Mount Virtus

Anyone surprised at this “breaking news”? I know it’s been sad to see Terry McAuliffe go, but the mood is greatly alleviated knowing that the screamer is a virtual lock to take his place.

At one point not much more than a year ago it also looked like Dean had a virtual lock on the Democrats’ presidential nomination, so don’t count your chickens before they hatch. Yet it seems that the worst thing now that could happen to Dean is that Tim Roemer might pick up a little “Joe-mentum,” a la failed presidential candidate Joe Lieberman. But let’s wait and see…

In regards to the mushrooming Ward Churchill controversy, David Harsanyi’s column in this morning’s Post advocates market pressure from parents and students (let me add, taxpaying citizens) as a means of injecting massive doses of calcium into the backs of CU’s administrators.

Colorado citizens send their tax dollars, many of whom also send their children (and in many cases their children’s tuition, as well) to CU. And this doesn’t even take into account those who pay their own tuition. Are Ward Churchill’s hyperradical ideas worthy of taxpayer subsidy?

It is common knowledge our public universities are welcome havens for all sorts of left-of-center ideas and causes, much more so than is accepted in the mainstream of society. Some embrace it as a haven for their left-of-center worldview, some make the case for more of a conservative balance on campuses, and some tolerate the kookiness and just accept it as just “the way it is.”

But I think just about everyone can agree that there are limits to the protections of academic freedom and tenure. Take liberal CU law professor Campos, who cites Churchill’s comparison of 9/11 victims to Adolf Eichmann as “intellectually bankrupt and morally depraved,” which Campos says are “sufficient grounds for firing tenured faculty.”

Who wants to step forward and disagree with Campos on that point?

The case of CU Prof. Ward Churchill has begun to highlight an interesting question: how will the radical fringes of American academia survive and adapt to an intense popular scrutiny, enhanced by the vast connections and lightning reactions of a less-than-sympathetic new media?

The CU Board of Regents has called a meeting on the issue, which at this point probably translates to a lot of talk and a hope that the issue will just fade away.

Meanwhile, the campus College Republicans hold a petition drive calling for Churchill’s resignation. And Joshua interviews a CU history professor who places the blame for the university’s inaction on the tenure system.

Regardless of what happens specifically in the Churchill case, universities heavily subsidized by federal and state tax dollars ought to take a closer look at the tenure system: what it takes to become tenured and what it protects.

Though I’ve been fighting illness lately and though I barely have time right now, I felt impelled to post this - the inspiring story of Iraqis turning out to vote in a historic election, showing bravery during threats of serious violence.

“We have defeated the terrorists today,” Ahmad Chalabi, a secular Shiite who is running for the National Assembly on the United Iraqi Alliance list, told FOX News. “The winds of freedom are sweeping across Iraq.”

Clay is on top of a breaking story from the State Capitol. Seems Democrat Rep. Jerry Frangas has been parading around a box full of state employees’ confidential personal information as a way to entice media coverage for a bill he is proposing. Republican House Minority Leader Joe Stengel has addressed the serious concerns about the custody and availability of these documents in a letter to House Speaker Andrew Romanoff (Clay has posted the full text). Stengel has asked for an investigation.

Will Romanoff open an investigation? How serious are Democrats about personal privacy and, more importantly, about preventing possible identity theft?

Are the new majority Democrats in Colorado’s statehouse losing focus so soon?

A bill proposed by Senator Jennifer Veiga (D - Denver) that requires employers not to discriminate against employees on the basis of “sexual orientation” or “gender variance” has passed the Senate Business, Labor, and Technology Committee on a 4-3 party-line vote.

The repercussions of such legislation if passed into state law? Employers (except of religious organizations) may have to accept behavior they find morally repulsive or be unable to express deeply-held religious convictions. Such were the objections of Republican committee members Sen. John Evans and Sen. Tom Wiens.

