Mount Virtus

The pressure to expand the power of government employee union officials at the expense of taxpayers is not isolated to Colorado. The Des Moines Register reports:

Ignoring pleas from the governor and a slew of local elected officials to give Iowans time to weigh in, Democrats in the Iowa Senate today approved a labor-backed bill that would give unions more power at the negotiating table.

House File 2645 would give public employees the same power as managers to open up contract talks to almost any workplace subject. The Senate approved the bill on a 27-23 vote.

Six days passed between when this proposal was offered and the bill’s passage by both chambers. It marks the first substantial change since the collective bargaining law was written in 1974.

In both places the pro-union political forces have pushed their proposals forward on the fast track. Democrat Gov. Chet Culver expressed uneasiness at the fact that Iowa’s legislature rushed the collective bargaining bill in a mere six days, but at least their legislature got to debate the issue at all. Here in Colorado, our own Democrat Gov. Bill Ritter reshaped public employee labor law in union officials’ favor by executive order.

More of the change that Democrats have to offer.

With Democrats in charge at the State Capitol, we get more reminders than we would like about their party leaders’ priorities: 1) Stick it to the taxpayer on the collection end; and 2) Use personal politics to stick it to certain users of state services on the distribution end. What does this add up to? Average Colorado citizens like you and I get stuck.

This morning’s reminder comes via Rocky Mountain Right, as it appears that statehouse Democrat lawmakers are using their dislike of new University of Colorado president Bruce Benson to undercut the students and faculty on Denver’s Auraria campus. Yes, Auraria funding was arbitrarily revoked, leaving a $120 million science facility construction site uncompleted.

If you recall, during the 2005 Referendum C tax hike election, Coloradans were told college students’ costs would rise if the measure didn’t pass - as the humorous Andrew Ripemoff reminds us:

In an October 6, 2005 Denver Post article, taxpayers were warned that failure to pass Ref. C could result in, (and this is a direct quote): “…possible tuition increases as high as $423 per semester for Colorado residents at the Boulder campus.” That sounds really ominous huh?

But now we know this new 9 1/2 percent tuition hike will mean that a student taking 15 hours of, say, engineering classes at CU-Boulder will see a tuition increase of $482.98 per semester. I see you’re eyes are glazing over, so let me diagram this out for you:

Democrat Talking Points:

Before Ref. C:
“You MUST vote for this. If not, tuition will be raised $423 per semester.”

After Ref. C passes:
“Thanks for your vote, but we’re going to raise tuition $482 per semester anyway.”

Isn’t that funny? You’d pay LESS tuition had Ref. C failed. Don’t you love the irony? Oh, um. Gosh. Sorry. OK, OK. I’m just the messenger. I, I, I can’t breathe. Can you please take your hands off my throat.

Taxpayers pay more. Students pay more. Yet the Democrats’ proposed state budget includes adding 1,334 new employees. Power and patronage are Democrat priorities. Forget the rest of us.

Now I get it. And here I thought it might have something to do with a deep personal compatibility or ongoing spiritual commitment … or even those kind words, flowers and gifts. Now I have a factor outside my control to thank.

I have accepted an invitation to appear at a national conference of free market / limited-government bloggers. It’s off to the 1st Annual Samsphere Chicago event this weekend:

Samsphere is a new media forum, hosted by the Sam Adams Alliance, where bloggers and e-activists from across the country can gather together to network and share ideas. Samsphere will be specifically geared toward bloggers and e-activists who focus on local and state-level politics, and who are dedicated to the principles of individual freedom and limited government.

For the hard-core Lefties, yes, Samsphere is the shadowy Vast Right Wing Conspiracy in action. For the rest of my readers, it’s not so secretive as all that. It will be an opportunity to expand the limited government / pro-freedom blogging community, in hopes of meeting the following fine bloggers from across the nation:

