popular in "reopen our economy and let's get society back to normal" circles, of which I'm a member. But it's the only logical opinion I can have, based on my principles and ideological beliefs.

Clearing up some misconceptions about some misconceptions

There's been quite a bit of misinformation, and a lot of misconceptions, floating around over the Wuhan Chinese virus.

No, not the stuff that typically gets flagged or censored on social media -- such as when doctors tout the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in treating the virus -- but in what people mean when they make certain statements.

As usual, liberals have twisted some statements made by those who don't view the world the same way they do to try to make it sound as if others are making outlandish remarks that are severely distanced from reality, when such isn't the case at all.

Let's take a look at a few of them and deconstruct the remarks. It's time to delineate what the speakers are implying and what some are inferring.

"The virus is a hoax."

I know of no one who doesn't believe that the virus is real, and that it's harmful. By now, most of us probably know someone who's contracted the virus. I personally am acquainted with at least four people who've had it or tested positive for it.

When someone says the virus is a hoax, they aren't saying they don't believe the virus is real. What they're saying is that they don't think the virus merits the over-the-top response that so many states have instituted. They don't think a disease with a survivability rate of 99.96 percent is cause to choke a thriving economy, kill businesses, and restrict everyday activities to the point of pain. They're saying that they believe the virus is being exploited for various reasons, social and political reasons being two of them.

Need evidence? Just look at the adjustments that have been made to the election process this year. Liberals have long advocated for expanded universal mail-in voting and lengthening the timeframe for early voting. They've actually found willing co-conspirators in Republicans like Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams, who seems to know but not care that his actions have cost him support among the GOP base that got him elected over a better-known opponent (former Miss America Heather French Henry). The irony here is that early voting probably cost the far left their wet-dream U.S. Senate candidate, Charles Booker, his primary race against Amy McGrath for the nomination to oppose Mitch McConnell this fall.

"Never let a crisis go to waste," former Obama administration official Rahm Emanuel famously once said. That's been evident in how officials have responded to the Chinese virus.

People are intelligent enough to make their own decisions on how far to go to protect themselves and their loved ones from the virus. The idea that they can't process available information and come to a reasoned determination is the true hoax in this matter.

"The virus will disappear after the election."

Sure, it seems like there are some who believe the virus is an sentient, intelligent organism. It spreads at small retailers but not at huge big-box chain stores. It spreads at churches and parties, but not at protests. And it only spreads at certain types of protests (such as rallies to reopen businesses) but not others (Black Lives Matter and Antifa demonstrations). In Kentucky, it only spreads in bars and restaurants after 10 p.m., which is why those establishments are now operating under curfews.

At least that's the impression one might get after reviewing various government edicts in response to the virus. The seeming arbitrary standards are the basis of a court case, to be heard later this week in the Kentucky Supreme Court, that could strike down most of the governor's executive orders that have been issued since March.

But no one truly believes that the virus is going to magically go away after Nov. 3. Liberals like to make fun of conservatives who voice that sentiment, claiming that they really believe people think that.

Therein lies another misconception. Of course, no one believes that the virus can read a calendar and keeps up with the news and knows when Election Day is.

The motive behind this statement is that the virus is being used for political reasons, and after the election is over, its dominance in the headlines will fade because it will no longer be an issue for the voters. Referencing Emanuel's quote about letting a crisis go to waste, the opportunity to use the virus for political means will be past, so the public can expect to hear a whole lot less about it.

This virus is probably going to be around from now on. We've had centuries to work on a cure for the common cold, but that hasn't turned out so well. The virus won't disappear, but its usefulness among those of a certain ideological mindset will diminish.

No, silly leftists, we don't believe the virus is just going to go away. Don't act like we're too dumb to know that.  We just know that it won't be as hot of a topic after Election Day as it is now.

"People aren't really dying of the virus."