Or imagine this scenario: Mr. Smith owns a small family pharmacy. One of his employees - Bob - decides one day to reveal to the world that he has been hiding that he is really “a woman trapped in a man’s body.” Bob comes to work wearing a skirt and high heels. What can Mr. Smith do? Accept Bob’s new lifestyle decision or keep completely silent. And never mind what the customers think.

This is part of the burning Democrat agenda that is part of their mandate to govern? This reflects mainstream Colorado values?

Less than two weeks after their electoral takeover of the state legislature, the new Senate Majority Leader outlined the party’s focus for the upcoming session:

Sen. Ken Gordon, of Denver, the new majority leader, said he’s working on a 10-year plan for Democratic accomplishments.

“We’re going to do what we said we were going to do - work on the things that matter,” he said, ticking off a list that included transportation, education and, of course, the state budget crisis. “We’re going to get off this right-wing agenda of gays, guns and God.”

Off the right-wing agenda and onto the left-wing agenda of gays, guns and God. Maybe making sure that a man has the unimpeachable right to wear a dress to work is just one of those things that matter.

The Democrat majority has started tackling the “gays” issue. Next up? God and guns. Let’s just face it. A focus on social issues is not the sole provenance either of the Left or of the Right. But let’s see which is more in tune with most Colorado voters.

Meanwhile, the Kestrel points us to a Rocky Mountain News story highlighting that the state’s fiscal year 2004-05 budget deficit is not nearly as large as previously believed, and may not exist altogether. This immediately prompts two questions:

1. Will the Democrats still try to gut TABOR to “fix” a budget crisis that’s not nearly as bad as first believed?
2. If the budget turns out be balanced already, will the Democrats claim credit for it?

The Poudre School District in Fort Collins, the ninth largest in Colorado with 25,000 students, is seriously considering whether they want to “Be the Change.” Poudre’s search for a new superintendent has narrowed to two candidates - one of them former Democrat U.S. Senate candidate Mike Miles.

Miles is currently the assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction in the Fountain-Fort Carson School District.

Anyone who remembers Miles’ ill-fated but impassioned run for high office this past year will remember how he inspired the left-wing base of the Colorado Democratic Party in a fashion akin to Howard Dean. Like Dean, Miles’ campaign crashed and burned in the primary to the anointed candidate and now current U.S. Senator Ken Salazar.

Unlike Dean, there have been no manic screams nor subsequent announced runs for a party chairmanship position. Frankly, Miles’ campaign was not that memorable at all, except for those navy blue yard signs and T-shirts with the grammatically-challenged slogan: “Be The Change.”

Sadly, were Poudre School District to embrace the slogan, it wouldn’t be to implement any meaningful reforms in the areas of school choice or accountability. My challenge to my handful of faithful readers is this: name one policy, activity, or reform you can envision a possible Superintendent Miles bringing to the Poudre School District.

Colorado State Republican Party Chairman Ted Halaby has announced he will not seek another term. In an open letter to the state central committee, Halaby decries the new system of campaign finance laws that have diminished the importance the clout and importance of the state party organization:

…it is clear that federal and state campaign-finance laws must be changed to bring the political process back within the traditional auspices of the national and state political parties and their candidates, with the accountability and timely disclosure this provides. I intend to do what I can to assist in this process. However, for now, unfortunately, the most influential battles in Colorado will be waged outside the political party process. Republicans with the means must now be encouraged to have the motivation to step up to the plate and counter what the Democrats so successfully accomplished in outside fund-raising. Therefore, for the next two years I believe I can play a more important role in electing Republicans by working outside the present restrictions imposed on political parties and their leadership.

Read the rest of this entry »

Both the Republicans and the Democrats under Denver’s golden dome have staked their ground on proposing solutions to the state budget crunch:

Democrats and [Republican Governor Bill] Owens agree on many parts of the plan. Owens’ budget proposal in December included a tax cut, dedicated transportation dollars and increasing the state spending limit by $500 million annually.

The sides disagree on how much of future TABOR refunds the state should keep.

[Democrat House Speaker Andrew] Romanoff’s plan would re-start refunds once government spending reaches the level it hit in 2000, before Colorado’s recession, which he calculates at roughly 6 percent of residents’ personal incomes.

