Seeing The Crisis Clearly

After a wobbly start, governments at all levels seem to be doing a better job of tracking and reporting Covid19 infection rates and deaths. That's clearly a top priority right now. You can't peruse the news, in print or online, without seeing the tragic tally creep higher each day, sometimes by fits, sometimes by starts. Statistics are tricky little devils so an alert reader must parse the numbers with care and put them in context. But at least they're out there now. It's a good way to remind us that human lives are riding on how we weather the storm and get back to "normal," whatever that means now. 

But the relentless focus on just one set of stats, as important as they are, also can tend to encourage a certain tunnel vision, or maybe it's more like myopia, obscuring our ability to see the "big picture" and know entirety of what we're dealing with. We understandably want to know who is sick, who has died, how the outbreak is evolving, where the "hot zones" are. But too tight of a focus on just that data may blind us to the wider but also real repercussions that stem not just from the virus but from our response to the virus.

There's been an earthquake. We're looking almost exclusively at the epicentre, however, trying to triage the temblor's immediate casualties, while forgetting or ignoring the aftershocks rippling through wider society. Some naturally prefer a narrow focus. It feeds the sense of urgency and crisis that helps hasten the public and private sector response. They frankly may not want to look at secondary or tertiary impacts indicating that we cured the disease but killed the patient, which is a topic of growing debate right now. They want to focus on the benefits of their actions, while ignoring or discounting the equally real costs, as if it's creepy, cold-hearted or inhumane to even consider a cost-benefit analysis in times of such duress.

Plunging tax revenues, spiking unemployment claims, a change in state GDP; these commonly used metrics all will help us grasp the larger implications. These are "lagging indicators" that will roll in over time, like waves on a beach, but they're also reasonably reliable. Other social impacts are harder to find metrics for, unless you make a special effort. And I think Colorado should make that effort.

Therefore, my suggestion is for Governor Polis to begin tracking and reporting an additional set of metrics as we move forward, aimed at measuring the wider social repercussions not just of the virus, but of the state's response to the virus, so that we don't fall prey to tunnel vision and can grasp the situation comprehensible. Here's my starter list of suggested indicators, which I may amend over time. I believe all these, except for the homelessness number, are there for the unearthing if you dig for them.

• Business closures
• Bankruptcies (business and personal)
• Divorces
• Suicides
• Domestic Abuse Calls
• Crime trends 
• Homeless trends 

Please email me at SeanPaige@msn.com if you can suggest measurable metrics I overlooked.

I really believe the Governor will be doing Coloradans a disservice if these metrics aren't as closely monitored as COVID19 infection rates and fatalities.

Two Can Play the Bailout Blacklist Game

For a week Congressional Democrats have been playing the inclusion game, refusing to back the COVID19 stimulus bill unless it includes a laundry list of pork, special preferences, mandates or policy changes unrelated to the immediate crisis but which promote their partisan ends. Suddenly, this morning, we see them shifting to the exclusion game, in which the power to dispense aid will be used to punish or penalize companies or industries not in the party's good graces.

And perched atop the left's COVID bailout backlist, to no one's surprise, are any ventures or businesses connected to President Trump.   

So, virtually everybody else in the country might qualify for help -- a bailout, if you will -- but any COVID19-impacted businesses connected to President Trump can go bankrupt and go to hell: Is that the vindictive game these plunderers and pirates are now playing?

Okay, so let's play the bailout blacklist game. And let's play it by bipartisan rules.  

Let's also go through the vast investment portfolios of Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and other members of the Congressional Millionaires Caucus; let's go through their campaign donor lists; let's look at the major employers in their states or districts. Then we'll prohibit federal assistance from going to any companies or industries in which they have in investment stake, or which have a history of supporting them politically. That should bring this nasty little game of stick-it-to-Trump to a halt.

Senator Schumer Wednesday morning denied this was designed to target Trump, claiming, in his usual unctuously phony fashion, that it would apply broadly, to any companies in which members of the executive or legislative branches have "majority control." But since most Congressional lifers don't own or directly control businesses, and wouldn't know the first thing about starting or running a business -- their forte is destroying businesses -- this prohibition in fact would apply to a very, very small group of political leaders.

You can further shrink that group by looking at the businesses or industries they're in. The hotel and hospitality industry obviously is poised to take a major hit. It likely will be high on the list of industries needing aid. And how many people in the legislative or executive branch have "majority control" over hospitality companies?  Hmm. Let me think. I'll come up with somebody.

