Mount Virtus

Fellow blogger Snaggle-Tooth Jones has leveled a misguided attack:

This here’s a YouTube video showin’ a 1938 reunion of Confederate and Yankee soldiers on the field of Gettysburg:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1byof4IAHk

Now, here’s a litte question for Ben DeGrow and the othah no-account neocons (and damn fool libruls) who ‘r vexed over All Things Confederate: why do ye suppose these men cud get together in such a spirit of civility, if not chivalry?

I’d like to hear from ye in my commints box, Ben DeGrow.

Why d’ ye ’spose U.S. Grant happily tolerated the playin’ of “Dixie” at this here event? Or why do ye ’spose that Grant was so magnanimous at Lee’s surrender at Appomattox? Or why Lee defended Grant when one of his feller professers at Washington College made a deerogtoree comment ’bout Grant?

How unlike the Politically Correct Grant wuz. And among the ranks of the Politically Correct I include so-called conservatives like you. *Especially* conservatives like you, since y’all should know better.

‘L, anyway, it’s said that the Yankees in that YouTube video got chills done they spine when that Reb feller did the Rebel Yell. Y’all oughter still be gittin’ chills.

The Northern conservatives of the 21st century surely ain’t like the Northern conservatives of the 19th and early to mid-20th. More like damn fool libruls, I’d say.

First of all, I had to chuckle when reading and finding out that I am “vexed over All Things Confederate.” I like to think I have a more balanced view informed by a fairly thorough and widespread reading of primary and secondary sources in 19th century American history. Though I by no means have come close to plumbing the depths, I do believe I’ve read and studied enough to form intelligent opinions on the topic. And no, it has not led me into political correctness - which Mr. Jones should feel free to elaborate on more in depth (as well as provide examples).
Read the rest of this entry »

Rossputin has reposted a comment I left in response to some incoherent pro-Huckabee remarks made on his site. Here’s how I concluded:

I’m writing to implore GOP primary voters to think seriously about their decisions. If you’re going to support Huckabee, fine, but only if you at least got there by coming to grips with his record and having given some thought to a couple broad questions: 1) What would his foreign and domestic policy prescriptions really mean for our country? and 2) What are the odds he could actually win a general election?

Writing as a Baptist born-again Christian, let me remind you we are electing a President, not a pastor.

Go ahead, and read the whole thing.

Merry Christmas:

1Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth.

2This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.

3And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city.

4Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David,

5in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child.

6While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth.

7And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

8In the same region there were some shepherds staying out in the fields and keeping watch over their flock by night.

9And an angel of the Lord suddenly stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them; and they were terribly frightened.

10But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people;

11for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.

12″This will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”

13And suddenly there appeared with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying,
14″Glory to God in the highest,
And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased.”

15When the angels had gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds began saying to one another, “Let us go straight to Bethlehem then, and see this thing that has happened which the Lord has made known to us.”

16So they came in a hurry and found their way to Mary and Joseph, and the baby as He lay in the manger.

17When they had seen this, they made known the statement which had been told them about this Child.

18And all who heard it wondered at the things which were told them by the shepherds.

19But Mary treasured all these things, pondering them in her heart.

20The shepherds went back, glorifying and praising God for all that they had heard and seen, just as had been told them.

With the Denver Public Schools board’s unanimous approval last night of the Bruce Randolph School’s request for autonomy from district red tape and union work rules, we may see a crack opening in the floodgates of education reform. Word is that a dozen other DPS schools are ready to follow in Randolph’s footsteps. But everyone is awaiting the union’s official response:

The autonomy agreement must still be approved by the 22-member governing board of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association, expected to vote Jan. 8.

DCTA President Kim Ursetta did not mention the proposal in brief remarks to the board. She has repeatedly said the union has some questions about the plan and is working with Bruce Randolph staff to get answers.

“Working with Bruce Randolph staff to get answers”? Does that include sending memos filled with dishonest threats that teachers are going to lose benefits and statutory job protections?

Union leaders are stuck between a rock and a hard place: Do they stick their fingers in the crack to hold back the floods of education reform, or do they take the longer view and work to help make the reform successful? Nearly everyone is arrayed against them, seeing Bruce Randolph’s move as a positive step to enable needed changes in a high-poverty school. Non-profit groups like the Piton Foundation and Colorado Succeeds have contributed funds to the school to help ensure a successful transition.