Owens doesn’t consider that a “meaningful cap” on government growth, his spokesman said Monday, because staff projections show refunds won’t start again in the foreseeable future.

Who doubts that the Democrats’ long-term plan is to do away with Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, the initiative that has done more than any to promote fiscal discipline and the interests of taxpaying citizens at the State Capitol. Romanoff and company want the voters to give up their well-deserved refunds for the foreseeable future.

Read the rest of this entry »

I would say that, all in all, I don’t feel too bad for this most depressing day of the year. Maybe if I lived in the fog and gray skies of Britain rather than sunshine-filled Colorado, the story would be different:

Dr. Cliff Arnall’s calculations show that misery peaks Monday.

Arnall, who specializes in seasonal disorders at the University of Cardiff, Wales, created a formula that takes into account numerous feelings to devise peoples’ lowest point.

The model is: [W + (D-d)] x TQ
M x NA

The equation is broken down into seven variables: (W) weather, (D) debt, (d) monthly salary, (T) time since Christmas, (Q) time since failed quit attempt, (M) low motivational levels and (NA) the need to take action.

That W seems to be quite a significant variable in this equation. I would agree. It took me a long time to realize what Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) was - that long periods of time without sunshine had an adverse effect on my outlook and emotional well-being. Explaining the January downtime took into account other factors. The light of later experience showed those factors weren’t as significant.

Now, of course, there are a lot of different causes of depression - whether physiological, emotional, or even spiritual. And the treatments for each are not necessarily the same. But I’m living proof that it can’t hurt to seek out a little more sunshine. (For those fair-skinned as I, don’t forget to apply a little sunscreen along the way.)

SAD wasn’t my primary motivation for abandoning my native Michigan and moving west to sunny Colorado. But it sure didn’t hurt, either. Just one more reason to smile on this January 24: something besides the weather will have to get me down.

Kind of makes me wonder how I keep my sanity working in this white-walled office on this floor without windows… at least we have a few skylights. Thankfully!

Hat tip: Thanks to LaShawn and Marvin for pointing me to the MSNBC article.

You can learn a lot from someone’s response. Take this for example… abortionist William Hern of Boulder is aghast that the mortuary he had contracted with to receive “fetal remains” had in turn been taking those remains to the Sacred Heart of Mary Catholic Church. In unveiling its “Memorial Wall for the Unborn,” the parish recently announced that it had been receiving and burying the murdered babies since 2001.

Hern alleges that Crist Mortuary violated a written contract, but Hern has also “declined to provide a copy of the contract.”

I think the story is best summed up by a quote in the Denver Post story from archdiocese spokesman Sergio Gutierrez:

“It’s puzzling, the confused messages being sent out. If they’re not unborn children, why are they concerned about this at all? And if they are unborn children, wouldn’t this be an appropriate way to behave? They can’t have it both ways. What’s appalling is the commerce Dr. Hern is generating from this practice.”

Advances in science in recent years have pushed the abortion-rights lobby back on their heels, as we learn more and more about prenatal development. With spokespersons like Dr. Hern, the abortion absolutists’ internal logic is resting on the same shaky foundations as their understanding of science.

Along with the Catholic archdiocese, fellow RMA member Jared has been one of the most eloquent and impassioned pro-life voices out there in the Denver-area community. I am interested to see what sort of comment he may have.

It’s probably not a great mystery to Colorado political insiders that University of Denver President Marc Holtzman is serious about a run for the state’s governorship. The dead governors at Colorado Pols [ed - for the uninitiated, the anonymous proprietor(s) of the site post under the pseudonyms of three former Colorado governors who all by a quirk of history served during the year 1905, exactly one century ago] have Holtzman ranked among the early favorites for the state’s chief executive office in 2006.