Political journalists obviously knew who Democrats were gunning for. So who does Schumer think he's fooling?           

We have to be thoughtful, selective and hard-nosed about where we target assistance. Not every company or industry in the country can get a bailout. There's just not enough money in the world for that. But when making those decisions, it strikes me as wrong to arbitrarily discriminate against a Trump-connected enterprise that otherwise qualifies for assistance. If the aid criteria are intelligently crafted -- that's a huge if -- and if the process is applied fairly and equitably -- that's another huge if --  shouldn't Trump-related businesses that meet the standard also be covered? 

Or are the people who work in or for this subset of businesses -- it's those people we're supposedly trying to help, right? -- unworthy of the same help other American workers will get, just because they happen to wait tables or clean rooms at the restaurant or hotel connected to the Trump business empire? Democrats obviously want to destroy Trump, not just politically but personally; that's been their Ahab-like obsession since he unceremoniously tossed them out of power. But who they're really punishing with such vindictiveness are thousands of rank-and-file workers who just happened to fill out a job application at the Trump-owned business, but now find themselves in one party's crosshairs through guilt by association.   

This Trump rage is so unhinged and irrational that it ought to qualify as a new mental disorder.While we're on a crash program to develop new vaccines, why not a vaccine that addresses this psychological problem? Seriously. We'll badly need one -- and the medical lab that brings a cure to market will make millions -- if Trump wins reelection this fall.

Instant Revisionism Meets Convenient Amnesia as Blame Game Begins

A slow and bumbling bureaucracy can kill you: that's one immediate takeaway from this wire story that jumps out at me. And hubris doesn't help -- which is something we've known since ancient Greeks themed their tragedies around the idea. The President also comes in for some criticism, in this arguably-slanted but still relevant retelling of an unfolding story, for allegedly sugarcoating the seriousness of the situation and putting a glibly optimistic spin on things, in his usual shoot-from-the-lip style.

But . . . . 

There's always a "but," or what would be the point of blogging?  

But the question remains, would Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders or any other Democrat have done a better job of dealing with an unprecedented situation under identical circumstances? I seriously doubt it.  

Let's remember, Biden and other Democrats were quick to jump on the President as a xenophobe and sinophobe when he clamped down on inbound flights from China, suggesting that they would have been even slower to respond, for fear of offending Chinese sensibilities -- something Trump actually seems to relish, which was a potential strength at a time when China wasn't just spreading a contagion but was covering-up the facts and deflecting blame for it.  "Republican Xenophobia Is Going to Make the Pandemic Much Worse," warned The Nation, reflecting the left's conventional wisdom at the time. It's thus impossible to argue that liberals would have put a lid on travel from China, or taken any other containment steps, with any more speed than Trump did.  

Would any one of the Democrat contenders have overruled CDC's fateful and flawed recommendation to not use the German test, which in retrospect seems to be where good old hubris (or bureaucratic inertia and bumbling, flip a coin) came back to haunt us? That claim, too, is dubious, if not laughable, given the deference all good "progressives" pay to bureaucratic expertise and efficacy.

Let's also remember what the press and political elite were obsessing about 24/7 for critical weeks when the outbreak was gaining early momentum -- impeachment. But you won't see that latter bit of context anywhere in the AP's account either.

Another takeaway for me (which is a topic I'll only touch on today) is that a competence gap seems to be plaguing America -- something CDC's botched response highlights in such starkness. I don't mean political competence, though that's often a problem too, but technical competence, especially on the government or bureaucratic side. The rather sad state of the once-great NASA may offer the best shorthand illustrate of what I'm pointing to here. NASA was once the best of the best: today it can't out a man in space unless he or she is riding there on a Russian rocket.

Our scientific and technical prowess just may not be what it's cracked up to be anymore; that's a troubling subtext to this that hasn't gotten enough attention, in my view. Germany had a viable and reliable diagnostic test available in relatively short order, but rather than use that test, our supposedly elite CDC chose a go-it-alone, we-can-do-better approach that badly backfired in an embarrassing fashion.

Was it foolish pride, or maybe cocky overconfidence, or perhaps bureaucratic territoriality that colored that fateful decision? Was that the President's call to make, or did he simply trust in what the overconfident technocrats told him, resulting in the misfire? I suppose that will all come out in the wash eventually. Right now the priority must be saving lives and "flattening the curve."

