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. 

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.

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. 

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.

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.

Bring Back the "Wild West"

I'm feeling a bit nostalgic today for the "wild West" -- not the old wild West of gunslingers and saloon girls, but a more recent incarnation, spurred by the medical marijuana business boom --after reading about what a colossal mess local and state politicians have made of the medical marijuana opportunity.

I say "opportunity" because it's not often, these days, that Americans have an opportunity to witness an actual expansion of freedom, rather than the contraction of freedom, or that we have a chance to get freedom right, handle it responsibly, make it work. It's not often, either, that we have the chance to show a little regulatory restraint when dealing with an emerging new industry, permitting it to breath, grow and bear fruit, rather than smothering it under the usual blanket of taxation and regulation.

Colorado voters more than a decade ago approved partial legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. It was an opportunity to deal maturely, rationally and responsibly with an expansion of personal liberty, in an era in which reducing freedom is the norm. But we're failing the test of freedom in numerous ways in Colorado, by killing-off through taxation and micromeddling the freedoms that were approved by voters more than a decade ago.

The "wild West" side of the medical marijuana boom was surprising, crazy, exciting and fascinating to watch, even if it was disconcerting to nanny-cons (nanny conservatives) and "just say no" retreads. But it invited an overreaction. The sanctimonious and hypocritical reaction of so many Republicans was particularly interesting, and ironic, since they crow loudest about protecting freedom and limiting government but fumbled the ball when an opportunity to put these ideas into action came along. Let the record show that the party of freedom, personal responsibility, medical choice, limited government and regulatory restraint led the charge against medical marijuana in Colorado, all in a reactionary, knee-jerk fashion. It shows that Nannyism isn't confined to the left side of the political spectrum.

The boom was a little hairy and scary for some, but it was also an interesting experiment in how Americans deal with newfound freedoms. New businesses and jobs were springing-up almost overnight and an entrepreneurial spirit flourished in an almost completely unregulated environment -- an exceeding rare phenomenon these days. A previously off-the-books product was suddenly visible and taxable, which was a net benefit to cash-strapped governments. And out of the initial chaos order and self-regulation soon emerged, spontaneously, before our "leaders" decided to screw things up by trying to "fix" what wasn't broken.

I'm now convinced that we would all be better off today, and things would have worked themselves out just fine, if we had let the wild West phase take its natural course, with no government meddling -- just as the real wild West matured and mellowed as time went on and spontaneous order emerged out of the initial chaos.

Now, however, a political overreaction to the boom is leading to bust, as the politicians and regulators do to this new industry what they've done to virtually all American industries -- which is to do everything in their power to kill it. The more politicians tried to "fix" alleged "problems," the more they tried to micro-meddle in an industry most politicians didn't understand, the more actual problems were created. Before MMJ businesses and patients had time to adapt to the first wave of legislated hyperregulation, another wave came along, threatening to drown the adventurous entrepreneurial spirit that the new freedoms sparked. Greedy governments began treating these fledgling businesses as cash cows, to be milked dry at every turn with exorbitant fees no ordinary business would survive or tolerate. And that's how the boom in only a few short years became a bust.

Average Coloradans showed they could responsibly handle these newfound freedoms. Most of them shrugged-off the alleged menace this presented. But unreconstructed drug warriors and control freak politicians couldn't tolerate the freedom and went to work legislating and regulating it way. And they've largely succeeded in whittling-away what voters approved a decade ago, not through a frontal assault but by backdoor means.

That's the story, in short, of how the medical marijuana boom became another of this state's many busts. Then we wonder why America is an economic basketcase, that's only growth industry is government. Then we wonder why the freewheeling spirit of the "wild West," in which this nation's independence and freedoms are rooted, has been so thoroughly snuffed out even out here in the once wild, but now mild, mild West.

Why Fear the Ferret?

The Salt Lake Tribune reports that Rich County residents have grown gun-shy of a proposal to start an experimental colony of endangered black-footed ferrets on a private, church-owned ranch there. And well they should be.

