"Green Energy" is Undermining Grid Reliability

Remember the good old days, when grid reliability was a "given" in the United States? No one feared that the lights would go out every time a summer heatwave or winter coldsnap rolled through. But now -- not just in California and Texas, but also in Arizona and Michigan -- officials worry aloud about whether formerly routine surges in energy use will bring down the grid.

This wasn't a problem ten, twenty, or thirty years ago. Blackouts sometimes occurred due to equipment malfunctions, but those were anomalies and highly memorable events -- "where were you when the lights went out"? Countries that couldn't reliably keep the lights on were scoffed at by Americans as backward and "third world."

So what happened?

What changed?

How did our formerly stable, reliable, world-class grid become the finicky, vulnerable, frail thing it is today?

The answer is obvious to anyone with eyes to see. The trumped-up "climate crisis" gave politicians and special interests an engraved invitation to meddle with the grid -- which is like trusting an incompetent backyard mechanic to tear down and rebuild your Ferarri. And grid reliability has predictably been on the decline ever since. It's not a coincidence that the biggest breakdowns in reliability are happening where the "renewables revolution" has been pushed most aggressively, in California and (somewhat ironically) Texas. The too-hasty push to "transition" the grid from reliable to unreliable energy tech, from the tried-and-true to pie-in-the-sky, is turning the US into an embarrassing third-world Banana Republic.

That's perfectly acceptable to eco-Luddites and climate cult members. Third-world countries have "sustainable economies," don't ya know. Green central planners actually welcome energy scarcity and energy unreliability, along with rising energy costs, if this will put prosperous people on the crash energy diet they/we must endure if the planet is to be "saved." America's grid isn't faltering by chance, or from neglect. It's faltering because the revolutionaries driving this agenda either never think thru the long-term implications of their war on reliable energy, or they have thought it through and welcome the collapse of a system they see as threatening to the planet's survival.

Unless the silent majority wakes to this menace and loudly supports energy realism over energy fantasy, millions more Americans will be sitting in the cold and dark one winter day, shaking their heads and wondering how the hell this happened to them.

Another "Rewilding" Bait-And-Switch Is In The Works

When then-Gov. Bill Owens agreed to import an "experimental" population of Canada lynx into Colorado, based on the promise that they wouldn't be weaponized by green extremists and federal ecocrats to lock-up public lands, I knew this would happen eventually -- because no good deed goes unpunished when it comes to the Endangered Species Act.

What's the lesson here, Colorado?

Never, never, never trust what rewilders tell you when they bring allegedly endangered species into your state. They'll say anything to get them into the state; but once they're there, they'll change the rules of the game in a way that takes animal control off the table and puts public land users at a disadvantage.

It. Happens. Every. Time.

Alert Coloradans already are seeing the first inkling of what's to come when voter-approved wolves arrive here en masse. Ranchers that fall victim to predation by a pack of naturally-migrating wolves along the Wyoming border can't ask for the pack to be removed -- that's a non-starter -- or take matters into their own hands. The most they're permitted to do is to try harassing the attacking pack, by standing out in their pastures all night, banging pots and pans, presumably. That doesn't work once wolves have developed an appetite for prime sirloin. And the rewilding bait-and-switch we see occurring in other wolf-impacted states, most notably Oregon, Washington State, and California, where politicians totally beholden to the Green Lobby are in charge, tells Coloradans all they need to know about how things will go here, once imported wolves are unleashed on rural Colorado.

But wait, Colorado. More might be coming.

It's been reported that Gov. Jared Polis (D) and this animal-activist husband are keen on rewilding the state with wolverines, one of which recently killed 18 sheep in a single Utah attack. U.S. cases of wolverine predation are rare, because wolverines are rare. But as we've seen -- initially with wolves, then with grizzlies -- predation cases naturally tend to rise in tandem with predator population increases -- who da thunk it? This could soon have Colorado livestock growers facing a double-whammy if the disconnected Boulderite occupying Colorado's governor's office gets his way and reintroduced wolverines follow in the paw-prints of wolves.

This Celebrity Grizzly is On Borrowed Time

Meet Grizzly 399, AKA "the Queen of the Tetons," the most famous "wild" animal in the world thanks to doting, den-to-den press coverage and a gaggle of grizzly groupies who document and follow her every exploit through every summer tourist season in the Tetons.

This bear's celebrity status and avid following among Timothy Treadwell types (Google him if you don't get the reference) has done her no favors, however, since it has discouraged wildlife professionals from relocating her to more remote areas, for fear of a grizzly groupie backlash, no doubt. She's enjoyed a level of tolerant treatment that no other grizzly enjoys, enabling behaviors that eventually will come back to bite her (and maybe an overly-friendly tourist).

How long before 399 and her lovable and cuddly cubs (a number of whom also have grown up to be human-habituated problem bears) cross the line into behavior that forces removal or even worse? Will this be the season when the inevitable happens? Only time will tell.

