Baby D's Bagels
$20 Worth of Food and Drink for Only $10
August 29, 2012

Inbox — Aug. 29, 2012

Letters to the Editor

Correction
In last week’s A&E Guide, the 2012-2013 season schedule for Le Petomane Theatre Ensemble was incorrect. Here is the correct version. LEO regrets the error.

• “Time Flies” — Sept. 6-16, The Bard’s Town
• “5 Things” — Nov. 8-18, Walden Theatre
• TBA — Feb. 7-17, The Bard’s Town
• TBA — May 29-June 9, The Bard’s Town

Share the Arena
In response to the July 18 article “The Shuffle Board,” about the KFC Yum! Center and the Louisville Arena Authority struggling to pay back debt on $349 million in construction bonds with revenues from the downtown TIF district, and a net income from the Yum! Center being lower than expected, why can’t U of L consider sharing the arena with a professional team?

During a meeting this past week, Arena Authority Chairman Larry Hayes expressed his confidence in arena finances, according to WHAS-TV, telling them that he’s “excited about the future” and has “every reason to believe” that the arena TIF district revenues will be substantially better.

Keep in mind that 2011 TIF revenues came in at $2.1 million (only 31.3 percent of the expected $6.7 million in revenues), and in 2012 they were projected at $14.9 million but are now expected to bring in less than $6 million. The only way to drive TIF revenues is to increase the number of events in the arena, thereby driving more traffic to surrounding bars and restaurants. An NBA team would be an ideal fit as a co-tenant with U of L.

Let’s make it perfectly clear — we are the basketball capital of the world, and we need to embrace it on all levels. The group Bring the NBA to Louisville consists of fans from all the local universities.

The Arena Authority would apparently rather have the Yum! Center sit empty than try and make it work with both U of L and a potential NBA team like other cities around the country.
P. Baker, East End

Mindless Absolutism
The Second Amendment to the Constitution protects “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” solely because average Americans bringing their own guns when they volunteered for state militias was the only way in the 1700s for these militias to be sufficiently fortified to remain a check on federal power. The amendment’s aim was not to block government from restricting individual ownership of weapons.

What left-wing, ’60s revisionist group lacking any judicial standing declared that? In fact, it was precisely the finding of the U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous decision in 1939 (U.S. vs. Miller) upholding a federal ban on transporting certain types of shotguns across state lines. This court was famously independent of partisan agendas or ideological rubber-stamping — it had thrown out much of the New Deal. Its justices were confirmed in an era without interest groups’ litmus tests or PAC money, factors that contributed heavily to the make-up of the court that, in 2008, issued a 5-4 decision reversing the 1939 U.S. vs. Miller interpretation.

Despite its steadfast belief that the Second Amendment’s rights, under any interpretation, are inviolable, does the NRA quarrel with the government’s power to prosecute someone who falsely shouts “fire” in a crowded theater, or a health department requiring a church-operated public camp’s kitchen to submit to an inspection? When life and safety are involved, every reasonable person would agree that free speech and freedom of worship are not abridged by those.

The wisdom of gun control laws can be debated, but we must never let the debate be shut down by mindless absolutism never applied to other constitutional rights.
George Morrison, Cherokee Triangle