Marc Holtzman

Having attended a meeting of the House Minority Caucus today, at the kind behest of Michele Austin, I now have some clear early impressions of Holtzman and his candidacy. The DU President is undoubtedly smart and savvy: he knows that to make a serious run at the Republican nomination he had to get an early start. And he has - fundraising, speaking, and strategizing. In addressing members of the House Minority Caucus, he asserted his credibility as a candidate for statewide office with some degree of effectiveness. How many will be on board remains to be seen.

Read the rest of this entry »

On this important national day of reflection - both gazing back at history and forward into the uncharted future - we celebrate the peaceful transition of power in our Constitutionally-limited republican government. Inauguration Day comes every four years on the American calendar. Many of the most important speeches of our national public life are given on these days. To read and study them is to see not only something of the men who delivered them but also of the times in which they lived and the challenges Americans have faced - and so very often surmounted, as well.

I’m certainly not adding anything new or controversial to the conversation when I say that the best of them all remains Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, given on March 4, 1865. It is wise, prayerful, solemn, hopeful, and much more… all in a speech that could not have been spoken in more than 5 minutes.

Read the rest of this entry »

The dead governors at Colorado Pols point to the results of a new survey co-sponsored by the Independence Institute and the Colorado Club for Growth:

Of 600 likely Colorado voters who participated in the last election…
52% oppose the ‘De-Brucing’ changes to TABOR proposed by Speaker Andrew Romanoff and others.
33% support the ‘De-Brucing.’

The dead governors complain that the poll should be taken worth a grain of salt because of who commissioned the poll to be taken, then speculates about how the question must have been worded:

…what the survey does show is that Colorado’s elected officials aren’t doing a very good job at getting across the problems that TABOR has created. While we certainly understand that this is no easy task - heck, TABOR is more complicated than the dewey decimal system - legislators clearly need to work harder to make the problems clear.

We are somewhat familiar with polling data and how to use it, and those low number for TABOR changes reflect as much a misunderstanding of TABOR as it does a dislike of changing it. If the questions were worded in such a way that they presented the tax break as the primary benefit (for example: “Would you like to see tax breaks repealed in Colorado?) then obviously the answer is going to be NO. But if the question was, “Would you like to see TABOR changed?” then most people wouldn’t be able to fairly answer the question.

This statement is confusing. Apparently if you describe TABOR to voters and the proposed changes, then ask whether they support or oppose it, that it isn’t fair? Perhaps someone may present a “fairer wording” than the way the question was presented to poll respondents:

“In 1992, voters passed the Taxpayers Bill of Rights or TABOR. This constitutional amendment limited state government income and spending to an amount equal to inflation plus population growth. All revenue over that amount must be refunded to the taxpayers, or the government must hold an election to ask to keep all or a portion of that surplus. From 1997 to 2002, TABOR refunded $3.25 billion to taxpayers, or about $3,200 for an average family of four. It also required all tax increases be approved by the voters.

“Today, some say Colorado is in a budget crisis because of TABOR. They want to allow the state government to keep $500 million more per year, meaning that all tax refunds would be reduced or eliminated. Another change would allow governments to return to the taxing and spending levels prior to recessions which reduced government taxing and spending. Do you support or oppose making these changes to TABOR?”

The dead governors even point to a newsletter from Senate Education Committee Chair Sue Windels, trying to create a workable analogy to explain the budget crisis. Lake Dillon? This poor analogy equates natural beauty (i.e., the lake filling with water) to the amount of money government has to spend. It’s very easy to blame TABOR for everything, if you enter with the assumption that government having money is a beautiful thing. Maybe I’ll have more time to deconstruct Senator Windels’ folly later. I’m not sure I want her to explain TABOR’s complexities, though.

More later on the poll’s similarly worded question regarding Amendment 23.

Some good analyses of what it means to have a “bipartisan” Democrat majority in both branches of Colorado’s statehouse:

The Post’s David Harsanyi looks at some of the “dopey” and “nanny” bills being proposed by our legislators. Good intentions do not necessarily lead to successful results, nor do they necessarily make good public policy.

Michael breaks down the Democrat response to Governor Owens’ State of the State speech.

