(Submitted by Rational Thinker)


​​Liberty. The practical meaning of the word is that you don't have to like me or what I choose to do with my property (which includes my body, thoughts, money, business, etc.), you just may not infringe on my rights; you may not dictate to me what I shall and shall not do with my property.* You may not dictate what I eat, what sex I think I am, my religious beliefs, and an almost endless list of other personal, adult decisions I make for and about myself. By extension, neither does the government that represents you.

This newest iteration of the "Bathroom Bill" still protects private citizens from the dictates of local governments as to whom may use their restrooms, changing rooms and showers. This was always the fly in the soup. Charlotte's ordinance dictated to private citizens that they must open their facilities to anyone "identifying" as a particular "gender," regardless of the sex organs they actually have. Some believe the General Assembly should have left the matter to the courts, but as this was a clear, unmitigated violation of private property rights, I don't believe the citizens of Charlotte should be forced to "fight city hall" and incur the huge legal bills that would necessarily generate. Sparring citizens from that was an appropriate and good use of state legislative power. After all, the primary responsibility of elected officials is protect the rights of citizens. That is the standard, not whether you can afford to go to and win in court.

This seems clear but if you disagree I urge you to explain your thinking in the "Comments" section.

  What are others saying on this issue?

• NC Lawmakers Cave on Principle in Face of NCAA Threat
• Did the General Assembly and Roy Cooper just put a for sale sign on our state?
• How they vote
• Statement on HB 2 Repeal
• HB2 Repeal a Classic GOP Move
• VIEW FROM THE LEFT: What changes (and what doesn't) in HB2 replacement
• LOL

*of course we're talking about competent, adult citizens and decisions that don't infringe the rights of others

Is transgenderism a real thing or just a mental illness? I don't know. Nobody actually knows because there is currently no proof one way or the other. I suspect that like most things in nature there probably are people for whom something went wrong at some point, but that is irrelevant when it come to who goes into which restroom, shower or changing room. To her credit, Ms. Quintrall was able to admit her wrong. When faced with the results of her politically correct support for letting self-described "transgender" men into the ladies room, she realized that law must depend on more than simply the honor system.
​Read Liberal Mom Aghast as Huge Guy Wearing Lakers Jersey Walks Into Ladies’ Room

There are some truths about this transsexual/transgender issue:

1. Most of us feel great sympathy for someone a person who spends his/her entire life feeling like they were born the wrong sex.
2. Transsexuals are a TINY group.
   
3. This whole debate would have been dismissed as radical and outside the realm of common sense just 10 years ago. The only thing that's changed is the politics and messaging; it's been embraced by the extremist Democratic Party as part of the strategy for changing our culture.
4. The idea that simply claiming to be a transsexual is proof of the condition is asinine. Actually have the surgery and it's a whole different game.
   
5. Most of us aren't worried about a transsexual molesting women or girls in the female shower, changing room or restroom, we're worried about the criminals who would take advantage of stupid laws with no objectivity (see #3, above).
   
6. Opposition to the Charlotte "bathroom bill" has nothing to do with one's view of homosexuality. Homosexuality and transgenderism are entirely different things. The Left has always asserted such and it is a completely rational premise. Therefore, the only reason the two are linked (ex., "LGBT") is to boost political power.

The radical, former ACLU pleader, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, acknowledged all this (one way or the other), and that is the point of the Daily Haymaker article.

I like the idea of little English-speakers (K~4) becoming bilingual in the normal course of going to school. Why not? And since Spanish is the predominant language in this hemisphere it is a logical choice. I'm also a proponent for making English the official language of the US and restricting all federal documents/Websites to English, teaching logic and critical thinking to elementary and high school children—such as is part of the ciriculum of Sandhills Classical Christian School, and teaching them solid, market-based, basic economics.

So I like the foreign language immersion idea, but "intelligence guided by experience" with the U.S. education system has generated two questions:

   —What does this program cost relative to the rest of the county? There is something inherently wrong about demanding that citizens with no children pay (or lose their property) to educate the children the rest of us made. That is a debate for another time but the moral obligation of the school board and the county commissioners to exercise severe frugality with the taxpayers' property is most certainly germane to this discussion.

   —Who are the "native Spanish speaking teachers" and from whence did they come to West End Elementary? That is, do they come with a political message? Are they part of an organization with a much larger, anti-American agenda (ex., La Raza)? I'm not suggesting or implying they are because I have no information one way or the other. I'm simply very familiar with the tactics of the Left and am firmly asserting that we must examine cost and agenda before we leap on the Good Idea Fairy's train.

