I’m a Fightin’ Red

by Amy Oliver | 5:00 pm, January 22, 2010

Not really.  My son plays varsity baseball for the University Bulldogs in arguably the most difficult league — the Patriot League in Northern Colorado.  I am no fan of the Eaton Fightin’ Reds because they win all the time.  They are like the New York Yankees. But I’ll be darned if I am going to let [...]

Friday Funnies – Colorado Supreme Court ridiculed by the Onion

by CTBC Director | 4:11 pm, January 22, 2010

At the close of a week dominated by news reports inserting partisan spin, additional partisan spin, misrepresentations, and ad hominem attacks, and yet more partisan spin and misrepresentations and finally a correction to the partisan spin surrounding the recent statement by Attorney General John Suthers that he would vote “NO” on retaining 3 of the 4 Colorado Supreme Court [...]

Randal on Light Rail, Stosselized!

by Jon Caldara | 3:12 pm, January 22, 2010

Senior fellow at Independence and the Cato Institute, Randal O’Toole, hit the big time the other day when he found his way onto the new John Stossel show on Fox Business Channel. He did a great job summarizing some major points against building infrastructure for rail, rather than more efficient and less costly means [...]

Denver Post issues correction to partisan spin on AG Suthers statement on (non)retention of Colorado Supreme Court justices

by CTBC Director | 12:34 pm, January 22, 2010

Earlier this week, the Denver Post published an article (AG Suthers may not back 3 on state Supreme Court) which put a partisan spin on the recent statement by Colorado Attorney General John Suthers that he intends to vote “NO” on retaining 3 of the 4 Colorado Supreme Court justices on the ballot (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, and Chief [...]

You Got the Evil You Voted For

by Justin Longo | 12:28 pm, January 22, 2010

This Washington Post piece should really hit those in the Republican Party hard. Without knowing it, the author makes a case against the phony left / right dichotomy and exposes once again the united Republican – Democrat philosophy. Here are a couple gems: Scott Brown said he expects to be seated quickly in the U.S. [...]

McCain Regression Syndrome: Stopping a Big Government Republican legacy

by elpresidente | 11:10 am, January 22, 2010

Michelle Malkin outlines what she sees as the potential Big Government Republican characteristics of McCain-backed Senate candidates in place like Florida and California–and pays considerable attention to Colorado’s Senate field and doesn’t mince words: In Colorado, McCain and his meddlers infuriated the state party by anointing former lieutenant governor Jane Norton to challenge endangered Democrat [...]

U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Corporate Political Spending Ban

by Julian Dunraven | 9:07 am, January 22, 2010

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.Honorable Friends:Do you believe the government should determine what the media can broadcast? Do you believe the government should decide which businesses constitute “media” and which do not? This is exactly what th…

Listen to Face The State Weekend Edition: Political Survey Results

by Ben DeGrow | 8:44 am, January 22, 2010

Update, 1/25: If you missed me on the air this weekend, you can listen to a recording of the discussion on the Face The State website.
In most places across Colorado, you can tune in and listen this Saturday or Sunday to the Face The State Weekend Edition — locally, here in Denver on AM 710 [...]

Will the “HickenRitter” Strategy Work?

by Jon Caldara | 6:08 am, January 22, 2010

Can Colorado Republicans stick Democratic candidate John Hickenlooper with the political baggage Bill Ritter has collected as Governor?   Or is Hick too much his own man for that strategy to work  On this week’s Independent Thinking, Colorado Republican Chairman Dick Wadhams and Denver Post writer Chuck Plunkett join me to talk about the merits of [...]

Supreme Court strikes heart of McCain-Feingold

by Rossputin | 5:51 am, January 22, 2010

In a 5-4 ruling yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States declared unconstitutional the McCain-Feingold prohibitions against running ads naming a candidate for federal office within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general.   More importantly, the Court ruled that restrictions on political spending by corporations are prohibited as long as that spending is not coordinated with candidates.