Erick Erickson * RedState * National
Allen Fuller * Flat Creek Management * National
John Fund * Wall Street Journal * National
Brad Jones * Face the State * National
Jenn Sierra * Fort Hard Knox * National
Erik Telford * Americans for Prosperity * National
E.M. Zanotti * American Princess * National
Bill Smith * ARRA News Service * Arkansas
Ben DeGrow * Mount Virtus * Colorado
Mark Johnson * ILGOPnet * Illinois
Doug Welch * Stix * Illinois
Bob Weeks * Wichita Liberty * Kansas
Earl Glynn * Kansas Meadowlark * Kansas
Jeff Blanco * Louisiana Conservative * Louisiana
Lance Dutson * Maine Web Report * Maine
Jack McHugh * Mackinac Center * Michigan
Chet Zarko * Outside Lansing * Michigan
Jim Hoft * Gateway Pundit * Missouri
Craig Sprout * Montana Politics * Montana
Chuck Muth * Muth’s Truths * Nevada
Skip Murphy * Granite Grok * New Hampshire
Mario Burgos * Mario Burgos * New Mexico
Maggie Thurber * Thurber’s Thoughts * Ohio
Chris Arps * Oklahoma Political News Service * Oklahoma
Trent Siebert * Tennessee Policy Institute * Tennessee
Leslie Carbone * Leslie Carbone * Virginia
Don Ward * Sound Politics * Washington
Fred Dooley * Real Debate Wisconsin * Wisconsin
Tristen Cramer * Haemet * Wyoming
Chad Everson * Grizzly Groundswell * Minnesota
Steve Sibson * Sibby Online * South Dakota

I hope to interview some of them for my site’s readers, as we share ideas and best practices on a broader scale. I also hope to pass on what’s happening on this side of the Colorado blogosphere. Let me know if you think of anything important to pass on.

Yes, we have let the Left get ahead in this area, but their advantage is waning. Our strength lies in ideas. Forward, then.

Face the State has the skinny on “Colorado WINS” union bosses acting like they own state government property:

An executive order, signed by Gov. Bill Ritter, a Democrat, last November, empowered unions to serve as “exclusive representatives” of state employees for the purposes of forming “employee partnerships.” Days after the order, a coalition of three major unions – CAPE-SEIU, AFSCME, and the American Federation of Teachers – announced a cooperative agreement to organize state workers under the name “Colorado WINS.”

After hearing from state employees that Colorado WINS is aggressively trying to organize an election, Face The State attempted to attend an on-site meeting between the union and state employees. Face The State had cleared its attendance with Dawn Lee, the media contact at Colorado WINS. Then minutes before the meeting, Lee contacted FTS to say that the government building where it was being held had restricted access and she was unable to clear the attendance of a FTS staff writer without performing a background check, for which there was not enough time.

In response, FTS contacted Julie Postlethwait, the public information officer for the Department of Personnel, to confirm Lee’s claim. Postlethwait said that FTS’s presence at the meeting was not a problem, yet when FTS staff writer, Rachel Boxer, arrived to cover the meeting, she was denied access at the door. After Boxer identified herself by name, a DPA employee told her she was not allowed into the meeting and needed to leave the building “immediately.”

According to Postlethwait, Colorado WINS had directed DPA staff to deny FTS access to its public meeting – an action that directly conflicted with the department’s orders. Postlethwait apologized to FTS for the breakdown in communication, and said that the reporter should have been let into the meeting.

It looks like Gov. Bill Ritter has given the union bosses reason to think they’re in charge. The story goes on to explain how they appear to have taken Ritter’s executive order as a license to move aggressively:

There are mounting complaints from state employees that the union is making a hard-line pitch for an election. Jimmie Cook, operations and maintenance manager at the state’s mental health facility in Pueblo, said that in the early days after the executive order, union organizers acted as though “they had free rein from the governor.” He said some of his employees reported incidents of being “accosted” by Colorado WINS representatives in the workplace parking lot. “Some went ahead and signed the petition just to get rid of them,” said Cook. He noted that a directive from the facility’s executive director has since halted the activity.

You have to wonder: Since Bill Ritter’s executive order, what else has been going on below the public radar? In the case of denying a reporter access to a meeting on state property, “Colorado WINS” clearly overstepped its bounds. And outside scrutiny has helped to ensure public officials will work toward remedying the problem. But what happens when no one is looking again?

What has Ritter unleashed?

Cross posted at Ritter Watch

Today Colorado Confidential published a story by Kate Bernuth about a controversy developing at a small private Denver school. It starts as a typical foray into agenda journalism for the heavily Left-leaning site:

At a tiny international school in southeast Denver, a conflict is playing out that reflects, in a microcosm, the wider divisions in American society as the nation enters the sixth year of a bloody, unpopular war.

A display of photographs and a statement by the Iranian artist in the halls of Colorado International School has caused a dust-up between administrators and an outraged parent who accuses the school of spreading “anti-American propaganda.”

Every month at this language-immersion school of 44 students, most of whom are in pre-school and kindergarten, the customs, geography and language of one nation are highlighted with a special presentation. This month, to coincide with Persian New Year, the focus is on Iran, and the school invited Farhad Vakili Tabar to display photographs from his homeland.