Stay tuned for January 8. Either the door will be opened for many other schools to follow Randolph’s lead, or the stage will be set for a serious clash in Denver.

As expected, Rep. Tancredo officially has bowed out of the presidential race, and is endorsing not Fred Thompson but Mitt Romney. Since Romney is favored by many of the state’s leading Republicans, this tells me that Tancredo has his eye on running for office again in 2010. Conventional wisdom is that he will plan to take on Senator Ken Salazar. How far Tancredo’s endorsement of Romney will go in corralling the necessary support for a Senate campaign remains to be seen. But it certainly cannot hurt.

Having fostered strong support for greater border security among the field of Republican presidential candidates but long having trailed in the back of the pack, Colorado’s own Rep. Tom Tancredo is expected to announce today that he will bow out of the race for the White House.

I think it’s pretty clear that the Congressman’s next political focus is on a 2010 U.S. Senate matchup against Ken Salazar, but what about the 2008 race before us? One big question remains: Whom will Tancredo endorse a mere two weeks out of the Iowa caucuses?

My two cents worth to Tancredo, the former president of the Independence Institute: Why not give the nod to Fred Thompson, a strong and optimistic conservative leader in the mold of Ronald Reagan who supports free markets, federalism, foreign policy strength, family values, and (of course) a steadfast commitment to border security? Let’s build the Fred-mentum.

Update: More on this story in today’s Rocky Mountain News …

Here’s the “dog bites man” story of the day: lawyers for the Colorado Education Association are caught telling a series of lies to stop teachers and leaders at Denver’s Bruce Randolph School from obtaining autonomy from restrictive district red tape and union-negotiated work rules.

Still, unsurprising as the news may be, it can be thoroughly instructive to read the actual memos and see just how far the union’s legal team will go to mislead its own members.

Good news in the Republican presidential race out of Iowa: the Huckster is fading, and the expectations game keeps Fred at a low enough profile to gear up for a strong third-place finish in the Hawkeye State:

On the Republican side, among (833) likely voters, here are the numbers: Huckabee 28, Romney 25, Thompson 10, McCain 9, Paul 6, Giuliani 6. Among (418) highly likely voters, Romney leads with 28%, then Huckabee 25, Thompson 11, McCain 7, Paul 6, Giuliani 5, Tancredo 4.

Plus there appear to be true signs of Fred-mentum (and here I thought I’d coined the phrase) after all.

Pejman Yousefzadeh (PJ, for short) over at Red State writes an eloquent endorsement for Fred Thompson to be our next President (H/T El Presidente). Let me officially second his statement:

Many writers, in praising Thompson, have indicated that one of the more laudable things about his candidacy is that he is more interested in doing something than he is in being somebody. This is true. Ambition is a good thing to have but far too many politicians make ambition an end in and of itself. For Thompson, ambition is a means to an end–a means to implementing the policy positions he and other Reagan Republicans care about so deeply. That having been written, Thompson owes it to his supporters to vigorously campaign for the Presidency of the United States. People like me have invested a lot of hope in Thompson’s candidacy as being the truest campaign there is to the principles of Reaganism. Reaganism deserves a forceful, articulate, tireless and compelling champion for its philosophy. If Thompson is willing to be that candidate, if he is ambitious not for himself but for the beliefs he holds and for the country which can benefit mightily from the application of those beliefs, his candidacy can serve as a powerful standard to which Republicans can rally. And more importantly, it can lead to a Presidency of success and promise.

If you’re a Republican primary voter who is undecided, or at least open-minded, you should read the entire thing: including PJ’s well-placed quotes and citations. Now is the time for a little “Fred-mentum” (or something like that). The compelling arguments are similar to the ones that led me to the same conclusion. The Hollywood actor has the most substantive and the most coherently conservative campaign. Go figure. But it’s hard to deny.

It’s time to stop the hand shows and to vote Fred Thompson for President. The time for his comeback is now.

A lot of space has been taken up in the Michigan (land of my upbringing) media detailing the University of Michigan’s search for a head football coach after Lloyd Carr retired. Today we learn that all the rumors come to an end as West Virginia coach Rich Rodriguez has agreed to take the helm in Ann Arbor.