While the ruling is theoretically beneficial to the ability of unions and corporations to get involved in spreading political messages and funding political advertising, in practice unions have found way to do these things where corporations haven’t.  Therefore, the ruling is much more important for corporations than for unions, and we can expect tens of millions of dollars in corporate money to be spent in future election cycles.

What is remarkable at the ruling is not that it came down the right way, nor even that it was predictably a 5-4 vote, but that it was it was necessary.  The fact that any Supreme Court ever upheld these First Amendment-destroying restrictions on free speech was remarkable.

Prior so-called logic was that corporations had a lot of money, so their influence would “distort” campaigns and that such distortion was inherently corrupting.  The argument was that even the appearance of corruption or the possibility that spending might possibly lead to corruption was enough to quash political speech rights…the precise type of speech which the Founders most intended to protect with the First Amendment.

FINALLY, someone saw through the corruption inherent in that argument, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing in his majority decision that “No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.”

Kennedy added “When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought.  This is unlawful… The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”

Duh.  Are you really telling me there are 4 Justices who don’t understand this basic tenet of freedom?  Now THAT is a threat to our nation which makes the threat of Barack Obama look minuscule.

The official name of McCain-Feingold is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, but may of us call it the Incumbent Protection Act.  While the restriction on corporations spending money on political advertising is clearly the more important part of yesterday’s ruling, the other half of the ruling, the restrictions on being able to run ads naming a candidate for federal office within a certain time frame before an election have always struck me as particularly egregious, and as a part of BCRA which James Madison would have found particularly odious.  Keep in mind that incumbents tend to have a record which can be analyzed (and attacked) where challengers frequently have much less of a record.  Therefore, restrictions against naming a candidate has a profound benefit for an incumbent.  I’m particularly pleased that the Supreme Court tossed out that provision of BCRA.

While this ruling may benefit Republicans more than Democrats (as would seem likely given the horrified reaction by Democrats and unions) this case is not fundamentally about political parties.  It’s about freedom.  Those who oppose this ruling should be seen for what they are: enemies of liberty and of truly fundamental American rights.

In that vein, it must be noted that Democrats are already preparing legislation to, in the words of First Amendment murderer-in-chief Russ Feingold, “pass legislation restoring as many of the critical restraints on corporate control of our elections as possible.”

The First Amendment be damned!  We have incumbents to protect!

What will be particularly interesting is how John McCain reacts to this ruling once he’s had some time to think about it.  His first reaction was rather muted, although he did say he was disappointed with the ruling.  His signature legislative achievement has been properly decimated, but one must wonder whether these years of seeing the negative unintended consequences of the law has caused him to reconsider any of it.  Most likely, that is a far too optimistic view and he will work again with Feingold to attack your liberty. We’ll soon see, as the Democrats want to try to muzzle corporations and protect incumbents again as soon as possible.  I would note that the current political situation, with many Democratic incumbents and probably hundreds of large corporations with serious buyers’ remorse for having supported Barack Obama, leaves the Democrats desperate to reimpose the restrictions overturned by the Supreme Court yesterday.

Might Brown’s Senate victory be a blessing in disguise for the Democrats?

by Rossputin | 4:58 am, January 22, 2010

My friend and astute analyst of all things political, Eric W., sent me the following note for possible blog note fodder:

I’ve long expected that the GOP would win a substantial number of Congressional seats in November, and that the Obama administration would follow the path charted by Bill Clinton in moving to the center.  I’m worried that if Brown wins in the Senate (although of course that’s a good thing), the triangulation would start now and the win in November would be smaller…

Despite Eric’s declining to write up the note himself, in line with my request for guest postings during my vacation, I think it’s an interesting enough topic for me to write about…and I think Eric may be on to something.

So here goes…

While Senator Conrad (D-MT) is still making noises about passing health care through a reconciliation process (which is used for budget-related matters and can be passed with 51 votes), statements by both moderate (Webb) and liberal (Durbin) Senators saying that the Senate should not act on health care until Scott Brown is seated makes that unlikely.  That said, Harry Reid is probably thinking like Conrad…

Still, it’s likely that Webb and Durbin will win this argument and that the Senate will attempt to become the political moderating influence for which it was designed by our Founders.

