Citizens’ Budget on the Jimmy Sengenberger Show

by Jon Caldara | 3:51 pm, January 14, 2011

Jimmy Sengenberger is a blogger, radio host, and podcast maker extraordinaire who hosts a website called the Seng Center. You can also catch his blog posts on PPC. Just the other day on his radio show Jimmy interviewed Penn Pfiffner about the Citizens’ Budget project. Specifically, why this project is so important in light of [...]

My final thought on the Palin and Obama speeches

by Rossputin | 2:08 pm, January 14, 2011

On Thursday morning, a friend of mine spoke with a U.S. senator who shall remain unnamed. The senator said that the rumor inside the Beltway is that Obama and his speechwriters substantially changed President Obama’s planned speech after seeing/hearing Sarah Palin’s video release earlier Wednesday morning.

This makes sense to me, with Sarah Palin showing how “flat” a high-minded, philosophical, and perhaps overly political speech would be. After all, those (or at least the appearance of those) traits have usually characterized Barack Obama’s speeches – which is why so much of the American electorate (including me) have generally tuned him out, feeling quite confident that we can predict what he’ll say and how he’ll say it.

Many readers of my reaction to Palin’s speech on these pages and elsewhere have responded with “She’s a private citizen.  She didn’t need to sound presidential.”

I through the BS flag on that one.

Palin’s timing, releasing her video statement the morning of the same day as Obama’s address in Tucson was timed, almost certainly intentionally, to boost her presidential credentials. As a political veteran recently said to me when I said I don’t think Palin will run for president, “if she doesn’t run, she risks becoming irrelevant.” Even if Palin hasn’t decided to run, she certainly wants to keep that option open; I find it disingenuous of her supporters to claim that putting out a 7-minute video that she knows millions of people will see – days after the worst mass-murder in America in many years – had no more significance for Palin than it would for any other citizen, or that she should not be held to a higher standard than any other citizen.

Of course, Palin had been on the receiving end of some of the most vile, hateful, disgusting rhetoric and accusations of the left. And of course she wanted to defend herself against that. But this is a very high-stakes game she’s playing and she faced a stronger poker player than she is on Wednesday.

I’m not going to spend more time on the content of her speech except to say that when I saw it – and I wanted to like it – I thought that she utterly missed any “human connection”, an area where she is usually head-and-shoulders above our icy president.

By releasing her statement when she did, Palin made it implausible for her or her supporters to claim that she was not intending a quasi-presidential address. Indeed, the high-minded tone of her address made her come across as too eager to create presidential bona fides, as if some speechwriter thought that sounding “above it all” would check some currently unchecked box on her range-of-expression resume.

Putting her message out there in the morning was like showing the opposing team your playbook.  Obama had no flexibility regarding when he gave his speech. After Palin’s morning release, he and his team had all day to re-work his words to make sure not to fall into the trap(s) Palin fell into, and also to make sure NOT to appear to respond to Palin.

As my friend noted above says, “It’s mind over matter”  We don’t mind because she doesn’t matter.” Obama avoided biting any any bait offered by Palin, using her talk as a map of a minefield and thus avoiding the mines which some (including me) think Palin stepped on to her political detriment (at least to her detriment outside of her already-committed base.)

Palin would have been wiser to wait, to watch and listen to Obama, and to let him brave the minefield first. She should have released a statement on Thursday instead of Wednesday if she felt compelled to say anything, with modifications based on lessons learned. Alternatively, she should have said something Tuesday and not seemed to be so slow to react – if you assume she had to react; given that one criticism Palin’s detractors make is that she seems to feel a need to react to every criticism, sitting back this time might have been the better part of valor. The blogosphere was doing quite a good job reacting for her – pointing out the viciousness and hypocrisy of the left and their media lackeys – and she might have been better served by nothing more than a 30-second statement empathizing with the Tucscon victims and their families.

At the end of the day, however, it is a long time until the next election.  To the extent that Palin hurt herself or Obama helped himself, there will be plenty of time for those impacts to be forgotten – or magnified.