What if the program is not more expensive and the teachers are great, America-loving immigrants? Then I ask, why not make this an option for parents? What do you think? What do you know about this West End Elementary's program?

Read The Pilot's article: Elementary to End Spanish Immersion Program

Submitted by Skeptical Thinker

What are you thoughts? From the story:

This isn't a rhetorical question. This a real (non-theoretical) dilemma currently facing our Board of Commissioners that gives us the opportunity to have a philosophical discussion about the role the local government, then to act on our individual decisions by contacting the commissioners.

Read the story: Nonprofit Makes Case to County for Continued Assistance

There is no question that Friend to Friend does truly great things in Moore Co. Many of us have donated to it, personally, but does that mean we can obligate our neighbors to (partially) fund it? Well, it may! They have to pay for law enforcement, roads, etc. Are the services offered by F2F those that are proper functions of government?

Point: This expenditure is a rightful public safety role of the county and F2F is a more efficient way of providing it than county bureaucracy would be.
Counter Point: I don't have the right to obligate my neighbors—who may have serious financial challenges (sick child, disability, caring for a parent, leaky roof, etc.) and can barely pay the property taxes on to the house they outright own—to pay for part of Friend to Friend's operating costs.

​What do you think?

The NC General Assembly (NCGA) slipped in lots of things in it's two specials sessions.  In the comments, tell the rest us if you disagree with something. Be polite, respectful and address/debate facts and logic.

The link, below, is to an explanatory peice written by (state) Senator Phil Berger (R), that lists some of the things the legislature just passed in its special sessions. Note that this list is what Berger wants us to read, omits whatever he'd rather we didn't (or what he considers "unimportant"), and presents the view he wants to front (what he says is correcting the record the media are distorting). That said, is some or all of what they did wrong, dangerous or foolish? If you think so, share with the rest of us.

The President just advocated abolishing the Electoral College (as have Dr. Carson and others from both parties). Why did the Framers put it in the Constitution? For the same reason they created a republic, not a democracy. They knew democracies fail because the Majority* inevitably votes away the rights of of the Minority.* That leads to persecution, "balkanization" and ultimately to national collapse. The Framers created a republic that protects the Minority from the tyranny of "majority rule."

*these groups change over time (blacks, Christians, gun owners, gays, Jews, etc.)

Trumpmania has two absurd sides. One amounts to paranoid fantasy and the other to magical thinking. It is what happens when one ignores objective facts.

The nutters end of the extremist spectrum is illustrated by the group that is pushing transsexuals to change their names and genitals before Trump is sworn in. They seem to believe that the man who said Caitlyn Jenner was welcome to choose which restroom to use in his building (Jenner actually did use the ladies' room with no opposition from Trump Tower employees) will use the unconstitutional Obama Pen to outlaw transsexualism.

On the psychic end of Trumpmania are the descendants of Nostradamus who confidently pronounce "Trump is going to ____ [fill in your own superlatives about the grandiose things you want to see]. Try to suggest to these mouth-frothers that their pet issues are decided by Congress vs. the President, or that they are economically damaging (eg., tariffs), or are 180º from what Trump said in even the recent past. They will respond with rationalizations or the much worse Nationalist-Populist declaration that (for the good of the nation, of course) Trump should roll over Congress like Obama did. That is, we must abandon the constitution to save the constitutional system! (Thank you, G. W. Bush.)

So what is the rational position for those of us who cherish liberty and the through-and-through wisdom of the Declaration of Independence and it's completing document, the U.S. Constitution? Cautious, watchful, optimistic skepticism.

Donald Trump has a mixed history. He raised his children to be seemingly good Americans who love and respect him. He opposed banning abortion at any stage. He earned billions in business. His business declared bankruptcy, defaulting on obligations several times. He's done wonderful things for people. He's vindictively gone after people. He's apparently willing to speak honestly; without a PC filter. His company dragged out payments to many subcontractors and never paid others. He's made some good nominations and appointments to his Executive Branch.

Donald Trump may be a great President. He might be an OK president. He might be disastrous. We don't know because his history is a mixed bag; he's been all over the political map. Filling that place of anxious uncertainty with cult of personality worship is, at best, naive and erodes one's credibility as an open-eyed rationalist. At worst, it is dangerous, trading skepticism for blind allegiance and the rationalizing away of evil. We must hold to our principles and judge the man by what he does, not by what you want him to be.

—Matt Horsley