On the House side, much depends on whether Nancy Pelosi is more interested in passing health care “reform” now or in remaining Speaker of the House or even a member of the majority. (At this point, it appears that she does not have the votes in the House to pass the Senate bill.)  Of course, my statement implies that passing health care “reform” (as it’s been presented thus far) now would lead to electoral disaster for the Democrats in November, but Pelosi might not see it that way.  Indeed, as I noted on Wednesday, David Axelrod seems to think that the opposite is true, that failure to pass a bill now would be terrible for Democrats, and that the best strategy for the Dems would be to pass a bill now and explain it later.

With a typical president, I’d expect Axelrod to lose the argument.  I’d expect the president and the Democratic leaders in Congress to think about things like the Politico’s recent article “Obama’s first year: What went wrong” and recognize that (as I’ve written many times on these pages) the election results from 2006 and 2008 did not represent a mandate for liberalism in America.

If they were to realize that and begin to try to govern from the center, or just slightly to the left of center, they might regain the trust of some independent voters who, unfortunately, might be fooled twice into thinking the leopard could change its spots.  They could also greatly increase their chances of legislative success by peeling off Olympia Snowe and/or Susan Collins and/or Lindsey Graham on any given issue.  In most cases, success breeds support; it’s not happening with health care “reform” because so much of the country is against the rationing and tax hikes it will bring us.

Bill Clinton – who was already a seasoned triangulator, unlike our current president –  cruised to a second term by at least appearing to govern from the center.  Eric’s point is that if Obama decided in the same strategy, proposing policies and marketing them as above and between the views of congressional Democrats and Republicans, and if he then created enough “bipartisanship” to get those policies enacted, he could save the Democrats’ electoral bacon in November.

While Obama has always presented himself as above the rest, he never made a credible case of being anything like bipartisan or nonpartisan. His rare attempts were completely incredible in any case, even less believable than his claims to be post-partisan as he lords over the most racist (anti-white, in this case) administration in more than a generation.  Obama has thus far positioned himself not as the high point in a political triangle but as the left-most point on a political line, somewhat to the left of the Democrats in Congress and impossibly far left of the Republicans.

While Eric is certainly right that Democratic triangulation would likely save a few Democratic seats in November, I’m not as worried about it as he is.  First, I think people have seen who the Democrats really are and, although the public has a short memory, will probably not forget as soon as November.  You can bet the Republicans will try to make sure people don’t forget.

Secondly, I don’t think triangulation is in Obama’s nature.  Almost immediately after Scott Brown’s loss, Barack Obama again hit the airwaves to blame voters’ frustrations on the Bush Administration.  This is getting old fast and at this point only sells in far-left political circles.  The problem is that Obama lives in an echo chamber of far-left radicals, people who follow Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” like their bible (or my “Atlas Shrugged”).  Obama believes that people still blame everything on Bush because the people around him do. Obama believes that America was changed, by the Bush Administration and bad behavior by congressional Republicans, from a center-right nation into a left-leaning nation, doing over the course of 8 years something that hadn’t happened in our 225 year prior history, including during the reigns of FDR and the combination of JFK & LBJ.

My guess is that Democrats in the aggregate will very slightly back off their most aggressively fascist proposals but not to a point that you’d say they are triangulating, at least not among their leadership.  They believe that a failure to pass health care “reform” will spell electoral disaster.  Indeed, it might, because they have bet the ranch on it.  But not as much of a disaster as passing it would.  One way out is to make the bill appear to be more moderate and then coopt one Republican Senator to go along.  But that’s not as much of a political savior as some might think; people will still not view the product as bipartisan but just as there being one Democrat in Republican clothing willing to go along with a far-left bill.