In the meantime, Governor Palin is scheduled to be on the Hannity program on Fox News on Monday evening.  I’ll be most interested to see how she and Hannity analyze the dueling speeches.

Business-Friendly?

by Joshua Sharf | 1:29 pm, January 14, 2011

Governor Hickenlooper (and boy, that need to be in the editor clipboard) has signalled a desire to be more “pro-business.”   There’s a reason for that: It’s already bad enough that the US has the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world.  We also know that jobs tend to flow from blue states to red [...]

Ben DeGrow’s Latest School Reform News Story Tackles Teacher Prep Report

by Eddie | 11:51 am, January 14, 2011

On a busy Friday, the easy and preferred course of action is for me to point you to the latest School Reform News article by my Education Policy Center friend Ben DeGrow. The title of the story is “Teacher Training Overhaul Would Leave Ed Schools in Charge”:

Following a blue-ribbon panel’s lead, the nation’s largest accreditation [...]

Skousen Reviews Life in CIA, Finance, and Economics

by Ari Armstrong | 10:07 am, January 14, 2011

Mark Skousen recently spoke in Denver about his job in the CIA, transition to investment writing, entry into the field of professional economics, brief stint with the Foundation for Economic Education, and creation of Freedom Fest.I’ve also published a…

What are metals saying?

by Rossputin | 9:13 am, January 14, 2011

In the last two weeks, gold and silver have gotten crushed.  Gold is down about $60, or almost 5% since the beginning of January.  Silver is down about $2.50 or about 8% to about $28.50 during that same time frame.

Usually precious metals move with interest rates (metals down as rates go up) or with the US Dollar (metals up as dollar down).  But yields on the government 10-year note are actually down over the past two weeks, from about 3.37% to 3.27%, and yields on the 5-year note down more than that.  Yields on the 30-year bond are up very slightly, from about 4.43% to 4.47%.

The Euro currency had a volatile two weeks, falling from about $1.337 to $1.29 on worries about bond auctions by Portugal, Italy, and Spain.  However, those auctions went along relatively smoothly and the Euro regained everything it’s lost this month and is now right back at about $1.337.  The British Pound is up against the USD over the past two weeks, i.e. the dollar is down, as is the Japanese Yen, though very slightly.  The Swiss Franc is down slightly against the USD, from about $1.07 to $1.04 over the past two weeks, though it’s hard to see that currency as substantially driving metals prices.

It should also be noted that the huge sell-off is not seen in other commodities: Copper is only down 7 cents, or 1.5%, to about $4.40 during January.  Oil is only down about $1, or less than 1.5%, after having been down substantially more a week ago; it has rebounded while gold and silver have sold off, which is quite unusual in recent months.

In other words, the usual factors that would drive metals prices lower are conspicuously absent, but they are dropping while other commodities are essentially stable in price, so something else must be going on here.

I see two issues:  First, China again raised it’s bank reserve requirements, reducing demand for gold by those banks and reducing the leverage available to Chinese buyers of gold.  Second, and probably more important, is the issue mentioned above regarding the acceptable results of the three PIIGS government bond auctions.

As the market sees stability set in in Europe (even though I remain somewhat skeptical of the durability of that stability), the demand for a “safe haven” like gold and silver is getting crushed.

Similarly, as the US stock markets remain strong and implied volatility in options shows a diminishing level of investor fear, traders and investors are abandoning the safe haven (which, as it often does, turns out not to be so safe, so I wonder why people keep jumping into that frothy pond) and returning to more traditional investing in stocks.

Reflections on Speech and Speeches

by Joshua Sharf | 8:04 am, January 14, 2011

Enabled by the excuse of being temporarily dislocated, I also decided to wait until the dust had settled on the Arizona shootings to comment on them, and on the political reaction to them.  It seemed to me better to wait, rather than jump in with all sorts of assumptions of the kind that have justly [...]