I don't wish 399 or her offspring ill. Maybe, when the time for removal comes, she'll be spared relocation to the wilderness, where there are no easy handouts from humans and she wouldn't last long, and end up in a zoo instead, where her career as a gawked at celebrity can continue. I just recognize that grizzly recovery has clearly met its aims (and arguably exceeded them) when 399 and other celebrity roadside grizzlies begin mingling with tourists on an almost routine basis. I also understand that responsibly and humanely managing these animals, in a manner that keeps them wild and minimizes the potential for dangerous human-bruin conflicts, can't happen until Congress delists the bear and allows states to take a firmer hand in managing them, just as states manage other big game.

Why is it on Congress to do the long-overdue delisting? Because federal ecocrats repeatedly have been stopped from following the law and the science by green extremists and their "friendlies" on the federal bench. The Endangered Species Act has been hijacked by special interests and no longer works as it should -- turning animals like Grizzly 399 into pawns in a larger struggle for control over Western federal lands. Those seeking to "rewild" the modern West with apex predators pose as animal lovers and animal advocates. But they're actually perpetuating animal cruelty by pushing the concept beyond reasonable limits, since it's the animals that most often pay the price when rewilding conflicts inevitably result.

Catch this major roadside attraction while you can. It's only a matter of time before Grizzly 399, through no fault of her own, also falls victim to the folly called "rewilding."

Polish MiGs, White House Incompetence

This administration is dangerously inept, and here's the latest evidence that the folks in charge don't know what the hell they're doing.

On Sunday, Secretary of State Tony Blinken told CBS News that NATO nations had a "green light" to share warplanes with Ukraine if they choose to. He added that he was in consultations with Poland to do just that, with the U.S. planning to resupply Poland with U.S.-made planes to "backfill" donated aircraft. (That this might be a major provocation, and mark a potentially dangerous escalation of the war, seemed not to register with the nation's top diplomat, given the way he just blurted it out on national television, with all the discretion of a New Orleans streetwalker.)

On Monday, Poland put forward a proposal to do just that, through an admittedly roundabout way, by flying their Russian-made MiGs to an American base in Germany, from where they would (somehow) be transferred to Ukraine. On Tuesday that offer was summarily rejected as "untenable" by the Pentagon, contradicting what the State Department said Sunday.

Aren't the State Department and the Pentagon part of the same administration? Why aren't they reading from the same script?

A number of news reports published yesterday indicate that the United States was "surprised" by Poland's actions, although we couldn't have been TOO surprised if Blinken was talking about this -- and "green-lighting" such arms transfers -- on a Sunday morning news show. These stories were obviously intended to blame Poland for a Biden administration debacle, which can't be good or NATO unity or for U.S. relations with Poland. Now we've dispatched Kamala Harris to sort the mess out -- just like she sorted out the mess at America's Southern Border. I guess the White House feels that having Harris talk to key allies as though they're 4th-graders will help patch-up any rifts.

We're supposed to be alarmed by the fact that Putin controls nuclear weapons. I'm almost as alarmed by the fact that Biden and his inept minions have access to nuclear weapons.

We'll Rue the Demise of Trump's Energy Doctrine

 

Joe Biden's election will be the death of a domestic energy revival that was good for the economy, great for energy consumers and a bold stroke in terms of national security. It wasn't by chance that you saw your price at the pump drop dramatically during the Trump years. That's just one of many benefits Americans enjoyed as a result of the Trump energy boom. On energy, Trump saw the stakes, global and domestic, clearly. Reversing his policy of "energy dominance" will be seen in time as a major mistake. 

I routinely see America's Green Media gleefully writing obituaries for evil oil and gas, as if the pie-in-the-sky transition to "100% renewables" is easy, feasible, affordable and a done deal. That's a misleading and dishonest fantasy. And reports of traditional energy's demise have been greatly exaggerated.

A look abroad suggests that the global struggle for energy dominance still hinges on fossil fuels, and that it's far from over. We see China making an even bigger move into Africa (though it's been quietly dabbling there for years, daring to operate where Western oil companies won't). The energy-rich Arctic has become a bigger bone of contention, with China surprising many observers by asserting itself there as well. Russia and China seem to be moving toward an energy detente that seems designed to sideline the US, if it doesn't sideline itself in the Biden era. Russia isn't giving up on its most potent revenue source and tool (read: weapon) of energy diplomacy. 

Explain all the Russian and Chinese energy plays if fossil fuels are a thing of the past. These countries apparently didn't get the memo about the imminent demise of traditional energy. What do they know that US pundits and media prognosticators don't?  

As Americans retreat to the self-punishing, scarcity-producing, cost-hiking policies of the Obama years, smarter countries are busily maneuvering for advantage and securing reliable energy supplies for the future -- and none of it has anything to do with building more wind farms or spreading more solar sprawl. China and Russia aren't acting as if the sun is setting on fossil fuels. On the contrary, they're scrambling during this Covid-induced lull to strengthen their energy position and corner the reliable energy market where they can -- while dreamy-eyed Americans gulp green Kool-Aid and return to taking our energy security for granted. 

Silly Americans; when will you ever learn?