There are plenty of other misconceptions out there as well. One of the most offensive is "coronavirus deaths aren't real." That one's gaining traction because of recent reports that only 6 percent of reported deaths are directly attributable to the virus alone; the other 94 percent of reported fatalities have other causes, and the virus may or may not have been a contributing factor.

Look at it like this. Let's say I have cancer. (I don't). But I succumb to a fatal heart attack. I didn't die FROM cancer. I died WITH cancer. There is a difference.

Similarly, there's a distinction to be made between someone who dies FROM the virus and someone who dies WITH the virus. By now we've all seen reports of those who perish in fatal vehicle accidents, but who tested positive for the virus, being listed as having died of it.

There's a benefit to having high death numbers. Politicians use those figures to justify their dictatorial edicts curtailing businesses and restricting everyday activities. And the more cynical will point to federal relief funds that flow to governments and health care facilities for every virus death.

All deaths are sad. They are very real to the relatives and friends of the deceased. No one is making light of those deaths when they question the numbers. Yet Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear recently accused some state legislators of doing just that when they queried state officials during a committee hearing and the 94-6 statistic was brought up.

Don't let these misconceptions go unchallenged. Don't let someone call you a science denier if you say the hype around the virus is a hoax, that it's being used as an election issue and its dominance of the headlines will fade after November, or that it's not as deadly as some say it is. You have the facts on your side. Don't let their interpretation of your wording of your thoughts sway you. You don't really believe the virus will vanish after the election. If the left thinks you do, that says more about them than it does about you.

A missed GOPportunity: Republicans should have held normal convention in South Dakota

As the live-via-video Republican National Convention continues this week, coming on the heels of the similar event held last week by the Socialists of America, perhaps it's appropriate to remind conservative and right-leaning voters of what could have transpired.

Call it "a missed GOPportunity," if you want.

The stories about the altered state of the convention are well-known. The GOP convention was originally scheduled to be held as a traditional event in Charlotte, N.C. However, the Republicans changed their plans after North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat, wouldn't allow them to hold the event as planned. Something about being scared of a Chinese virus with a mortality rate of 0.04 percent, they said.

So the Republicans decided to relocate the event to Jacksonville, Fla., but a virus outbreak in the Sunshine State alarmed party officials enough to scuttle those plans.

The result is the convention taking place in locations scattered all across the globe -- Secretary of State Mike Pompeo addressed it from Israel -- either by remote live video appearances, or through taped videos. First Lady Melania Trump spoke from the White House last night, as the president is scheduled to do Thursday.

The effect is certainly not the same as a live and in-person convention. Applause lines are nowhere to be found. Speakers who raise their voices, as they would in a speech before a live audience in a packed arena, are criticized and ridiculed. And television coverage, both by the major broadcast networks and the cable news and commentary outlets, has been significantly scaled back. For example, NBC had a talking head discussing mail-in voting shortly after their 10 p.m. coverage commenced Tuesday night while Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron was speaking.

It didn't have to be this way. Republicans blew a great opportunity to hold a normal convention while at the same time recognizing one of the leaders in how this country has responded to the Wuhan Chinese virus.

South Dakota, with GOP Gov. Kristi Noem at the helm, has been a shining star in how to handle the "kung flu." There have been no directed business closures. No mask mandates. No panic or overreaction. She has trusted her state's residents to make their own decisions on how to respond to the disease. Compared to most other states, especially Kentucky, South Dakota is thriving. Isolated outbreaks such as in commercial or industrial settings were dealt with either corporately or locally. There were no statewide edicts or orders.

While annual and one-time big events have been canceled, postponed, or restricted nationwide, South Dakota has pushed on. Two of the biggest national happenings  of the year -- an Independence Day fireworks show at which President Trump spoke, and the annual Sturgis motorcycle rally -- went off without a hitch. If those events could take place, why couldn't a Republican convention have been held in South Dakota?