Colorado’s health “information exchanges” threaten your medical privacy

by Brian Schwartz | 7:00 am, January 14, 2011

Colorado doctors will be participating in government sponsored “information exchanges,” that create electronic medical records from patient data. The Denver Post reviews past incidents when supposedly confidential information was not secure.

First Conceal Carry, Then the Bully RTD

by Jon Caldara | 1:25 pm, January 13, 2011

Tune in for a double dose of Devil’s Advocate this Friday night, it’s the same half-hour of public policy, but with two different segments.  First, I am joined by Weld County Sheriff John Cooke and Boulder County Sheriff Joe Pelle for a discussion about the efficacy of Colorado’s Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) database.  Then stay [...]

January 13: Landmark Day for Colorado K-12 Productivity and Innovation?

by Eddie | 11:58 am, January 13, 2011

Today, January 13, 2011 … a significant day for innovation and productivity in Colorado K-12 education? It’s too early to say for sure. But a couple of Board decisions may mean as much. First, the Colorado State Board of Education — which yesterday broke in its new members by making their first decision on a [...]

Vietnam Vet Linn Armstrong Discusses Service

by Ari Armstrong | 11:05 am, January 13, 2011

Recently I interviewed my father, Linn Armstrong. Here I’ve pulled out a couple of his stories about Vietnam. In the first video, he discusses volunteering to teach English in downtown Da Nang. In the second, he discusses his flight home — on which he…

Incitement to Violence

by Al Maurer | 10:50 am, January 13, 2011

Inciting to violence or riot has a very specific meaning.

Shades of Wellstone – Left Wingers Hijack Memorial Service

by Mr. Bob | 10:27 am, January 13, 2011

#religion #teaparty #arizonaquote this morning on the Blaze concerning the “invocation” by Native American Carlos Gonzales saying that “the invocation could have used more God, less Mexico, and less Carlos Gonzales.”The guy mentioned Mexico at least 3 …

Arapahoe Cnty Sheriff Grayson Robinson & Heritage’s J.D. Foster on Seng Center Tonight at 6pm

by Jimmy Sengenberger | 10:00 am, January 13, 2011

Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson to give his take on Tucson Shooting; Heritage Foundation Analyst J.D. Foster to discuss tax cuts Tonight at krcx.org ————————— Tonight at 6pm online at krcx.org, host Jimmy Sengenberger of the Regis University Seng Center radio show will be joined by two esteemed guests for a jam-packed special edition of [...]

Dueling speeches

by Rossputin | 9:29 am, January 13, 2011

Last night’s speech by Barack Obama, was the best of his presidency, if not his life.

To be sure, the audience’s occasionally odd bursts of applause left one wondering whether the “pep rally” atmosphere – rather than the expected solemn tone of a memorial service – was a welcome relief from Tucson’s intensity of recent days, or whether many of Barack Obama’s followers remain as devoted to their man as any cult members are. (See video HERE and read transcript HERE.)

Obama played to every part of the American electorate except, perhaps, the far left and their media lackeys.

He referenced “scripture”  twice. He spent several paragraphs saying, one way or another, that we don’t know the killer’s motivation and that it is both unfair and unproductive to “lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do.”

He then turned to the idea of using the horrible events of last Saturday as a catalyst to re-examine “the manner in which we live our lives” and to “strive to be better in our private lives.” He called for “more civility in our public discourse” while re-emphasizing that “it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy.”

Glaringly absent was any, and I mean any, of Obama’s usual rhetoric regarding “enemies” or other war cries which often serve to rally his far-left, America- and conservative-hating base.

Rather than go further into analysis of the speech’s content, since much has been written about that already, allow me to refer you to conservative writer Phil Klein’s piece entitled “Obama’s Bullseye.”

Instead, I want to focus on two other things:  The past and future of both Sarah Palin and Barack Obama.

My assertion that Sarah Palin’s Wednesday morning video address was not her best work was met by furious disagreement from some of her supporters at the AmSpec blog site, with one of the more polite commenters saying that my note was “a swing and a miss.”

