First, none of the changes Congress has made to the Code in the last few months have had an effect on how student organizations obtain funding. In fact, if I remember correctly, the only change made to Title V (the Financial Title) was the elimination of the stipend for the Honor Court Outreach Coordinator (a bill which I wrote).

Second, contrary to what the editorial claims, Student Congress does not “approve” student organizations, the Student Union (and the Division of Student Affairs) does that. So, I can safely say that no group has had its recognition put in jeopardy by the late publication of the Code.

I’ll also note, given that the Speaker cannot appoint clerks without first being elected Speaker, Zach has conducted the appointment process fairly quickly. Within days of his election, applications for the two clerk positions went out, and interviews followed soon after. The clerks themselves would have been confirmed by Congress much sooner, however, illness and scheduling conflicts created some issues here (two items outside the control of Congress and the Speaker).

There are also obvious ethical issues to consider should the Speaker begin unilaterally updating the Code, as the Editorial Board seems to desire. In order to avoid these ethical conflicts of interest, the role of updating the Code is delegated off to the clerks. Admittedly, there are a few kinks in the present system (mainly that there are no “interim” clerks to serve in the transition period between one Congress and the next). However, considering that we’re already paying someone to update the Code and, we don’t want the Speaker to be in the awkward position of making the law and promulgating it, we should reform the current system. Complete abandonment of ethical principles is unnecessary.

In short, the coded editorial misses several points. In the midst of their decoded coding of disencoded things, they made several coded factual errors. In a discoded rush to judgement, they neglected several obvious coded facts. Perhaps in the future, they should decode their own discoded codes before passing judgement on such a coded Congress.

As UNC’s resident Robert Novak-in-training, I read with great amusement Mr. Clevinger’s letter criticizing my recent article on ASG in the Carolina Review. Given ASG’s past attempts to intimidate me into silence, it comes as no surprise that they would once again attempt to trample on my First Amendment rights. So, while Mr. Clevinger implores me to look at NC General Statues 84-4 and 84-5 (both of which only apply to me if I attempt to practice law), I implore him (and all the other officers of ASG) to read the First Amendment, which guarantees my right to criticize the organization, especially when its integrity is in question.

Me, in about 60 years

Further overlooking Mr. Clevinger’s failure to address any of my arguments about ASG’s suspect lobbying activities, he would do well to consult a dictionary before he writes his next letter. He accuses me of “defamation and slander,” whereas he should have accused me of defamation and libel, considering that my criticism was expressed in a written article. I’ll further note that Mr. Clevinger’s supposed “service” to students is neither requested nor appreciated. While I have no problem with people attempting to pad their law school applications, I have a problem when people do so with my money. But let me be clear, in spite of Mr. Clevinger’s blatant scare tactics, I will not be intimidated, I will not be silenced, and I will not back down.

That's right, it's not even diet.

If one reads today’s column in the Daily Tar Heel, you would think that drinking soda is some sort of gross evil. We’re told that foreigners think we’re fat and what we really need is a fat tax and, we should only be allowed to drink water. What’s really ironic is that this column comes from the same author who advocated pot legalization. So, what gives? Clearly this isn’t about my health. What investment does Ms. Dugan have in whether I drink soda or not?

The answer isn’t all together clear. She tries to argue that this fat tax will result in some sort of tax windfall that will alleviate our national debt problem. However, she also clearly demonstrates that she knows nothing about economics. Claiming that we are a cash-strapped economy (with Helicopter Ben printing cash like a madman, a cash-strapped economy we are not) and ignoring the more obvious consequences of discouraging consumption, Ms. Dugan clearly fails to understand the most basic consequences of raising taxes in a recession (or emerging recovery or whatever you want to call it).

Simply put, it’s none of her business what I choose to drink. If I put on 100 pounds because I drink 12 cans of soda everyday, that’s my problem, not hers. What it boils down to is personal responsibility. Ms. Dugan apparently feels like I have none. I, of course, beg to differ. I love drinking Coca-Cola. Ms. Dugan apparently does not. If I try to force her to drink Coca-Cola (i.e. force my personal preferences on her), than I am clearly in the wrong. But if she tries to force her personal preferences on me (i.e. not drinking soda), she sees herself as some sort of moral crusader. This is completely illogical. If she wants to go live her life as a starving, miserable, deprived human being, fine. Just leave me alone.

And then there’s the whole issue of Bhula not actually talking to anyone. While I’m pleased as pudding that he got to meet Harry Reid, how exactly does that benefit me? I’m glad that we are blessed with such leadership that he can sit through an entire meeting, supposedly representing the students of the UNC system, and not say anything. Did he just go up there to learn talking points from Harry Reid and his cronies? What exactly was accomplished with his presence there? And why, in the name of God, do we continue to fund an organization that continually fails to live up to its promise of “championing the concerns of students” while it spends thousands of dollars on itself for lavish banquets, retreats, and road trips? Enough is enough. This little misadventure to DC is only the latest episode in what has been all too characteristic of ASG. It fails to champion the concerns of students, yet succeeds in championing the concerns of itself.

First let’s consider the rather ridiculous letter to the editor today, written by the leadership of the UNC chapter of the American Association of University Professors.