Moving the RNC to the Mount Rushmore State could have accomplished several goals. South Dakota isn't exactly on the beaten path; it's really too far north to be considered "flyover country." Mount Rushmore, the Black Hills, and the Badlands are its best-known features and tourist attractions. Holding the convention there could have shined a spotlight on an often-overlooked state, provided a huge economic boost, and acknowledged and rewarded Gov. Noem for her exemplary conduct during the virus outbreak. Plus, it would have allowed the Republicans to show that they aren't hiding in fear the way the Democrats did in changing their convention. Contrasts between the two parties in how to handle challenges and crises would have been on full display -- the GOP rushes in unafraid to take on the task without hesitation, while Democrats cower in fear and send in videos.

But courage hasn't exactly been in ample supply even among Republicans the last several months. Look at the differences between Noem and Ohio's Mike DeWine. The latter has governed as a liberal Democrat this year, and it's really no surprise that legislators in his own party are pushing for his impeachment.

Republican party officials could have shown confidence and courage, while recognizing and rewarding an outstanding governor, by moving their meetup to South Dakota. The state may not have a city the size of a Charlotte or a Jacksonville, but surely an appropriate venue could have been found in Sioux Falls, Rapid City, or the capital city of Pierre. Parts of the convention could still have been done remotely or virtually, but there was still an opportunity for a decent-sized in-person gathering so enthusiasm could have been generated for this fall's vital election. Trump feeds off live audiences, and they in turn draw motivation and energy from his remarks.

This year's event is a poor substitute for what could have been. As noted above, a missed GOPportunity. Hopefully it won't come back to bite the Republicans as November draws closer.

Asking the wrong questions

A minor kerfuffle sprang up over the weekend when news broke that Gov. Andy Beshear would be dismissing Warren Beeler from his position as head of the Governor's Office for Agricultural Policy.

Beeler is well-known in Kentucky agricultural circles. He's said to be a Democrat who has held both merit (career civil service) and non-merit (political appointment) state government positions, including serving as GOAP director under Republican Gov. Matt Bevin.

As a political appointee, he serves at the pleasure of the governor. And Beshear is certainly well within his rights to replace Beeler with someone of his own choosing. While a number of appointees were replaced shortly after Beshear took office in December, a number of others are continuing to serve in their positions. Some served under Beshear's father and continued that service under Bevin.

While many are questioning Beshear's decision to remove Beeler, they're not asking the right question. Instead of wondering why the governor is replacing the GOAP director, they should be asking why the Governor's Office of Agricultural Policy even exists.

The GOAP was created in 1998, during the Paul Patton administration, mainly to distribute proceeds from the tobacco settlement (caution: Wikipedia link, believe what you read there at your own peril). Employees from all across the Executive Branch were temporarily detailed to the project to process claims. I was working for the agency formerly known as the Revenue Cabinet at the time, and my supervisor was sent to an office on the other side of Frankfort for a few months to participate.

Why this task had to be carried out by an entirely new bureaucracy instead of through existing channels is not exactly known. And there definitely was, and is, an agency already established that could very easily handle what the GOAP does.

The Kentucky Department of Agriculture is unique in that it's the only department whose commissioner is elected as a statewide constitutional officer instead of being politically appointed by the governor. Commissioners of Local Government, Revenue, Highways, etc. -- all are non-merit employees who are appointed to their positions. But not Agriculture. And unlike most of the other constitutional offices that were part of the old "musical chairs" game that politicians used to play when statewide elected officials were limited to four-year terms and unable to succeed themselves, agriculture commissioners never really used the position as a springboard to higher office. (Notable exceptions are the most recent commissioners, Jamie Comer, who's now in Congress after a failed run for governor in 2015; and Richie Farmer, who was David Williams' running mate in their unsuccessful 2011 gubernatorial bid.) Indeed, a look through the list of past commissioners reveals very few familiar names. Outside of Comer and Farmer, the most recognizable name is Alben Barkley II, grandson of the former vice president for whom the lake in western Kentucky is named.

