Ban ‘OK Boomer’; Boulder government is frustrating; keep ‘Breaking Cat News’ – Boulder Daily Camera
John Spitzer: “OK Boomer” Pejorative has no place on the council
When I tried to speak during the open hearing at the city council meeting on December 3rd, I was bombarded with large signs in the audience behind me saying “Hey Boomer” and “OK Boomer” in full view of the city council and television audience .
For those of you who don’t know (like I didn’t know a few weeks ago), “OK” or “Hey Boomer” is “a derogatory response that is used to convey perceived narrow-minded, outdated, negative, or condescending attitudes toward reject or ridicule the elderly, especially baby boomers, ”according to Wikipedia. Columnist Bob Lonsberry recently referred to “boomer” as the “n-word” of ageism.
Does “Hey” or “OK Boomer” have a place in city council hearings or any other place in town? I do not think so. I have reason to believe that the use of this term was encouraged and / or promoted by the so-called “progressives” in Boulder – the same “progressives” who called for diversity, equality and tolerance in our last election. Hypocrisy? I urge you to immediately notify friends and supporters not to use “Hey Boomer” or “OK Boomer” in any way.
While they may claim that this is just a use of “free speech”, I see a “chilling effect” on my free speech – I will not speak again in the council until such signs and speeches are banned by the city at council meetings and elsewhere . We have enough national disagreements – it’s time we accept and embrace all of the people of Boulder.
This could also be something that the newly formed GARE (“Government Alliance for Race and Justice”) should consider.
Don Tocher: Frustration with how we are governed
Spending about $ 100 million on electrical municipalization is mind-boggling. That’s roughly $ 1,000 for each of us. It’s silly to buy and manage very complex resources that interest payers have already paid for, in large part, through Xcel’s fees for depreciating their assets. Then there is the observation that the original vote for the effort included college kids who were persuaded to vote and who, for the most part, never have to pay for it.
This prompted thought about how the environment can be better protected with this type of money. Note that there are around 20,000 individual apartment buildings in Boulder, which is home to roughly half the population. $ 50 million could subsidize solar energy to around $ 2,500 per home. The other half could also apply to commercial and multi-family houses. This would of course have a direct impact on CO2 emissions.
The city’s reaction to the recent storm underscores my frustration with the way we are being governed. Are there neighborhoods in the city that are not infested with ice fountains? Perhaps those in which the councilors live have been plowed; Oh, that’s a Chicago story!
Another political step concerns immigration. According to cotap.org (CO2 Compensation for Poverty Reduction), the annual CO2 emissions per capita for the Northern Triangle (El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala) are around one tonne per year, those for India and Bangladesh are 1.6 and 0.38 respectively Tons per year. In contrast, that of the United States is 17.5 tons per year. Obviously, most people migrate in order to improve economically and that means increasing their carbon footprint.
So an effective policy to reduce CO2 emissions would be to limit migration from poor to wealthier countries. It is better to move for more emancipation and education for women and to help with family planning.
Lise Menn: In Defense of Breaking Cat News
I jump to the top of the bookshelf defending Breaking Cat News.
Perhaps this gentle streak primarily appeals to cat people, but there are plenty of us out here. I depend on the sour brilliance of “Dilbert”, “Doonesbury”, “Non Sequitur” and their way of dealing with the “real” world. But “Breaking Cat News”, with its confused feline view of human corporations, its (mostly) warm, fuzzy hug, its momentary cat spots, and its lyrical drawing style counterpointed by chyron banners with tight cords, offers me some moments of calm each Tomorrow on a virtual sunny couch.
Please keep this strip.
Julia Bickford: Phones are a distraction in the classroom
Cell phones don’t belong in the classroom. Limiting access to technology in schools ensures that children get the most out of their education.
The Boulder Valley School District is taking that first step. It is a privilege for BVSD students to have cell phones. This privilege should not override the value of education. Implementing a ban on cell phones is in the best interests of the student. Cell phones hinder learning as they distract students from academic classes. Children lose interest in what teachers have to say when they have a better chance to chat on their cell phones. The elimination of cell phones enables children to better learn, digest, and utilize the crucial academic lessons teachers provide them. Cell phones are just a form of distraction in schools; The ban on the use of cell phones is a change that needs to be made so that students can take full advantage of their education.
According to a 2019 survey by Kaitlin Hurtado, kids use their phones 60% of the time for non-academic purposes. It has been proven that students do not use their cell phones in school to educate themselves, but rather to distract them. Banning the use of cell phones will address this issue. Knowledge of how to use cell phones is essential as these choices will affect the future of children and their relationship with education.
Schools in Boulder that implement this ban create a domino effect. After it has been determined that children in school do not have access to cell phones, other schools will soon follow suit. This will soon be a global change and people will wonder why we didn’t implement such bans sooner.
The Daily Camera welcomes letters to the editor and guest comments from readers. Read our guidelines and send your posts to [email protected]