Write-ups by supervisors, suspensions without pay, and disciplinary action including termination — for sitting down to rest outside of their legal breaks of 15 minutes twice a day and one hour for lunch — are a shameful legacy of the Jim Crow South.

There are two aspects I would like to point out here. The first is the seeming inability of the Left to appreciate the fact that when you break the law (or, in this case, violate the terms of a contract) there are repercussions. So, when housekeepers take unauthorized breaks outside their nearly two hours off every day, they should expect to be punished for that. That’s how it works in the real world. If you don’t do your job, or you’re caught “sitting down on the job,” you run the risk of being fired or suspended.

I’ve also noticed that many people keep referring to the Jim-Crow legacy of the UNC housekeeping contracts. The interesting thing about that argument is that might have held water circa 1960 when such Jim Crow laws actually existed. Let me be the first to welcome the AAU and SAW to the 21st century, where such laws no longer exist and people can freely enter and leave employment. It’s not as if someone held a gun to the housekeeper’s head when they signed the contract limiting them to 90 minute breaks every day. And it’s not as if they can’t leave their jobs if they don’t like the working conditions.

I realize that I am a cold, mean-spirited individual, but could we please move on to some more pressing issue?

Today’s is yet worse (if only because of the sorry attempt at eloquence): “Stepping beyond the grassy campus landscape and onto the sidewalks of Chapel Hill, students encounter some of life’s ever-present realities. Among the less talked-about– racism, discrimination, and homelessness [emphasis mine].”

Really? “Racism, discrimination, and homelessness” are among the “less talked-about” topics? Does the DTH read its own paper? A quick search of the DTH’s website reveals 348 hits on the word “homelessness” alone. Unless they meant an honest debate about those topics, in which case they ought to read the Review more often.

But the protesters are absolutely right. I’m completely offended at the non-inclusive language that the DTH uses on a regular basis.

For example, they continue to use the terms “man” and “woman” or “male” and “female” in their writing. By pushing the false male-female dichotomy on our society, they are being offensive to intersexuals and making them feel like a small minority who shouldn’t be able to dictate the English language to the rest of society. The use of terms that distinguish between men and women only serve to highlight the differences between us and strengthen the sexual inequality inherent in our society.

For example, the differentiation in articles between men’s and women’s basketball teams inadvertently highlights the inequality between the programs in terms of attendance, stadium size and entertainment value. From now on, the DTH should refrain from identifying which basketball program it is talking about in an article. Also, player’s names should be made gender-neutral so we can’t cheat and tell which team they are talking about that way. From now on, all members of UNC basketball teams will take the first name of “Taylor” or “Madison.”

I also want to end the use of the term “March Madness.” While it is a widely accepted term in American slang, “Madness” is also an insulting archaic term for those who suffer from mental illness. The continued use of this term shows appalling insensitivity.

All movie and theater reviews will cease to use the term “actress,” as women in the dramatic arts fields will feel more equal and special if described by the masculine term “actor.” Actually, we’ll just get rid of the term “women” and call them “men” instead.

Actually scratch that, it’s sexist. We have to call them “persons.” Because nothing makes a person feel loved and appreciated more than calling them by a term that could apply to any Homo sapiens that has ever been conceived. Nothing is more inclusive than using a term that includes all of humanity. Actually, this might be offensive to other intelligent sentient life in the universe, so we’ll just use the term “sentients” instead. It’s very endearing.

The sentients at the DTH might want to further examine their sports page, specifically their reporting on mascots. For example, names like “Fighting Illini” that honor the memory of Native American tribes that our states were named after and who were all killed by other Native American tribes centuries ago are offensive to the descendants of these people, even though they don’t have any. The DTH should refrain from publishing such offensive and insulting mascots.

But it’s not just Native American mascots. As an American of Irish descent, the name “Notre Dame Fighting Irish” is highly offensive to me. We did not travel over here through Ellis Island just to be mocked by a university with a dancing leprechaun mascot. What’s more, as a descendant of protestant Irish, the use of the nickname “Fighting Irish” as well as associated green imagery by a Catholic university is highly offensive to me as it shows a distinct pro-IRA sympathy. The sentients at Notre Dame may not realize this, but their noninclusive language is creating a climate supportive of terrorism on another continent.

I would also be offended by the Syracuse Orangemen because I don’t want my heritage used for amusement purposes even though the origin of the Orangemen nickname has nothing to do with Irish, Dutch or Protestants, but they changed their name to the Syracuse Orange so they get a pass. Although the color purple might feel excluded and offended.

You may think this is going too far, but I don’t believe in being contained by the box society tries to put me in. In fact, using any sort of definition in any language automatically creates a boundary. By defining what something is, we are also defining what it is not. For example, when I saw “man” I am defining it as “not a woman.” When I say “plate,” I am defining it as “not a bowl.” By defining things, we exclude other things.

