This piece is part of Yellow Scene Magazine’s Opinion section. The views expressed here are those of the author, and do not represent a reported news position. At Yellow Scene, opinion pieces speak freely, challenge assumptions, and say the quiet parts out loud.

The Bigots Won’t Win

First days of school!

One granddaughter began high school (huh?) and our grandson entered 5th grade. The older granddaughter is about to enter her 3rd year of law school (double huh?).

Despite the odd sensation of having grandchildren old enough to do such things, the start of school never fails to evoke vivid memories.

I always felt gratitude for the new beginning, having frequently failed to honor the prior year’s sincere resolutions. I would soon fritter away the benefits of a blank slate and quickly enough mar it with procrastination, impulsivity and a tendency to value a good joke more than classroom decorum. Since this is not a confessional, I’ll not elaborate on the extent to which these qualities still fill my slate.

As school begins, the Trumpsters have intensified their attacks on DEI.  Universities are scrapping DEI programs to avoid the wrath of petty tyrants. Schools at all levels are doing the same. Trans youth are politically marginalized, women are losing bodily autonomy (and more), and racism has come back out of the closet, having been at least socially unacceptable for a few decades.

But despite the Bobble-head-in-chief and his crew of vindictive supplicants, the genius of social progress will not be put back in the bottle.

What the faux Christian crusaders fail to see is that DEI is not just capital letters in a mission statement or an alleged stench to purge from the Smithsonian or the Kennedy Center. Diversity, equity and inclusion are lived social experiences and will not expire because admission offices erase the words from websites.

When I attended elementary, middle and high school – in a progressive community – I had no Black classmates. 14 years later, my younger brother attended the same high school and it was richly diverse. I knew no gay students – a remarkable fact given a high school enrollment of 3,000!  The building did not have sufficient closet space for 300 gay kids, so I guess they just faked it to get by.

By contrast, our grandson’s current best pal from a theater program identifies as trans. I have no idea what that means at that age, but I do know that such an identity need not be hidden or a source of shame. I have read of “trans” being a favored identity in some youth communities, adopted for social cache!  Go figure.

Throughout this long period of halting social progress the number of homophobes and racial bigots has not increased.  The current miserable state of affairs is because they have been empowered, not been bred. Bigots of all flavors are products of familial and community conditioning, not government policy. Trump et al have not created a brilliant intellectual milieu in which millions of Americans have woken up one morning with deep-seated hatred of their Black or gay neighbors.  They have just wiggled out from beneath their rocks into the warm glow of MAGA affection. The yahoos whizzing around in pick-ups with Trump flags were not regular contributors to the ACLU before 2016. They were with us all along and they have no more power now – just more visibility.

The 60 years of slow, uneven social progress I’ve experienced will not be reversed by stupid EXECUTIVE ORDERS signed by a vengeance-minded doofus who mostly likes seeing his own signature, which I sense he’s practiced for many hours.

The changes in prior decades were not primarily about changing policies. They were about changing hearts and minds. The millions of people working to advance diversity, equity and inclusion aren’t going to stop because Trump is hosting the Kennedy Center Honors.

The real work of diversity, equity and inclusion is more personal than political. It is about consciously seeking and cultivating diverse communities through social outreach, community events and affordable housing initiatives, which needn’t even mention race.

I wish my grandchildren’s schools were more diverse, but their experiences are not limited to school and their values are being inculcated by several generations of adults whose lives are informed by and committed to social justice.

Those of us who value and learn from diverse communities, who see equity as a moral imperative, who see inclusion as both kind and necessary . . . we are the majority – the vast majority.

It is our children and grandchildren who will mold society for generations to come. Our job is to make sure we survive until then.

Like journalism like this? Consider becoming a sustaining supporter (and get our printed copy monthly at home.)
Democracy needs journalism more than ever. We’ve been telling the truth for 24 years. Your support helps us keep telling it for at least the next four years.

Democracy needs journalism more than ever. We’ve been telling the truth for 24 years. Your support helps us keep telling it for at least the next four years.

The post Nelson’s Corner | August 2025 appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This piece is part of Yellow Scene Magazine’s Opinion section. The views expressed here are those of the author in their role as Associate Editor, and do not represent a reported news position. At Yellow Scene, opinion pieces speak freely, challenge assumptions, and say the quiet parts out loud.

I’m a Superman fan. Let’s start there. I think Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel trilogy had some artistic value, but I never thought it really got to the heart of who Superman is. This new Superman (2025) movie?  It gets it. It understands that Superman isn’t just some overpowered alien or a symbol of might: he’s an ideal. He’s what America wants to be at its absolute best: brave, generous, compassionate, powerful in the service of good, and not afraid to stand up for people when it matters most.

