Last week, we published a Valentine's Day love letter to our home, "28 Reasons We Love the Triangle Right Now." Commenter NicoleinNY says it made her question her decision to move the Triangle: "My husband and I are moving to the Triangle this year, and I feel like my realtor made a mistake sending this piece to us. Does anyone actually take an article seriously once phrases like 'woke AF' and 'toxic masculinity' are thrown around? This whole thing reads like a college rag.
"We have been looking in Cary. We are both professionals in our early-to-mid-thirties. My husband is a libertarian and I'm liberal with increasingly more moderate leanings as the poles keep growing more extreme. We had also looked at Austin, another blue beacon in a sea of red, but they didn't seem so busy with patting themselves on the back for their political leanings."
In response, Paolo Sharazi warns that his corner of the Triangle has become "oppressive": "Durham (where I live) used to be a pleasant, ideologically tolerant, and liberal town. It has become—at least in its older neighborhoods—a politically (and therefore socially) oppressive place to live unless you subscribe to some of the nuttier and dreamier tenets of the SJW left. The INDY reflects these values—celebrating destruction of public property by 'anti-fascists' is an example. So much better to tear down an obnoxious statue by mob than to bring the matter up for a vote (in which case the statue would have certainly been removed legally). Other examples of SJW fervor, PC banalities, and the hypocrisy of the elites who control the city are too numerous to mention. Most of the in-town residents of Durham apply political litmus tests to those whom they meet and live in hilariously stereotypical bubbles of like-minded and 'right-thinking' people."
"SJW," of course, is a pejorative term for "social justice warriors." As for Sharazi's suggestion that the city or county could have voted to remove the Confederate monument, that's simply not true. State law prohibits municipalities from removing such monuments without state approval.
Regarding last week's story about an NC Child report linking North Carolina's failure to expand Medicaid with its stubbornly high infant-death rate, Sarah-Kathryn Bryan writes: "A critical point this article misses, and which would not be incompatible with Medicaid expansion, is that abortion is a crucially important part of women's health care that North Carolina state law impedes patients' access to. Patronizing and factually inaccurate mandatory counseling before an abortion is one of the myriad ways state law interferes with people's ability to obtain necessary health care. Medicaid for Pregnant Women currently does not cover any cost associated with an abortion, which for many women can be extremely burdensome.
"Access to family planning decreases infant mortality and helps people meet their financial and personal goals. Furthermore, the medical risks associated with abortion are much less than those associated with pregnancy. Including comprehensive abortion care services in Medicaid for Pregnant Women would ultimately create conditions for people to have safe pregnancies when they are ready and able to have them."
Terrence Duff, however, says the Carolina Cares bill to expand Medicaid "is nothing more than income redistribution. Nothing in this bill will help the underlying problem. The path to drugs, alcohol, and obesity started in government-daddy families over two generations ago. As with any problem, you must know the root cause before you can solve it. Moral poverty is the root cause, and all the money in the world can't fix that.
"The numbers I could find are from about five years ago. Wake County had twelve thousand-plus births and five thousand-plus abortions a year. Using your chart, that would put both fetal and infant deaths around seventy-plus each in Wake County a year. Wow! Compare that 140 or so deaths to abortion murders of 5,000, and it is clear you have the wrong priorities."