|
The Case of the Upper Chamber Killer
(a Mad-Lib)
It was a/an sibilant and
lumpy night. The air was thick with nose hair and you
could taste pointilism in every resolution. Suddenly, a/an
sore shriek was heard emanating from the lovely visage of
Becky Richie. “Shalom!” he/she cried, “There’s been a
murder!” that’s when everybody’s favorite private dick, Mr. “Shamus”
Choi, P.I., stood from his prehistoric position and bucked
down to the back of the Upper Chamber. There, between the
Sgt.-at-arms chair and a country-western bar, lay the
blood-soaked body of the lovely Ms. Brignac, eyes still
staring lewdly at the portrait of Golda Meir on the
wall. A/An paisley crowd had gathered, staring, aghast and
full of chutzpah.
“Cool
man… It’s cool… !” cried a visibly disturbed Nancee Tomlinson,
“Somebody do something!” then “Shamus” Choi frappéd his
trusty uni-focals, dusted them off, and replaced them to their seat
on his navel. Raising a/an seductive finger in the
air, Mr. Choi proclaimed, “Romance without finance is a Damn
Yankee nuisance.”
He
called for his ubiquitous assistant, and full-time pimp,
Dr. Bowman, and together they inspected the Upper Chamber for clues,
hoes, and suspects. Could it have been his arch-enemy, AKA
Semantics Boy, beating the victim across the brow with Bob’s Big
Book of Bodacious Babes & Beautiful Bags? Or perhaps the
capital criminal known as “Chief” Van Meter, of the Montréal
Van Meters, drooling the victim with Robert’s Rules?
“Shamus” Choi then noticed a small scar on the victim’s forehead.
“Taxi!” the private dick thought out loud, when, primally,
the lights went out, and all was tomato and tomata.
Just then …
Meeting was called to order at 7:35.
Six first-time and seven second or third-time guests were present
and recognized. Three distinguished alumni, Mr. Wright, Mr. Porter,
and Ms. Polentz, also stopped by. One guest, Mr. Lowe, petitioned
and was accepted into membership.
In Committee Reports: Ms. Tomlinson
rose as softball coach to announce that we didn’t lose last weekend,
at least. Announced practice times and game time for this weekend.
Go Wampum! Mr. Hortman rose to say that dues are due; also, rose to
announce a Hall Preservation meeting next Wednesday and a final vote
that Thursday on the color of the walls. Ms. Brignac rose as Alumni
Relations chair to ask for suggestions for the Wall of Fame; and,
rose as a member of “Coven Demosthenian” to announce a women’s
sub-committee meeting as a date to be named later. Mr. Shumaker
rose to announce the Oration/Declamation on May 22, and to remind
those who need speakers’ keys to get in touch.
There was no Old Business, and
In New Business, Mr. Pyrdum rose to
announce a grave injustice, a grave neglect on the part of... God.
If brought to court, he would be easily convicted. He presented:
Be It Resolved, If there is an all good, all knowing, all powerful
being out there responsible for the creation of the universe, he’s
got a lot of explaining to do. Respectfully, Carl S. Pyrdum III.
Mr. Smith rose to say three words:
Star Trek V. Says also that, through suffering, we learn more than
through a sheltered existence. Says man must learn from his
mistakes, like an engineer.
Ms. Fulkes (guest) said that we as
people are not analogous to the young child who doesn’t know
anything. She said that we chose to eat from the tree and
fall from perfection. Said God has no explaining to do about his
own creation.
Mr. Porter (alumnus) Said that we
cannot truly have positive knowledge of God. A teacher is supposed
to pull out, nor guide or steer. Said the argument is about
personal believe not logic. Argument is circular.
Mr. Wright (alumnus) Talked about
Rumi, a Sufi, who fertilized someone’s living room. Said that
defining “The” God is impossible, but if the definition is correct
for “A” God in the resolution, we should support it.
Ms. Brignac said that most religions
around the world speak of a God punishing them with floods and/or
sex. Said that it is entirely people's fault, and that if God is
guilty of anything, it is from being sexist.
Mr. Shumaker said that God did
create two perfect people: Adam and Eve. Said if resolution is
correct, Adam and Eve are more at fault than God. Said the debate
can only be taken from personal perspectives, and he believes the
resolution is false.
Mr. Lowe rose to reiterate that a
God is defined already in the resolution, and that it is ridiculous
to disagree with it. Said we are not debating definition, but logic
of the conclusion. Says the conclusion is logical.
Mr. Miller said we should be arguing
the meaning of pain. Said pain makes us what we are.
Mr. Bowman said that the resolution
is not about belief in God, but about one single “if-then”
statement. Said that God, by the resolution’s definition, could
have stopped Adam and Eve and could have made us perfect to begin
with. Added that an “all-good” God doesn’t really owe anyone an
explanation.
A motion was
made, the question was called, the resolution failed 1-13
Ms. Tomlinson rose to talk of laws,
from Hamurabi to the present, based on English common law. Talked
of the Victim’s Rights Bill. Said that it was based on Oklahoma
City bombing and is wrong. Presented: Be It Resolved, The Victims’
Rights Amendment is counter to the basis of the American Legal
System. Respectfully Submitted, Nancee B. Tomlinson.
Mr. Pyrdum said that victims’ family
should be heard in some cases, such as in money, compensatory cases,
but in punitive cases, the family’s grief does not belong. Said
that because people are upset about the crime doesn’t affect the
guilt or innocence of a single suspect.
