Monthly Archives: January 2026

Colorado ski conditions are worse than ever. Yay!

Posted on by
10
Switzerland ski resort last February. Places in Colorado this year are worse.

OK, it’s not technically true that ski conditions right now are worse than ever. The snowpack at Colorado ski resorts today (Jan. 16, 2026) is not worse than the snowpack in, say, an average August.

But for this time of year, the Colorado snowpack is officially the worst on record.

That’s right, since the time they’ve been keeping records of the Colorado snowpack, this is the lowest it’s ever been for mid-January. It’s barely half the normal. The forecast for the next ten days is more of the same – warm and dry.

My eyes confirm all this. The snowpack on top of Vail Pass at 10,662 feet is barely over my shoe tops.

In the town of Vail itself, about 2,700 feet lower, there’s bare dirt where there’s supposed to be deep drifts. The kitschy Norman Rockwell style sculptures littering Vail which are supposed to be buried under the winter snow are fully visible. That’s a bad thing; that stuff shouldn’t be visible even in the summer.

The ski resorts try to hide all this bare dirt with snowmaking equipment. Not by parking the equipment on the bare slopes, but by using it to make artificial snow that they spray over the slopes at night.

But that doesn’t work very well. Even a modest-sized resort of three thousand acres can cover only a fraction of the slopes with artificial snow. Moreover, they can’t cover the slopes deep enough to safely bury rocks and tree stumps. They instead succeed in burying such obstacles just enough to conceal them with a half inch of artificial snow – until the customer hits one.

As for the challenging terrain of blacks (lower case “b”), double blacks and extreme stuff, forget about it. They won’t be open at all this season, or at least not safely. The open terrain at Copper Mountain right now is barely a third of their total terrain. In a normal mid-January, it would be more like 90%.

The daily lift ticket price at Aspen is $254. That amounts to about $1.00 per snowflake.

But cheer up. It’s only about ten cents per a-hole.

I see two things to cheer about amid this skiing catastrophe. First, driving is great. The roads are snow-free. In fact, they’re bone dry, even over the high passes.

As I mentioned in a recent piece, the Catch 22 of skiing is that when the skiing is good because slopes are snowy, you can’t get there because the roads, too, are snowy. And when the driving is good because the roads are snow-free, the skiing is bad because the slopes, too, are snow-free.

Moreover, traffic volume is down. Skiers are staying home because they know that, since the roads are great, the skiing is terrible.

The second good thing about the skiing catastrophe is that it allows Colorado to be, once again, something like Colorado – the Colorado I grew up in. The Colorado of the Ute Indians and Zebulon Pike and Molly Brown. OK, maybe John Denver. The others were all before my time (but not by much.)

Skiing, you see, ruined Colorado. And I say that as a person who used to ski upwards of fifty days a year, including significant backcountry winter ascents coupled with skiing descents.

Resort skiing has nothing to do with nature. A ski resort is like a mountain converted into an expensive amusement park full of no-nothing morons who ski the way they drive – too fast for their ability and with little regard for others.

A few more years of great winter driving conditions, and Colorado might again be Colorado. We might get rid of the skiers from out-of-state.

Now if only they would take with them the wolves from British Columbia, the potheads from California, and the Democrats from all over . . .

Two foolish women taunted an overwrought cop, and now one is dead

Posted on by
3

David Brooks holds himself out as a moderate Republican. I suspect, however, that the last Republican he voted for was George H.W. Bush – the senior Bush who was elected 38 years ago.

Disgracefully but predictably, PBS pairs Brooks with Jonathan Capehart in a point-counterpoint format. PBS pretends that this little tête-à-tête constitutes balance – an avowed far-left gay Black man versus a faux Republican moderate who, in reality, hasn’t voted for a Republican in decades.

But Brooks made a good point in a recent piece on the shooting in Minneapolis. First, Capehart performed his predictable over-the-top song and dance about murder-murder-MURDER!!!

Then Brooks quietly observed that, in a better day, principled people would believe what they see on videotape. Today, however, it’s the opposite. Rather than believing what they see, people are seeing what they believe.

People watching exactly the same videotape believe they watched a murder, or believe they watched a cop shoot someone in self-defense, based on their pre-existing political persuasion.

Today’s political partisans are like sports fans. When two people are watching the same game but rooting for opposite teams, they typically both believe their team is getting cheated by the refs.

Of course, that can’t be true. On balance, the refs are either fair, or biased one way, or biased the other way. But people’s emotions cloud their judgment. It’s especially pernicious that they’re unaware of this phenomenon. That’s bad enough in sports; it’s tragic and often unjust in law enforcement.

Of course, after making this good point, Brooks went on to bash President Trump. There’s a reason, after all, that Brooks has a forum at PBS and The New York Times.

As of today, a few more facts have come it. I don’t know what Brooks is thinking right now, but I’ll tell you what I’m thinking.  

First, a couple of background facts. Context matters.