After Obama’s Wednesday evening address, and without any pleasure given that Barack Obama is the worst president of my lifetime and one of the worst presidents in our nation’s history, I say now you’ve seen a major league hitter make Sarah Palin look like she belongs in AA ball.

Palin’s speech, which struck me as flat and scripted when I first heard it, is doubly so in comparison with that given by our teleprompter-in-chief, no matter how much one prefers the politics of Alaska over the politics of Hawaii and Jakarta.  Indeed, instead of just a teleprompter, he did, for the very first time, sound like the “president of all Americans.”

As an astute analyst of politics – one who is substantially more conservative than I am – said to me yesterday, “The contrast (between Obama and Palin) couldn’t be greater; the unifier versus the embittered one. In sum, she reinforced her base, but lost the rest of the country.”

I don’t dislike Sarah Palin and I’m not going to spend more time beating her up on this subject.

Even more interesting to me than Palin’s performance was the fury of her supporters at my relatively modest criticism of her.  Their lack of openness to debate and their tendency to take criticism of Palin as a personal attack on each and every Palin fan struck me as mirroring some of the worst characteristics I usually find in leftists.  In recent history on “our” side, the only thing that comes close is Ron Paul supporters, also a generally well-meaning but rabid group utterly devoted to their man and utterly closed to rational discussion of his weaknesses. (And I say that as someone who contributed to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign because despite the fact that his foreign policy views leave me cold, I really appreciate his consistent reference to the Constitution on matters of domestic policy.)

Secondly, and more importantly, is the question of what Obama’s tone last night might signify.  One can’t read too much into one speech, particularly if it goes against the grain of all prior history of its speaker.

But if – and this is an “if” that I’ve long said I didn’t think would be the case – Barack Obama has decided, ala Bill Clinton, that re-election is more important than ideology, this speech was an excellent opportunity for him to reinforce the perception created among some during the debate over the extension of the Bush tax cuts that Obama might move slightly to the center during his second term.

I’m far from convinced that any Obama moderation will be sincere or long-lasting, but it is a low-risk strategy for him, especially so far from the next election, i.e. so far from the time when he really cares how motivated his left-wing kook base is.  By making an appearance of unification and moderation, Obama and his pollsters will find out how open the great American middle of independent voters are to revising their low opinion of him – an opinion which was evidenced in the historic Republican gains in November’s elections.

If the political winds tell Obama that he probably wins reelection by playing to the middle and probably loses if he doesn’t, he will maintain this moderate persona.  It will be up to conservatives and independents, with no help from the dominant liberal mass media, to either force him to support much more conservative policies than he normally would, i.e. to live up to his attempted moderate billing, or to expose him as the committed radical that he, in my view, is and always will be.

In any case, no matter how much we dislike Barack Obama and everything he believes, conservatives must remember that an Obama who acts like a moderate – even if he wishes he weren’t – is better for the country than Barack Obama 1.0.  It’s a Barack Obama who will have to support essentially unobjectionable (or at least widely popular) conservative push-back on certain issues, whether aspects of the Dodd-Frank bill or the outrageous Form 1099 filing requirements of Obamacare, and who will be less able to demagogue during debates over cutting government spending.

Thus, while it gives me no pleasure to think about Barack Obama’s popularity going up, as it certainly will following his Tucson speech, we must keep in mind that this game of politics is about much more than just one election.  If Obama understands that his popularity is up, that his re-election chances are improved, because he now appears to be more willing to work with, or at least not demonize, the loyal opposition, he’ll have to put up or shut up – at least if re-election is a primary goal of his. For now, that puts the nation (except perhaps for Sarah Palin and other Republican contenders for president) in a win-win situation, with a president who has all but boxed himself into a more docile rhetorical corner.

“A Fount of Nonsense Who Exasperated Everyone He Talked To”

by T.L. James | 7:51 am, January 13, 2011

Dave “JournoList” Weigel digs around at AboveTopSecret and discovers what may be some postings from Jared Loughner, under the userid “Erad3″: If the NASA Space Shuttle is able to reenter from the orbit of the Earth then the NASA Space Shuttle is able to reenter because of the heat of 1,500 °C. The NASA Space [...]

