UNC student takes part in “romantic” idea

Columnist Margaret Carlson reports on a new project called Unity08. It is a internet-based initiative to reform the US primary system. The idea is that there will be a Web site where people who wish to partake vote for a nominee for president. It is supposed to be bipartisan. So, if a person wants to run for president under the Unity08 ticket, they have to have a running mate from the opposite party. This way there will be a moderate candidate running for president who wasn’t nominated in Iowa.

Carlson writes:

Unity08 is the brainchild of Hamilton Jordan and Gerald Rafshoon, who know how to roll a rock uphill. They upset conventional wisdom in 1976 to elect an unknown peanut farmer turned Georgia governor, Jimmy Carter. They are joined by Republican Doug Bailey, who worked for President Gerald Ford before founding “The Hotline,” a must-read daily online summary of everything political.

Also on board is the former governor of Maine, Angus King, who ran as an independent, and a bunch of energetic college kids, led by student council presidents from Yale and the University of North Carolina. In its brief existence, the kid brigade has signed up 23 colleges.

Dustin Ingalls has informed me that Allred is not part of this group. So, it looks like Carlson got her facts wrong. But, whoever the UNC student is that is taking part in this project, I have to comment. No, this is not pure Leftist propaganda or advocating the derecognition of more Christian groups, but I have to point out what’s wrong with this initiative.

It’s the same old pessimistic attitude that is promulgated by “moderates” who think they are “open minded.” They continually tell us how the American system is broken and why John McCain is the greatest man alive because they want “consensus.”

Well I don’t want “consensus” for the sake of “consensus.” And neither did the founders. Read Federalist 10 and tell me how Madison would feel about this modern notion of “consensus.” I don’t think he would care for it.

Blind consensus leads to mass hysteria over such myths as human induced global warming and catastophic acid rain and mass condemnation of those with dissenting opinions.

10 thoughts on “UNC student takes part in “romantic” idea

  1. James is nowhere on the Founders Council list, though conservative Zach Clayton from UNC is. I haven’t talked to James whether he’s involved with this, but my educated guess would be that he’s not. So check your facts (as Carlson should have) before spouting.Blind consensus leads to mass hysteria over such myths as global warming and acid rain and mass condemnation of those with dissenting opinions.I agree that blind consensus is bad, but how can you possibly deny the existence of acid rain? I hope you don’t pretend that human-created pollution is not bad for the environment and, therefore, public health. Because if that’s the case, you should relabel the Review a sci-fi/fantasy magazine.advocating the derecognition of more Christian groupsShame on UNC for enforcing the 14th Amendment! The simple fact is AIO, to use public resources, has to agree not to discriminate in access to its group’s membership. And don’t bring Boy Scouts v. Dale into your argument as Wampler irrelevantly tries to do; that was about a private group simply using public building space. This is about a group seeking to essentially become an agency of the University and to have access to student fee-supported resources as any student group does.As far as a unity ticket, I’d welcome one if it were a good Republican; I don’t think a unity ticket is necessary at all, though. One should only do it if it makes sense. I wanted a Kerry-McCain ticket in ’04, but I wouldn’t vote for McCain now with his actions since the summer of ’04. Chuck Hagel is one Republican I wouldn’t mind having on a ticket with a Democrat like Biden.

  2. I stand corrected. Then, Zach Clayton is wrong.As for Acid Rain, it does exist, but it is not the problem that it was made out to be by the media a few years back. Have you heard anything about acid rain lately? No. As for AIO, they are entitled to their freedom of association at a public university. This is why their lawsuit forced UNC to change it’s policy. Groups are now allowed to screen members based on ideology. I read a good quote yesterday by a guy talking about displaying the ten commandments: “The only time the first amendment is used as a gag rule is the case of religion.”He has a point. And it shouldn’t be so. So, let’s thank the Alliance Defense Fund and FIRE for making things right.

  3. I read a good quote yesterday by a guy talking about displaying the ten commandments: “The only time the first amendment is used as a gag rule is the case of religion.”What about gay marriage (speech and association)?

  4. What about gay marriage?Gays can hang out together, live together, and interestingly enough, have an enormous network of student groups and university support at UNC. No one is inhibiting their speech or association.The push for gay marriage is an effort to get the government’s (and society’s) approval of that lifestyle, not just tolerance. AIO did not want anyone’s approval, they just wanted to be able to associate.

