Colorado Teachers Union Political Refund Opportunity Ends December 15

by Ben DeGrow | 11:33 am, December 14, 2011

Last week I filmed a 14-minute segment with my boss at the Independence Institute, Jon Caldara, on his show Devil’s Advocate. The topic for discussion was the timely news that members of the Colorado Education Association (CEA) have until tomorrow (December 15) to get back money automatically collected with their dues to support (almost completely [...]

NRF Blames Banks for Harms of Federal Price Controls on Credit Cards

by Ari Armstrong | 9:33 am, December 14, 2011

Surprise, surprise: price controls have harmful economic effects. Unfortunately, rather than condemn price controls, the National Retail Federation is calling for more. In his detailed, informative article for the Denver Post, David Migoya reports that…

NRF Blames Banks for Harms of Federal Price Controls on Credit Cards

by Ari Armstrong | 9:33 am, December 14, 2011

Surprise, surprise: price controls have harmful economic effects. Unfortunately, rather than condemn price controls, the National Retail Federation is calling for more. In his detailed, informative article for the Denver Post, David Migoya reports that…

NRF Blames Banks for Harms of Federal Price Controls on Credit Cards

by Ari Armstrong | 9:33 am, December 14, 2011

Surprise, surprise: price controls have harmful economic effects. Unfortunately, rather than condemn price controls, the National Retail Federation is calling for more. In his detailed, informative article for the Denver Post, David Migoya reports that…

Seeing Stars: Democrats Reaping the Fruits of Their Labor

by Randall Smith | 7:00 am, December 14, 2011

There be links here.

Colorado

The nasty, dishonest games Democrats played with the reapportionment will make it more contentious in the Legislature this year, says the Denver Post. Thank you Captain Obvious. Deviousness and dishonest don’t breed g…

Seeing Stars: Democrats Reaping the Fruits of Their Labor

by Randall Smith | 7:00 am, December 14, 2011

There be links here.

Colorado

The nasty, dishonest games Democrats played with the reapportionment will make it more contentious in the Legislature this year, says the Denver Post. Thank you Captain Obvious. Deviousness and dishonest don’t breed g…

Bombshell: CSU Profs Downgrade Ability To Predict Hurricanes Six Months Out, “Have Not Shown Real-Time Forecast Skill”

by elpresidente | 6:13 am, December 14, 2011

Every year for almost three decades hurricane predictions made by Colorado State University professor William Gray–joined by Philip Klotzbach–have made the news cycle, with people especially vulnerable to the next year’s batch of damaging hurricanes paying particular interest to the number of storms forecasted by reputable research scientists. After 20 years, the CSU profs took [...]

MF Global Head Jon Corzine Denies Involvement

by Bob Adelmann | 5:35 am, December 14, 2011

It’s too simplistic just to say that Corzine is a sleaze-ball and leave it at that. What he represents, however, is the big story: corruption reaching to the highest levels of the government.

Colorado’s electric rates higher than neighbors’

by amy | 6:34 pm, December 13, 2011

USA Today reports that Americans’ household electric bills are going up and up and up. While Colorado’s residential rate is slightly below the national average of 11.54 cents per kilowatt hour, its higher than all neighboring states and second highest among the Mountain West states. Only Nevada has higher residential electric rates than Colorado. Most [...]

Salazar defends fracking; waiting for the “real facts.”

by amy | 3:40 pm, December 13, 2011

While the Denver Post played the role of Rocky Mountain eco-Chicken Little of record, another news outlet — the Casper Star-Tribune — reported former Colorado Senator and current Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s opinion of the EPA’s premature press release about a “draft finding” regarding a link that may or may not exist between hydraulic fracturing [...]

Liberty on the Rocks Christmas Party Time!

by Jon Caldara | 1:40 pm, December 13, 2011

Our good friends at Liberty on the Rocks want you to know about their upcoming Christmas party to celebrate the holidays, new years, and free market education. If you don’t know about Liberty on the Rocks yet, you should. LOTR is the free market drinking club you wish you could have joined back in college. [...]