Western Wildfires are Another Self-Inflicted Wound

It's wildfire season in the West again; time for a lot of typically-revisionist claptrap about why we're seeing fires of such unprecedented ferocity.  Of course, the sweeping and simplistic explanation for everything, “climate change,” conveniently gets most of the blame, as does Trump. But the root causes of the crisis, as I understand them, go much deeper than that.

It's a complicated question, worthy of book-length treatment, but the bottom line, from the point of view of someone who has been carefully watching the issue for more than 20 years, is that this is largely a man-made catastrophe. 

Western wildfires largely result from more than a century of lousy, short-sighted forest management, compounded by disease outbreaks that bureaucracy-bound Washington failed to address in a timely fashion. The idiots blaming Trump for a crisis many decades in the making are either misinformed or willfully stupid.

Then, conveniently for the bureaucrats and organized extremists who helped build this tinderbox trap, "climate change" came along as the intellectually-lazy, simpleton-satisfying, catch-all explanation for how we got here, further dooming any practical efforts to get a handle on the situation. Why try tackling the beetle blight problem, after all, if "climate change" is the root cause? You can't manage your way out of such an insurmountable problem; no steps short of overthrowing capitalism and reversing the industrial revolution will do!! Meaning, once again, that "analysis paralysis" and climate hysteria blocked any meaningful effort to fix our forests.

The lesson of the Western wildfire crisis, if you're looking for one, is that massive federal bureaucracies can't manage anything well, including (and maybe most of all) our far-flung Western lands, This should make Americans extremely wary of putting any additional power or authority in Washington's hands -- unless they want the bureaucrats mismanaging their healthcare (and the rest of your lives) the same way they historically mismanaged "federal lands." 

Where's Tom Wolfe When We Need Him?

Just imagine the fun the late Tom Wolfe (author of "Radical Chic" and other pieces skewering the counterculture) would have had with the zany idea that looting Macy's and the Rolex Store constitutes a legitimate form of reparations for slavery. 

The days of looting the corner liquor store or food store, of running off with diapers and Mad Dog 2020, largely seem behind us in America. That's so 1967 or 1968 (or maybe 1992, in LA's case). Most of today's looters have developed much more refined -- dare I say "bourgeois" or even "capitalist"? -- tastes in the businesses they plunder, which is especially ironic given the Marxist slogans many of the new revolutionaries spew. 

How and when did our poor and downtrodden develop such expensive tastes in clothing and accessories? What does that say about the way we define "poverty" and "the underprivileged" today? Wolfe would have had such a ball tackling such questions. But we have no journalists today who can even see the ironies and absurdities, much less bring them to life in print.

The Elephants in the Room

Democrats are too owned by unions to seriously "reform" anything, from public education to policing, because unions often are the hidebound, immovable crux of the problem and make meaningful change impossible.

All liberal "reform" efforts are window dressing unless they address the elephant in the room.

Now Occupied Colorado seems poised to unionize state workers, which will make state government unreformable!

Just what we need.

America's "Emergency Powers" Emergency

An exaggerated "emergency," exploited and prolonged for political purposes.

Snitch lines that turn "neighbors" into informers.  

Government monitoring of alleged scofflaws, aimed at forcing compliance with capricious, arbitrary, unjustified dictates.

No, this isn't another post about the mass panic and growing tyranny unleashed by COVID-19. It's a protest against Colorado Springs Utilities Board's "emergency" water rules, which share striking similarities more clearly visible in hindsight. The COVID-19 crisis brought the potential misuse and abuse of "emergency powers" into clearer focus for many of us. But the temptations such arbitrary powers present to petty tyrants were there to see before Covid-19 engraved the invitation. 

These "emergency" water restrictions were put in place by the utilities board (on which I once served) late last year, in December, when lawn-watering rules were the last thing on most of our minds. That was also before we saw how the COVID19 "emergency" would be exploited by petty tyrants to flex their little muscles. But in retrospect, we can see a similar power play unfolding.

The COVID-19 threat is real enough, especially for the sick, the deceased, others who were or are directly effected. But no analogous water emergency looms in Colorado Springs -- not even close. It's a figment of the board's imagination, a manufactured "crisis" that conveniently gives members power to lord it over alleged water-wasters like a bunch of Karens (or "Gladys Kravitzes," if you prefer.)

Water is a reasonably scarce resource, obviously, depending on natural fluctuations. And we live in an arid zone -- the "Great American Desert," as it was known before reclamation projects made the desert hospitable. Water conservation makes sense, but so does water use, since there's only so much water we can store and the elaborate and costly water infrastructure we've built-out over the years to store and steward water -- the reservoirs and pipelines, pumping stations and water treatment facilities -- must be paid for. Charging utilities customers a reasonable sum for using water is how all that infrastructure (and the debt we accrue building and maintaining it) is funded, pointing to a glaring contradiction in how CSU treats water users.

Water use is what pays for the system, so why is the city-owned utility treating water users like villains, scofflaw's or bad neighbors? A tiered rate structure already helps ensure that heavy water users pay more. Going beyond that when not in the midst of a real or looming crisis strikes me as social engineering, not smart water management.