And if we’re being real right now, that ideal feels distant. The systems around us are massive and stuck. We’ve got tech oligarchs hoarding wealth and building weapons, AI accelerating inequality, a political system that feels like it’s fracturing at the seams. The White House feels unaccountable, our congressmen are asleep at the wheel, and the whole structure seems impossible for any one person to meaningfully influence.

That political landscape and the way it makes people feel disempowered is what the movie attempts to tackle. Superman  isn’t naive about politics. It doesn’t handwave away consequences. Its inciting incident begins when Superman intervenes in a foreign war and is met with suddenly a storm of voices: Should he have signed a treaty? Gone to the UN? Respected sovereignty? What are the implications for the world stage ?

Lois Lane’s character arc lives inside that debate. She starts the film cynical, not just about Superman’s choices, but about the possibility of doing good at all. Her background, her loneliness, her cynicism all of it points toward someone who has stopped believing anything truly good can last. She even struggles to believe in her relationship with Clark. However, over the course of the movie, she shifts. Not because Clark lectures her, but because she witnesses good being done. She sees a person choose compassion again and again, even when it’s hard, and she starts to believe that something better is possible.

That’s the first thing Superman teaches us: cynicism is not intelligence. That constant meta-analysis—”Is it it too naïve? What will the UN say? Will this upset the balance of power? “—can become a smokescreen for inaction. There’s a scene where Superman is basically asked, “But what about the consequences of stopping the war?” and his answer is simple: “People were going to die. What should I have done instead?”

There’s a silence. Because that’s it. Sometimes the right thing isn’t safe or neat or bureaucratically sanctioned. Sometimes it’s just… good. And you do it because it needs to be done.

Compare that to the way many establishment voices—media outlets like the New York Times, legacy Democrats, even some younger voices—frame political possibility. You hear a lot of “well, there’s only so much we can do,” or “you have to stay within the lines.” Activists have to “be realistic.” All that cautious hand-wringing is what Superman blows apart. He sees what’s wrong and acts. That’s the second thing Superman shows us: you don’t have to stop being good to be effective. He doesn’t need to “grow up” out of his ideals. He doesn’t need to give up on people, abandon his values, or break himself to win. He doesn’t need a power-up from a special sun or some cosmic boost. His real strength is his humanity. He goes home and talks to his parents. He remembers that there are people who need help, and that’s enough to keep going. He is strong because he cares. 

And that brings me to the third lesson: hope is a chain reaction. Throughout the film, Superman not just do good, but also inspires it. Lois breaks open a global conspiracy. A regular man stands up for Superman and pays the price. Mr. Terrific risks everything to fight for something bigger than himself. They don’t do it because they have to. They do it because they see someone else trying.

Hope is hard. It’s not always practical. It can feel embarrassing. But it’s also powerful and contagious.

That’s what Superman reminds us: even when the world feels impossibly broken, even when you’ve been told your whole life that nothing can change, you can still choose to act. You can be soft-hearted, idealistic, kind, and still be strong.

In other words, pessimism and apathy are out—and optimism is punk rock now.

The post What Superman (2025) Teaches Us About Politics and Hope appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This piece is part of Yellow Scene Magazine’s Opinion section. The views expressed here are those of the author in their role as Associate Editor, and do not represent a reported news position. At Yellow Scene, opinion pieces speak freely, challenge assumptions, and say the quiet parts out loud.

Earlier this week, Yellow Scene reached out to the Town of Erie to request a copy of the full community survey. In response, the town informed us that. to protect the integrity of the fielding process, they would not be releasing the questions publicly until after the survey closes.

Let’s be clear: while we have serious criticisms of how this survey was constructed and deployed, we have no desire to undermine the people involved (however flawed the execution) or invalidate a process that, for better or worse, cost the town $70,000. We decided we would respect the process and avoid publishing the questions today. However, we are going to share our initial impressions. All images of questions will come from the publicly available survey draft, and may have minor differences from the presentation of the final questions. What follows is a breakdown of the types of questions that make up the survey, based on known phrasing, public discussions, and our reporting. We’re sharing this to shed light on broader patterns in the survey design, not to necessarily dive into the political topics it covers or comprehensively cover the questions.

When the survey was first introduced, residents and council members raised concerns about the questions. There were fears that the survey would ask residents to weigh in on technical issues they weren’t equipped to evaluate, or present false choices in overly simplistic ways. At the root of it all is a deeper concern: that this survey, marketed as a way to reflect the “will of the people,” is being used to manufacture consent for decisions that may not actually serve Erie’s long-term interests and provide cover for city officials seeking to avoid accountability.

Now that we’ve seen the questions, the verdict is mixed. Some of those fears have come to fruition. Others haven’t. Overall, I’d break the survey questions down into four categories: Solid, Serviceable, Ill-Fitting, and Loaded.