Near the photos of the Iranian children is one image of an Iraqi boy named Ali Rekaad, a brief story of his life, and the date and time that he and his entire family were killed by a U.S. bomb. Underneath is artist Farhad Vakili Tabar’s stated purpose for the collection of photographs:

“By showing the portraits of some Iranian children, I hope to bring up the faces of thousands of Iraqi children who have died, become orphans, handicapped or homeless in this war.” [emphasis added]

Moving beyond the clear agenda journalism in the story’s opening line, here is a picture of Tabar’s two posted writings - sent to me by the aggrieved parent - that stirred the controversy:
Read the rest of this entry »

Any fair-minded and honest observer of political events knows that neither major party has cornered the market on scandals. Public officials elected both as Republicans and Democrats have been exposed for various types of corruption, malfeasance, and other prominent moral failings. So why are major media outlets so unbalanced in their presentation?

Sure, anytime there is a salacious scandal or other revelation that results in the resignation of a big-city mayor, governor, or member of Congress, the news has to talk about it. But there has been a clear and measurable tendency on the media’s part to ignore the party label far more when the story is about a Democrat.

More proof emerges today: My Independence Institute colleague David Kopel compares the reporting of the Denver newspapers on the respective scandals surrounding Republican Congressman Mark Foley and Democrat New York Governor Eliot Spitzer:

In the Post, 25 stories revealed Foley’s party, and eight did not. So both papers mentioned Foley’s party more often than not, while the Post did so at a higher rate.

For coverage of Spitzer last week, the difference between the papers was astonishing. Seven stories in the Post (including print and online) said that Spitzer was a Democrat, and 15 did not.

In the Rocky last week, only three stories noted Spitzer’s party, and 24 did not. Spitzer’s party didn’t make it into the print edition of the Rocky until the Thursday story covering his resignation the day before.

So during the scandal coverage, both papers mentioned Spitzer’s party at a rate far below the rate of mentioning Foley’s party. [emphasis added]

And another item from Newsbusters begins:

The week after it took the NBC Nightly News until the fourth day of coverage to inform viewers that disgraced then-New York Governor Eliot Spitzer is a Democrat, Friday’s NBC Nightly News ran a full story on the scandalous behavior surrounding Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, but never identified his political party.

Of course, the Motor City hasn’t had a Republican mayor since 1961. So NBC was just assuming its viewers knew Kilpatrick, the son of Democratic Congresswoman Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, wasn’t a member of the Grand Old Party … Right? That would be a generous interpretation.

Grand Junction’s Gene Kinsey made the same catch about the NBC broadcast, beginning his post with the colorful remark:

Like the evil name of “Voldemort”, the name Democrat must not be spoken. That seems to be the subtext of many main stream media reports when it comes to the misdeeds of the chosen party.

Indeed. But who that makes Harry Potter, I don’t know.

Serious reflections for Good Friday (all passages from the New American Standard Bible):

Romans 5:6-9
For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

I Peter 2:21-24
For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

For more edification, read Rev. Mark D. Roberts’ observations on Christ’s seven sayings from the cross.

But the best news is that Christ is alive (more reflections to come for Easter)!

Today’s lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal puts our five-year-long war in Iraq in perspective - surveying where we’ve come from, where we are today, and what the near future portends. The editorial, which deserves perusal from beginning to end, concludes:

In our March 18, 2003 editorial on the eve of Iraq’s liberation, we supported the war while noting that “toppling Saddam is a long-term undertaking” and “the U.S. has never been good at nation-building.” We wish we had been wrong on both counts, but our view has always been that nations shouldn’t begin wars they don’t intend to win. And newspapers don’t endorse wars only to walk away when the fighting gets difficult. The U.S. sacrifice in Iraq has been honorable, our soldiers have fought superbly, and the best way — the only way — to honor both is to leave Iraq in victory.

Those who disagree with the last sentence are slowly being revealed as the radical fringe they are. They continue to ignore the success of “The Surge” and General Petraeus’ innovative counter-insurgency strategy. There are many other Americans, however, who are not beyond persuasion.

Perhaps they will get a glimpse of the coverage of the Vets for Freedom National Heroes Tour (H/T Michelle Malkin) as the noble band continues to roll from coast to coast. My only regret is the Tour won’t be coming to Colorado.

But El Presidente has the local scoop, with a grand roundup of the 5th anniversary in Colorado - including poignant stories, tales of heroism, news of soaring re-enlistments out of “duty to country,” and a reminder of the face of the local anti-war movement.

With so many other distractions swirling around us - from the frivolous to the often serious - it’s easy to forget about a far-off place in Iraq now that the stabilizing country has mostly disappeared off the front pages of media outlets. I appreciated these reminders today, and I hope you will, too.