The cop (I’ll call him a “cop” for convenience, though I know he’s not a policeman, and I do so without derogation) was the victim of another car incident last year. His arm got tangled up inside the car of a person he was apprehending as the person drove off. The cop was dragged 300 feet down the paved road by the accelerating car. He was lucky to survive.

Does that matter? Maybe not in a legal sense. After all, it was a completely different incident that occurred many months ago. But it suggests that the man was probably sensitive to the danger in such a circumstance. I sure would be.

Here’s another background fact. The left has made a studied show of resistance to enforcement of the immigration laws. They’ve flung names at ICE cops such as Nazis, fascists and worse. They’ve physically obstructed them, and occasionally physically attacked them with rocks and bottles. That’s criminal behavior, even though it does not justify a lethal response.

They’ve also used their cars to obstruct the cops and, as I’ve just reported above, on at least one occasion they dragged a cop 300 feet with their car.

Their objective has been to provoke the cops into victimizing them. Lefty influencers have explicitly urged protesters to put their bodies on the line.

If they can provoke the cops into violence in their enforcement of the immigration laws, goes the thinking on the left, people will come to believe that the laws being enforced are bad.

It’s a very old strategy. It often works, especially when the news media is sympathetic to the cause.

A final background fact. The Administration has taken a confrontational approach to immigration enforcement. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, and it may be warranted in view of the lackadaisical approach taken for many years. But confrontational approaches do have a tendency to produce, well, confrontations.

Whatever approach is utilized, it might be useful to combine it with an employee card-check system where employers are required to check the immigration status of their employees. Substantial fines could be imposed on companies who hire illegals. Such a system has been talked about for years and partially utilized, but politicians too often bow to business lobbies who want to hire illegals for cheap labor.  

On to the incident itself. At least two videotapes are available. One was taken by a bystander, and the other is the body cam that was being worn by the cop who fired the shots.

The bystander’s video is taken from a stationary position. It shows a cop approaching the car, putting his hand on the driver’s door handle, and ordering her:

“Get the fuck out of the car.”

The car moves backward a few inches. The front wheels turn hard right and it juts forward. Only then, you can see another cop at the left front of the car. He shoots three times. We later learn that his shots leave one bullet hole through the windshield. At least one shot went in through the driver’s open side window as the car moved past him.

The shot through the driver’s side window suggests that, whatever danger the cop was in at the time he shot through the windshield, the cop by then had gotten out of the way, for he was then alongside the car.

The video taken by the cop’s body cam provides more context as the cop circles the car. The woman’s wife was at the scene and had gotten out of the car. Smirking, the wife taunted the cop repeatedly:

“Come at us! You want to come at us?”

A refection of the cop is visible in the shiny finish of the car, and he appears to be a sizable man. The wife taunts him again:

“Go get yourself some lunch, big boy!”

As the cop circles to the front of the car, the shots come quite suddenly. The situation was tense but exploded unexpectedly, to me as the viewer anyway, with (1) the wife starting to open the passenger side door and shouting “drive, baby, drive,” (2) the car lurching forward, and (3) three shots ringing out quickly.

I cannot tell whether the cop legitimately feared for his life when he fired the first shot. I can say, however, that he was very ready to pull his gun and shoot, because he did so very fast. As for the second and third shots, see my discussion above.

It’s still early, and not all the facts are in. Maybe they never will be.

But here’s my tentative assessment. Two lefty troublemakers went looking for trouble. They used their car to block armed cops on an icy street from doing their jobs, and they taunted the cops with personal insults. One cop reacted with a profanity. Another cop – who’d been dragged 300 feet by a car in such a situation – reacted with his gun when the car lurched toward him as he was circling it and he heard “Drive, baby, drive!”

Is this tragic? Yes. Was it preventable? Yes. Is it murder? No.

We can buy Greenland by buying the Greenlanders

Posted on by
3

We don’t need to invade Greenland. We can instead buy the Greenlanders. Here’s my scheme.

First, let’s review what’s at stake. Greenland is the size of Texas. It’s strategically positioned in the North Atlantic. It extends almost to the North Pole (a spot that is on ocean ice north of Greenland).

We already have an air base in Greenland above the Arctic Circle which serves to provide early warning of incoming Russian missiles and bombers. And we also have our own bombers and missiles stationed there.

Greenland is rich in natural resources, including petroleum, fish, fresh water, gold, lithium and rare earth metals.

The population of Greenland is only about 57,000 people, 3,000 polar bears and 50,000 seals. The largest town holds only 18,000 people – smaller than the enrollment of a typical liberal arts college.

Denmark claims to “own” Greenland because it was settled by a few hundred Vikings – you know, pirates – thousands of years after it was settled by Native Americans. Greenland is technically a Danish colony today. In today’s world, however, that doesn’t give the Danes a claim to it. If anything, it makes the Danes “colonizers” and gives Greenlanders a claim against Denmark for reparations.

At some point, Greenland will be absorbed by one of today’s superpowers. It’s just too good and too vulnerable to pass up. Denmark is not in a position geographically, militarily or economically to resist a takeover. As for Greenland’s own military, well, there isn’t one.