Gessler Emerges as the Free Speech Secretary of State

by Ari Armstrong | 1:08 pm, December 13, 2011

The following article by Linn and Ari Armstrong originally was published December 9 by Grand Junction Free Press.True, Secretary of State Scott Gessler has made some public-relations missteps, as when he attended a Larimer County Republican fundraiser …

Gessler Emerges as the Free Speech Secretary of State

by Ari Armstrong | 1:08 pm, December 13, 2011

The following article by Linn and Ari Armstrong originally was published December 9 by Grand Junction Free Press.True, Secretary of State Scott Gessler has made some public-relations missteps, as when he attended a Larimer County Republican fundraiser …

Harvard Professor Calls OWS Protesters “Inchoate”

by Bob Adelmann | 12:34 pm, December 13, 2011

I guess the students in his class were bored, or something, and just needed to go on a juvenile rant over something…anything…even if they can’t express what it is exactly they’re protesting.

Effective Math and Science Program Making Big Leap in Colorado High Schools

by Eddie | 11:55 am, December 13, 2011

Raise your hand if you agree with me that the USA — and Colorado in particular — can do a better job preparing enough students for success in the areas science, math and technology. Don’t worry about feeling self-conscious if you are in a room with other people. If you can’t overcome it, at least [...]

Bob Schaffer explains exploding college costs

by Rossputin | 8:53 am, December 13, 2011

I’m traveling on business, so for today’s reading allow me to share an article by former Congressman and current Chairman of the Colorado State Board of Education, Bob Schaffer, about how shielding higher education from market forces allows, even encourages, the incredible tuition price inflation we see at American colleges:

http://education.nationaljournal.com/2011/12/good-cop-bad-cop-on-college-co.php#2132760

Seeing Stars: Colorado Supreme Court Approves "Vindictive" Reapportionment

by Randall Smith | 7:00 am, December 13, 2011

The Colorado Supreme Court approved the “vindictive” Democrat reapportionment map without changes. I had a feeling before the map was sent back to the committee, the Republican argument against competitive districts would backfire. “Oh, competitiveness…

Seeing Stars: Colorado Supreme Court Approves "Vindictive" Reapportionment

by Randall Smith | 7:00 am, December 13, 2011

The Colorado Supreme Court approved the “vindictive” Democrat reapportionment map without changes. I had a feeling before the map was sent back to the committee, the Republican argument against competitive districts would backfire. “Oh, competitiveness…

Authorities to decide what health plans in “exchanges” cover, not a freed market

by Brian T. Schwartz | 6:30 am, December 13, 2011

The political process for controlling health plans is akin to having the FCC decide what features cell phone plans should cover. Surely there would be groups pushing to ban, say, plans that lack unlimited text messaging. This would increase the price of all plans, even for those who never text.

Continue reading →

Colorado Supreme Court approves state legislative district maps resubmitted by Colorado Reapportionment Commission

by CTBC Director | 4:11 pm, December 12, 2011

The Colorado Supreme Court today approved the state legislative district maps re-submitted by the Colorado Reapportionment Commission last week (adopted in a procedurally suspect manner on a 6-5 party-line vote, with “unaffiliated” Chairman Mario Carrera joining the commission’s other Democrats).
The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is surprising, since the court had previously rejected the commission’s earlier [...]

New Colorado School Grades Website Offers Important Info to Families

by Eddie | 2:50 pm, December 12, 2011

Having more educational choices by itself is a good thing. Yet without enough accompanying information for families to make wise and effective choices, a lot of potential is lost. That’s one of the reasons why my Education Policy Center friends continue to offer the fantastic School Choice for Kids (SCFK) website, with all its helpful [...]

Did Romney Make a Mistake in Turning Down Trump’s Debate?

by Bob Adelmann | 12:51 pm, December 12, 2011

There are just too many questions here. If Romney is so interested in Trump’s endorsement, why doesn’t he attend his debate? Why doesn’t Romney want his picture taken with Trump? I am not usually this suspicious…

Seeing Stars: Oh, No. Not Again

by Randall Smith | 7:00 am, December 12, 2011

I hope everyone had a good weekend. Here’s some random fun and exciting stories you may have missed while wondering why Tim Tebow can only play well in the last three minutes of games.

Colorado

The Chieftain runs down the bills being pushed by a h…

Gallup’s bias continues

by Rossputin | 6:29 am, December 12, 2011

I continue to believe (as I’ve written before) that Gallup intentionally, even if not persistently, analyzes its poll results and titles its press releases in a way designed to bias readers’ interpretations of the data against Republicans and for Barack Obama.