The Hill is reporting that “There is growing consensus in the House Democratic Caucus that comprehensive healthcare legislation is dead and the only option is to pass a series of piecemeal measures.”  For reasons of economic sanity and the preservation of the world’s best health-care system, as well as for hard-knuckle political reasons, Republicans should oppose almost every single bill that comes to the floor this way.  They should support only measures that allow interstate competition in health insurance and tort reform…and of course neither of those will come to the floor unless attached to the worst parts of the current legislation as the Democrats try to peel off one RINO vote.  The best political strategy for the Republicans happens to be the strategy best for American citizens: Just Say No!

There will be some “moderate” Democrats, which means Democrats who are not in safely Democratic seats, who “move to the center”. But they are not the party’s leadership…and never will be.  Still, it is possible that losing even one or two Democrats could doom most of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid far-left agenda as long as the GOP stays united or only loses one Senator from Maine from time to time. (They’d do well to lose the Senators from Maine in any case…)

Obama is an unreconstructed left-wing radical. Triangulation is not in his nature. So if it is to happen it would have to be forced upon him. Beyond the question of whether he’s even capble of triangulating with an ego that can fill the West Wing, it’s far from clear that his closest advisors or the Democratic leaders in Congress think it’s a good idea.

I look forward to Eric’s response to these thoughts…

HickenDales? ChippenRitters?

by elpresidente | 1:09 am, January 22, 2010

McMaesendales? Chippenzars . . . oh, nevermind. Perhaps Colorado’s gubernatorial race could be settled in a dance-off? From my friend Kyle. Personalize funny videos and birthday eCards at JibJab! On second thought, maybe not. Heh.

Campaign finance in 2010

by John West | 10:00 pm, January 21, 2010

I am disappointed in America today. The SCOTUS has upheld the freedom of expression that campaign finance reform took away from corporations and unions. Instead of taking a really hard look at what the campaign finance problem is, all I have heard today is the usual bickering over how we limit money in politics. WAKE [...]

State Rep Sara Gagliardi (D-Arvada) Stands For Government Health Care

by Ben DeGrow | 6:20 pm, January 21, 2010

A couple days ago I told you about my friend Libby Szabo running for House District 27. Well, you also ought to know a bit more about the incumbent Democrat who she is trying to unseat: Rep. Sara Gagliardi.
Check this out from a recent Colorado News Agency story about Tuesday’s health care freedom rally at [...]

On the new free speech case . . .

by Rob Natelson | 5:49 pm, January 21, 2010

Here are some quick comments on the Supreme Court’s opinion in Citizens United v. FEC:
* The Court voided a federal law insofar as the law banned independent election expenses by corporations and labor unions on behalf of a candidate. Direct corporate or union contributions to a candidate’s campaign were not at issue. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion.
* [...]

Massachusetts isn’t the only message – Air America bankrupt again

by Rossputin | 5:27 pm, January 21, 2010

I’ve said before and I’ll say again: The 2008 elections were, despite Democrats’ fond hopes, not a mandate for liberalism in the US.  As if the Massachusetts election weren’t enough to prove that, it’s pleasing and ironic to see that during the same week we have the news that liberal radio network Air America is (yet again) going out of business.

Today (Thursday) is Air America’s last day of live broadcasting.

What’s next?  Democrats in Congress will twist these events into a reason to support a reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine, the Orwellian-titled former law which required radio stations to permit equal time (or at least some time) to other viewpoints than those normally carried by a station.  Recent discussions of the Fairness Doctrine seemed aimed mostly at silencing Rush Limbaugh, though the left probably has an equal hatred for Glenn Beck these days.

Leave it to liberals to believe that the fact that there is no broad market for a product (liberal ideas on talk radio) means they can and should force that product down the throats of unwilling listeners by stealing the property rights and troucing the First Amendment rights of radio station owners.

Haiti crisis from a military perspective

by Mr. Bob | 4:27 pm, January 21, 2010

#haiti #tppc #ppc #usarmy #tcot #rubicon

If you are not familiar with BlackFive, he is one of the top military bloggers in the world and his coverage of the Haiti Crisis from a Military Perspective over the last week has been awesome.