The official language of Greenland is Eskimo. It’s not officially called that, however. (In fact, Eskimos aren’t officially called Eskimos anymore, either. They’re now called Inuit. Don’t ask why. That would be racist. But it has to do with raw meat.) The official language is officially called Kalaallisut. But most inhabitants and nearly all educated ones also speak English.

Given that 88% of the island claims to be Inuit, their loyalty to Denmark – the colonizers – is doubtful.

Of course, the U.S. could conquer Greenland with the Nantucket Police Force in a weekend. But there’s a better way.

Offer the Greenlanders money. Say, about a million dollars per man, woman and child. Since there are only 57,000 inhabitants, the total bill would come to only $57 billion.

That’s chump change. It’s less than 1% of the U.S. annual federal budget. It’s less than 4% of the outstanding student loan debt in America. It’s about what Somali immigrants defraud us out of in a couple of years.

I can see it now. We’ll annex Greenland. The Greenlanders will be thrilled and wealthy. We’ll build Trump Towers all along the coast, legalize gambling, and recoup from the inhabitants our $57 billion in a matter of months.

Pass the raw whale, please.

Will the next Jewish diaspora to America help us win another world war?

Posted on by
2

Guess what these men have in common: Albert Einstein, Leo Szilard, Hans Bethe, and Edward Teller.

Everyone knows about Einstein. He won a Nobel Prize for his work on the photoelectric effect, did revolutionary work on the relativity of time and space (all in his mind without a laboratory), fled Nazi Germany in 1933, had wild hair in his later years, and, most importantly, co-authored a letter to President Roosevelt explaining the potential for a nuclear bomb.

That letter is credited with persuading Roosevelt to launch the Manhattan Project. The ensuing nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki put an end to WWII. By avoiding a full-scale invasion, the bombs probably saved over a million Japanese, American, British, Australian and Chinese soldiers and civilians.

Einstein became a U.S. citizen in 1944, a year before the bomb was first tested at Los Alamos.

Leo Szilard was the other co-author of that letter. It was Szilard who conceptualized the notion in 1933 that incredible amounts of energy could be released in a nuclear chain reaction by splitting the uranium atom. It might have been the greatest Eureka! moment in science since the day Isaac Newton conceived of gravity when he was hit on the head with a falling apple. Szilard fled Europe in 1938 and became a U.S. citizen five years later.

Hans Bethe was a prominent physicist of the early 20th century. He fled Germany in 1935 at age 29 and became a U.S. citizen in 1941. Like Szilard, he worked on the Manhattan Project. He won the Nobel Prize in 1967 for his work on nuclear reactions over the course of a prolific career, and died in 2005 at age 98.

Edward Teller fled Germany in 1935 and became a U.S. citizen in 1941. He, too, worked on the Manhattan Project. He was later dubbed “the father of the hydrogen bomb.” (While the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs used nuclear fission, the hydrogen bomb uses fusion, which delivers much more bang for the buck. Hydrogen bombs have been successfully tested, but never used in warfare.)

OK, one thing these men obviously have in common is that they were all great physicists.

Here’s another thing, perhaps less obvious: They were all Jewish. Indeed, that’s the reason they fled pre-WWII Europe and came to the beacon of hope that is called America. (It should be noted that not all the physicists on the Manhattan project were Jewish. Project leader Robert Oppenheimer was raised in an American Jewish family but did not regard himself as Jewish. Enrico Fermi was an Italian immigrant raised in a Catholic family.)

The Nazis were pretty stupid, considering they fancied themselves clever and strategic. They drove away the greatest physicists of the day – right into the welcoming arms of their adversary.  

The result was poetic justice.

Germany’s persecution of the Jews deprived the Nazi war machine of their scientific talents. Imagine if Germany had kept the Jewish scientists at home in Germany to help them invent the bomb before America did. Those V-2 rockets they used to bombard London could have been loaded with nukes.

Fast forward a few generations. We now have some new Nazis to contend with, called radical Islam. Like the German Nazis, these neo-Nazi Islamicists fancy themselves pretty clever and pretty strategic, though at the moment the Trump-Netanyahu alliance has them on the ropes.

Here’s an interesting thought experiment. What if the radical Islamicists somehow manage to subdue what they call “the Little Satan” of Israel? Where will the Israeli physicists and other scientists go?

Not to Europe, which is a hotbed of antisemitism.

They’ll go where brilliant, hard-working people have always gone – they’ll go to America.

In America, we don’t care if they’re Jewish, Lutheran or Buddhists, and we don’t care if they’re Black, white, brown or yellow. We don’t care about who they are, we care only about what they can do.

What that next wave of Jewish immigrants can do is to help us – help humanity – win another world war, this one against radical Islam. In the meantime, they can help us cure cancer or generate limitless electricity or put a man on Mars.

Here’s the bigger point. It’s too simple to say that immigration is bad, or good. It all depends on the skill set of the immigrants. I’ll happily take another Einstein.