My close Independence Institute colleague Pam Benigno was interviewed by Denver’s Channel 7 for a story aired last night about Gov. Bill Ritter’s sweeping new education reform plan. You can go here to read the story and watch the video.

When it comes to March Madness, the truth is I never learn. No matter whether I follow the season closely or guess at random, my picks are always mediocre at best. Yet each year I come back to the NCAA Tournament Brackets like a sheep to the slaughter.

This year is no different. I filled out two different brackets on ESPN, made picks on Facebook’s CBS and Sports Illustrated applications, and even decided to accept the McCain Basketball Brackets challenge.

We’re only a couple hours away from the first game tipping off. How long before my brackets implode in failure? It’s just one more piece of the fun and entertainment of March Madness.

Today we remember the Last Supper and Christ’s betrayal. Though there are many passages to choose from, in particular I am reminded of the Savior’s ultimate example of service and his incomparably fervent prayer (both from the New American Standard Bible):

John 13:3-5
Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God, and was going back to God, rose from supper, and laid aside His garments; and taking a towel, He girded Himself about. Then He poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded.

Luke 22:41-44
And He withdrew from them about a stone’s throw, and He knelt down and began to pray, saying, “Father, if Thou art willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Thine be done.” Now an angel from heaven appeared to Him, strengthening Him. And being in agony He was praying very fervently; and His sweat became like drops of blood, falling down upon the ground.

Earlier today I pointed out the troubles Barack Obama is having with skeptics on the political Left who even after his “courageous speech” say he’s still in trouble. Well, if early signs like a large-scale Internet poll mean anything, these critics have a strong point.

John Hinderaker at Power Line notes an AOL Hot Seat poll that shows an overwhelming percentage of Americans don’t think Obama solved “his Jeremiah Wright problem with his speech yesterday.” By a margin of 68 to 26 percent. This might be (wait, just might be) the lead weight around Obama’s campaign.

If this is true, it’s because more people are seeing what Jonah Goldberg saw:

For all the wonderful rhetoric and tantalizing promise of Obama and his speech, there’s not much that is actually new here. This was largely a restatement of Jeremiah Wright’s indictment of America, delivered in University of Chicago parlance instead of South Side Chicago diatribe.

The old baggage has been replaced with shinier suitcases, but the contents are the same as ever. Black America’s problems can be solved by spending more money on the same old Great Society programs. Any talk about black America’s problems that takes the eyes off that prize is a “distraction.” And, yet again, white Americans can prove their commitment to racial justice by going along with more big government. My hope for something better proved too audacious in the end.

Hillary is way ahead in Pennsylvania, and has made up a deficit in North Carolina. Are Democrats changing their mind? If Hillary wins both of these major states, she’s still in all likelihood behind in the delegate count. But what does it mean for the Democratic National Convention in August?

A fascinating political season, indeed.

Jim Geraghty looks at the Rasmussen poll data (showing McCain and Obama tied at 46, but McCain clobbering Hillary 52-38) and muses:

We’ve seen Obama running ahead of Hillary in some states, but an 11 or 12 point difference? What’s got him so popular there, and her so unpopular? Does Obama come across as a mountain state kind of guy? Is he related to John Elway or something?

I don’t have a good answer to that question, but many hypotheses abound. Coloradans don’t like the old-style Eastern politics that Hillary Clinton represents. Colorado swing voters are more open to vapid liberal platitudes than cynical ones. Frankly, it beats me. Hillary polls terribly unpopular here and would have virtually no chance to win the Centennial State in a matchup against the Republican nominee. Barack Obama would at least make the race competitive, which might help Mark Udall in a close Senate race more than anything.

Right now, I’m just glad to see how different Colorado is from Ohio:

A new PPP poll in Ohio shows Clinton up 1 point over McCain, while Obama trails the Republican nominee by 8 points.

McCain 45 - Clinton 46
McCain 49 - Obama 41

McCain leads Obama by 0.7 points and Clinton by 0.2 points in the RCP Averages for Ohio

Yes, I’m just a little bit bitter that the Buckeyes snagged prep football phenom Terrelle Pryor, at the Wolverines’ expense. I’ll get over it, though.

If the rest of the nation’s well-being weren’t at stake in a Presidential race with key electoral votes in the upper Midwest, I’d say Hillary and Ohio can have each other. Pryor may cause more occasional heartburn (and heartache) come the next few Novembers. But the November heartburn that Hillary could create would last for (at least) four years straight.

Meanwhile, I’ll stick with Colorado. Thank you very much.