Increasing Transparency for CDOT

by Michael | 7:15 am, January 13, 2011

A bill sponsored by Rep. B.J. Nikkel (R-HD 49) and Senate Minority Leader Mike Kopp (R-SD 22) expands the previous access to governmental expenditures through an online database like Colorado’s Transparency Online Project (TOPS) that was signed into existence through an executive order by former Gov. Bill Ritter in 2009.
Nikkel pioneered the bipartisan Colorado Taxpayer [...]

Jay Homnick: Lessons from the Talmud & the facts about Limbaugh listeners

by Rossputin | 6:55 am, January 13, 2011

Over at the American Spectator web page, Jay Homnick has an interesting dual-faceted article which gives an interesting lesson from his own experience in Jewish Studies and proceeds to explain that “(Rush) Limbaugh has been on the air for twenty-two years. He has been espousing a point of view with passion and emphasis to millions of people five days a week. He has been frank in exposing the shortcomings of the opposing view. Yet not one single act of violence during that time has ever been attributed to a person identified as one of his regular listeners. NOT ONE SINGLE ACT!”

I encourage you to read the article here:
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/12/quite-the-opposite

How much for that sushi in the window?

by Rossputin | 6:02 am, January 13, 2011

In the interest of lightening the mood following a week of intense and disturbing news, from Tucson to Queensland, Australia…

From the “he paid HOW much?!?” files:

Last week, a giant 750 pound bluefin tuna sold in Tokyo for about $390,000 (no that’s not a typo), or about $518 per pound.

The buyer, a partner in two sushi restaurants reacted in a way that struck me as almost exactly backward from rationality: “I was nervous when I arrived in Tokyo yesterday, but I am relieved now.”

He added that he would likely not make a profit on the purchase.  Darn good business sense if you ask me, Ricky!

Let’s do a little math:  The fish part of a piece of sushi is normally somewhere between half an ounce and an ounce, depending on the particular fish and server.  Let’s figure that because this fish is so expensive and people will pay up to have a piece of the most expensive fish ever purchased, the restaurant will serve pieces that are 1/3 of an ounce.

I have no idea what percentage of a bluefin’s weight is actually sushi-grade flesh, so let’s take a wild-a** guess and say 60%, given how huge the heads of these things are and how much its organs must weigh.

That means there’s about 450 pounds of sushi to sell.  At 1/3 ounce per piece, that means he’ll have about 21,650 pieces to sell.  So, in order to break even, he’ll have to sell these pieces of sushi – pieces small enough that in a normal situation a diner would probably complain “is there a fish shortage?” – for $18 per piece.

Maybe I’ve been wrong in my estimates and assumptions.  But the way people are about “delicacies” in East Asia, I bet he could even sell the stuff for nearly double (as part of a particularly special fish event, not as a daily practice.)

Actually, $18/piece a lot less than I expected to calculate when I started doing the math…he’ll certainly be able to do that in Tokyo and Hong Kong.  Heck, even I might buy one if I were in the area, just to be a part of history.  Like the Forest Gump of sushi…

I’m rethinking my criticism of Ricky’s business sense.  I bet the publicity he’ll get will actually be worth it; after crunching these numbers, in admittedly a very rough way, I think Ricky will at least be able to break even on what on the surface (pun intended) seems like an insane purchase.

1/6 – Full chat w/ Penn Pfiffner on Independence Institute’s Citizens’ Budget and Colorado’s fiscal crisis

by Jimmy Sengenberger | 5:00 pm, January 12, 2011

In Part One of the 1/6 New Year’s edition of The Seng Center Radio Show, host Jimmy Sengenberger is joined by Penn Pfiffner, a former state legislator and Senior Fellow at the Independence Institute (i2i.org), to break down solutions for a real crisis …

Violent Euphemisms

by Jon Caldara | 3:26 pm, January 12, 2011

The New York Times, that bastion of fair and balanced reporting, has an entertaining opinion section called “Room for Debate.” In it, knowledgeable outsiders contribute little opinion pieces concerning the current events of the day. For example, the Tuscon, AZ shooting prompted the Times to solicit arguments for and against the notion that “more guns [...]