And these restrictions go far beyond the three-sprinkles-per-week rule -- by barring puddled water on your driveway, for instance, which makes hand-washing your car against the rules -- inviting a level of surveillance and intrusiveness by CSU that's unprecedented in the city's history.

Reported the Gazette:

"The rules will also prohibit residents from using water to clean sidewalks, driveways and patios, “except when cleaning with water is necessary for public health or safety reasons or when other cleaning methods are impractical or inappropriate.” Utilities customers will be barred from allowing water that’s meant for irrigation to pool on paved surfaces or accumulate in gutters and drains.

The regulations also advises against watering landscapes during high wind or precipitation events and recommend that hoses with nozzles be used to wash vehicles and that restaurants refrain from serving drinking water unless a patron requests it."

So why were these needlessly-restrictive rules in place? Apparently, just because a majority on the City Council/Utilities Board believed it could impose them without raising a public squawk. It's a sort of warm-up for the alleged water shortages we may face 50 years into the future -- a tool for conditioning and training CSU customers in anticipation of water shortages that may or may not arise, depending on a dozen, hard-to-predict variables.

My guess is that the impetus for this -- like the impetus for virtually everything Colorado Springs does as a city -- comes from the development community, which fears that the cost of tap fees might rise when the massive growth slated for areas like Banning Lewis Ranch begins to explode. Thus, established and existing residents are being forced to abide by water restrictions in order to accommodate the new growth the city's usual "Movers and Shakers" are banking on, literally and figuratively.
       

Perhaps we should go back and review these watering restrictions in light of what we now know about how real or manufactured "crises" are exploited by political leaders to advance secondary and tertiary agendas. We need to understand that any latitude we cede to petty tyrants in government will be exploited for maximum gain. We need to closely guard against granting any politicians "emergency" powers that aren't in response to an actual emergency.

When Lab Rats Rebel

You all remember learning about Ivan Pavlov and his slobbering dog in school, right? You probably saw the film about pigeons who can be taught to play Beethoven's 5th (or was it Chopsticks?) if they're rewarded with a kernel of corn for pecking piano keys in the right order.

So, you’ll also recall that the process of programming animals to respond to rewards (or punishments) is called "conditioning." It's the same method your parents used on you to prevent you from becoming a little barbarian. Well, "conditioning" has a tendency to break down over time if the rewards or punishments aren't consistently administered. And that's what's happening out in the real world, despite the best efforts of our local autocrats to hold us down, keep us housebound, compel us to obey, mandate empty rituals. 

The conditioning is breaking down. The lab rats have grown restive and they are rebelling. People are shaking-off a politically-induced panic attack and cautiously going about their lives. The fog of fear is lifting; rational thought is creeping back in. People are starting to understand that risks can be managed but not completely ameliorated. And we're seeing mass civil disobedience of the sort that one would expect in a free society. 

And I, for one, think it's healthy, in spite of the calculated but manageable risks that escaped lab rats must take. I, for one, am relieved to see Americans yearning for freedom again.

I'm also more than a little ashamed that my city, Colorado Springs, is treating residents like kids by playing the rewards-and-punishment intimidation game. From Denver or Boulder or Fort Collins I would expect that. From the city of responsible adults, like "conservative" Colorado Springs, I expect a different and better, less controlling and condescending approach. 

I also think it's rather weak for the "strong Mayor" to push his poor parks director out there to play the heavy, instead of issuing the warnings himself. The "strong Mayor" is now primarily responsible for policymaking in the city, not the parks director. We need to hear the rationales for continued lockdowns coming directly from the source.

We diligently followed orders and flattened the curve. It's time to loosen the noose and let Colorado breath again. A free people won't be locked-down forever.

Just Following Orders May Cost Cops Public Support

Cops enjoy strong public support in this country and rightly so. They do important and often dangerous work. But I fear that support will begin to slide, perhaps steeply, unless police, their departments and their unions begin opposing the constitutionally-dubious COVID19 edicts of power-drunk state and local officials.

Americans have seen a lot of disturbing things during this crisis: things most of us never imagined we would see in a free country. But cringe-inducing photos and videos of local or state police cuffing soccer moms on playgrounds and evicting senior citizens from beach chairs have for me been the most jarring images of all. I know from social media surfing and discussions with friends that I’m not alone. Our “first responders” are in danger of losing the support of millions of Americans if they’re first to respond when it comes to trampling our civil liberties.

We’ve seen the bizarre spectacle of California cops chasing down paddle boarders and joggers at the beach, and enforcing the only-one-person-in-the-pool-rule. We read with disbelief about police "sting operations" against “illegal” manicurists and pedicurists. Police in Ohio busting Amish barn parties; Brighton, Colorado, cops cuffing a dad playing t-ball with his kids; it goes on and on, one ugly scene after another.

America is assuming the look and feel of a police state. But you can’t have a police state without willing police. Unless the police themselves take the lead in turning that around, by getting back on the side of the citizens and the Bill of Rights, the reservoir of goodwill they enjoy will start draining away. If the words “to serve and protect" come to mean "to persecute and punish," Americans who typically welcome a police presence may come to view them as arbitrary power personified.