  5. The push for gay marriage is an effort to get the government’s (and society’s) approval of that lifestyle, not just tolerance. AIO did not want anyone’s approval, they just wanted to be able to associate.They already could associate as a private group; no one was stopping them from doing that.Gay marriage is not about approval; it’s about equality. There is no actual reason to limit marriage on the basis of gender (which is discrimination). And don’t bring in the bogus slippery slope argument (check out my blog for more, including a link to a Daily Show video from last night); legalizing gay marriage does not in any way lead to legalizing polygamous marriages or anything else.No one is prohibiting any religions from operating freely, but gay couples certainly are being restricted from their civil and legal rights.

  6. First off, my original post referred to a group of student’s right to associate. Gays on campus are allowed to associate and are given all the privileges of other student organizations. So, trying to defend the University’s discriminatory act by bringing in the gay marriage debate is pointless. UNC’s treatment of students’ rights has nothing to do with gay marriage.Now, in response to your most recent comments, gay marriage is too about approval. There are those who support civil unions (I’m not one of them) that would give gay couples all the rights and privileges of a married couple w/o the word marriage b/c they don’t view gay marriage as the same as heterosexual marriage (which it ofcourse isn’t). But the gay movement will not be satisfied with this if it ever came to pass. They are not that worried about fling their taxes jointly or a government gaurantee on sharing their partners health benefits. They want the American people to not only tolerate their unions, but they want people to approve it.Finally, I don’t know if gay marriage would start us down a slippery slope, but I do think LAMBDA magazine offers a good view of how radical the gay movement is. Their mission is not to simply gain equal “rights” for homosexual couples. They wish to normalize transexuality and other abominations in our society. They also give us interesting information such as “AIDS is not that big of a deal anymore.” (That was an article in one of their spring editions explaining why many gay men don’t use condoms) I could go on, but that’s enough for now.

  7. So, trying to defend the University’s discriminatory act by bringing in the gay marriage debate is pointless. UNC’s treatment of students’ rights has nothing to do with gay marriage.Go back and read. I brought in gay marriage when you made the quote that inaccurately made religious expression seem like some prohibited act and religious people seem like oppressed martyrs. My point was that gay people in the country have much less freedom than do religious people (not that those are separate groups).they don’t view gay marriage as the same as heterosexual marriage (which it ofcourse isn’t)How is it not?They want the American people to not only tolerate their unions, but they want people to approve it.That’s not approval; it’s equality. And you’re clearly coming from the attitude that being homosexual is inferior and their unions are inferior, so we’re “giving in” like we’re compromising or throwing them a bone we shouldn’t have to. That’s the same attitude those who opposed civil rights for blacks in the 60s had. Tell me: how many gay people do you count as your friends or family? If I had to guess, none. If you knew a gay couple like I do, you’d know that there is no difference between them and heterosexual couples, and that there is therefore no reason to not grant them the equality they deserve under the Constitution.They also give us interesting information such as “AIDS is not that big of a deal anymore.” Yeah, that was really embarrassing and disgusting. And, of course, not true.But transsexuality is not an abomination; it’s certainly a natural, legitimate gender identity.

  8. Carlson did, in fact, have her facts straight. She is referencing Zach’s position on the national student council, which he served on as president while in High School. just FYI

  9. “How many gay people do you count as your friends or family?”First off, the sexual orientation of my family and friends is none of your business. But more importantly, it doesn’t matter b/c unlike you, I don’t base my opinions on emotion. I base them on logic and reason. I know that gay people are human beings and I would never support their persecution. But whether or not I feel emotionally attached to the gay community is not going to affect my view on whether gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage. Because it isn’t the same. I would expect gay people to admit that much. The difference between gay marriage and heterosexual marriag is that one is a union between two people of the same sex and the other is the union of members of the opposite sex. That’s not “the same.” Maybe it has “similar” qualities, but it is not the “same.”According to dictionary.com same means “Being the very one; identical.” That descriptor does not fit. Your assertion is wrong.Finally, transsexuality is not natural. Whatever definition of natural you choose, transsexuality is not natural. It is not natural to surgically alter one’s sexual organs.

  10. “Zach’s position on the national student council, which he served on as president while in High School. just FYI”Pretty misleading, all the same, since it references UNC and not high school. Besides, the high school “national student council” in general and a president 3-4 years removed offers zero additional legitimacy. He should stick to answering freedom and whatnot.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s