One might be forgiven if he came to the conclusion that the Mountaineers’ program was the Wolverines’ coaching farm system. After all, Michigan hired John Beilein directly from West Virginia this past April to coach their men’s basketball program. Now the football team. A direct line from Morgantown to Ann Arbor? Perhaps.

Regardless, let me assure you that fans of the illustrious University of Michigan football program - which has gone nearly four decades without a serious search for a head coach - are resting easy tonight. Rodriguez may not have been the first choice of many, but I don’t think the Wolverines could have done much better.

Doing its duty in support of the Left-liberal Colorado coalition, the Bell Policy Center released a report today that expends a lot of megabytes (and ink?) to say almost nothing relevant. The Rocky Mountain News first picked up on the story:

Labor-management partnerships such as the one Gov. Bill Ritter ordered for state government are positive on balance, according to a report by the Bell Policy Center — a group that consulted with Ritter’s staff as he launched his partnership plan.

However, such agreements mostly have been used to turn around adversarial labor-management relations in already unionized workplaces with collective bargaining, the report points out. [emphasis added]

The report presents zero evidence of so-called “partnerships” producing the alleged positive effects in a workplace (much less a state government - because it’s never happened before) where no previous union representation existed. Yet the authors conclude:

If done right, the evidence seems clear that labor management partnerships represent a positive approach that can improve government operations and save money.

A careful read of the report indicates that “partnerships” - at least in the cases where positive impacts can be demonstrated - mostly save money from averting the costs of strikes and other outcomes of hostile labor-management relations. But that only applies to places where adversarial collective bargaining already exists. In all the cases cited in the report, “partnerships” are a halfway measure away from adversarial bargaining. It seems to be a source of relief for public and private employers who had already gone too far down the unionization path.

That just isn’t the case here with state government in Colorado. The report’s analysis and conclusion essentially don’t fit the situation it is purported to defend. It’s a nice attempt by the Bell Policy Center to provide some sort of cover for Gov. Ritter on his unionization executive order. But all their effort has created nothing more than a published “so what?”

More than anything, the report seems to confirm the very valid criticism that Ritter’s order was a solution in search of a problem. Well, Big Labor’s problem, anyway, and its desire to be repaid in political favors.

Erick at Red State charts a path for Fred Thompson’s tired campaign to come back and make a surprising resurgence. And let me tell you, I’d be pleased to see him do it. If Colorado’s caucus were held today, Fred would get my vote.

The most recent Rasmussen results show the Centennial State is a wide open playing field for Republican candidates, as a lot of GOP members like myself are adopting a wait-and-see attitude:

Which of the following Republican candidates is most in tune with the attitudes and needs of Colorado?

19% John McCain.

14% Rudy Giuliani

14% Fred Thompson

12% Ron Paul

9% Mike Huckabee

8% Mitt Romney

16% None of the above

8% Not sure

So here’s hoping Fred has really found his stride. Today’s top-notch Des Moines debate performance is a good start (good analysis from John Hawkins at Right Wing News).

Three weeks ago the Colorado for Fred Thompson blog put out an angry, earnest plea for the campaign to turn things around. All has been silent since. I too have been frustrated by the weak grassroots effort, when the candidate himself has been the strongest on the issues; has great ideas and a clear, consistent message; and has only been getting better on the stump.

Is it too late for Thompson? In this election cycle’s volatile Republican primary, probably not. But he should at least give Erick a listen.

The journalistic peep show into the life of a murderer continues, as witnessed in this morning’s Denver Post:

The ultra-religious home-school curriculum that Matthew Murray ranted about in Web postings before he opened fire at two Christian centers forbids dating, rock music and “wrong clothes.” It advises young men and women to live at home until their parents release them and counsels parents to choose marriage partners for their offspring.

I suppose this information is interesting as far as it goes, but needs to be carefully qualified with three other vital insights, some of which are covered in the article:

1. The clearly misguided and inappropriate approach of the highlighted facets of this home-school curriculum represent the fringes both of evangelical Christianity and home-schooling. There are many serious believers in Scriptural inerrancy and other fundamental Christian doctrines who cannot be characterized this way.