…and some great on the ground pictures too. http://www.blackfive.net/main/

Pop back a day or two and follow the posts. The good guys are there doing what they do.

Congress shall make no law: Blogs appear in Supreme Court decision for first time

by elpresidente | 2:42 pm, January 21, 2010

Via The Volokh Conspiracy: Today, 30-second television ads may be the most effective way to convey a political message. Soon, however, it may be that Internet sources, such as blogs and social networking Web sites, will provide citizens with significant information about political candidates and issues. Yet, §441b would seem to ban a blog post [...]

Dan Maes Gets Real; He and Acree Talk Health

by Ari Armstrong | 1:39 pm, January 21, 2010

“Some guy named Dan Maes also remains in the race, and he has about the same chance of becoming the next governor of Colorado as I do.”

“Anybody who thinks Dan Maes has any chance of winning the Republican primary and beating Bill Ritter is simply delusional.”

“Dan Maes doesn’t have a chance in hell of becoming the next governor of Colorado.”

Who wrote these nasty things about hard-working gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes? And what did Maes ever do to that vindictive SOB?

The lines are mine. And, while Maes has offered a pointed response, he’s taken my needling well. And I respect that. An underdog who can’t deal with people throwing scraps will never be anything more than an underdog.

Moreover, it seems like every political event I go to, Maes is there. I heard him give his stump speech last night at Liberty On the Rocks. I saw him Tuesday at the rally against Obama Care. I saw him last month at an Independence Institute holiday party, where Maes listened to my complaints for another twenty minutes or so. Maes takes questions — and answers them.

Meanwhile, this is the only sign I saw of Scott McInnis (the other Republican in the race) at Tuesday’s rally:

(In fairness, McInnis has given public addresses and uploaded some of these to YouTube.)

If memory serves, I first saw Maes June 27 of last year at an Aurora Republican Forum. What I recall from his speech that day is that there was nothing important to recall. LIghtweight, I thought. But last night I saw a candidate for governor. He talked energy. He can effectively challenge Governor Ritter’s “New Energy Economy” with the Real Energy Economy. He talked Constitutional restraints of federal power. He talked low taxes. He spoke with passion. He spoke from the heart.

What’s more, Maes is a genuine guy. He’s fun to talk to. He’s fun to listen to. He’s even fun to make fun of. McInnis, on the other hand, is well known for his testy personality and media meltdowns.

True, Maes has suffered from lackluster fundraising (though it seems to be picking up a bit). However, Maes also beat McInnis in the unscientific, skewed poll put out by the People’s Press Collective.

Delusional? No chance in hell? I was stunned that Ritter dropped out of the race. I thought Scott Brown didn’t have a chance in hell of winning his U.S. Senate race. Well, it looks like hell is freezing over and political probabilities must be tossed aside.

I would like to see a Maes/Hickenlooper showdown because I’d like to see two real guys, two businessmen, have a serious discussion about the important issues facing Colorado. (I’m sure Hickenlooper would also love to face that showdown.) With McInnis, I get the feeling that his main purpose is to package his message and play it safe. (McInnis could easily change my mind on this point simply by providing straightforward answers to the Armstrongs’ Colorado 2010 Candidate Survey). Moreover, last night I had a chance to chat briefly with Maes’s delightful wife and elder daughter, each of whom could be a major asset to his campaign if willing to play that role.

However, Maes has some serious problems. His lack of political experience translates to difficulty raising funds. His ideological problems are more serious.

While Maes is friendly toward free markets for a Republican, generally Republicans suck on economic liberty. I worry about three things from Maes.

First, Maes is fairly strong on property rights but not as strong as I’d like. He said that eminent domain “is a constitutionally acceptable process and should be applied on a case by case basis. Application of the practice should only be exercised when there is a clear and convincing case for a purely public use and benefit.” That’s better than most politicians on the subject. But, for me, the right answer is that eminent domain is always and everywhere a violation of property rights.