As Colorado learned the hard way, when former Gov. Bill Owens sucked us into a similar "experiment" with reintroduced Canada lynx, federal assurances that a wave of regulations won't follow in the wake of such experiments just can't be trusted. Folks in Utah are being told the same lies:

"Biologists tried to supply (skeptics with) certainty. Releasing the animals as an experimental, nonessential population, as the government has done with other ferret colonies, gives flexibility not allowed with endangered species enjoying full federal protection. Program managers said they wouldn’t impose restrictions on grazing or other uses even if ferrets migrate onto federal Bureau of Land Management land."

Such assurances are meaningless, as they proved meaningless in Colorado, because federal biologists and bureaucrats don't really control the process. They don't decide where federal regulations apply and were they don't. Listing and de-listing decisions generally are made by federal judges, responding to saturation litigation brought by professional environmental zealots, who have been shopping around for a judge who will place these "experimental" colonies under full federal protection. These efforts haven't succeeded, yet, but all it takes is one judge with a fondness for ferrets to nullify such agreements and lay-out a welcome mat for the feds.

Colorado welcomed reintroduced lynx based on similar assurances. That we were double-crossed should serve as a warning to all who are tempted by similar inducements to do something stupid. Until the Endangered Species Act is repealed or significantly reformed, and a bit more reason and sound science is introduced into federal efforts to preserve truly endangered species, only fools would invite a colony of black-footed ferrets into their backyards.

(Just click on the key words "Canada lynx" below for more on the Colorado case.)

The Mild Mild West

I sometimes wish Colorado had a little more of the rebellious spirit you still see in other Western states. We've become tame, compliant and conditioned to accepting federal domination, while a number of neighbors -- in this case, Idaho -- are still bucking under Washington's big saddle.

A little sagebrush rebellion now and again is a good thing -- it helps keep alive the spirit of rugged individualism that once defined the West. But Colorado is now the most Californianized of Western states. While other statehouses in the region are roiling with bills designed to take on the feds (at least symbolically), our legislators seem about as cantankerous and rebellious as those you'd find in Iowa.

The neo-federalist revival we're seeing elsewhere isn't stirring a ripple in Colorado. We're sitting safely on the sidelines while something really exciting is passing us by.

They Shoot Horses Don't They?

Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet reportedly fear that some important items for Colorado will fall along the wayside if the lame duck Congress fails to pass an omnibus, everything-but-the-kitchen-sink public lands bill by the time it adjourns. But I say let the lame duck session, and everything left unfinished, die, since little good can come from this sort of 11th-hour sausage-making. They shoot horses, don't they?

Most Americans still don't have a clue what was in the last catch-all public lands monstrosity, rammed through in early 2009 in similarly-rushed circumstances. That "omnibus" was a dumping ground for 160 bills that couldn't find any other way of garnering majority support. And here we are, less than 2 years later, engaged in the same tawdry exercise. The only reason Congress can get away with it is that this really is (what Gore Vidal called) The United States of Amnesia.

If the items Udall and Bennet seek have enough merit to win a majority the honest way -- and some might -- the senators should have a very good chance of reviving them in the next Congress. If the only way to pass good bills is to package them with bad ones, the system really is broken.

It's time to treat this lame duck just as we treat lame horses, by putting it out of its misery, before it can do any more harm. If these items have to die with it, so be it.

Here it Comes, Over the Mountain

I'm not sure Elizabeth Kübler-Ross's 7 Stages of Grief apply to the onset of winter, but if they do I'm still in Stage 2 -- denial. Still ahead are anger, bargaining, testing, depression and acceptance.

At that point, I go skiing.

Out of Pocket, Out of Power

As someone who made all the wrong career choices, I never have to worry about the problem of owning a second home, and especially not one in Aspen. Even owning a "first home" is challenge enough for me. As such, I wasn't until now aware that second-home owners in Colorado don't have the right to vote on property tax increases, like the rest of us do. TABOR protections just don't apply to them. But that would change, apparently, if Amendment 60 is approved by voters.

The possibility that out-of-towners would get the right to vote on property tax increases has Aspen officials all aflutter. The town's permanent residents, who pretty much have their way on most matters, since 61 percent of Aspen's homes are empty most of the year, worry that extending TABOR protections to part-timers will mean relinquishing power over tax policy. A local minority would no longer rule supreme over the absent majority.