2. Even so, this case is an isolated incident. It is not as though there is anything approaching an epidemic of Bill Gothard homeschoolers going on homicidal rampages.

3. While this information might be of tangible value if the young man had murdered members of his family, it tells us little or nothing (at least on a rational level) of why he chose to attack organizations that are in the mainstream of evangelical Christianity and detached from these specific teachings.

In the end, the clearly deranged murderer was who he was. There is no apparent rational connection of any sort between the fringe Christian home-schooling movement in which he was raised and the targets of his murderous rage.

But any inordinate attention received by this aspect of the killer’s background only feeds the ill-informed, biased opportunists who will distort reality to paint all evangelical Christians or homeschoolers with this broad brush. Just something for readers to be wary of.

From this week’s edition of the always insightful & entertaining Education Intelligence Agency Communique:

2) Colorado Public Employees Union Hooks Up with CWA. Organized labor in Colorado is about to become very volatile.

The dust has yet to settle from Gov. Bill Ritter’s executive order establishing “partnerships” between state agencies and labor unions, which is clearly the prelude to public sector collective bargaining. The plans of Colorado WINS, a coalition of SEIU, AFSCME and AFT, are in evidence in the new organization’s founding documents, first released exclusively by EIA on November 19.

But Colorado WINS will have some competition. The formerly AFT-affiliated Colorado Federation of Public Employees has dissolved and reformed itself as the Colorado Public Employee Alliance, affiliated with the Communication Workers of America (CWA).

The national affiliation will prevent Colorado WINS from squashing its rivals like a bug, and has the potential to cause even more problems. The establishment of Colorado WINS is a national agreement between two AFL-CIO unions and one Change to Win union. CWA is also an AFL-CIO union, and a juridictional dispute such as this one is bound to get bounced upstairs to national AFL-CIO. It could get ugly.

And while the Colorado media has generally been pretty good on the political ramifications of the new union role, I don’t think there is a labor reporter left in the state, so the internal union drama is largely going unnoticed.

Lest we forget, the labor unions are re-aligning and coalescing because Gov. Bill Ritter’s November 2 executive order has empowered them to organize and collect funds from state workers. Sure, Ritter and his team have tried time and again to reassure the public that the order’s “employee partnerships” are merely a way to find greater efficiency and productivity in state government. But not so many are buying that line. The timing of the order, has been assailed by the Denver Post and by many other Colorado newspapers. More recent revelations have shown that the order was crafted and released according to union leaders’ concerns about organization and re-alignment.

In spite of apparently conflicting opinions concerning whether Gov. Ritter’s order has authorized collective bargaining, union leaders have wasted no time in showing their eagerness to form coalitions to organize state workers.

Whether Ritter acted out of deception or ignorance, his order has emboldened and strengthened the hands of a special interest group - political allies and supporters. What’s coming next doesn’t promise to be good for Colorado’s taxpaying citizens.

Brought to you solely in the interest of heightening awareness of what kind of perverse hatred is out there…

El Presidente is keeping close tabs on the twin violent shooting incidents at Christian facilities today, including the murder of Tiffany Johnson and Philip Crouse. The first - and fatal - attack occurred within close proximity of my home, and thus elicits a strong reaction in itself.

Even so,most disgusting so far is the comment attached to El President’s post, a comment written by an obviously deranged and perverted coward who gives a whole new meaning to “freedom of religion”:

So the shooter killed only two and wounded two others. Too bad he didn’t have more time to get some more. Religious missionaries are very legitimate targets since they stick their noses into other people’s private religious affairs. America needs more shootings like this in the future to put the religious fanatics and loonies in their place.

What an idea: call for the murder of people with whom you disagree. (What, in the name of “tolerance”?) Sounds quite Stalinist to me.

Of course, this kind of rhetoric should be universally denounced by any decent person of any political or philosophical stripe - especially as it comes before the bodies of two young, innocent murder victims have been put in the ground.

Sick. Simply sick. I believe we all could use a little decency, sympathy, and tolerance here. Let’s hope that the perpetrator or perpetrators are brought to justice as soon as possible, and that rabidly homicidal commenters find the repentance we all need and the forgiveness none of us deserves.