Solid Questions

First, some praise.

There are questions in this survey that are thoughtful, well-constructed, and likely to yield valuable insight. One example: a question that asks residents to describe what a “small-town feel” means to them. This question stands out because it doesn’t force a numerical answer or push residents into a false binary. It invites reflection, and in doing so, it taps into a real, emotional tension as Erie grows. What makes Erie feel like home? What elements of that tight-knit identity might be at risk as development accelerates?

That’s the kind of question a survey should ask.

My only critique is that the framing presumes Erie does have a small-town feel, and that this is inherently good. It’s a subtle slant, but worth noting. Still, I’d estimate fewer than a dozen of the survey’s questions strike this kind of thoughtful, balanced tone.

Serviceable Questions

Next up: the middle-of-the-road questions. These aren’t great, but they aren’t harmful either. Some are simply boring. Others are vague or imprecise. But they don’t mislead or cause real damage. Think basic demographic questions (race, income) or broad approval ratings.

Take Question 6, for example:
“Do you approve or disapprove of the job the Town of Erie is doing to provide public services, projects, and programs for Town residents?”

It’s a reasonable pulse check. But it’s incredibly broad. What counts as a “public service” or “town project”? Does that include festivals? Parks? Affordable housing? And what does “approve” mean? Is “mostly fine” enough to click “approve”? The question tries to measure overall satisfaction, but it’s so fuzzy that the results may not tell the town anything useful. And because the answers are multiple choice rather than open-ended, there’s no room to clarify.

Ill-Fitting Questions

Now we enter problematic territory.

These are questions that simply shouldn’t be in a public opinion survey because they require expert analysis or have empirically measurable answers that shouldn’t be swayed by gut feelings or individual bias.

For example:
Should Erie prioritize building a water park or investing in sustainable infrastructure?

This is not a question of public opinion—it’s a policy decision that should be based on data, long-term impacts, and expert input. Pretending otherwise is irresponsible at best—and at worst, a thinly veiled attempt to justify bad decisions with cherry-picked public sentiment.

These types of questions create a false equivalence. Celebratory fireworks and water conservation efforts don’t belong in the same ranking list.

Another example:
“How much of a problem is rental availability?”

That’s something we can measure. Vacancy rates, average time on market, income-to-rent ratios, all of that data exists. Asking residents to weigh in without that context will generate results based on anecdote, bias, and personal circumstance, rather than fact.

And here’s the deeper issue:
Let’s say the majority of residents rank building a “water park” as their top priority. What then? Will the town scrap housing and sustainability initiatives to fund more splash pads?

If yes, that’s a governance failure. If not, why ask the question in the first place?

This is a $70,000 survey. That breaks down to roughly $1,400 per question. And some of these questions simply aren’t worth that price tag. Yes, part of the cost covers distribution and vendor fees, but that’s all the more reason to treat each question like it matters.

Loaded Questions

Finally, the worst offenders: loaded, leading, or misleading questions.

Despite public concerns, the final survey still includes several questions asking residents to weigh in on specific, highly technical complex issues, without enough context to make an informed decision. Two sentences of background isn’t enough for a resident to decide whether Erie should invest in high-density versus low-density housing, or use a particular tax structure to fund infrastructure.

Many of these questions boil complex tradeoffs down to a single, misleading frame:
Raise taxes or don’t?

Predictably, most people will choose “don’t” especially when the question doesn’t provide critical information like project timelines, interest rates, or long-term community benefits. But that’s exactly the problem: surveys aren’t built for this kind of nuance. What we’re left with is a set of questions that pretend to ask for guidance, when really, they’re just looking for permission.

Final Verdict: 5/10

There are worse surveys out there. But given the time, money, and political weight placed behind this one, it leaves a lot to be desired There’s nothing wrong with wanting to involve residents in decisions that affect their lives. In fact, that’s admirable. But there are far better tools than this: Hold real town halls. Share accessible, informative materials. Engage directly with community groups. Host public votes when appropriate.

This survey? It feels more like a cover story than a real conversation.

And for $70,000, Erie deserves more than that.

What the survey postcard looks like (don’t discard it!)

It hit hard when, after 31 years, a beloved local publication closed its doors. Independent journalism in Colorado just got a little smaller. And a lot more vulnerable.

In Boulder County, only one locally-owned, independent news platform remains: Yellow Scene Magazine. We don’t answer to a corporate board. We’re not backed by a hedge fund. We answer and report to our readers..

The future isn’t found in selling out or corporate donors. It’s in community.

Help us keep unbought, unbossed journalism alive and delivered to your mailbox.

Become a sustaining supporter for just $8/month

The post What Erie’s $70K Survey Gets Right—and So, So Wrong appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.