I have to believe – I have to hope – that most of the officers involved in these incidents also find them abhorrent. I have to believe they question the legality and propriety of the orders they’re following.  But what if most cops don't harbor such doubts? What if a majority of them and their supervisors actually enjoy being part of this unprecedented power trip? The implications of that are ominous to contemplate.

“Just following orders” isn't an acceptable excuse. The 20th century’s greatest tyrannies and atrocities were enabled by a just-following-orders mentality. Our law enforcers are sworn to uphold The Constitution, not to robotically do the bidding of whomever signs their paychecks. Just as it look Nixon the anti-communist to "go the China," it must be the police who lead us away from the emerging police state, not just for our good but for their own.

Admittedly, it’s hard for the lone cop to take a stand against these edicts. That’s a tough thing to do in organizations that put a premium on hierarchy, discipline and following orders. Disobedience or dissent could derail their careers. Individual cops can't be expected to study the legality of every law they’re asked to enforce.

This is where police unions and associations need to be flexing more muscle, advocating for the cops within their ranks who won't be party to out-of-control politicos shredding the Bill of Rights. Unions and associations are in the good position to push back, and to give voice to those within their ranks who object to what they’re being asked to do. These unions are good at negotiating pay hikes and generous pensions. But they must be good for more than just that. They need to understand that it will cost them and their members public trust and support if they become complicit in the destruction of the laws they are sworn to uphold.

If the police and police unions don’t recognize this as an urgent potential problem, and if they don’t take the lead in arresting the creation of an emerging police state, by leading power-drunk elected officials in a more sober direction, America’s perception of those who "protect and serve" might never be the same again. 

Were COVID Briefings a Boldstroke or a Blunder? Only Time Will Tell

It has been damned if he doesn't and damned if he does for President Trump since day one. And the apparent end of his regular Covid-19 briefings offers another good case in point.

The briefings probably were necessary in order to reassure a rattled nation. But they were also politically risky, given the President's unfortunate tendency toward logorrhea, combined with a gotcha media looking for reasons to make him look bad, which he routinely serves up on a platter. The risks were multiplied five-fold in an election year, when presidents typically become extremely risk-averse. Circumstances would have argued for very controlled and closely managed briefings, at which the President said little -- serving largely as a tone- and theme-setting MC -- leaving the Veep and assembled experts to take lead on the pitfall-prone complexities.

In terms of their overall impact, political and psychological, I think the briefings should be judged a success, despite the flaps they were almost certain to generate. His advisors probably would have preferred a much more controlled and cautious approach. The briefings could have been scheduled less regularly and more formally formatted, lowering the chance for gaffes. But Trump, in typical fashion, let it all hang out and made himself the star of every show. It's too soon to tell whether that was a bold stroke or a blunder. But the briefings are sure to loom large as a pivot point when histories of this campaign season are written. 

The briefings should have been, well, briefer, with far less spontaneity and give-and-take with the press. That would have been the conventional advice most communications pros would have given any conventional president under such circumstances. But Trump has without question been the most unconventional and unscripted President of the modern era, for good or ill. He's obviously oblivious to such guidance and won't or can't be managed, which one might count as a virtue or vice depending on your take on Trump.

Now that he's feeling burned and reportedly dialing back these events, appropriately in my view, the dominant media narrative will change. The "story" will become his alleged lack of engagement, transparency, compassion, courage, accountability, bitterness toward the press, whatever. He'll be caricatured by some (absurdly, in my view) as the bumbler who urged Americans to chug Lysol. The media got two or three good "gotchas" out of the deal, and Trump had a way to connect with Americans very directly, which may or may not have worked in his favor, despite a few missteps.

Now this interesting (and sometimes entertaining) experiment in spontaneous, freewheeling, shoot-from-the-lip presidential leadership must end, potentially to the detriment of everyday Americans, due to a supercharged media environment in which no quarter is given on either side. That's unfortunate, in my opinion. It's rare that a President and the White House press corps can let "it all hang out," so to speak. The immediacy of live events and lack of scripting gave viewers a fascinating opportunity to see the President and press at work, in the raw. 

Some days the President came off looking better than the press, from my perspective; some days I came away with the opposite impression. The lively and unfiltered (and sometimes petty) sparring left it for viewers to decide who was behaving appropriately. Such freewheeling interactions, on such a regular basis, are rare to see in these times. And we'll be unlikely to see them again, I'm betting, even if Trump wins a second term.

People often ask why today's politicians, particularly Presidents, are so carefully scripted and managed. Well, this is why today's politicians, particularly our Presidents, are so carefully scripted and managed.

Uncounted Casualties

Some of the bobble-chasers are breathlessly previewing the Grand Reopening on Colorado's horizon. I fear it will be too timid and come too late to avert more unacceptable losses, of businesses as well as people.

These will be baby steps, we're cautioned; it's not going to be a "free for all," in the governor's words. The restive and the rebellious need to just relax, hang on a little longer, sacrifice more, see that  there's light at the end of the tunnel, and keep "doing our part." Grab on to this glimmer of hope and be grateful for Jared's mercy: that's the tenor and tone the Governor and Democrats want set. And so far it seems to be working for them.