I have written little here about the Presidential campaign. While I have no horse in the race, I do have some clear opinions and preferences. For the most part I’ve been sitting back and watching things unfold as the frontrunners vie for my support.

However, the recent overpublicized “Huckabee Surge” has stirred me from my silence. That’s because the thought that the former Arkansas governor and would-be Preacher-in-Chief could actually secure the Republican nomination is quite disturbing.

Largely well known has been Huckabee’s very apparent fiscal liberalism and economic populism. The problem is about more than taxes and spending - his positions on trade, regulation, and school choice leave a lot wanting, as well. (Not to mention how they blend incoherently with his record on immigration.) Altogether, his record on these issues is the weakest in the GOP field.

Michael at Best Destiny brings up the other major problem with Mike “Shucks”-abee: his Democrat-like unseriousness about our nation’s important foreign policy threats and challenges. With the exception of Ron Paul, he again is less preferred than all his Republican rivals in this very crucial area of national leadership.

Third, Huckabee’s inability to respond coherently to the recent 1992 AIDS “quarantine” controversy (covered in detail by Hugh Hewitt) demonstrates that he is not only unprepared for anything resembling a primetime fight with Hillary Clinton but also that his candidacy’s “surge” may quickly be nearing a crash. And as more Republican primary voters take a closer look at the former Arkansas governor, it would be nice if they could go a little deeper than his stances on life and marriage. The only good news about Huckabee’s surge is that it probably already has reached its peak.

Then there’s the national general election strategy. With a fiscally liberal Huckabee at the top of the ticket, the GOP would cede a lot of crucial ground in the Western states to the Democrats. Why else are Clinton-supporting Democrat strategists only saying nicer & nicer things about Huckabee as he “surges” closer to becoming a plausible candidate for the nomination? Welcome the Clintons back to the White House, my friend.

Fellow Republican voters, including those who will join me in casting a caucus ballot here in Colorado on February 5. We can do a lot better than Mike Huckabee. How about Fred, Mitt, Rudy, or McCain? All to be preferred in my estimation. And this coming from a conservative Baptist. From the current field, I’d choose Huckabee to my pastor, but someone else to be my President.

In case you care to read them, below are my two latest published pieces for your perusal, and they strike a common theme: transparency in government.

On Nov. 24, the Rocky Mountain News published (printed in the Sunday Denver Post, of all places) my Speakout submission in response to Gov. Ritter’s unionization executive order.

This Sunday, the Pueblo Chieftain published my op-ed calling for greater online transparency of school district budgets. Want to figure out as a taxpayer just how much your local schools are spending on different items? Think it’s easy? Hence, the purpose of the op-ed.

So yes, I’ve been writing on a transparency in government kick lately. It’s an important issue more people on both sides of the aisle might rally around, if given the chance.

Two weeks ago I wrote about Congressional candidate Jared Polis’ impending visit to Iraq:

Look, Polis’ trip to Iraq may turn out to be all for show. But then again he may be genuine, in which case I hope he takes time to meet with some of our enlisted troops, our young officers, as well as local Iraqi leaders and tribal chiefs.

Was the trip all for show? Blackfive has the answer:

So, here’s Mr. Richie Rich, scratching for Congress, looking for an ‘in’, and decides to fund a trip to Iraq; see the natives, bash the Bush, just to say ‘been there, seen that’. Unfortunately, about all HE saw was the inside of a hotel and the view from a car window. So, he’s ready to be ambassador, now?

So why do I care about this? Because I despise people showboating about the situation over there; needlessly putting themselves at risk, and saying their experts because they’ve seen 1/1,000th of what actually goes on over there. Its like going to the zoo for the afternoon and then claiming you’re an expert zoologist because you spent time in the chimp exhibit.

Two weeks ago I also wrote:

This could turn out to be an interesting race in Colorado’s 2nd Congressional District. But only if one or more of the candidates is willing to make a grown-up assessment of our Middle East foreign policy by going to really look for himself.

I may have been right, but looks like we’ll never know. Hoping for Democrat Congressional candidates - especially those wooing the votes of Boulderites - to have serious, grown-up, well-informed views of Iraq. Nothing more than misguided optimism, I guess.