Our march toward an unstable planet is cruel
Re: āNatureās cruel odds play out in wildfire,ā July 6 news story
Nature is not cruel. She simply is. We can, however, speak of the cruelty of a race that is using up all the resources of its world, pushing millions toward deprivation and loss of the simple necessities of life, and pushing our planet further into global warming and toward the point of no return.
This will certainly create worse and worse fire situations. Ask any fire fighter, bless their souls. They can see the writing on the skies. Nature is only reacting to warming trends while the leaders of our country refuse to work with other countries to bring global warming under control.
This isnāt just politics as usual. We are playing Russian roulette with the future of our children and the children of all species on our planet that have not yet gone extinct. But the difference is that humanity is continually adding ammunition to the barrel of the gun.
Dariel Blackburn, Boulder
Answering the āloaded questionā about guns in schools
Re: āLoaded questions,ā July 8 news story
Good education and public policy is guided by scientific evidence of what helps students learn, and what keeps citizens safe. There is no evidence that armed school staff makes students safer, or improves learning. In fact, in communities of color, armed staff can have the opposite effect. There are cases of a teacher who drops his or her gun in the classroom, forgets it in the bathroom, or accidentally discharges it. We can best support teachers and students by funding schools and school programs, not by making teachers act as social workers and nurses and police and educators, etc.
Jessica Pettigrew, Denver
I am sure many letters will come in with theories about arming teachers. Let¶¶Ņõap look at the facts. From April of 1999, when the Columbine shooting occurred, until May of this year, Wikipedia reported 164 school shootings, not counting colleges and universities.
I bet all of these attacks occurred in schools where teachers were not allowed to carry weapons in the school building. A total of 174 people were killed and 317 wounded.
Isnāt it time to set aside dogma and fears of hypothetical situations and follow the facts where they lead?
Ray Harlan, Aurora
Caldaraās advocacy for Stapleton crude and wrong
Re: āI left the Republican Party; now I want Dems to take over,ā and āWalker Stapleton could win,ā July 8 commentaries
One of the reasons Max Boot gave for leaving the Republican Party was that Donald Trumpās presidency has contributed to āthe debasement of political discourseā in the United States. Ironically, in the same July 8 Perspective Jon Caldaraās column on this yearās race for governor demonstrated how Trumpās habit of demonizing opponents spreads in our political culture. In recounting recent Colorado political history, Caldara wrote that Cory Gardner defeated Mark āUterusā to replace him in U.S. Senate. Perhaps, Caldara can explain what he meant and how it contributes to the political dialogue in Colorado.
Dolph Grundman, Arvada
Jon Caldara advocates for Walker Stapleton because Colorado might otherwise become āNew California.ā According to Mr. Caldara, Jared Polis is a āprogressive elitistā who would ācrush working people with new taxes and regulationsā and, hence, he ābelongs in San Francisco.ā
California is not a perfect model. Most notably, California has an acute shortage of affordable housing and severe homelessness in its urban centers.
The reality is that there is no perfect model. All states have issues. The question is which is the better, albeit imperfect, model? Unlike California, Texas is a deep-red state with no income taxes and few regulations. Would āNew Texasā be a better model for Colorado working people?
Statistics from the Federal Reserve suggest otherwise. California has a minimum wage of $11, average hourly earnings of $30.60 and a median household income of $66,637. In Texas, these figures are $7.25, $25.58 and $58,146.
The higher wages (and taxes and regulations) of California have not ākilled jobsā as conservatives often argue. The unemployment rate in California is 4.2 percent, only slightly higher than the Texas unemployment rate of 4.1 percent.
Instead, with higher incomes, a smaller percentage of Californians (11 percent) receive food stamps than Texans (13.4 percent).
Access to high-quality, public universities is critical for the upward mobility of the working class. U.S. News & World Report ranks six California state universities in the top 50 of U.S. universities. These six state universities enroll more than 100,000 undergraduates. By contrast, no Texas state university makes the list.
These statistics (among others) demonstrate that working people in Colorado would benefit more from the progressive policies adopted by California than from the conservative policies adopted by Texas.
Fabrice Georis, Denver
Let¶¶Ņõap end Front Range smog with emissions standards
Re: āGov.ās auto mandate is too far for Colo.,ā July 8 Commentary
In his critique of Gov. John Hickenlooperās vehicle emission plan, Sen. Jack Tate seems to think that existing clean air efforts have done wonders, even āeliminating the infamous ābrown cloudā that once could be seen along the Front Range.ā
Wow. Really?
Iām a native of the Front Range who has spent increasingly little time there over the past quarter century. Last weekend, however, I had occasion to visit and was reminded why. Upon cresting Lookout Mountain from the west it looked as if we were descending into Beijing, the smog was so dense. Heading north on Interstate 25 toward Fort Collins the mountains were barely visible. They remained shrouded in haze all weekend.
Is this what Mr. Tate considers a Colorado ābluebirdā sky?
Iām not suggesting that clean air improvements have not been made in the Metro area. But to intimate that our skies are clear enough seems like a sad case of settling to me. We should strive for better and I, for one, applaud our governor for attempting to do just that.
Chris Dickey, Gunnison
George Willās fear of socialism is misguided
Re: āWhat might a socialist American government do?,ā and ā July 8 commentary
George Will continues the great American tradition of whitewashing the destructive elements of predatory capitalism with a dread and distorted picture of the evils of socialism.
The biggest problem with Willās dire predictions of a socialist future lies in his carefully constructed narrow definition of socialism that he admits is ādiluted.ā I, on the other hand, start with a broader definition. Essentially socialism is shared risk. Under this definition all are socialists of one kind or another. Insurance companies, for instance, operate on the socialistic principle that if all accept a small degree of risk, then the few who experience devastating loss can be covered.
The dividing line of a āsocialism for the richā and a democratic socialism derives from the issue of who will profit from the shared risk. Will it be public risk and privatized profit, or public risk and public profit? Being a human being living with many other human beings in a limited environment and with limited resources, I answer in the latter.
Keith Ruckhaus, Littleton
George Willās recent article, āWhat might a socialist American government do?ā poses the highly unlikely scenario of having a classically socialist American government and the ramifications.
In his opening, he mentions the recent primary win of the democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and proceeds to answer his original question by laying out the āhorrorsā of classical socialism, implying these would be her positions too.
Democratic socialism and classical socialism are different animals. This is a typical example of the intellectual dishonesty that is rampant in public discourse today.
I believe Mr. Will is a Never-Trumper who renounced his membership in the Republican Party and urges votes against them. If he is sincere in this, why does he continue with his fear-mongering misrepresentations which will certainly be used as fodder by the right in an attempt to discredit the left? I guess old habits die hard.
Chris Leatherwood, Wheat Ridge
When Will begins to speculate about an American socialist government, he goes off the rails. No one in the democratic socialist movement is suggesting that government should ātell consumers what they can buy,ā or that āvigorous government interventions in the allocation of capitalā are desirable.
What they do favor is a government like that of the U.S. during the post-war era; a government that works for the people by supporting unions, mass-transit, universal health care, and a clean environment instead of providing corporate welfare for pharmaceutical and fossil fuel companies (talk about vigorous government intervention!).
Kathy McKittrick, Castle Rock