Well, sorry if I'm not so eagerly chasing this bobble.

I'm pleased things are moving fitfully toward a "reopening." I think the Governor sincerely understands the urgency of getting Colorado moving again, if for no other reason than to stanch the budget bleed-out. But the celebration and optimism should be muted, and just as cautious as the "reopening" itself, tempered by the reality that this will be too little too late for many businesses and the multitude of workers they employed. Many of those businesses are closed, done, shuttered, finito, kaput. Each is someone's dead dream. And nothing the state or federal government can do now will bring them back. 

Were the sacrifices warranted in the name of saving lives? That will be debated for a hundred years. Right now we're like London, 1941, during a lull in the blitz, crawling from our hiding holes to see what's still standing, and what's barely standing but won't be for long. The final outcome can't now be known. Most are too shell-shocked or hunkered-down to focus on much more than their immediate survival. 

Bastiat famously wrote about what is seen and what is not seen. The economically astute person pays as much attention to the latter as the former. The bobble-chasers see what the bobble-danglers want them to see. They are patiently awaiting word from The Authorities on what comes next. But let's consider the unseen for a second.

Is the mayor of Denver keeping tabs on how many businesses there already closed for good and won't reopen at all? Does Colorado's Governor keep such a list? They know the human mortality stats back and forth (and sometimes sideways), which is understandable, but what about the business mortality stats? Even Paul Krugman could foresee a precipitous plunge in tax revenue, with potentially profound budget implications. But that doesn't begin to measure the psychological and social impacts on those who lose businesses and jobs, not because of the virus but because of a panicked political reaction that was disproportionate to the danger.     

Yes, we're talking now about gradually reopening some businesses, but with conditions and caveats that might make reopening beside the point, if profitability can't be achieved. But how many Colorado businesses already went off the cliff? How many can't be pulled back from the brink by a gradual reopening and hit-and-miss "assistance" from Uncle Sam? 

No one knows. These casualties of the lockdown are real but also conveniently invisible, because no one is tracking them. They don't get a spotlight in the Governor's regular Royal Edicts and Proclamations Period. Their passing from the scene is largely unnoticed and unmourned, except for the loyal or occasional patrons who lost a favorite haunt or were left in the lurch.   

And why is no one in power tracking the economic casualties as diligently as they track the human casualties? Because they want the economic casualties quietly buried in an unmarked grave, where they're out of sight and out of mind. That way fewer question get asked about whether the "cure" they prescribed in a panic inadvertently killed the patient.

Hyperventilation Nation

I didn't know until yesterday, when I heard it from Andrew Cuomo's lips, that 80% of the patients put on ventilators never recover, which means ventilators really aren't the "life-saving" miracle machines we often read about in recent headlines. That seems to be on the high (meaning pessimistic) side of the percentages I've seen reported, but it's fair to say that patients have a pretty low probability of ever getting off a ventilator once they're on one. 

The machines can be helpful in prolonging life, in other words, giving some percentage of users a fighting chance, but most of the people who use one won't make it. How much more life these machines buy for patients -- how many more days or hours, on average -- I do not know. I'm sure those statistics exist somewhere. But all most of these machines are good for is delaying the inevitable and prolonging suffering for the doomed. Do ventilators lower the overall mortality rate? Not by very much, relative to all the focus they receive. I've also seen reports that ventilators sometimes can do more harm than good; that they themselves can be a conduit for infections that kill; that they may have been OVERUSED as a treatment for COVID19.

None of this argues for not using ventilators in situations where they're helpful, or for withholding this technology from lost causes and just writing them off. But it does point to a disconnect between public perceptions about ventilators and their real-world medical utility in the midst of this crisis. And that misperception could have repercussions, depending on how the politics of this play out.   

So . . . did I have a point? My point, I suppose, or my question, is why all the obsessive focus on ventilators for the past three or four weeks, given that the projected "shortage" was based on bogus models and they have a marginal medical benefit to begin with? Now, just as the curve is being flattened, states that only a few weeks ago were making a federal case out of the lack of ventilators -- like New York -- have MORE than they need and are shipping them out to other hotspots, which will themselves be cooling off by the time the machines arrive.

So were ventilators ever really the issue -- or were they weaponized to advance partisan political agendas that had nothing to do with saving lives? And will the weaponization of ventilators end here? I doubt it. Democrats will next be making a scandal out of what we paid for this tidal wave of surplus ventilators, even as the need for them steeply declined and their utility as "life-savers" came into question. They'll then begin blaming Trump for browbeating companies into overproducing them, after having blamed Trump for the alleged ventilator shortage.

No matter where the Coronavirus crisis takes us from here, "Ventilatorgate" already has proven, once and for all, that this country is certifiable insane. Let's do what we can to fix the bodies. That's the top priority. But what we can do to fix our sick and broken "body politic" is a much more daunting question.

Has the 'Tip of the Spear' Lost its Edge?

What would Chester Nimitz do?

What would "Bull" Halsey say?