I'm sure, once the dust settles, that there will be "Blue Ribbon Commissions" organized to fully probe (but hopefully not further politize) how our US response stumbled from the starting gate. And such a review is certainly warranted (assuming it doesn't take seven years and cost $200 million to complete, which would just underscore the problem I'm touching on). And perhaps we'll emerge from all this with our confidence shaken, which wouldn't be the worst thing if it spurs us to address the competence gap and strive to regain the technological edge we long (but mistakenly) took for granted, thanks to this reminder that maintaining that edge really can be the difference between life and death.       

The COVID Recovery Will Require a Continuous War on Red Tape

Here's some welcome news. I love to see the productive sector (i.e. private sector) swinging into action in response to the coronavirus crisis. But why is federal permission needed before private companies can start cranking-out respirators or any other pieces of medical equipment? And how does that square with our boasts about being a "free country"? 

It's encouraging to see President Trump clearing-away the massive knot of red tape (much of it outdated, unnecessary or just plain asinine) that normally anchors down the US economy. But why does most of this red tape exist? What purpose (aside from empowering bureaucrats and keeping lawyers and the compliance officers busy) does it serve? And do we still need it? Aren't these questions we ought to be asking not just when the shit hits the fan, but when normalcy prevails?

Just imagine what we could accomplish -- just imagine how much more dynamic and responsive the US economy would be -- if we could make these emergency measures permanent once the crisis passes. Trump has had unheralded success in his first term slicing and dicing red tape. It's a story that doesn't get told because the press and pundits would prefer to focus on the tweets and the gaffes and the "unpresidential" antics. And the economy was strongly responding until the outbreak occurred. 

We'll need much more regulatory relief in order to speed the post-COVID recovery. We'll need to continue emergency rules reductions after the human health crisis wanes and we turn our attention to saving and restoring our economic health.

No one other than Trump has the steel stones necessary to throw out the old rule book and rein-in the regulatory superstate. This is where his brashness, bravado and take-no-prisoners attitude become assets, not liabilities. Can anyone imagine a regulation-worshipping liberal like Bernie or Biden doing that? I can't.

Don't Let Closure-Mania Become Another Contagion

The Powers That Be just closed a popular Colorado hiking spot, Waterton Canyon, to recreationists. So, now we can't go outside and responsibly enjoy public lands that we own? "Social distancing" isn't just easy in such places; that's what they're there for, right? -- so people can find a little solitude and enjoy a healthy escape?

Closure-mania seems as contagious as COVID-19 at the moment and both are becoming equally menacing, not just to our bodies but to our "body politic." Here's the danger in where things are heading.

Once we hand politicians "emergency" powers to close things down, there's no end to what they'll start closing down, all in the name of "protecting" us, of course. Absolute power is intoxicating that way. "Erring on the side of caution" sounds reasonable, but it's a slippery slope if taken to unreasonable extremes. And I think we're already straying into that territory.

Yes, "something must be done." But doing something in a panicked, knee-jerk overreaction will do more harm than good. Now the go-alongers want to shame the slow-downers into silence. You must be rooting for the Plague if you question authority, or dare to argue that the "cure" could be worse than the malady. 

But not questioning authority, and going along mindlessly and passively with a cascading series of unacceptably extreme measures, many of which set a dangerous precedent for our future civil liberties, is out of character for Americans, to put it bluntly. And civil disobedience might be necessary at some point in order to sober-up our power drunk politicians and reassert citizen supremacy. 

There's only so far most Americans are willing to go, even in a "crisis," if they come to believe that they are being manipulated and a "crisis" is being exploited. I hope our political leaders have the good sense to pull back before they test those limits and push things too far.

PS: Now comes the closure of Rocky Mountain National Park, reinforcing the point I made in the post above. Closure-mania has become a second contagion. With all the businesses in Estes Park closed, where are the risks in letting the public get out and enjoy a 265,000-acre park? It might be just the tonic our battered souls need. If anything, they ought to waive any entrance fees and let the people enjoy their public lands (public lands they already pay for) without charge. It feels to me like we're moving from the precaution phase to this crisis to the punitive phase of this crisis.

PSS: Officials in Aspen also are using the threat of public trail closures to compel citizen compliance, although hiking in open spaces would appear to be very low-risk and it provides anxious and homebound citizens with a healthy and safe way to stay fit and blow off steam. 