New Calculator Tool Lets You Approach “Quality Counts” Claims with Care

by Eddie | 12:21 pm, January 12, 2011

If you’re stuck in the education bubble, the big news for this week is Education Week’s release of its annual “Quality Counts” report. The national publication uses a wide range of metrics to rate states on their K-12 performance and policies. Since I can guarantee you that some prominent official or media figure in 2011 [...]

New poll question: Lasting impact of Tucson massacre?

by Rossputin | 10:22 am, January 12, 2011

Please cast your vote in the poll on the right side of my web page, near the top, asking “Will the Tucson massacre have lasting political impact?”

John Wren Promotes Small Business

by Ari Armstrong | 10:14 am, January 12, 2011

John Wren of the Small Business Chamber of Commerce hosts a weekly meeting to promote startups. In this interview he discusses the projects of his group and the prospects for small business growth.

Colorado Consumer Health Initiative misleads again

by Brian Schwartz | 7:00 am, January 12, 2011

It’s been illegal to drop coverage when someone gets sick since 1997. The 2010 health control bill did not change this, despite what Dede de Percin of the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative says.

The politics of Tucson

by Rossputin | 6:53 am, January 12, 2011

Although the Tea Party and Sarah Palin had nothing – I repeat, nothing, – to do with the Tucson killings by madman Jared Loughner, that does not mean there will be no political impact from the horrific event.

In particular, despite the utter hypocrisy of the left’s criticism of Sarah Palin’s gun-related electoral metaphors – something which Palin didn’t create or popularize – the fact that even Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty offered a slight rejection of Palin’s approach shows her political vulnerability on the issue.

I have long thought (and bet) that Sarah Palin would not run for president in 2012.  I believe that the gruesome murders and mayhem of this past Saturday make my prediction far more likely to come true.

To be sure, in an interview with HotAir.com’s Ed Morrissey, Pawlenty made his objection sound as unobjectionable as possible, and played up his admiration for Sarah Palin and even plugged her book – a wise move for any Republican potential candidate.

But make no mistake, Pawlenty’s critique is quite damaging to Palin – more damaging to Palin than beneficial to himself, in all likelihood, as aggravating Mother Bear is hardly likely to ingratiate a candidate with her fervent and committed accolytes.

Apparently, I’m not alone in this view, based on betting odds on Palin’s decision whether or not to run for the presidency, although the odds have been drifting down somewhat even before Saturday.  In the past month, up to Saturday, the odds had dropped from about 71% to about 63%.  Since Saturday, the odds have dropped to about 55%, the lowest since July.  (UPDATE: After Palin’s Wednesday morning video release, her odds went up slightly, to about 57%.)  In terms of actually winning the nomination, Palin has dropped from 16% to 11% since Saturday, after trading between about 18% and 21% for most of the last 90 days.

In a discussion of political reaction to Saturday’s shootings, the Politico – which has now sunk to the same depths of being a leftist propaganda machine as the NY Times has with Ben Smith’s piece saying the right is to blame for the Tucson killings even if by “indirect association” – suggests that Palin has “practically gone underground” and that among Republicans publicly responding to Saturday, Tim Pawlenty “has arguably come out looking the best.”

Palin has clearly gotten the message and responded with a 7-minute video message on Wednesday morning:

 

I must say I wasn’t too impressed with Palin’s message.  It seemed a little bit detached, too focused on “how we were meant to be” as Americans and “how America is exceptional”, all of which is true and should be emphasized – just not today.