The agriculture commissioner during Patton's term was Billy Ray Smith. Like Patton, he was a Democrat. There were no reports of friction between Patton and Smith the way there were Barkley and Gov. John Y. Brown. So there's never really been a good explanation of why Kentucky established the GOAP instead of letting the Department of Agriculture handle the tobacco settlement claims and grants.

There is, however, tension between Beshear and current Commissioner Ryan Quarles. Quarles is the plaintiff in a lawsuit that challenges Beshear's Wuhan Chinese virus executive orders as they relate to businesses licensed by the agriculture department, and Quarles is also frequently mentioned as a possible candidate for governor in 2023. That still doesn't explain why Bevin, a Republican like Quarles, kept GOAP intact.

Here lies an opportunity for the state to save some money, particularly if the GOP-controlled General Assembly wants to strike back at Beshear for the way he's handled the virus response. Due to time constraints and uncertain finances, the legislature passed only a one-year budget instead of the normal two-year biennial budget. They're set to address the budget for the upcoming fiscal year when they reconvene this winter. It's being said that due to decreased tax revenues because of Beshear's business shutdowns, substantial cuts will be required. Why shouldn't GOAP be a starting point? As director, Beeler makes $95,000 a year. There are probably lots of other expenditures related to that office as well. Perhaps the legislature should look into dismantling that duplicative office and transferring its duties to the existing Department of Agriculture.

Government has always been inefficiently run. Multiple agencies often have similar roles when the duties could be rolled into one office. Here's a prime chance for something to be done and money saved.

This isn't, and shouldn't be, about Warren Beeler. He's earned praise from agriculture leaders and politicians from both parties. And, as noted, the governor has every right to appoint people of his own choosing to leadership positions. What it should be about is the fact that we have two agencies devoted to agriculture when we could, and should, have only one office, the one that's designated by the state constitution to deal with farming interests.

Don't lament Beeler's dismissal. Instead, lament the fact that for more than two decades, we've wasted money on an office that isn't needed in the first place.

Are we waiting for a day that will never come?

Those of us who are ready for life to get back to normal -- not some bastardized version of a "new normal" where everyone wears masks and everyday activities are severely curtailed or restricted -- have every reason to be pessimistic.

There seems to be no end in sight for government mandates that limit life. Restaurants and bars are restricted in the number of customers they can serve. Executive orders limit the number of people who can attend private gatherings in homes or on private property. Public schools are "encouraged" to be closed, and those whose local governing bodies choose to reopen are threatened with retribution from the state. Some states force you to stay home for two weeks if you travel from certain other states. Only a precious few states, like South Dakota, are actually bastions of freedom in the "land of the free and the home of the brave."

But even if every onerous, overreaching government restriction was lifted tomorrow, is there any path to normal?

Government decrees might disappear, but businesses can and will impose restrictions. For instance, Kentucky's limits on the number of people from one family who can shop at a store have been repealed, but some retailers are still not letting more than a certain number of people inside their businesses at one time. It's not uncommon to have to stand in line outside at the Jackson Walmart, and to be let inside the store only after someone leaves.

And it continues. Some businesses require masks of all customers and they don't even recognize the enumerated exceptions contained in executive orders. Hours of operation are severely curtailed. Walmarts that used to be open 24 hours per day now close at 8:30 p.m. Many sporting events don't allow spectators, with the postponed Kentucky Derby being the latest one to ban fans. Restaurants take your temperature before you're seated. Aisles are marked "one way" and "do not enter." You have to wait in your vehicle before you're called in to see the veterinarian or have your hair cut. Some businesses don't accept cash and require you to pay with a card or an app on your phone. Colleges threaten students who attend parties with punishment, and are planning to limit attendance at football games and prohibit tailgating. Funerals are limited to only the closest relatives. Churches continue to remain closed to in-person worship and instead do online or drive-in services.

This isn't normal. None of it is normal. And it shouldn't be acceptable.

