The General Assembly’s war on LGBTQ kids

The N.C. General Assembly’s GOP leadership will likely call veto override votes on several anti-LGBTQ bills vetoed by Gov. Cooper: HB 574 (Fairness in Women’s Sports Act), HB 808 (Gender Transition/Minors) and SB 49 (Parents’ Bill of Rights). They are all cruel attacks on our young people.

For a long time, we were shielded from the most extreme legislation passed by the Republican majority due to the governor’s veto. But Republicans gained a veto-proof majority with the sudden transformation of state Rep. Tricia Cotham from progressive Democrat to right-wing Republican. Since then, she has voted for every piece of legislation on the Republican agenda.

The Fairness in Women’s Sports Act seems to be solving a problem that is extremely rare. It’s estimated that there are 10 transgender women playing in women’s sports in North Carolina. HB 808 steps between parents, their children and their doctors to dictate the care that can be provided. The GOP professes to be protecting parents’ rights but will not trust parents to make decisions for their children.

The so-called Parents’ Bill of Rights(!) would outlaw content in grades K-4 about LGBTQ identities. I’m a parent, and in this instance, my rights are being trampled. I want to raise children who are equipped to navigate a 21st-century world. I want to raise compassionate, empathetic kids who embrace differences. You’ll hear the argument that the bill refers only to “instruction” on these topics. Teachers aren’t teaching this in K-4.

In other states that have passed this kind of legislation, teachers are fired for reading a picture book, librarians are threatened with prosecution if they give the wrong book to a kid, and teachers are forced to lock up classroom libraries for fear the ideas inside might be catching. Books are pulled from shelves on the say-so of a handful of parents.

I don’t expect teachers to parent my children, and I certainly don’t want a small group of parents deciding what is taught (and not taught) to my children. When I was a kid, I read whatever I wanted. If something confused me, I asked my mom, my dad or a teacher. Those discussions were pivotal in my upbringing. Don’t parents want to have these conversations anymore? It’s no wonder there’s a serious teacher shortage and kids aren’t reading for pleasure.

Why are educators and books being picked on? Trust me, I’ve made a lot of mistakes in my life, but none of them came from between the covers of a book. Knowledge isn’t dangerous, but ignorance is.

— Cinda S. Chima Asheville

Legalized sports betting will feed addictions

[Regarding: “Money on the Line: What Will Legalized Sports Betting Mean for Western North Carolina?” July 5, Xpress:]

Personally, I wish this wasn’t true. I understand the concept of having fun playing the slots, etc., but I was personally affected by a gambling addict, and it destroyed our relationship.

I believe this will feed people’s addictions, as well as hook some more. Seems the state is more interested in revenue generated.

— Janet Rogers Asheville

Now’s the time to reimagine monument spot

I can’t fuss too much with a recent letter to the editor [“Asheville’s Obelisk, Take Two,” July 19, Xpress], in which the author argued that the city of Asheville should not have torn down the Vance Monument but rather could have saved the obelisk, stripped the infamous

Zebulon Vance from the dedication and replaced the old racist with a more respectable honoree. Six years ago, I half-seriously proposed something similar [“A Modest Proposal: Giving Zeb Vance What He Deserves,” Oct. 25, 2017, Xpress]. I’m just grateful someone else volunteered to take the flak this time. But what’s the point of arguing about the past? What’s done is done. How about we put aside old beefs and move on to some new ones?

The city now is in the midst of an ambitious plan to reimagine Pack Square Plaza, including the area on which the Vance Scar currently sits — alone, abandoned and in desperate need of the spiritual healing only a place like Asheville can provide.

When the state courts finally get out of the way and allow what’s left of the Vance Monument to be hauled off, there’s no reason (beyond good taste and common sense) why the plans can’t include construction of a like-new obelisk on the old site. One that can be rededicated to Vance. Or to someone who actually deserves the honor. Or maybe space can be used for something else entirely. Or for nothing else. It can just be open. The possibilities are endless.

The city is accepting public comments on the renovation plans until Sept. 8, so obelisk enthusiasts will have plenty of time to take advantage of those two most precious rights enjoyed by citizens in this greatest of all democracies — the chance to pitch for their ideas in fair competition on a level playing field and the opportunity to pout endlessly when they don’t get their way again.

But query: Is a rebuilt obelisk really the best way forward? At the time of its demise, the Vance Monument no longer dominated the downtown, dwarfed as it was by the much larger structures that had grown around it since 1897. The monument looked less like a stately landmark than a stubbly chawbacon from the backwoods who had gotten lost in the big city and was wandering around gawking at the tall buildings.

And let’s be honest. As artwork goes, it was never all that and a bag of chips to begin with. Derivative kitsch, if you ask me. In fact, the demolition had to be delayed briefly when the wrecking crew discovered that the obelisk, like the man, was hollow inside and full of dirt.

Before we rush headlong into anything we may have to tear down again in a few years, shouldn’t we at least give creative minds a chance to come up with some fresh concepts? Even as we speak, something a million times better than a gangly beanpole may be on some young blood’s drawing board, just waiting to come to life.

It’s one thing to preserve history; it’s another to make it.

— Peter Robbins Marshall