Despite Politico’s statement about how Pawlenty has performed during these difficult days, betting odds on Pawlenty winning the nomination have basically not moved, however.  Instead, since Saturday, the odds on Mitt Romney winning the nomination have jumped from about 19% to 24%.  Odds for Mike Huckabee are up very slightly, from just under 9% to just under 10%.  And the odds for Mitch Daniels have jumped from just over 8% to just over 10%, now ahead of Huckabee.  (For those of you who haven’t been paying attention, these men are, respectively, the former Governor of Massachusetts, the former Governor Arkansas, and the current Governor of Indiana.)

One final thought: While I would have considered it indelicate, to say the least, to be talking about the political import of a massacre while its sounds and victims are so fresh in our minds, the disgusting political opportunism of the left, not least of the ever-shrinking-in-reputation Pima County Sheriff, Clarence Dupnik, has opened the door for this sort of discussion.  And while Dupnik, the NY Times, DailyKos, and other outlets of “Progressive” derangement and true hate – their cries that the Tea Party is hateful is the worst sort of “projection” – are trying to score political points with the blood of a Democrat, at least I’m only offering analysis, and only of people of my own political party.

My thoughts and best wishes are with Gabby Giffords and her family.  I truly hope she returns to her seat in Congress, as unlikely a possibility as that would have seemed on the first news of the nature of her injury.  What an amazing day that would be.  I hope every Republican and Tea Party member joins me in that heartfelt view.

Dave Kopel in NY Times: A Chance to Fight Back

by Mike Krause | 8:39 pm, January 11, 2011

Independence Institute research director Dave Kopel has a piece in the New York Times‘ Room for Debate series on the Arizona shootings, and calls by some for more guns, rather than more gun control.  Money quote from Dave:
There’s no guarantee that evil-doers will always be stopped, but the record is clear that oftentimes lives [...]

Vets Angry After Navy Sec. Names Warship After Former Dem Rep. Murtha

by Mr. Bob | 6:14 pm, January 11, 2011

#tcot #murtha #teapartysailors and Marines say, in 2006, Murtha claimed that Marines in the Iraqi city of Haditha had “killed innocent civilians in cold blood.”“Name a ship after a congressman who disgraced himself by rushing to judge that fellow…

On Energy, Ritter Earns an “F”

by Jon Caldara | 3:11 pm, January 11, 2011

While at Founders Night this year, I was interviewed by Energy Now TV-news magazine. We talked about Ritter’s “new energy economy” and the future of energy in our great state of Colorado. The interview is about 9 minutes long, check it out:

Reporter Susan McGinnis did a great job of playing devils advocate with me (hey, [...]

Another call for civility…

by Rossputin | 12:11 pm, January 11, 2011

The Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce has put out a letter signed by several dozen organizations (many of them unions) calling for civility and mutual respect as we head into the next legislative session of the Colorado General Assembly.

Denver Post reporter Lynn Bartels kindly asked my opinion on it, which I offered and which she quoted in her blog note on the Chamber’s letter:
http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2011/01/10/denver-metro-chamber-other-groups-urge-civility-among-elected-officials/20348/#more-20348

As she was space-limited, Lynn was unable to use my entire comment. Therefore, I thought I’d share the whole comment with you, as I thought it was pretty good:

All else being equal, a political atmosphere of civility and mutual respect is obviously better than anger and division.  But all else is rarely equal and in these days of the necessity of aggressive budget cutting, we should expect to see aggressive action by the coalition of groups who suckle from the teat of government.  The ‘Takings Coalition’, as Grover Norquist phrases it, which includes many if not most of the unions and associations listed in the Denver Metro Chamber’s “Open Letter”, will not only be fighting against budget cuts generally, but then will be subtly (or perhaps not so subtly) fighting among each other over how to divide the spoils of what politicians have, even in these difficult economic times, been able to extract from citizens.

As one group or another endeavors to put or keep its hand in our pockets, we must not let siren cries for “civility” and “respect” be used to numb us into letting politicians avoid the hard choices – the same sorts of choices that the rest of us have to make – that their elected positions require.  I promise to be civil and respectful of anyone and everyone who promises not to try to take any more money or freedom from the people of Colorado; I promise to aggressively criticize the rest, no matter whose tender sensibilities I may offend.

« 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