The Independence Institute is producing more Web video content. You’ve seen the more entertaining side - now here’s a 3-minute educational clip by Dr. Paul Prentice about property rights (via The Caldara Blog):

Well, somebody had to ask the question to get it going: “What is the relationship of property rights and liberty in general?” Hey, you don’t know how long I spent memorizing that line. Method acting - it’s called method acting.

Good news yesterday for the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI). The Detroit News reports that a federal court has rejected legal attempts to undo the same sort of measure that was recently approved by Michigan voters:

A federal judge Tuesday upheld the constitutionality of a Michigan law that prohibits racial and gender preferences in government hiring and public university admissions.

“To impugn the motives of 58 (percent) of Michigan’s electorate, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances which do not exist here, simply is not warranted on this record,” U.S. District Judge David Lawson wrote.

Michigan voters approved the constitutional amendment known as Proposal 2 in November 2006.

Several groups — including the NAACP and By Any Means Necessary — as well as minority high school and college students challenged the measure, saying it would reduce minority enrollment in public universities.

Among the arguments in the lawsuits was that Proposal 2 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution as well as federal statutes.

Lawson rejected the claim. “The Court believes that Michigan may limit the ability of discrete groups to secure an advantage based upon a racial classification without offending the Fourteenth Amendment,” he wrote.

Petitions already have been submitted for CCRI to make the state ballot here. As a result, Colorado voters likely will be deciding this November whether they want to outlaw state-sponsored discrimination “on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.”

Sure, I could sit down this morning and link my readers to a dozen critiques of Barack Obama’s Tuesday Jeremiah Wright “damage control” speech from conservative bloggers and other commentators. That wouldn’t prove very much, I think. Besides, it would require more time than I have to give a thorough spectrum of responses.

Instead, here are a couple of takes from the Left. One not-too-surprising source is Mickey Kaus. On his Slate magazine blog, he highlights the “troubling equivalences” in Obama’s speech. One of his more salient observations:

In general. Obama’s explanations of black anger seem intimate and respectful. His explanations of white anger seem distant and condescending. (”They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away ….”) Unfortunately for him, it’s white votes he needs.

But then there’s the New York Times‘ snarky Left-liberal columnist Maureen Dowd (H/T Real Clear Politics blog). After offering up some flattery (”he addressed a painful, difficult subject straightforwardly with a subtlety and decency rare in American politics”), she came down hard on Obama:

The candidate may have staunched the bleeding, but he did not heal the wounds. His naïve and willful refusal to come to terms earlier with the Rev. Wright’s anti-American, anti-white and pro-Farrakhan sentiments — echoing his naïve and willful refusal to come to terms earlier with the ramifications of his friendship with sleazy fund-raiser Tony Rezko — will not be forgotten because of one unforgettable speech.

Most telling is what comes in her follow-up appeal to her liberal audience to rationalize the two thoughts:

A little disenchantment with Obama could turn out to be a good thing. Too much idealism can blind a leader to reality as surely as too much ideology can.

Huh? Wow … okay. Yeah, I guess that Obama was a bit too idealistic. Hope, change, and all that inspirational rhetoric … that was really too much of a good thing, a political liability for the junior Senator from Illinois. Better for the people to see him unable to come to terms with his spiritual mentor’s racist, anti-American hate speech.

Perhaps this confirms an observation recorded by Rich Lowry at the Corner:

By the way, my friend—who has shrewd political instincts—thinks the speech means Obama gets the Democratic nomination, but will have a big problem in the general election.

That wouldn’t be all bad.

Oral arguments are being held today before the U.S. Supreme Court in the truly landmark DC v Heller case about the meaning of Second Amendment rights. My Independence Institute and blogging colleague - and writing mentor - David Kopel is sitting with the plaintiffs today as the case is made for gun ownership as a Constitutionally-recognized individual right. You can visit David’s website to find a copy of the Institute’s amicus brief filed with the high court.

You also can head over to iVoices to tune into David’s discussion of the case and his trip to Washington, DC, with Jon Caldara.

For a quick and insightful summary of what DC v Heller is (and isn’t) about, read Prof. Randy Barnett’s column in today’s Wall Street Journal. Also, for more relevant facts and opinions on the revolutionary Second Amendment case than you can possibly absorb, head over to the Volokh Conspiracy and scan the page to follow the ongoing debate among legal scholars - including our own David Kopel.

This ruling will be one to watch closely. As Barnett concludes in his column:

But although the implications of striking down the D.C. gun ban are limited, a decision upholding an unqualified individual right in Heller would still be a significant victory for individual rights and constitutionalism. To shrink from enforcing a clear mandate of the Constitution — as, sadly, the Supreme Court has often done in the past — would create a new precedent that would be far more dangerous to liberty than any weapon in the hands of a citizen.