Government officials appear to be one-upping each other in a race to trample our civil liberties. Parks and public lands have become chess pieces in the game of COVID coercion -- pressure points The Authorities are using to compel compliance with orders of dubious efficacy, legality and legitimacy.

Closing public lands and parks in the midst of government funding battles has by now become a budget battle cliche -- a routine ploy that one side or the other uses to gain leverage in negotiations. Such closures clearly are punitive in nature: if we make the public feel the pain -- and closing parks has proven to be a very good way to do that -- the public outcry will work to our advantage, or so the thinking goes. But current closures aren't related to immediate budget shortfalls (those will come later, when our leaders have successfully collapsed the economy in a coronavirus panic). There's very little cost involved in letting people enjoy their public lands. These are by definition uncrowded places, where the risk of transmission is small -- unless The Authorities can produce evidence proving otherwise.

The Authorities seem to be closing them just because they can, based on some flimsy, far-fetched link to a public health problem. It's a completely arbitrary and clearly punitive abuse of power that ought to give the public pause.   

No one in the midst of this lockdown has the means or motivation to challenge these actions in court, or to engage in civil disobedience. Most are just wondering where their paychecks have gone and when the last roll of toilet paper will be gone. But I worry that our reluctance to at some point resist sets a precedent, and sends a signal of passivity, that we could really come to regret someday.

Waterton Canyon, a popular recreation area for fishing, running, biking and more, was closed by Denver Water because of the coronavirus.

Coronavirus and Cognitive Dissonance

Most of us by now know the warning signs. A spiking temperature. The raspy cough. Shortness of breath. Then there's the piercing headaches many American "progressives" experience as they sort through a cacophony of contradictory words, thoughts and emotions related to the coronavirus outbreak. These bouts of cognitive dissonance aren't mentioned in any of the CDC medical bulletins I've seen. However, I find the evidence for a link between COVID19 and liberal cognitive dissonance compelling, even if it's anecdotal at this point.

For instance, liberals who once darkly warned of Trump's autocratic and fascistic tendencies now complain that he hasn't been dictatorial enough in confronting the coronavirus crisis, as Rich Lowry points out. And meanwhile, in another brain-straining twist, you have liberal Trump-bashers laying the foundations for martial law and behaving very much like, well, fascists.

Crisis is also exposing the hollowness,  hypocrisy and cynicism of the left's feigned recent rediscovery of federalism, after decades of systematically concentrating unparalleled powers in the federal government. Democrat-dominated states that once blithely and cheerfully surrendered their powers and prerogatives to Washington suddenly grew rebellious after Trump was sworn in. The big bullies in Washington weren't gonna boss-around these states anymore. They were determined to set their own regulatory standards, selectively enforce federal law, and even go their own way on matters of foreign policy. 

But what a change crisis can bring. Suddenly, these same states are looking to the federal government for action, answers, resources and "leadership," leading to this dust-up between President Trump and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo over who is or isn't meeting their responsibilities as the crisis unfolds.    

All the President did on this call, from what I can tell, was encourage governors to take the initiative in terms of rounding up extra medical supplies and equipment, rather than waiting for a hidebound and sclerotic federal government to come to the rescue (my words, not his). Are states to just sit around and wait for federal helicopters to deliver stockpiled surplus respirators to emergency room doors? Or do states have an obligation to be creative, resourceful and proactive in addressing such problems themselves, if they possible can? Trump's suggestion that states had such an obligation reportedly angered and frustrated some governors, including those governors, like Cuomo, who have been leading the anti-Washington rebellion in recent years. 

Some of these indignant governors have operated in open defiance of the federal government during the Trump years. They've refused to enforce federal immigration law and engaged in secessionist-sounding actions and rhetoric. But now, suddenly, when the chips are down, they strike the pose of helpless children who can't function in a crisis without Uncle Sam's (and Uncle Donald's) guiding hand? 

The fauxneofederalists have talked a good game in the Trump era, about how they won't be pushed around or dictated-to by this Republican President. They've adopted the sort of militant states' rights rhetoric one long associated with the right rather than the left. But confront them with a little adversity, push them to show genuine initiative and take actual responsibility, and they default to the whiny, Washington-worshipping statists they've always been.

Liberal cognitive dissonance may not be among the coronavirus symptoms you'll find listed in the medical literature. But there can be little doubt, based on a mountain of anecdotal evidence, that such a link in fact exists. And only time will tell whether a vaccine or a cure can be found. 