Second, while Maes has admirably taken a stand against corporate welfare, he is amenable to discriminatory taxation. My view is that, while existing tax breaks should not be removed, otherwise we should seek to establish tax parity, rather than punish some businesses more severely than others with higher taxes. Maes said, “Our state constitution clearly states we are not to make investments in private entities. I want to honor the spirit of our federal and state constitutions. I do see tax breaks as viable incentives to spur our economy.”

Third, while Maes opposed the federal health bills, he inconsistently advocates free markets in health. Here’s what he said on Tuesday:

Here is the worrisome line: “We need to keep health care within the free market system. But we’d have to encourage private industry to get serious about pre-existing conditions. If they don’t take on pre-existing conditions, then government has every right to do so. So I want to make sure private industry accommodates that need.”

Maes’s position is unclear to me. Either he is saying that insurance companies must be politically forced to ignore pre-existing conditions when accepting customers, or he is saying that tax dollars should fund government-run insurance that ignores pre-existing conditions (as Cover Colorado basically does now). The former position leads inexorably to an insurance mandate, as my dad and I have argued. (See also my earlier article.) I welcome Maes’s clarification of the matter.

Again, Maes is mostly good on fiscal matters, and I have no doubt he would outperform any Democrat (and most Republicans) on economics. But Maes has a much more serious problem: social issues.

Maes has endorsed the so-called “personhood” measure likely to appear on this fall’s ballot. This would ban all or almost all abortions if fully enforced. It would also outlaw forms of birth control (including the pill) and fertility care that may result in the destruction of a fertilized egg. Colorado voters overwhelmingly trounced the “personhood” measure in 2008, and Maes will make few political friends by supporting it.

Maes also said that marriage “is a privilege that is ordained in the Scripture.” However, last night he granted that “civil remedies” can solve the problems of homosexual romantic unions. He said churches should not be forced to conduct gay marriages, and with that point I fully agree.

Maes strikes me as a common-sense kind of guy, so I will be interested to hear how he responds to concerns about the horrific and far-reaching implications of the “personhood” measure.

Meanwhile, all I’ve heard from McInnis is an ambiguous claim that he’s “100 percent pro-life.” Does McInnis want to outlaw absolutely all abortions? Voters deserve to know this.

As Paul Hsieh has written, independent voters, especially in Colorado, “want the Democrats out of their pockets and the Republicans out of their bedrooms.”

For the first time I am very interested in following the Republican primary.

* * *

Also at Tuesday’s rally, State Representative Cindy Acree offered her take on health reform:

Acree wants “tax equity at the federal level” to allow people to buy insurance with pre-tax money. That’s fantastic. However, she also wants a “new delivery system for primary care all over the state with public-private partnerships.” That sound to me like more tax subsidies and government controls.

So, while Republicans rallied against the federal Democratic health bills, they hardly advocate consistently free markets in health care. Hopefully advocates of liberty will continue to persuade them.

More partisan spin and misrepresentations of Attorney General Suthers statement on Colorado Supreme Court justices

by CTBC Director | 10:21 am, January 21, 2010

Political enemies of Attorney General John Suthers are attempting to use his recent principled (albeit uncharacteristically bold) statement that he would vote “NO” on retaining 3 of the 4 Colorado Supreme Court justices on the ballot (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, & Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) as a political club with which to rhetorically beat him.
Some of [...]

What Was Missing from Michael Bennet’s Post-Massachusetts Statement

by Ben DeGrow | 9:15 am, January 21, 2010

From today’s Denver Post:

Voters who elected Republican Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate seat held by Democrat Edward Kennedy for 47 years sent a clear message that they expect Washington to listen to their concerns, Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet said.
“Last night, the voters of Massachusetts didn’t just elect a senator; they sent a message to [...]

Guest Article: Science and Diversity

by Rossputin | 6:24 am, January 21, 2010

Thanks to Mike R. for this on-target guest article.  It’s not just in the “climate change” debate that forces of progressivism and political correctness are attacking the very foundations of science.

