General

Judges have selective interpretations of the Constitution; control weapons such as cars; broadband needs good economy

Judges have selective interpretations of the Constitution;  control weapons such as cars;  broadband needs good economy

Juan Roederer: Supreme Court: Judges have selective interpretations of the constitution

I wonder how the Supreme Court’s “supreme hypocrites” would have judged if that coach had knelt to Mecca, held his hands open to the sky and prayed silently to Allah.

To reinforce my harsh labeling of some SCOTUS members as “supreme hypocrites”, may I point out the facts as I see them: they deliberately and systematically ignore something contained in the Constitution (namely the conditional clause on a militia in the Second Amendment ), while deliberately assuming something that is not in the Constitution (namely, a religion-based definition of the beginning of human life, presumably in the First Amendment).

Of course, as always, Republicans will have crystal clear, logical, history-based, precedent-based, or original (whichever suits them best) explanations and justifications. While, as always, the dialectically underserved and disorganized Democrats will continue to dream their sweet dreams of better times, ask you to donate five dollars and vote for the candidate of your choice.

Juan Roederer, Boulder


Michael Dille: Gun Control: Regulate Firearms Like Cars

I sincerely hope that a young man with a gun who allegedly shot a young man with an AR-15 does not act as some kind of proof that we should go into a national fantasy that we should be living in a Hollywood western from now on. .

It might be worth pausing for a moment on this bizarre idea of ​​things. We already know that arming crazy people is not a good idea, so if we arm everyone, like in the so-called ‘Old West’, what would this lead to? Events like road rage with guns are already ubiquitous, so we know that the neurotics among us don’t have to be really insane to escalate into gun violence.

But I see the gun lawyers celebrating the armed civilian who saves the day with the “See, I told you so” argument. If more of us carry guns, we could solve mass shootings and gun deaths in America, the argument seems.

How is this going so far? We are by far the most personally armed nation on Earth, with one of the highest gun deaths. And yet, as a nation, we are losing an argument with ourselves as to whether any of us—crazy, neurotic, or perfectly sane—should be capable of owning a weapon that can destroy people at a phenomenal rate.

I wonder how many of my fellow seniors, who at every turn have supported the NRA with their money and their votes, are ready with a Glock-19 on their hip at every grocery store visit to take out the active shooter.

We can change this. We need to change our collective mind. Weapons should be regulated, just like car use. It’s easy. Let’s do it!

Michael Dille, Boulder


Richard Hansen: Broadband: service should be based on economics, not emotions

It has become very difficult to obtain up-to-date stand-alone data for municipally managed broadband systems, as most are financially tied to their electricity branch. When a city’s broadband internet service fails to cover its costs, the city has a strong incentive to increase electricity rates rather than broadband rates. Municipality-run broadband isn’t just about building and offering a price, it has to become profitable on its own at some point.

Unlike traditional utilities that are relatively static, such as electricity distribution, broadband is dynamic and requires consistent investment to keep pace with technological change. City governments are not known for being entrepreneurial and most do not have a research and development department. Broadband internet service requires innovation and investment that most municipalities cannot provide. Since failure is not an option, municipalities are forced to use revenues from other sources to cover the growing costs of their broadband business.

The answer is not to tax the public sector with higher rates if you end up raising electricity rates or using other intergovernmental funds to cover broadband losses. Let the private sector provide broadband internet, but make them responsible and competitive. Enforce antitrust laws at the national level and don’t let ISPs divide the country so that they are the only provider in each geographic area. The political solution may be very difficult, but cutting your nose to bully your face isn’t the answer either.

Ultimately, it comes down to a political stance: do we want competent private companies that must be regulated and competitive, or government-run entities that will eventually become obsolete and overpriced? We absolutely need affordable broadband internet services, but based on economics and not emotions. We see the bed of roses, but not the thorns that go with it!

Richard Hansen, Loveland