As today's Aspen Times explains:

"Second-home owners in Pitkin County have long been concerned that they are being taxed without representation because they are forced to pay for mill levies and tax increases that are approved by full-time residents.At the same time, many second-home owners do not reap a large amount of public services from entities such as the Aspen School District and others which receive that tax revenue.

But the city has said that allowing part-time residents to vote would be a bane on those public services. With a new voting population that likely would oppose tax increases, it could be harder to pass fees for special programs.

Amendment 60, which would also impose several stringent limits on the government's ability to implement new special district fees and taxes, echoes a 1992 Constitutional amendment that placed broad tax caps on state governments and required that voters approve all proposed tax increases."

I've always wondered why such nutty things go on in affluent enclaves like Aspen. One obvious explanation is that a minority of taxpayers is making all the taxing and spending decisions, on which a majority of taxpayers must remain silent. It's always easier to get a little crazy when most of the cost of that craziness gets shouldered by someone else. The part-timers are wealthy people, who may be able to shrug-off the regulatory or tax burdens that are imposed on them in their absence. But that doesn't make it right.

Even wealthy out-of-towners should have a say on what property taxes they pay. Anything else is taxation without representation.

Using Our Heads

"Sould Colorado ski areas require helmets on kids?" asks The Denver Post in a headline this morning -- a question that undoubtedly had a number of legislators salivating. But the body of the story makes the answer self-evident.

No need, really, since most boarders and skiers, and most responsible parents of same, already opt for a helmet, without the need for a government mandate. Some resorts now require them, which is their right as a private enterprise. And most slope veterans have enough common sense, or have had enough brushes with high-speed disaster, to understand that the minor inconvenience of donning a helmet is worth the added safety benefits.

Reports the Post:

"No legislation is under consideration here, but helmets already are virtually ubiquitous on the state's younger skiers.

"To me, this is the law catching up to where people already are. Very few kids don't have helmets these days," said Rob Katz, chief executive of Vail Resorts, which supported the California bill and operates the Heavenly ski area in the state. His company, with four ski areas in Colorado, would support similar rules here.

The state's largest ski operators — Vail Resorts, Aspen Skiing and Intrawest — already require kids in ski school to wear helmets. Many resorts also require their employees to wear them while working on the slopes. Even more mandate helmets for terrain-park riders."

A minority of folks won't have the good sense to make the smart choice, just as a minority won't confine itself to designated trails and insists on bending or breaking other rules. As it is on the slopes, so it is in society at large. For the most part, these poor choices fall heaviest on those who make them. The people who consistently make poor choices get weeded-out over time, as Darwinism does its thing. There's no end to government interventions, and to government expansion, if we take on the impossible task of reversing that process. That slope is steeper than any we have in Colorado.

Sometimes, it's better to just let nature -- and natural selection -- take its course.

10,000 Commandments

Ninety blessed days have passed since the end of the 2010 legislative session, but we still aren't out of the woods yet. Far from it, in fact. Tuesday, August 10, exactly three months after the gavel came down, the 165 largely unnecessary, mostly trivial and sometimes silly new laws approved last session become law. It's hard to see how the state is measurably better off as a result. Actually, since few if any of the new laws actually expand freedom, and most restrict it in one way or another, we're probably less better off than we were when the session began.

I defy doubters of that statement to highlight 3 pieces of legislation, approved last session, that Colorado could not live without, excluding the budget. I further challenge them to name 3 bills that actually translate into an expansion of freedom, as opposed to a restriction on freedom.

What to do about this is uncertain. As long as reporters, pundits and certain segments of the general public continue to measure a session's success according to raw output, labeling less active sessions as a "failure" to "get things done," legislators will continue to crank out new laws like widgets, assembly line-style. Wouldn't it be miraculous (and good for the state) if an entire session passed without a single bill approved, except a balanced budget? The state wouldn't suffer in the least. On the contrary, it probably would benefit from the cease fire.

Maybe we inadvertently encourage the annual deluge of new laws, new commandments, by calling our legislators "lawmakers." This sounds like something from biblical times, as if they're doing the Lord's work, handing down laws from a burning bush. But God was content to hand down just 10 commandments. Americans today have 10,000 commandments (probably more, in fact) to follow, thanks to the factory-like mass production of make-work legislation. Ignored is Churchill's dictum that the surest way to undermine respect for the law is to have too many laws.