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, and I of course applaud anyone who has or does serve in uniform, and yes I'm just a civilian who never served so I should probably just zip my lip, but am I wrong to see this USS Theodore Roosevelt fiasco as a sign that the U.S. military has gone soft or something?

Aircraft carrier crews in 1944 were fending off kamikaze attacks and washing smashed airplanes and bodies off the flight deck. Many of the planes and pilots they sent aloft didn't return. I know, I know, that was during a time of war. Putting lives at risk during peacetime is a different matter. But isn't it US doctrine that we train for war and operate for war even in times of peace, in order to maintain a credible deterrence? And why is a 10% infection rate (with one death, according to the latest reports I've seen) and the removal of one captain causing such a crisis aboard this ship?

This isn't just any ship; this is the tip of the proverbial spear, the way we project power in the world. If this challenging but manageable situation can idle an aircraft carrier battle group, what happens if we ever face REAL military adversity on the high seas? I saw a report a few days ago that the USS Nimitz also now has COVID19 cases aboard. Are we going to put THAT carrier out of commission as well?

What would the ship's namesake, the Rough Rider Teddy Roosevelt, say?  Remember: This was the TR who put his own butt on the line riding up San Juan Hill. This was the Teddy who took an assassin's bullet and continued his convention speech. An estimated 5,609 souls perished while building the American phase of the Panama Canal, on Teddy's orders. His administration made heroic efforts to lessen the casualty rate -- it wasn't like Teddy threw those workers to the wolves. But he understood that such an undertaking risked lives.

I don't think Roosevelt -- whom Captain Brett Crozier was compared to in one laughably lame piece I read -- would bring his ship back to port due to an infection that 98% (or more?) of the crew would likely survive, despite what one great-grandson says. Crozier (who wasn't technically fired but was reassigned, with no loss of rank) naturally became an instant liberal folk hero, given that the incident came on Trump's watch. Some contrarians questioned the Captain's handling of the case, but most just gushed about what a compassionate and caring leader he was, as if THAT's the only standard by which he could or should be judged.

My dad was one of those "World War II guys." He served on a small ship in the Pacific theater and occasionally reminisced about the experience, which needless to say was life-changing and redefining for a coal miner's kid from Pennsylvania. He's gone now, like most of that generation, and I hate to put words in his mouth. But I'm almost certain -- in fact, I can almost hear what he would be saying  in my head, expletives and all -- that he would judge Crozier harshly and interpret the incident as another sign of national softness, decadence and decline.

All unnecessary suffering and death is to be avoided, in peacetime as well as wartime. Obviously. But contemporary America seems to have lost the capacity for rationally weighing risks, or even to  understand that such trade-offs must sometimes be made -- something that no one questioned the need for in the past, especially in times of war. Our most effective military leaders, although none would count as monsters, were rarely known for their hand-wringing compassion. Think Sherman. Think Grant. Think Patton and MacArthur. Think about that Revolutionary War hard ass, General George Washington. They all cared for their troops, probably very deeply. But they couldn't allow human compassion to so cloud their judgement that the mission would fail. The mission came first. And success almost invariably meant sacrifice. Sacrifice, tragedy and heartache.       

There's nothing low risk about joining the military, even in times of relative peace. Sadly, even training for war brings casualties. My dad had some tense moments during the war but came closest to losing his life not at Okinawa, or Iwo Jima, but on the beach at San Luis Obispo, California, when he came close to drowning in the surf during a training exercise.

Suck it up. Tough it out. Make it work. Be resourceful. Overcome adversity. Get the mission done. Aren't these the things we expect our soldiers and sailors to do when confronting challenging circumstances? If COVID19 can bring our military to a standstill, as well as our economy, this country is in dire, dire straits.

It makes the U.S. look like the proverbial paper tiger. And the real tigers of the world must be taking notice.

Keeping It All in Context

There have been 193 deaths in Colorado attributed to COVID19 as of yesterday afternoon. That's a lot of pain, suffering and heartache for victims and their loved ones. But here are some data points that might help put the scale of this in context.

Each month in Colorado, on average,

652 people die from cancer
590 people die from heart disease
577 people die from influenza/pneumonia
253 people die in accidents of various kinds

I'm not sharing this to diminish COVID19 impacts on those who have become ill or died. But death happens, all the time, and at much greater rates than most of us imagine because we're normally not obsessing about it and keeping a running tally 24/7.

Maybe that should change. Maybe we need to post a scrolling tally of deaths, broken out by causes -- a National Death Clock, similar to the National Debt Clocks we occasionally see -- on massive billboards along our freeways or looming over Times Square, to remind us all that time is short, life is fleeting and fragile, every day matters and no one here gets out alive.

Brighton Case Still Raises Questions, Despite an Apology

Well, I applaud the Brighton (Colorado) Police Department for conceding that this arrest was overkill and for offering an apology. But . . . .

What we're seeing in this case and others suggests to me that you have officers out there, and maybe departments, that will blindly follow orders and enforce "the rules" even if those rules defy common sense and are of dubious legality and Constitutionality. 