Reality's Revenge

Here's a sensible and sobering piece on why going petroleum-free is pie-in-the-sky, at least for the foreseeable future.

"This reality often elicits the response that “if we can put a man on the moon, surely we can . . .” But transforming the scale of the energy economy isn’t like putting a few people on the moon a few times. It is like putting all of humanity on the moon—permanently. In other words, society-scale physical systems have, to use a physics term, a lot of inertia. Making big changes in enormous systems takes a very long time. The scales are hard to visualize, but we can try."

This country needs a major reboot and "reality check" in terms of our tendency toward pie-in-the-sky thinking. Perhaps this period of quiet contemplation (AKA quarantine) will prompt deeper reflection about the things that really matter, the things we often take for granted but shouldn't, starting with reliable energy infrastructure.

The bubble of relative safety, security and prosperity (not to mention economic essentials like reliable energy) in which we've long lived has bred into us a certain cluelessness and complacency that becomes all too obvious when the bubble bursts. We've enjoyed the luxury of keeping reality at arm's length. It's given millions of Americans a distorted and disconnected picture of the world. We no longer can sort genuine risks from imaginary ones. We've managed to keep reality at bay, but reality has come storming back with a vengeance.


Perhaps our current circumstances -- our current struggles with a true public health crisis, not a manufactured one like sugary drinks, plastic straws, leaf blowers or whatever other emergency du jour comes along -- will jolt us into a return to realism. What might a return of realism look like? What lessons should we already have learned from the current crisis? Here are just a few that jump out at me.

Americans must:

• Sober-up and get our heads screwed on straight

• Stop taking our amenities, health and security for granted

• Stop taking a strong economy for granted

• Learn to put real versus imaginary dangers in context

• Relearn the virtues of self-sufficiency and self-reliance

• Recognize that borders matter

• Realize that "modern civilization" is a fragile and thin veneer that can shatter in a crisis.

• Begin to take personal responsibility for their physical safety and security, recognizing that WE are the real "first-responders"

• See that nationalism isn't all bad . . . and globalism isn't all good

• Realize that open borders and global mobility can be both a curse and a blessing.

• Stop trusting in bumbling and incompetent government to do everything for you

• Ignore the "bread and circuses" and focus on important things

• Learn never to say "it can't happen here" -- because it CAN happen here

The Green Fifth Column Makes Life Easier for Foreign Oiligarchs

What do Biden, Bernie and Putin have in common?

All three want to stop the US fracking revolution and thereby hogtie the US economy, for starters. This may not count as "Russian collusion," to borrow a phrase, but it might raise questions about who supports America's national interests and who does not. 

Both Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are now on record supporting a ban on hydraulic fracturing in the US, although it's largely responsible for our world-leading reductions in CO2 emissions and America's rise from energy slacker to energy superpower. Several recent pieces -- here and here -- nicely explain what Putin's Russia hopes to gain by orchestrating the current oil price plunge, which may be good news for American gas-buyers but will wreak havoc with our domestic energy producers if the Russian gambit works.

But here's what gives Russia, Saudi Arabia and other foreign energy rivals a hidden advantage in this high-stakes game. These foreign powers aren't alone in wanting to put a lid on America's domestic energy revival. They have witting or unwitting allies working toward similar ends right here on American soil, buried deep behind "enemy lines."

That ally is Gang Green, Environmental Anxiety Inc., the Church of Climate Catastrophe . . . whatever you choose to call it. This powerful, well-funded, media-savvy lobby is also working to derail America's "energy dominance" (to use Trump's phrase), only from within, not from without. And the Democrat Party now walks in mindless lockstep with the environmental lobby, as Biden's bow to the fracknophobes shows.

I'm not saying organized environmentalists are working in consort with these foreign powers, or that they're secretly on the payroll (though that's a possibility that deserves closer scrutiny). But there's no doubt that Big Green wants what the Russians and the Saudis want -- which is an energy-starved, economically-weakened, competitively-disadvantaged United States of America. 

Having a Green Fifth Column on their side must help the Russians and Saudis sleep easier at night.

Bernie's "Secret Weapons" Were No-Shows Tuesday

Some readers may have noticed. I'm a bit of a pessimist at times.

But I'm choosing to be a "glass-half-full" kind of guy over Bernie's crushing failure to galvanize the youth vote on two consecutive Big Tuesdays, assuredly dooming his quest for the nomination.

Yes, it could be apathy. But I'm hoping, for the country's sake, that it's the sign of an anti-socialist awakening among younger Americans.