I have always been a bit of an armchair scientist with a particular interest in astronomy. I read a number of scientific publications every month and have done so since I was quite young. Among my most favorite over the years is Sky & Telescope which I still await with great anticipation each month and greedily begin to devour the articles on the way back from the mailbox. In the current issue (February) I was most dismayed by an opinion piece on the last page entitled “Expanding Diversity in Professional Astronomy” by Dara J. Norman an astronomer with the National Optical Astronomy Observatory in Tucson.

At first blush the title seems innocuous enough, after all diversity of thought in science seems like a rather fundamental requisite of good science. However in this case the sub-header leads the unsuspecting reader in another direction entirely: “We’ll need broader ethnic representation to continue the rapid pace of discovery.”… The author then proceeds with her case: “One critically important goal for the field of U.S. astronomy over the next ten years and beyond is to promote and achieve racial and ethnic diversity within the ranks of the profession.” And a little further: “Why is greater ethnic diversity in the profession of critical importance? Quite simply, astronomers need to secure a diverse workforce in the field in order to insure that the best scientific research is accomplished.”…Huh?

How in the universe does racial and ethnic diversity translate into a “rapid pace of discovery” in astronomy? Are certain racial or ethnic groups predisposed to unique lines of scientific inquiry such that in their absence questions will go unasked and theories un-theorized?

As I said above it would seem imperative that good quality science requires diversity of thought and opinion but how this important intellectual diversity arises from racial and/or ethnic diversity seems a mystery. Indeed Ms. Norman in her very next paragraph undoes her entire thesis by stating: “Intelligence is a quality not monopolized by any one group. The ability, drive, and interest required to succeed in astronomy is distributed among the population without regard to race, gender, or socioeconomic background.”…

A simple enough truth which would argue against excluding any one racial, ethnic or gender group from access to or pursuit of a career in astronomy and axiomatically not preferentially seeking or encouraging individuals from any specific group to pursue a career in astronomy. There is displayed here a very simple logical fallacy, specifically that racial, ethnic, or gender diversity necessarily leads to intellectual diversity and therefore a lack of racial, ethnic or gender diversity equates to a lack of intellectual diversity. While one may possibly be able to make such an argument in “softer” sciences like sociology, anthropology and perhaps psychology, since unique experiences particular to such groups may offer insights into human interactions, I hardly think that astrophysical theories regarding gravitational lensing, the structure of space time or stellar interiors has anything to do with one’s racial, ethnic, or gender experiences.

It is rather alarming that a woman of science would suffer from such a simple logical impediment in her thinking; one has to wonder at her ability to discern causality from coincidence. Indeed the pursuit of the “hard” sciences requires exactly this type of intellectual rigor in order to avoid concluding that an old shirt full of grain spontaneously generates mice from the natural ether or that an Asian, East European, African American and an Indian woman placed in a small room with a chalkboard will result in a new theory of gravitation.

Diversity is indeed extremely important to science however it is diversity of thought that matters most. Any popular notion of “consensus” is actually the enemy of good science as we have seen in the recent pseudo-debate of Climate Change theory. When consensus arises debate and intellectual diversity becomes deliberately stifled, loses funding and support and we end up in an intellectual cul-de-sac that the lay public easily accepts on its face. Ben Stein has a brilliant film, which I highly recommend, detailing just such consensus and stifling of thought and inquiry on the subject of intelligent design in the vested academic community. (“EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed”) In it he details the very dangerous movement to quash intellectual diversity ‘by any means necessary’. Scientists entertaining any notion of intelligent design (not childish biblical creationism or even theism) are systematically purged from the scientific community through sophistry, dogma and incomplete science on the basis of “consensus” and intellectual prejudice. This even as many of the scientists have made ground breaking discoveries at the very edge of our understanding by assuming a position that there appears to be an intelligent design to the most fundamental structure of the universe around us.

Science can only suffer when it is forced to fit any popular notion, system of social engineering, political correctness or notion of diversity other than intellectual diversity and openness to rigorous inquiry. Anything less is a corruption of the very principles of science.