Mr. Miller said Hammurabi’s code was
only a writing down of what was already being done. Recounted
history of English common laws. Said that this amendment is
probably not necessary, but, if it is, it should be made.
Mr. Stuart said that pictures of the
Oklahoma City bombing are prejudicial, and should not be shown.
Said victims, in this case, would be more prejudicial than useful,
and, in certain cases, victims have no rights.
Ms. Polentz (alumna) said we try to
pick a jury that will be fair and impartial, but the evidence is
allowed to be slanted. Victims’ pain is not a factual determinant
in a case.
Mr. Bowman asked if we wanted a
bunch of automatons trying trials. Said he wanted a jury to feel
the seriousness of the crime. Said that we should trust our
juries more.
Motion
Question. Resolution ... passes 10-0
Mr. Weir talked about a good Cuban
cigar. Said that the purpose of the Cuban embargo was not fulfilled
and we should lift it. Presented: Be It Resolved, The economic
embargo against Cuba should be lifted. Respectfully, C. Michael
Weir.
Ms. Tomlinson said that there’s
nothing we really need from Cuba. We can get cigars from Europe.
We grow sugar cane here. Disagreed with resolution.
Mr. Stuart said that the embargo
would have worked if the other countries had not violated what they
themselves signed during the missile crisis. Said that Castro
tortures people, and only the Mafia wants the country open to trade.
Mr. Gable said that he embargo is
not hurting Castro, but hurting the working people of Cuba. Said
that the people need a certain amount of sustenance in order to
revolt.
Mr. Bowman doesn’t want to take the
question from the haughty position of an English major. (Methinks he
doth protest too much!) Took it from a philosophical standpoint,
that Fidel was BAD.
Mr.
Hudson said something about the Monroe Doctrine and compared trade
with Cuba to trade with... China. Said we can’t police a country we
don’t trade with, and that lifting the embargo may offer more jobs
to the working people of Cuba, closing the rich/poor gap a little.
Motion: made. Question: called.
Resolution: passes 8-7
Mr. Van Meter rose to quote C. S.
Lewis. Says that, “We read not to be alone.” Asked: why do people
write? Presented: Be It Resolved, Man writes fiction to make
himself seem more real in contrast. Respectfully, Ryan J. Van
Meter.
Mr. Stuart said that we read for
mind candy, and that a writer writes to create the world he wants to
live in. Said that people have small cubby holes into which they
force things to fit their paradigm of life.
Mr. Shumaker occasionally writes
fiction on his Faulkner tests. Said that writing fiction could
actually help people to know themselves better Fiction is used, by
some, to gauge progress; not good or bad, just is.
Mr. Hodges said that writing fiction
could be important or escapist. Sometimes people write to make the
world more real. Some writers just try to write to make a good
novel. Writing can be so much more.
Mr. Hudson wonders: Why don’t
people write? Said that subject matter determines a lot of an
audience, but that good writing transcends this. The resolution
cites one of the reasons to write, but not the only one.
Ms. Tomlinson said she is mostly an
amateur writer, writing for herself. Writing can’t be planned,
sometimes, and she writes to absolve her soul.
Mr. Pyrdum said the question is not
“why do we write?” but the nature of fiction: the creation of a
different world to share. Role-playing is done for the same reason:
to communicate emotion and experience on a higher plane.
Mr. Gable said that the purpose of
writing is, actually, to make ourselves seem less real:
Eliot’s escape from personality. While we feel the emotion of the
words, it is grounded in our desire to escape.
Mr. Bloomfield (guest) said the
thread that binds all arguments is that we speak from individual
perspectives. There should be no “should” in writing, and cannot be
limited beyond simple explanation.
Mr. Smiley (guest) said many use
fiction to analyze and change society, such as Swift and Frost. Said
writing is not aimed at making things more real, writing is just as
real as “reality” is.
A motion was made, the question was
called, and the resolution fails 4-7
The society
moved to adjourn at 11:15, subject to Ms. Tomlinson’s critic’s
report.
Then, something appeared to be defenstrating up from the
Lower Chamber. “A ghost!” shouted Ms. Mingledorff in her sexy way.
“The day dawned bleak and chill,” moaned this horrible visage
with the face of Count Emilio Pucci, “and I am the
jaundice you seek this night!” The ghost made its way, past the
nubian crowd to the lectern, and began a horrible oration on
the merits of gyrating and how it relates to
louging and potatoes. But Dr. Bowman noticed something
frightfully conjugated and ran downstairs to the fusebox. In
a few moments, the lights were sheathed, and everyone could
see what Dr. Bowman had seen. That the ghost was wearing
horseshoes. “Shamus” Choi boogied to the lectern and
removed the ghost’s mask to reveal, at last, Joy M. Mullane.
“So fat!, just as I suspected, it was the refrigerator
in China Express with the Twinkies! It was all just
to cover up his/her higgledy-piggledy doings over the years.”
And
so, the killer was caught and soon would be remanded to
underneath Mr. Pyrdum’s bed for his/her well-deserved
punishment. It was a fruit time for all this night, except
of course for the victim and Old Man Mullane. He/She left in
chains and flamingoes, saying, “and I would have made it too
if it wasn’t for that saucy Mr. “Shamus” Choi P.I. and you
darned Demosthenians!”
Respectfully
Submitted, this Eigth day of May, Nineteen Hundred and Ninety Seven,
Leonard D.
Hudson, Secretary, and Michael Shumaker, acting Secretary.
|
University of Georgia 