Not during any of the previous pandemics (H1N1 swine flu, ebola, SARS, and the 1918 Spanish flu outbreak that is most often compared to the current situation) were these extreme measures put in place for an extended period of time. How many months are we now into of what was supposed to be "15 days to flatten the curve?"

And what happens the next time we get another severe outbreak of the seasonal flu, when the "experts" get it totally wrong and the annual vaccine proves to be worthless, as it often does? Are we going to have to undergo all of this all over again?

Life isn't without risks. You put yourself in danger every time you leave the house, you get into an automobile, or basically do anything else other than exist in a bubble. Most of us realize that and are willing to accept the risks to live life normally. Those who have fears take outsized precautions to keep themselves safe. They don't go out to eat, or go to the movies, or go to church. Kudos to them. If that's how they want to live; if that's what they want to be normal; then no one is stopping them.

But those of us who truly want to live normally don't have that option. And those who want to earn a living still don't completely have that option. There's no place for a waiter or waitress in a restaurant that only offers carryout service. You can't take tickets or sell popcorn if the sporting venues and theaters are closed.

Are we waiting for a day that will never come? Is society to be forever altered because of the fears of some? It's looking increasingly as if that's going to be the case. As the government keeps extending mandates and telling us we may need to wear masks for the foreseeable future, and as businesses don't relax their voluntary restrictions when the government finally does take its foot off their necks, normal life appears to be slipping farther from our grasp with each passing day.

120 Strong is "120 Wrong:" Not all teachers fall in line with their beliefs

A Kentucky General Assembly interim committee meeting on education drew fire from an unsanctioned, unofficial group of teachers yesterday when it was (falsely) reported that no teachers were invited to address the panel.

Leading the charge of criticism was the group known as 120 Strong or KY 120 United. Remember, this is the same group that called for an illegal sickout so teachers could go to Frankfort to protest proposed pension reforms.

Unsurprisingly, several members of the media jumped into the fray, repeating the lie that no teachers were on the agenda or gave testimony. One supposedly impartial and unbiased newspaper reporter from Louisville even made a value judgment, saying that she was no longer going to tweet one person's remarks because he was not a representative of an established education group.

What's ironic is that in the same thread, that same reporter revealed that the person whose voice she wasn't going to amplify any longer is, indeed, a teacher.

As they say now in popular Twitter terminology, here's the receipt:

 

Dennis Buschman is the JROTC instructor at West Carter High School. Which means, in plain language, he's a teacher. When this was pointed out to members of "120 Wrong," they immediately got defensive and began belittling Buschman's education and experience. They basically called him "not a real teacher" because he teaches a specialized subject, has a different background, and most importantly, has different viewpoints than the 120 minions. Most of them are unabashed supporters of Gov. Andy Beshear and fully support his agenda on dealing with the Wuhan Chinese virus, including keeping businesses and schools closed and mandatory wearing of masks. The "120 Wrong" crowd decided that Buschman's point of view was not worthy of consideration because he opposes mask mandates. In short, his opinion is invalid and he should be canceled because he doesn't agree with their views.

The "120 Wrong" crowd is openly hostile to teachers who have different viewpoints. The Kentucky Education Association gets all the headlines, but the general public probably isn't aware that there's another, less liberal, group called the Kentucky Association of Professional Educators that actually offers more benefits than does KEA. But since "120 Wrong" is basically the radicalized arm of KEA, their loudest voices are very much opposed to KAPE and its leaders and representatives, to the point of personal harassment. 

KEA and "120 Wrong" give teachers a bad name and an undeserved reputation for being overwhelmingly liberal. Fayette and Jefferson counties dominate the landscape, but the truth is there are plenty of conservative Republicans in the education field out in the state. Some of the loudest, most obnoxious "120 Wrong" voices are from Republican counties in rural and small-town Kentucky, which is an obvious indicator that they're not indicative of the majority school of thought -- especially as voter registration trends continue to show Democrats hemorrhaging voters and Republicans rapidly closing the registered voter gap to the point where the GOP will finally take the majority in a few years if the pace continues.