What insurance will the government let you have?

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, January 21, 2010

Paul Hsieh, MD reminds us of how, in both the House and Senate health care bills the so-called health care “reform” will further empower government officials to tell us what insurance we can and cannot have:
Under any system of mandatory insurance, the government must necessarily determine what constitutes an “acceptable” plan. The health insurance czar [...]

Dems exempt unions from insurance tax

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, January 21, 2010

Michael Tanner at Cato summarizes:

Congressional Democrats received another $68 million from unions in 2008, and $21 million more so far this year. And that doesn’t count the value of “in kind” contributions like phone banks, poll volunteers and independent advertising.
Looks like the unions are getting their money’s worth — with a sweetheart deal worth billions. [...]

DMYR January GENERAL MEETING, featuring Denver Metro Republican County Chairmen

by Brett Moore | 12:28 am, January 21, 2010

[ January 26, 2010; 5:30 am to 8:30 am. ] Join DMYR January 26th for our January General Meeting. This month we are pleased to welcome Republican Party Chairmen from the 7-County Denver Metro Area to talk about their efforts in each individual county, and how Young Republicans can get involved in this crucial 2010 election cycle in Colorado.

Arapahoe – Dave Kerber
Adams – Clark Bolser
Boulder [...]

A case for privatizing airline security

by Brian T. Schwartz | 12:27 am, January 21, 2010

Arnold Kling and Nick Schulz have a very good article on the subject at USA Today.  It begins:
After the underwear bomber’s attempted mass murder, Americans are losing patience with the airline security system. It is bad enough that our screening process makes innocent people work far too hard to prove …

A case for privatizing airline security

by Brian T. Schwartz | 11:43 pm, January 20, 2010

Arnold Kling and Nick Schulz have a very good article on the subject at USA Today.  It begins:
After the underwear bomber’s attempted mass murder, Americans are losing patience with the airline security system. It is bad enough that our screening process makes innocent people work far too hard to prove that they are not terrorists. [...]

Partisan Spin, Misrepresentation, and Ad Hominem attacks mount against Clear The Bench Colorado

by CTBC Director | 4:11 pm, January 20, 2010

Demonstrating the axiom that “if you can’t win on the facts, attack the messenger”, the left-wing attack machine is coming out in force to spin, misrepresent, and attack Clear The Bench Colorado.
After months of attempting to pretend that the important matter of judicial retention elections for the Colorado Supreme Court is a non-issue and suppressing any mention [...]

The Best Scam Since Bernie Madoff

by Jon Caldara | 4:00 pm, January 20, 2010

If only the Beatles were around to add a couple more lines to the song “Taxman” to describe this situation. One of the unfortunate byproducts of TABOR is the increased use of “fees” by government. One of these new taxes fees is the tire disposal fee of $1.50 on each old tire Colorado [...]

Brilliant! Poli Sci Profs Find One Creative Way to Make Obama Care Math Add Up

by Ben DeGrow | 3:06 pm, January 20, 2010

Yesterday two political science professors — one from Yale and one from Georgetown — had a column published in the Washington Post titled “After Massachusetts, why the Democrats should still pass health-care reform.” Here is the argument they make (apparently) with a straight face:
The bills in Congress hardly enjoy runaway popularity. But the problem isn’t [...]

« go back — keep looking »

Featured Posts

• Judge Rules Americans Can Be Forced to Testify Against Themselves

  In order to protect our rights, our security must be protected. In order to protect our security, our rights must be invaded. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

• World Economic Forum in Switzerland: Global Elites Celebrating Hypocrisy
• SCOTUS decision on warrantless GPS surveillance produces an expected friend of privacy
• You didn’t want your Fifth Amendment rights, anyway, did you?
• Keynesian Economists Finally Catch Up and Agree: China to Have Hard Landing
• The Beauty of Private Property—from China?
• Regime Uncertainty, Regulatory Surge, and Unemployment Numbers