This is intolerant and not inclusive. To remedy this, I recommend the abolition of language. It is a tool of our patriarchal society which is used to oppress those who don’t fit inside its definitions. The solution is to stop defining things. That way, we don’t have to draw boundaries that might exclude some things. I realize this will make complex communication impossible. However, wolves, dolphins and chimpanzees manage to get along socially without language, so I don’t see why it should be a problem for human beings to do the same thing. After all, a lack of gendered language has allowed these species to form societies where everyone is equal and there are no dominating patriarchal hierarchies.

Now my fellow sentients, if you’ll all excuse me, I’ve got to stop using language now in the name of inclusiveness.

Grrrrrrrrowwwwllll….Arrgh…woof…woof…woof…

“Leaders say the way members are elected and the way individuals seek seats make the organization fail to demographically or ideologically represent the student body.”

Hum… “the way members are elected” is failing us. Let’s ponder this for a second. The campus is split up into districts based on geography: south campus, mid-campus, north campus, etc… Students electing their own representatives somehow fails to be representative demographically or ideologically? Apparently, they’re claiming the districts are gerrymandered to return more conservative, male representatives than otherwise would be. How is this possible? At a school that’s overwhelmingly liberal and over 3:2 female to male, I’m not sure this is even possible.

The “way individuals seek seats” is also a trouble spot. Yes, attending a meeting, collecting twenty signatures, and putting up posters to garner votes is really the cause of a lack of representation. Holding elections? Man, so biased in favor of conservative males.

So really, the underlying claim is that democracy is failing us. Which is absolutely absurd.

Now, let’s consider the reason why they think democracy is not truly representative: because there aren’t enough women in Congress. No reason is given as to how this possibly affects Congress negatively. As I tried to point out in the article, the business that Congress conducts doesn’t have a male versus female perspective.

When Bounce magazine approaches Congress requesting money for the eight issues they publish a year, there isn’t a male-female divide on how much money to provide. If the event or item is vital to the mission of the organization, Student Congress must appropriate funds to them. The business of Student Congress is fairly objective. It’s not as if the “half-plus-one” rule for funding publications is a male construction and the addition of more females would alter that. Or is that really what the DTH is arguing?

That would be highly ironic considering the fact that, for the past few decades, extremist feminists have been trying to whitewash the fact that there are differences in the sexes, so apparently the DTH is allowing that fact. But, still, left unsaid is what differences would actually be…

That said, I think missing a post was definitely worth it. Both events were very successful. In fact, they were so successful that we’re already starting to make plans for our next batch of events.

Personally, I think we should branch out and try some innovative types of events. For instance, I think we could start with a Ronald Reagan Day, during which we honor the most important figure in American conservatism by speaking only in Reagan quotes. Everyone who chooses to participate will be required to find a famous Reagan line to fit each and every situation they are in throughout the day (though, for some conservatives, this won’t actually require any change in behavior at all).

I also think we should have some CR-specific events. I would like to have Chris Jones lead a “How to Survive the Apocalypse” seminar. However, as I reread that event title, I realize that I’m not entirely sure which side of the apocalypse issue Chris is on, so that might end up being “How to Start the Apocalypse.” Either way, it’s probably a good idea to know what weapons Chris favors.

And I would love to host an “Ask Crowder” event. I imagine Justin Crowder sitting in the middle of a circle of his peers, whom we invite to pick Crowder’s brain about any issues they find pressing. That might sound innocuous enough. But knowing both Justin and the student body, I envision it ending with Crowder being showered in a hail of flaming arrows while he defends himself with a twenty foot tall American Flag, all the while shouting phrases like, “the knavery of the scoundrels!”

Finally, I think we should have a Bryan Weynand and Nash Keune Bobble Head Day. Maybe we could just pass them out around campus or even distribute them at basketball games (I mean, the same world in which the CR would have bobble heads is the same world in which we would be able to pass them out at basketball games). For one thing, it would be a good marketing ploy. But more importantly, I’ve always wanted to play with a bobble head of myself (I wonder what a psychoanalyst would have to say about that…).

But, as always, I would love to hear any suggestions you have (maybe something a bit more topical than the apocalypse or bobble heads?).

Update: One of the online comments on the DTH article about the protest against the recent $2,095 appropriation to SDS likened the protest group, which was supposedly composed solely of members of the Carolina Review, to a “right-wing goon squad” (despite the fact that the leader of the protest is a Democrat and only three of the protesters are on our staff).

Now, no such entity actually exists. But, I really wish it did. After all, as one of the Editors of the CR, I would presumably be one of the heads of that goon squad- which would be awesome. And, I mean, if people are going to treat us like we have a goon squad, why don’t we just go ahead and form one?

Of course, before we start our goon squad we would need to have some sort of recruitment and initiation process (sort of like a rush for our reactionary cabal). We already have matching t-shirts for everyone to wear (by the way, we recently uncovered a hidden cachet of Carolina Review shirts; just let me know if you want one).

And, this would give the CR editorial staff the opportunity to haze new recruits. For instance, we could have a “minute of shame,” during which we shout truly awful, terrible, and reprehensible terms at our prospective members to test their mettle, like “open minded,” “multiculturalist,” or “tolerant.” Whew- I shudder just imaging having to call innocent people such thoroughly objectionable words. Anyone who could possibly survive such torture would definitely be able to face whatever might be in store for our goons.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PW2jVF5uGI