I know individual cops can't be expected to study the legality of every stupid law they are asked to enforce. But come on. They are sworn to uphold The Constitution, not to blindly and robotically do the bidding of whomever signs their paychecks, so this is still very alarming to me despite the apology that a backlash brought. 

Will the cops side with the people or the power-drunk "authorities" when push comes to shove? I would like to think most cops (and soldiers, for that matter) would at some point balk at being a party to tyranny and obvious rights-trampling. But 20th Century history tells us a scarier story.

The Short Life and Sudden Death of Faux Federalism

After more than a century in exile, or maybe banishment would be a better word, the founding principle of Federalism came roaring back into fashion in many Democrat-dominated states in the Trump era, with California and Colorado leading the rebellious pack. The transformation came miraculously and instantaneously on the day Donald J. Trump took the oath of office. It seemed like a sea change of sweeping significance.

Suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, the party that spent the last century methodically concentrating power in the grasping claws of central government, the party that long dismissed and denigrated conservative support for "states' rights" as a sinister echo of slave-era thinking, the party of one-one-size-fits-all, as long as that size is XXL, rediscovered "states' rights" and even "local control" as rallying cries.

These newly-neofederalist states weren't going to just take orders from the hated Trump administration. They weren't going to follow federal laws and regulatory diktats with which they disagreed. These states now wanted the autonomy and sovereignty they were due under our federalist system of governance. A strong whiff of secessionism filled the air, especially in California. 

Some went even further down the road toward open rebellion by forming a state-led cartel, with California at the helm, to establish stricter-than-federal vehicle emissions standards. Members of this new "Cali cartel" weren't just seeking autonomy under this unworkable two-tiered regulatory scheme; they were (and still are, since this power struggle is now before the courts) hoping to leverage their clout as car markets to make their standard the de facto national standard, effectively turning the federalist idea on its head.

This wasn't federalism but reverse federalism, in which a subgroup of states attempts to impose its emissions standard on all the other states, in textbook wag-the-dog fashion.   

Some rebel states further tested established boundaries my engaging in foreign policy. They vowed to abide by terms of the never-ratified Paris Climate Accord, for instance, a treaty Trump ran against.  California further upped the ante by negotiating a cross-border cap and trade scheme with Canada. 

Such shows of defiance delighted liberals and turned certain Governors (like California's Gavin Newsom) into instant celebrities. But they also constituted a challenge to federal power and prerogatives without parallel in recent history, prompting the Trump administration to push back. The provocateurs then posed as the "victims" of Trump's aggression and iron rule. It was a simplistic morality play some in the press eagerly played up. 

But then -- BAM! -- COVID19 hit and the zebras began showing their statist stripes again. 

Suddenly, America's most Trump-defiant states are the states bleating loudest for federal help, federal bailouts, federal guidelines, federal "leadership" -- even for federal force against states that won't impose Constitutionally-dubious lockdowns of various sorts. And suddenly, states unwilling to join the stampede to trample civil liberties become rogue "holdout states" that must be brought to heel. Trump now finds himself under fire from the neofederalist left for not imposing a national lockdown; for not ordering states to comply; for granting governors the latitude to tailor responses that meet their circumstances.

We're learning a lot about ourselves and our country, good and bad, during this crisis. It's become a gut check that was probably overdue. We're seeing the world more clearly and soberly as a result. True colors become much more vivid in a midst of tough times. Now we can put to rest any notion that Democrats suddenly have seen light on the merits and virtues of the federalist system of governance. We can see that faux federalism was just another pose they struck for partisan purposes.

They are what they've always been; statists to the marrow. 

U.S. Pickle Permit Police Will be the Death of Us.

Hey, you can't sell that pickle without a permit!!

Petty, turf-conscious, by-the-book bureaucrats are shutting down "illegal" grocery providers in Los Angeles, according to this report in Reason.

"A few Los Angeles restaurants struggling to maintain footing amid the COVID-19 outbreak identified a clever way to generate revenue while still serving the community: Start selling groceries.

The city's public health department promptly shut them down. The reason? The small businesses don't have a "grocery permit."

"It's not really possible for a restaurant to become a grocery store," Dr. Barbara Ferrer, director of Los Angeles County Public Health, said in a briefing yesterday. "You cannot just decide you want to sell groceries."

So, what's one big lesson to be learned from this?

Meddlesome government does more harm than good. 

We've become a culture of nay-saying rather than yay-saying by handing unelected apparatchiks overly vast powers that they wield with the rigidity and ruthlessness of a Soviet kommisar. Most of what the government does today is to restrain productivity, creativity, adaptability and innovation, often for anachronistic or invalid reasons. In a crisis, when we need to move quickly, we see that hitting the "stop" button on the government's robotic red tape dispenser is the quickest way to get results. Mountains can still be moved . . . but only when the mountain of accreted rules and regulations at the local, state and federal levels are bulldozed aside and free enterprise has a chance to breath again.   

If America survives this, it will be the private sector, unshackled from government red tape, that saves our bacon. And we can come out of this situation stronger than ever before if we refuse to go back to the somnambulant "normal" and declare a continuous war on unnecessary red tape once the immediate crisis recedes.  

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.