97 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0

11 years ago @ Carolina Review Daily - BREAKING: DTH Claims M... · 1 reply · +1 points

If we're going to allot publishing space based on relative support, the numbers should actually be reversed. If you click through to the PPP poll I linked to, you'll notice that nearly 60% of NC voters favor the Amendment. The DTH is, of course, free to publish whatever it wants, but if it wants to be something other than a lap dog for the Democratic Party, it ought to provide a little more balance in its coverage of the Amendment.

If you think that the definition of marriage is as trivial as your Dennis Kucinich example, it will be difficult to have an intelligent discussion on this. However, many people believe that this Amendment is important (for one reason or the other) and, it is something that clearly concerns people. If the DTH is truly interested in a free market of ideas, it will provide an opportunity for both sides to voice their arguments. Censoring the side the editors oppose is a disservice to the DTH's readers.

11 years ago @ Carolina Review Daily - How ASG Lied to You · 1 reply · +1 points

If you check out the former pro-ASG campaign's Facebook page (, you'll note that the general thrust of the argument is that we should continue to use ASG as the primary source of our lobbying efforts because leadership, not the structure of the organization, is the real problem. They also claim that, with time, they'll get around to "rebuilding" ASG. Recent events, noted in the above post, indicate that at best this claim was disingenuous, and at worst, an outright lie.

11 years ago @ Carolina Review Daily - Is There Light at the ... · 0 replies · +1 points

I find it amusing the ease with which you make assumptions about my background and supposed privilege. I LOL in your general direction.

As for all of your (curiously un-cited) sociological mumbo jumbo, I don't know if you've noticed, but this country has already had two black presidents. The first, of course, was Bill Clinton. But I don't know if you've noticed that the current occupant of the White House is also a black man, which kind of throws a wrench in your whole white people suck meme.

Also affirmative action is entirely relevant to the discussion on race, as it is nothing more than legal racial discrimination against whites (and increasingly, Asians). When you use race to determine whether to admit a student or not, that's racism, pure and simple. Particularly when it comes to college admissions, white students are at a considerable disadvantage when compared to their "minority" peers, largely because of racist policies like affirmative action. The processor's refusal to address this issue was disappointing, particularly when the Tunnel made such an effort to discourage people from cowardice when they are confronted with oppression.

In short, you've largely manufactured this myth of white privilege. Maybe if you got your head out of the 1930's and rejoined what the rest of us like to call "reality," you'd see that a person's relative success in life is not determined by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character, his hard work, and his determination.

11 years ago @ Carolina Review Daily - The Ballot at the End ... · 1 reply · +1 points

But isn't gay marriage already prohibited by state law? I think this is what I really don't understand. If gay marriage is already illegal or unrecognized, how is it that by simply importing this prohibition into the state constitution, all of these hypothetical suddenly come to bear? You'd think, with existing law being the way it is, that the anti-crowd could actually come up with some real-life examples of people who have already been affected by this prohibition. But all I've seen is a bunch of arguments to the effect of "It might do this" and "It might do that." They're very flimsy arguments and not terribly persuasive. Marriage is already strictly defined as being between a man and a woman. So, what changes?

11 years ago @ Carolina Review Daily - Is There Light at the ... · 0 replies · 0 points

It's called sarcasm. Look it up.

My point regarding the homophobia was that it's pretty easy to feel like you're being victimized when, in fact, you're not being victimized. For example, the orange incident (as unlikely as it is) could simply be the result of drunkenness, rather than malice. There's not really any way to know. As the story was relayed in the Tunnel, there's no way for us to know why the person chose to throw the orange.

Regarding your points about the Asian girl, I honestly don't know how you are able to reach that interpretation based on the presentation in the Tunnel. The girl was wedged in between a black girl and a white girl talking about how (for lack of a better word) race gets them down. The black girl was talking about all kinds of societal racial prejudices and, the white girl was talking about how all the advantages she has because she's white. I didn't see any sort of intention vs. actual impact discussion in either of their monologues or the Asian's. So, if that was the intended message, it wasn't really clear.

And anyone who questions my interpretation of the Tunnel is free to watch it for himself via the video at the top of the post (that's why it's there). I'd also encourage you to read the entire post, rather than just skimming it. I'd be cautious of calling something "ignorant, logically unsound, and downright laughable" before you've actually read it. Who knows? You might just learn something too.

11 years ago @ Carolina Review Daily - The Ballot at the End ... · 0 replies · +1 points

You can say the same thing about any other number of groups of people in the tax code, dependent filers vs. independent filers, single filers vs. married filers, etc. It\'s not as if homosexual couples are the only group of people denied certain tax breaks because of their legal status. If equal treatment is the end-game, you could just aim to change the offending laws (personally, I think something along the lines of a Fair or Flat Tax would do the trick), rather than attempt a re-definition of marriage. You\'d achieve the same result, and you\'d probably find less forceful opposition.

The amendment does allow for contractual relationships between private individuals (in the second half of the amendment). I\'m not exactly a lawyer, but the way I read it, that would seem to allow for a situation where a homosexual couple could effectively have a non-state recognized marriage. I don\'t think the legitimacy of a relationship between two people should necessarily rest on the legal recognition of that relationship by the state. Of course, such legal recognition does convey some benefits, but I would refer to you my point above.

I said that the 14th Amendment lacks a section specifying that the government must \"view all citizens equally before the law.\" That particular amendment does, however, guarantee \"equal protection of the laws.\"

11 years ago @ Carolina Review Daily - The Ballot at the End ... · 0 replies · +1 points

There\'s nothing that says the government must treat all relationships (among people) equally. To take an example, single and married people are treated differently by the tax code. The same tax law treats different groups of people differently.

I think part of the issue is that the 14th amendment guarantees \"equal protection of the laws,\" specifically within the question of whether the state is depriving a person of life, liberty, or property, which is a slightly different thing than \"viewing all citizens equally before the law.\" I think it\'s clear that no one is unjustly being deprived of life or property here. You could argue that maybe liberty is being infringed, but again, nothing\'s stopping two people from living together if they want to.

12 years ago @ Carolina Review Daily - So... Tuition · 0 replies · +2 points

Crisis averted.

12 years ago @ Carolina Review Daily - RE: But We Need to Be ... · 0 replies · +1 points

It\'s a false equivalency. Everyone knows what football is. Most people have never even heard of a Solar Decathlon. I can pretty much guarantee that if App wins, no one here will be rushing Franklin Street. And, I don\'t know that it counts as a significant achievement in science and academics if it\'s already been done before. People already use solar power to power buildings, so I don\'t really see what the novelty is. This contest has also been around for almost a decade. I think it ceases to be \"innovative\" after 10 years.

I\'m not saying don\'t do it. Just don\'t ask me to pay for it.

12 years ago @ Carolina Review Daily - About Those Gas Prices · 1 reply · +1 points

"The value of the dollar is at a 2.5 year low against most major currencies, and the price of gold hit an all-time high of over $1500/ounce yesterday. And food costs are soaring (interesting article here: All of this seems to be consistent with the sort of general inflation that would accompany a massive expansion of the money supply."