Let's begin calling our legislators law-manufacturers, or law-generators, or just plain old "regulators," since that more accurately describes how they function. Instead of applauding them for the new laws they write, we should cheer them for the old laws they erase.

Beware the Wily Hicken-gipper

I ran across a quote today I thought would make a good pop quiz.

So, who said the following?

“I believe we should be providing the best quality government in the most efficient manner. The cornerstones for good government are engaged citizen feedback, dedicated customer service and continuous improvement. It is not the role of government to solve every challenge. The role of government is to create a collaborative environment and to provide the resources to facilitate solutions that spring from the community itself.”

Was it:

A.) Ronald Reagan?

B.) Calvin Coolidge?

C.) Barack Obama?

D.) Barry Goldwater?

Actually, it was none of the above.

The quote comes from yesterday's State of the City speech by Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper (which may be his last such speech if Republicans can't get their act together), though it could easily be confused with something that Reagan or Goldwater might have said. Hickenlooper is no conservative. Not by a long shot. But his use of such rhetoric (and it may be empty rhetoric, to be sure) increases the chance that he can sell himself as a centrist between now and election day.

The first two sentences are boilerplate for most politicians, at least since the Reagan era, but it's the second two that really grab me, since they pretty well describe the approach we've traditionally taken in Colorado Springs -- a model we've been relying on even more during this fiscal crisis:

"It is not the role of government to solve every challenge. The role of government is to create a collaborative environment and to provide the resources to facilitate solutions that spring from the community itself.”

The leftist in Hickenlooper betrays himself, just a bit, when he asserts that it's the city's function to "provide the resources to facilitate solutions," since that still gives government a too-central role in true, community-based solutions, in my opinion. These efforts should rely, to the greatest extent possible, on private funding sources. Had I been giving the speech, or writing it for the mayor, I would have made the following changes:

"It is not the role of government to solve every challenge. The role of government is to create a collaborative environment that facilitates solutions that spring from the community itself.”

That's the way we've been doing things in Colorado Springs for years. It's the secret strength that will help this city through these challenging times. If Mayor Hickenlooper really wants to turn that Reaganesque rhetoric into action, and see how it works in practice, we should come on down. We'd be happy to show him around.

Shorten the Session

I've seen no studies confirming my theory, but I would bet, based on observation and intuition alone, that it's valid.

I believe there's a direct correlation between the length of time a state legislature meets each year and the fiscal and financial health of the state in question. The shorter the session, the better off the state, in terms of its tax and regulatory climate, its economic circumstances, its overall quality of life. States where full-time legislators meet year-round, or for most of the year -- California comes to mind -- tend to be basketcases, while states with part-time, citizen-legislators -- like Wyoming, where lawmakers adjourned weeks ago -- are much better off.

The most dangerous thing in the world is a legislator with too much time on her hands. That's what turns so-called lawmakers into law-manufacturers. Make-work legislating is a dire threat to our pocketbooks, our personal liberties, our economic prosperity. The shorter the session, the safer we all are from overreaching and overweening government.

We aren't so bad off in Colorado, with a legislative session that lasts 120 days. Only a few weeks more and we'll be in the clear, at least for a year. But a lot of damage still can be done to a state in 120 days, as we've seen this session. That's why I like the idea, floated by State Sen. Gail Schwartz, a Democrat from Snowmass Village, of limiting the legislative session to 100 days. The idea won an endorsement today from The Pueblo Chieftain. And it has my support as well, for what that's worth.

In my opinion, the state would benefit immensely from a session of just 50 days, or 75 days. Think of all the mischief legislators couldn't make under such circumstances. But 100 days at least represents a step in the right direction.

The Joke's on Boulder

Pranks succeed best when the situation is just plausible enough to be believable, at least until the victim catches-on. And that makes Boulder a practical joker's paradise, since almost anything, no matter how outlandish, is plausible in this notorious bastion of wacko-liberalism.