I know, I know, it's probably just the strong black coffee talking. But this morning, just for a moment, let me sun myself in a fleeting ray of unfounded optimism.

Blame Yourself, Barack

Barack Obama has only himself to blame if Obamacare and other pieces of his legacy are so vulnerable to successful legal challenge.

He was an unscrupulous corner-cutter who bragged about how his "pen and phone" presidency minimized the need to work with Congress or forge political consensus. And the half-baked scheme called Obamacare was imposed on America via party-line vote, sowing the seeds of dissent that are bearing fruit today. 

Live by the pen, die by the pen, Big Guy. Expediency, executive overreach, corner-cutting and deceptive advertising (ala "you can keep your health plan") made this great reversal all but inevitable.

Trump is only following the arrogant, imperious, go-it-alone precedent set by his predecessor.

Lenin's "Useful Idiots" Will Always Be With Us

The Soviet collapse came swiftly and surprisingly, following decades of slow internal rot, and the "useful idiots" (Lenin's term) in America who were overt or covert enablers of the evil empire -- America's legion of fellow-travelers -- just faded into the woodwork, almost overnight. Most glommed onto "climate change" as the next available tool for attacking capitalism and advancing eco-socialism, culminating in the Green New Deal, but let's save that topic for another day.

There was no Day of Reckoning for "Fifth Column" Westerners, like the crackpot from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, who carried water for an evil regime and its puppets. They never had to account for or apologize for their complicity in communism's crimes. This may be why so many younger Americans seem so forgetful and forgiving of the wrongs American fellow-travelers helped perpetrate under the banner of socialism. 

Mona Charen wrote one book, "Useful Idiots," attempting to hold these tools of tyrants accountable, but there was no appetite for such retrospectives after the Berlin Wall fell. All was quickly forgotten and forgiven. All that sordid history was just brushed under the rug. 

And so we have a situation today, here in (what Gore Vidal called) the United States of Amnesia, in which those who helped prop-up criminal totalitarian regimes not only can run for President, with absolutely no sense of shame, but can gain a rabid following among new generations of "useful idiots."

The Growing Backlash Against Green Sprawl

Remember, not too long ago, when environmentalists promoted "open space" and hated on "sprawl?" These days they're frantically destroying our open spaces with endless miles of wind and solar sprawl, most of which produces intermittent energy of marginal value to the grid.

But a backlash against green sprawl is growing at home and abroad.

NIMBYism has traditionally been a reliable tool for the Big Green Obstruction Machine. Greens have had success tapping in to the got-miner mentality to rally "neighbors" against drilling projects, pipelines, new power plants, transmission lines, etc. But perhaps now we're seeing a fraying of that symbiotic relationship, as the novelty of wind farms fades and people come to understand that it's a very wasteful, unsightly, space-intensive way to generate a very modest amount of unreliable but costly energy.

Trouble's Brewing. Are Milwaukee's Riot Police Ready?

The Democrat Establishment came roaring back to life last night, pulling Joe Biden's hidebound old fanny out of the fire, at least momentarily. But unless the party's "revolutionary" wing can be reined-in -- and I doubt it can be -- there's still a good chance Trump will win the general election, as Americans hold their noses and opt for the lesser of evils.

You're going to be hearing a lot about "decency," "honor" and "character" in the months to come, as the party of old White establishment oligarchs pivots away from concrete issues to make this election about ephemera like "hope" and "change" and who can be as nice and polite and "presidential" as former Presidents were.

Establishment Dems will be scrambling to wipe the stink of overt socialism off the party as quickly as possible. But that won't be easy with Bernie's angry Red Guard breathing down their necks, waiving the red banner and suspecting, with good reason, that the game is being rigged against their guy. Bernie's brigade isn't composed of party regulars, from which party discipline can be expected when the winnowing ends and unity is needed. They won't just passively fall back into lockstep "for the good of the party" because they were never in lockstep with the party. He's leading an insurgency, which is a much tougher beast to corral.

We could see rioting in the streets, ala 1968, by the time convention time comes around. And wouldn't that be fun?

The Most Underreported Story (thus far) of 2020

America leads the world in CO2 reductions, as the chart below shows

We did it with a Republican in the White House.

We did it when the economy was growing.

We did it without Obama's Paris climate sham.

We did it without Obama's "clean power plan."

What made all this possible?

Fracking

You know, the energy innovation Democrats want to ban.