Another example came Thursday when I got an e-mail update from Gallup entitled “Republicans Less Enthusiastic About Voting in 2012.“

Before you read the story, tell me what your initial reaction is…what you think that headline means or would mean to an ordinary American who read it.

To me, there are a few most likely things it could mean, in this order:

• Republicans are less enthusiastic about voting in 2012 than Democrats are
• Republicans are less enthusiastic about voting in 2012 than they were in 2010
• Republicans are less enthusiastic about voting in 2012 than they were during the last presidential election

Of these, the first is the most likely implication of the e-mail and article’s title, but it is false. The third statement is also false. The second statement is true, but not what Gallup means.

In fact, none of the three is what Gallup means; these, especially the first, are just what they want you to think they mean if you only read the headline.

What Gallup is really saying, though nobody less than Carnac the Magnificent could divine it from the title of the article, is that Republicans are less enthusiastic about voting in 2012 than they were in Gallup’s last survey, just over two months ago. Big effin’ deal.

Here’s the lead paragraph from Gallup’s analysis of their own poll: “Republicans’ enthusiasm about voting in the election for president next year has decreased, with 49% of Republicans and independents who lean Republican now saying they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting, down from 58% in September. This narrows the gap between them and Democrats, 44% of whom are more enthusiastic than usual, essentially the same as in September.”

Having watched the way Gallup’s writers work for some time now, something jumped out at me here as well. Take a guess…

If you said “I wonder what they’re hiding by saying ‘essentially the same’” you get a gold star.

What “essentially the same” says to me is that I need to go look at the prior data because the change is likely a modest negative for Democrats that the Gallup writer is trying to avoid making plain.

And indeed that’s the case here: In the current survey, 44 percent of Democrats and Dem-leaning independent voters are more enthusiastic about voting than they were in the prior election while 47 percent are less enthusiastic. In the prior survey, done in September, 45 percent of Dem and Dem-leaning voters were more enthusiastic and 44 percent less enthusiastic. In other words, there was a four point swing away from voter enthusiasm by Democrats during the last two months. Yes, that’s much less than the swing among Republican and GOP-leaning voters, but it is still worth mentioning because it shows that at least some part of the GOP enthusiasm drop is part of a electorate-wide drop rather than particular to Republicans.

In the September article, Gallup mentioned that the data at that time was “nearly identical” to 2004 data…but they then included the 2004 data in parenthesis so readers wouldn’t have to go dig for it. Of course in that case the 2004 data was one point stronger for Republicans, so the comparison, even if old and statistically insignificant, was a change for the worse for GOP voters. Apparently “nearly identical” or “essentially the same” data is only worth specifying if it can be taken as bad news for Republicans. Otherwise, Gallup prefers that you don’t see the numbers, at least not easily.

In fact – and I realize this may sound a little tin-foil hat-inspired – the link from the current article to the prior article (that you’d have to check to see what “essentially the same” meant) did not work. It took copying and pasting the link, then taking out an erroneous part, to make it work. The average reader would therefore have not been able to read the prior article and see that Democrat enthusiasm has also dropped, albeit less than GOP enthusiasm, since Gallup’s prior polling of the same question.

It turns out that the writer of the misleading article this week was none other than Frank Newport, Gallup’s Editor-in-Chief. I suppose any note I write to Gallup about this apparent reporting bias will fall on deaf ears. To be fair, Mr. Newport has been the subject of criticism by Democrats, and often gives non-partisan responses to questions. Nevertheless, the poor work done by Newport and Gallup in this and other cases leaves me with no way to conclude anything but a pro-Democrat bias, even if a subtle one.

Gallup’s bias continues

by Rossputin | 6:29 am, December 12, 2011

I continue to believe (as I’ve written before) that Gallup intentionally, even if not persistently, analyzes its poll results and titles its press releases in a way designed to bias readers’ interpretations of the data against Republicans and for Barack Obama.

Another example came Thursday when I got an e-mail update from Gallup entitled “Republicans Less Enthusiastic About Voting in 2012.“

Before you read the story, tell me what your initial reaction is…what you think that headline means or would mean to an ordinary American who read it.

To me, there are a few most likely things it could mean, in this order:

• Republicans are less enthusiastic about voting in 2012 than Democrats are
• Republicans are less enthusiastic about voting in 2012 than they were in 2010
• Republicans are less enthusiastic about voting in 2012 than they were during the last presidential election

Of these, the first is the most likely implication of the e-mail and article’s title, but it is false. The third statement is also false. The second statement is true, but not what Gallup means.