Does Boulder really have a Clean Sidewalk Cracks Ordinance? Not yet. But because it's the sort of place where such things are possible -- where equally ludicrous rules routinely get handed down by City Hall -- resident Patrick Murphy was prepared to believe it when a notice appeared on his door Thursday, reminding him of his civic duty to keep his sidewalk cracks manicured.

The April Fools Day prank was good enough to earn a write-up in The Boulder Camera:

"When Boulder resident Patrick Murphy stepped outside early Thursday morning to get the newspaper, he found what appeared to be a warning from the city about keeping his sidewalk cracks clear of debris.

According to the door hanger, the 58-year-old resident failed to comply with a municipal code that requires homeowners to “keep cracks in sidewalks free of dust and insect larvae.”

“Such persons shall remove dust and larvae from the full width of the cracks,” the notice read.
The warning went on to say that it's the responsibility of all Boulder residents to clear the cracks by noon the day “following wind,” and that violations could include fines up to $4,620 or the city could choose to clean the cracks and charge for the labor.

Murphy was stunned.

“I thought, wait a second, the cracks on my sidewalk are perfectly clean,” Murphy said.
The man then inspected the cracks in his neighbors' sidewalks, and said his were downright glistening compared to theirs.

“I kept saying, ‘No, no, this can't be true.'”

Murphy suspected a neighbor called in the apparent violation."

That Murphy found the situation so plausible says something funny, but also damning, about the regulatory wonderland (or regulatory madhouse, depending on your perspective) called Boulder. He eventually caught on to the gag, and got a good laugh out of it -- but he refuses to divulge the prankster's identity, for fear that he or she, by counterfeiting a city document, may have broken some other ordinance on the city's voluminous books. And city officials, who take everything (especially themselves) seriously, evidently weren't pleased about being the secondary butt of the joke.

"Sarah Huntley, a spokeswoman for Boulder police, said the prank probably wasn't illegal.
“We think it was probably done in good fun,” she said.

Still, she said the designer went to “great efforts to make it look official,” and that by including the real contact information for the city, staffers have spent time dealing with the prank instead of city business.

The city issued a statement Thursday afternoon about the prank, saying, "While we recognize this may have been an attempt at humor, the city of Boulder would like to caution residents about making phony documents on behalf of the city and/or impersonating official city personnel."

"This could be a citable offense, in some situations," the statement continues.

"Misunderstandings can result in staff time that could be spent on other city and community priorities."

"Other city and community priorities" like what? Collecting the city's carbon tax, perhaps? Or finding creative ways to spend it? Or finding ingenious new reasons to hassle property owners? With so many ridiculous rules and regulations to enforce, we can't have city staff wasting precious time responding to calls about a phony Sidewalk Crack Ordinance. These April Fools Day pranks are getting way, way out of hand -- something has got to be done about it. Maybe we need . . . . well, maybe we need some kind of Responsible Pranking Ordinance, which would fine instigators of pranks that create distractions for city staff.

That's the Boulder way, after all.

No joke.

Suthers is All Over the Map on States' Rights

Kudos to Colorado Attorney General John Suthers for announcing that he'll join with a number of other states in suing to block ObamaCare health coverage mandates. But where's that fighting spirit when it comes to defending Colorado's right to go its own way on medical marijuana legalization?

The voters of Colorado ten years ago approved partial legalization, for medical purposes, but the federal Drug Enforcement Administration still is raiding dispensaries and grow operations in the state, superimposing federal drug control laws on Coloradans, without a peep of protest from Suthers. It appears the AG's stance on states' rights is selective and situational -- "political" instead of principled, in short. If it's a federal encroachment he's politically opposed to, he'll fight it. But when it comes to the medicinal use of marijuana, a state-sanctioned activity which Suthers opposes, the feds are free to run roughshod over Colorado.

Republicans could be on the vanguard of the neo-federalist revival taking place in some parts of the country, as the revulsion to what's happening in Washington grows. But in order to have any credibility on the issue, party leaders will have to show more consistency and determination than they have been in applying these principles. The test of credibility isn't in evoking states' rights selectively, when it's the politically popular thing to do, as with ObamaCare. Credibility comes from taking such stands when the issue at hand is politically controversial, even within one's own party, as with Cannabis-Care.

How about a little more consistency, and credibility, Mr. Attorney General?