And while it's true that far too many Republican educators believed the lies about their pensions and betrayed their principles and values by voting for Beshear over Matt Bevin, there's also been a great deal of "voter's remorse" the past nine months as they've seen Kentucky descend into an economic abyss and students basically lose two years' worth of schooling with the closing of classrooms in the spring and a delayed start to in-person instruction this summer.

So while the untrue complaint that no teachers were invited to address the legislative committee is false on its face, the gripes about teachers not having a voice are equally hollow. KEA and "120 Wrong" have direct input into every decision this administration makes. It wouldn't be surprising to learn that the leaders (elected for KEA and self-appointed for "120 Wrong") have the personal cell phone numbers of the governor and lieutenant governor. The legislature is not in session, so it's powerless to do anything about any of the executive orders and decrees coming from the governor. All that General Assembly members can do is write or call the governor with their concerns, and he's already shown that he's not interested in hearing what the legislative majority has to say. The educational establishment already has the ear of the executive branch and the Department of Education. Why do they want to appear before a powerless legislative committee except to grandstand?

And this doesn't even address the media's bias and failings in this regard. They gladly downplayed Buschman's testimony and repeated the lie that "no teachers were invited to speak." The Kentucky Freedom Coalition is doing a great job holding the press accountable, as evidenced by their Facebook and Twitter pages. They're turning into Kentucky's version of the Media Research Center and are to be commended for their efforts. Too many reporters and editors have willingly bought in to the "stay home," "mask up," and other edicts and can't be counted on for objective coverage of the issues.

The majorities and the leadership in the House and Senate have been vocal about what the executive branch has been doing. If they can retain their spines and not wilt under pressure, a day of reckoning is coming when the General Assembly convenes after the new year. The governor and Secretary of State Michael Adams are going to face consequences for their actions over the last several months. "120 Wrong" will be fighting them every step of the way. The legislators need to know that the loud, angry, lying voices that purport to represent a majority of teachers actually don't, and that they're more interested in self-promotion and pretending to be important than they are actually solving the state's problems. Liberal Democrats are losing power in the Bluegrass State, and this bunch is desperately trying to stay relevant even as they tie their boat to a sinking pier. And they're not above spreading falsehoods and trying to discredit or cancel anyone who doesn't drink the same flavor of Kool-Aid as they do.

Trump's well-meaning but wrong-headed approach to virus financial relief

With the latest Wuhan Chinese virus financial relief package stalled in Congress -- mainly because as usual, legislators (particularly Democrats) insist on stuffing the bill with unrelated pork and pet causes -- President Trump took it upon himself to try to offer something to Americans who continue to suffer economically as a result of various state reactions to the "kung flu."

Trump issued an executive order suspending the collection of the payroll tax used to fund Social Security and Medicare, along with authorizing an extra $400 in unemployment benefit with the federal government paying three-fourths of it and states kicking in the remaining $100.

The president certainly means well, and has the best interests of Americans at heart since Congress failed to act, but his solution will cause more long-term problems that it will solve in the short term.

For starters, this is only a temporary suspension of payroll tax collection, not a cancellation of the tax. This means that when payroll deductions restart, not only would workers have to start paying the tax again, but they'd be taking home less money, as the postponed collections would have to be made up. Trump has made some noise about making the suspension permanent if he's re-elected, but there's no guarantee that: 1.) he'll be re-elected, and 2.) he has the authority to do so without congressional approval.

But the bigger factor is this: Social Security and Medicare are already on perilous financial standing. Cutting off their sources of revenue endangers the retirement income and health insurance of millions of current and future retirees. This benefits no one.