In fact, none of the three is what Gallup means; these, especially the first, are just what they want you to think they mean if you only read the headline.

What Gallup is really saying, though nobody less than Carnac the Magnificent could divine it from the title of the article, is that Republicans are less enthusiastic about voting in 2012 than they were in Gallup’s last survey, just over two months ago. Big effin’ deal.

Here’s the lead paragraph from Gallup’s analysis of their own poll: “Republicans’ enthusiasm about voting in the election for president next year has decreased, with 49% of Republicans and independents who lean Republican now saying they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting, down from 58% in September. This narrows the gap between them and Democrats, 44% of whom are more enthusiastic than usual, essentially the same as in September.”

Having watched the way Gallup’s writers work for some time now, something jumped out at me here as well. Take a guess…

If you said “I wonder what they’re hiding by saying ‘essentially the same’” you get a gold star.

What “essentially the same” says to me is that I need to go look at the prior data because the change is likely a modest negative for Democrats that the Gallup writer is trying to avoid making plain.

And indeed that’s the case here: In the current survey, 44 percent of Democrats and Dem-leaning independent voters are more enthusiastic about voting than they were in the prior election while 47 percent are less enthusiastic. In the prior survey, done in September, 45 percent of Dem and Dem-leaning voters were more enthusiastic and 44 percent less enthusiastic. In other words, there was a four point swing away from voter enthusiasm by Democrats during the last two months. Yes, that’s much less than the swing among Republican and GOP-leaning voters, but it is still worth mentioning because it shows that at least some part of the GOP enthusiasm drop is part of a electorate-wide drop rather than particular to Republicans.

In the September article, Gallup mentioned that the data at that time was “nearly identical” to 2004 data…but they then included the 2004 data in parenthesis so readers wouldn’t have to go dig for it. Of course in that case the 2004 data was one point stronger for Republicans, so the comparison, even if old and statistically insignificant, was a change for the worse for GOP voters. Apparently “nearly identical” or “essentially the same” data is only worth specifying if it can be taken as bad news for Republicans. Otherwise, Gallup prefers that you don’t see the numbers, at least not easily.

In fact – and I realize this may sound a little tin-foil hat-inspired – the link from the current article to the prior article (that you’d have to check to see what “essentially the same” meant) did not work. It took copying and pasting the link, then taking out an erroneous part, to make it work. The average reader would therefore have not been able to read the prior article and see that Democrat enthusiasm has also dropped, albeit less than GOP enthusiasm, since Gallup’s prior polling of the same question.

It turns out that the writer of the misleading article this week was none other than Frank Newport, Gallup’s Editor-in-Chief. I suppose any note I write to Gallup about this apparent reporting bias will fall on deaf ears. To be fair, Mr. Newport has been the subject of criticism by Democrats, and often gives non-partisan responses to questions. Nevertheless, the poor work done by Newport and Gallup in this and other cases leaves me with no way to conclude anything but a pro-Democrat bias, even if a subtle one.

Trump Called Out as “Reflexive Liar” on MSNBC

by Bob Adelmann | 5:38 am, December 12, 2011

At last…finally!…someone with the backbone to call out Trump for what he is. Kudos to Lawrence O’Donnell. And let’s enjoy Trump’s “moderating” the debate as the circus it’s likely to be, rather than anything serious. That’ll make it easier for us to stomach The Donald.

Mitt needs to do better than this

by Rossputin | 7:01 am, December 11, 2011

As he loses front-runner status, it’s not enough for Mitt Romney not to hurt himself in a debate. He has to help himself. And I didn’t hear him do that on Saturday night.

Going negative seems very tough for Romney, outside of the playbook he’s most familiar with. And as with most things people don’t do often, he’s not very good at it.

But, like it or not, it’s a critical part of politics. And it’s a skill that Romney better demonstrate he’s at least modestly facile with if he wants voters to believe that he’s tough enough to take on President Obama who will, directly and through surrogates, likely mount the most negative presidential campaign in history.

Romney’s answers to questions were fine, but as usual lacked the fire and passion of many of the other candidates. Gingrich handled a question about marital fidelity gracefully and defended his statement that the Palestinians are an “invented people.” Even while Romney’s response was probably more presidential than Newt’s position, something which Rick Santorum also suggested, Romney’s position was less memorable than Gingrich’s.