Breaking down Democrats’ statistical assertions, Michael finds that many of the disparities in claims come down to this: the Democrats and liberals tend to measure input and the Republicans and conservatives tend to measure output. Best example? The statistic cited by many liberal groups that Colorado ranks 49th among states in education funding, based on the total wealth or earning power of the state. Liberal interest groups argue that because Coloradans make more money, they should give a larger percentage of it to the state to finance K-12 education. There are three basic reasons why this oft-cited statistic is meaningless and misleading.

First, it neglects the folly that is Amendment 23, which already shoehorns the budget by mandating increased expenditures from the general fund to pay for K-12 education.

Second, it neglects the fact that Colorado is actually very close to the national average in actual per-pupil funding. Colorado ranks either 26th (if you count students on the fall enrollment date) or 28th (if you count students based on average daily attendance) in the nation in actual per-pupil funding, not 49th. These statistics are taken from the most recent annual “Rankings and Estimates,” put out by the liberal National Education Association (pg 55, Table H-11; pg 57, Table H-16).

Third, and most important, it neglects (as Michael points out) the actual results being achieved. On every measurement of the standardized NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) testing - especially math and reading - Colorado ranks above the national average. It’s the output, stupid.

Could Colorado be doing better job of education? Of course. Is pouring more and more money into the system going to bring improvement? Find me the study that shows it will work. More money without more accountability, higher expectations, more competition, and more choice for parents…. well, that just makes some people feel better.

But that’s the problem, isn’t it? Do we just want people to think we care, or do we actually want to educate students so they can learn? K-12 education is clearly a complex and nuanced issue, which makes the “throw more money at it until my conscience is cleared” approach a bit too simplistic and dangerous. While it may do almost nothing to help the students, it works pretty well to line the pockets of the teachers’ union.

Update: The Rocky Mtn News has some additional on-point commentary on the education ranking hoax and the problem of so-called “adequacy studies.”

If you haven’t seen the story (and the x-ray) of the Breckenridge man who had a nail lodged in his skull for six days without realizing it… well, what are you waiting for?

Speaking as someone who’s never had a terrific knack with anything carpentry-related, here is just one further proof not to pursue the trade for a living.

As most of my readers already know, several members of the RMA attended the Governor’s State of the State speech yesterday at the behest of the Governor’s office and House leadership. Afterwards, they got a private blogger press conference with Governor Owens and some photo-ops.

First, the famous picture, originally posted on Clay’s site:

Michael is the first to flesh out some serious analysis: the governor laying down the veto gauntlet and which applause lines the Democrats in the chamber sat out on.

The Kestrel suggests better educating Coloradans about the major role Amendment 23 has played in the budget crisis. He also has linked to the full text of the governor’s address.

Joshua catches the new Senate president napping during the speech - probably busy dreaming about all the paychecks, textbooks, and doctors she’s going to provide the people of Colorado.

Jim highlights the vapid response of a so-called “progressive” to RMA’s activities yesterday.

More analysis is sure to come.

You’ve got to grant Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald (D - Golden) something: it hadn’t even been a full day since she took over as Colorado’s first ever female Senate president. But in her speech to the joint session yesterday, Fitz-Gerald said:

“I see an opportunity to provide a paycheck for every family, a textbook for every child and a doctor for every patient.”

Stop for a minute, re-read the quote, and ponder. Are you thinking what I’m thinking?

Sure, Joan. That’s the way to solve the state’s budget crisis. Spend your way out of it. Despite running on the platform of fiscal restraint, the Colorado Democratic Party looks like it won’t be able to hide its true colors for long. She made this statement on the first day of the session.

But that’s okay. I’m sure Senator Fitz-Gerald will make good on her promises. I’ll keep checking the mailbox every day for that paycheck from the State Capitol, keep waiting for that state-appointed doctor to come make a house call. All while the Democrats magically solve the budget crisis by raising the taxes of productive businesses and workers more and more….

Want to know when the paycheck is coming? Want to know who your doctor will be? If you’re the impatient type and can’t stand the wait, you can always drop an e-mail to the new Senate president and ask.