Trump administration officials are making the case that a temporary suspension of the payroll tax, and the resulting increase in take-home pay, will actually pump more money into workers' bank accounts and the nation's economy than would another round of direct stimulus payments. That's arguable, but what happens when net pay goes down in January when the tax is reinstated with additional withholdings for the deferred payments? It's already painfully obvious that the usual holiday economic boost probably won't happen this year. "Black Friday," so named because it often brings retailers' ledgers out of the red and into the black for the year, will be a sad shell of its usual self. Food prices are continuing to rise, and energy bills will go up as winter descends upon much of the nation. The first quarter of the year is hardly a time for workers to have less money to spend than they did in the same period in the prior year.

The perfect solution would be for Congress to get its act together and pass a narrowly-tailored economic relief bill that addresses only vital concerns. No bailouts for cash-strapped states that have mismanaged their funds due to pension issues (such as Kentucky and Illinois.) No influx of money for the inefficient United States Postal Service. None of the extraneous stuff that members of both parties always insist on sticking in emergency funding measures.

Absent that, Trump's best play would have been to suspend collection of the individual income tax, not the payroll tax. Those revenues go for general governmental purposes, not pensions and insurance coverage for retirees, and there's always plenty of room to cut frivolous federal spending. The annual list Sen. Rand Paul compiles would be a great place to start.

Since it is an election year, there are political considerations, for sure. Some Democrats are making noise about suing to block Trump's executive order. That gives Republicans -- Trump along with Senate and House candidates -- plenty of ammunition to say that Democrats are trying to keep people from getting financial relief, and that Trump stepped in to save the day.

There's a prevailing school of thought in life that doing something is better than doing nothing, even if that's not necessarily the case. In this instance, it looks as if Trump has risen above the congressional stalemate and delivered relief to the American people. But it's certainly not an ideal solution, and not even the best one the president could have chosen. We'd be better off if Trump leaned on Mitch McConnell and the Senate to work with the Democrats on a compromise virus stimulus package that addresses the immediate needs, and postpones other funding decisions until Congress considers spending bills for the new fiscal year that starts Oct. 1. For many wage earners, suspending the payroll tax may be worse than doing nothing at all.

If a deal doesn't happen, and the Senate and House remain at odds, then Trump would be wise to reconsider the payroll tax suspension.  His intentions are honorable, but he's certainly taken a flawed course of action. An income tax suspension that doesn't have to be paid back, vs. a payroll tax suspension that will have to be made up, would be the best way to go.

Post office must adapt to survive

The United States Postal Service occupies a unique place in America. It's one of the few federal governmental expenditures that is explicitly authorized by the Constitution. Roads -- as in "post offices and post roads" -- and national defense are two other legitimate federal expenditures.

But the agency has challenges that make its survival tenuous. Technological advancements and the advent of private parcel carriers have cut into the postal service's revenues. And the USPS continues to waste money at a time when many government functions are consolidating.

Take a drive through Appalachia, particularly West Virginia, on any route linking counties and their seats, and you'll see why. It's hard to travel five miles without seeing a small, rural post office.

Journey from the Danville/Madison, W. Va., area to Beckley on Route 3, and you'll pass post offices for Foster, Peytona, Bloomingrose, Seth, Orgas, Sylvester, Whitesville, Naoma, Dry Creek, Rock Creek, Glen Daniel, Eccles, and Harper. That's 13 post offices along a 74-mile drive, or one every 5.7 miles.

Most of the rural post offices of this type aren't housed in buildings owned by the government. They're often leased from grocery stores or other businesses, which involves monthly payments. There are also postmaster salaries to consider. In many Kentucky communities, small post offices in close proximity to county seats and larger towns have closed when the postmasters retired, but that's not the case everywhere. Despite the presence of these small post offices, all of these areas have rural delivery. Is there really a need for a post office at every wide spot in the road in the mountains?