And even while Romney’s response to requests for further explanation about his view on health care mandates was a mostly-solid 10th Amendment reference, what was most memorable – and reinforced by Ron Paul – was the fact that the keeps having to answer the same question. As my friend, former Congressman Bob Schaffer, says: if you’re explaining, you’re losing. Mitt Romney seems always to have too much ’splainin’ to do to be able to break through his 25% wall of approval.

Somehow Newt dispenses with the explaining and moves on to new issues, a skill Mitt needs to acquire.

Despite news reports claiming that both the moderators and the other candidates had “assailed” Ginigrich, at intrade.com, betting odds showed that debate viewers were pleased with Gingrich’s performance – and unimpressed with Romney and the rest of the field. Gingrich was up about 4% from several hours earlier, trading between 37 and 38 percent while Romney was down about 2 points to about 44.5 percent. Jon Huntsman (who did not participate in the debate) and Ron Paul’s odds both fell nearly a point, but are still close to 6 percent and 8 percent, respectively. (I think they’re both a sale; neither is going to get the nomination.). Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry remain around 2% with Rick Santorum back down to about 0.7%, giving back his brief spike to about 1.4% after Sarah Palin’s positive comments about a week ago.

Mitt needs to do better than this

by Rossputin | 7:01 am, December 11, 2011

As he loses front-runner status, it’s not enough for Mitt Romney not to hurt himself in a debate. He has to help himself. And I didn’t hear him do that on Saturday night.

Going negative seems very tough for Romney, outside of the playbook he’s most familiar with. And as with most things people don’t do often, he’s not very good at it.

But, like it or not, it’s a critical part of politics. And it’s a skill that Romney better demonstrate he’s at least modestly facile with if he wants voters to believe that he’s tough enough to take on President Obama who will, directly and through surrogates, likely mount the most negative presidential campaign in history.

Romney’s answers to questions were fine, but as usual lacked the fire and passion of many of the other candidates. Gingrich handled a question about marital fidelity gracefully and defended his statement that the Palestinians are an “invented people.” Even while Romney’s response was probably more presidential than Newt’s position, something which Rick Santorum also suggested, Romney’s position was less memorable than Gingrich’s.

And even while Romney’s response to requests for further explanation about his view on health care mandates was a mostly-solid 10th Amendment reference, what was most memorable – and reinforced by Ron Paul – was the fact that the keeps having to answer the same question. As my friend, former Congressman Bob Schaffer, says: if you’re explaining, you’re losing. Mitt Romney seems always to have too much ’splainin’ to do to be able to break through his 25% wall of approval.

Somehow Newt dispenses with the explaining and moves on to new issues, a skill Mitt needs to acquire.

Despite news reports claiming that both the moderators and the other candidates had “assailed” Ginigrich, at intrade.com, betting odds showed that debate viewers were pleased with Gingrich’s performance – and unimpressed with Romney and the rest of the field. Gingrich was up about 4% from several hours earlier, trading between 37 and 38 percent while Romney was down about 2 points to about 44.5 percent. Jon Huntsman (who did not participate in the debate) and Ron Paul’s odds both fell nearly a point, but are still close to 6 percent and 8 percent, respectively. (I think they’re both a sale; neither is going to get the nomination.). Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry remain around 2% with Rick Santorum back down to about 0.7%, giving back his brief spike to about 1.4% after Sarah Palin’s positive comments about a week ago.

Hawaii Five-O Insults Pearl Harbor Survivors

by T.L. James | 7:29 pm, December 10, 2011

This is sad. But predictable with Hollywood, unfortunately – FIVE-O CREW DISGRACEFUL TO WWII PEARL HARBOR SURVIVORS: The TGGF program had brought 24 red roses to place at the gravesites on the opposite side of the Punchbowl.  The program crew actually had one of their men wearing a backpack and earplug walk through – infiltrate [...]

Denver Judge Blows Up Colorado Education Spending

by Randall Smith | 9:14 am, December 10, 2011

A Denver judge blew the state budget apart yesterday.

In a ruling that could have multi-billion dollar consequences for Colorado’s budget, a Denver judge ruled the state’s school funding system is not “thorough and uniform” as mandated by the state …

« 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