Even in my county seat hometown, the government doesn't own the post office. I was surprised to learn that the building is owned by a local businessman. The building was built in 1961, the same year I was born. And despite the Postal Service building new, modern post offices with plenty of parking in surrounding towns like Booneville, Campton, Jackson, and Stanton, Beattyville's post office continues to be housed in a downtown location where parking can sometimes be hard to find.

As a young journalist in the mid-1980s, I covered the dedication of a new post office at Lost Creek in Breathitt County. That might not be big news in the big city, but the editor-publisher of The Jackson Times thought the event was worthy of her paper's presence. A short time later, I left for another job, and I had fewer reasons to travel into the mountains toward Hazard. But I was very surprised just a few years later to find that the Lost Creek post office had been abandoned in favor of yet another new facility on the other side of the road. Why change locations so soon? What was cost-efficient about that?

Most government services are a monopoly. Mail delivery is not one of them. Competitors like UPS and FedEx have sprouted up. They often offer more dependable service at cheaper rates. There are even arrangements where the private couriers will deliver packages to post offices, and then the post office will put a notice in your box and you pick up that package at the window if it won't fit in your box. And consider that the number of first-class and bulk mailings has declined with the advent of online bill payment and email.

My Aunt Dorene loved to write letters and send greeting cards. She and her mother, my grandmother, wrote each other back and forth often. Aunt Dorene, who lived near Louisville, frequently wrote my dad, knowing he wasn't going to write her a letter back. It was always a treat to read one of her letters to her brother back in Beattyville. Until she fell into ill health, she'd always send me and my wife a card on birthdays and anniversaries and at Christmas. And we'd get the occasional letter as well. These days, people email and send online greeting cards instead of putting pen to paper. In many places, cursive writing isn't even taught in school anymore.

In recent weeks, changes at the USPS have been in the headlines, as the agency experiences tough financial times. There's a growing drive from those on the left to prop up the revenue-generating agency with tax dollars and relief funds from Wuhan Chinese "kung flu" virus relief appropriations. This despite an increase in the cost of postage stamps. The last time I bought stamps, they were 50 cents each, so what we still call "a book of stamps" cost me $10. I picked up a book last week, and the cost had gone up to $11.

The post office has some room to enact savings before it seeks rate increases or taxpayer bailouts. Closing those small rural post offices is an obvious starting point. Instead of 13 post offices between Danville/Madison and Beckley, why not just three? Keep either Peytona or Bloomingrose, Whitesville, and Glen Daniel, as these are the larger communities along WV 3. Shut down the others. Eliminating one day for mail to be delivered and post offices opened -- preferably a weekday, as those of us who work out of town often pick up packages on Saturday mornings -- would be another thing to look at. Perhaps close post offices and end delivery on Mondays, and give postal workers and contract carriers a full two-day weekend. Government is always inefficient, and there are always ways to cut costs. "We need more money" is always the first thing government thinks about. It's easy to spend someone else's money, especially if you can take it from them without permission. It's much harder to engage in some self-examination and make cuts and improve efficiencies.

The financial woes of the USPS have come under greater scrutiny as the left continues its push for universal vote-by-mail, using the "kung flu" pandemic as justification. The more conspiratorial voices have accused the Trump administration of implementing workplace efficiencies as a means of voter suppression. Of course the whole concept of universal no-excuse mail-in voting is fraught with possibilities for fraud, as anyone who's familiar with election history in eastern Kentucky and the issues with traditional paper absentee ballots can tell you. But that's a subject for another discussion.

The post office is worth saving. After all, it's one of the few specific federal government programs to be found in our Constitution. And it is supported by user fees, unlike a lot of the extra-constitutional programs that rely on tax dollars. I still haven't found justification for a federal Department of Education or any constitutional authorization for spending federal money for public schools. That's strictly a state function. Maybe the Constitution would be better served by eliminating federal programs that aren't authorized by our governing document and focusing those resources on programs that are.

But the USPS needs to look inward for solutions before it looks outward. Congress and the president should demand that the agency become more efficient before more money is pumped into it.