|
The Minutes of The Demosthenian Literary
Society
October 2nd, 1997
The morning came early for our
faithful hero, the HortMan. Then came the afternoon, and then
mid-afternoon, and so on, and it came to be Saturday morning before
he finally awoke from his Thursday night drinking spree. This binge
not only left the HortMan speechless and covered in his own drool,
but also left, in his wake, substantial damage all over North
Campus.
This destruction caused mass hysteria
throughout the city, and the citizenry wondered what in the world
could have possibly caused this much of a mess in such a short
period of time. Some thought it was a tornado, however, the large
footprints left in the rubble of the Heap quickly proved to all that
observed this catastrophe that it was something much bigger and
powerful than a measly little tornado...This force was stronger than
anything anyone had ever seen, except for Mr. Stevenson, who knows
about everything that no knows else even cares about. According to
him, "Uhhhh...Looks like a whole herd of elephants stomped through
here. You know that that bird that always sits on their backs picks
out all of the bugs and stuff that crawl all over them and you see,
uhhhh, that this relationship is GREAT!! It is a mutually
beneficial symbiotic....." Luckily for all of those unfortunate
enough to be within earshot of Dave's babbling, the lovely Ms.
Briggy took it upon herself to uncoil onto Mr. Stevenson with the
fiercest karate chop in her repertoire, and with a triumphant
squish, the blow against Dave's backside propelled him back over to
South Campus, where he found a whole throng of science geeks eager
to hear his mindless babbling.
However irritating Mr. Stevenson's
theory was to the throng surrounding the even more ruined ruins of
the Heap, it did seem to be true, for there were huge footprints all
over the destroyed facade of the former home of the illiterary
society. The multitude of Demosthenians around the last vestiges
of that forsaken spot of ground were shocked at the waste; where
else could they go late at night to relieve the pressure placed on
them in their attempts to live up to the glory of former members'
exploits? It amongst this confusion and dismay that a voice rang
out across the Quad: "Duuudes!! What's goin' on?!"
The meeting was called to order at
7:25 PM. Two first time guests, Dyal Singh and Chris Gantner were
present, and second time guests Sara Kravig and Kelli Frawley were
in attendance. The ubiquitous alum Scott Wells was present, as was
Mr. Robert Smith. Ms. Mingledorff was appointed critic, and then
the Society moved into Committee Reports.
Mr. Bowman took the floor, and stated that
$12 was approved by the Finance Committee for assorted Xeroxing
expenses. His report was approved.
Mr. Weaver rose on behalf of the Programs
Committee, and proposed his committee making some sort of T-shirt
item this quarter. He also announced a meeting of his committee on
the following Tuesday to discuss next quarter's Hall Re-Dedication.
Ms. McKinney told the Society of the status
of the Restoration. Everything seems to be on schedule, for now at
least.
Mr. Shumaker informed the Society that there
were phone lists available for everybody to enjoy.
As Old Business was barely even a blip
on the screen of the Society this evening, we moved forward into New
Business, where our lovable misogynist, Mr. Bowman, presented the
following resolution:
Be it Resolved: The success of the
women's liberation movement is responsible for the breakdown of
American society.
Respectfully
submitted,
Derek Bowman
The speaker told us that due to increases in
crime, drug use and single parent families, it is clear that
American society is in decline, and then he blamed these problems on
children not having adequate supervision by their parents. In
short, there is an overemphasis on "me," and this problem was
ultimately caused by the women's liberation movement.
Mr. Wells (alum) stated that we must take a
step further back from the problems described by the presenter and
see that the real source of the evils that plague the country lies
in the poverty that grips so many families. As for women's lib.,
Mr. Wells felt that it has only made for a fairer treatment of
women.
Mr. Weaver argued that the problems in
America came from a selfish attitude of the citizens. This
breakdown came whenever we put ourselves before our families.
Mr. Pyrdum rose and stated that he
vigorously agreed with the resolution due to a belief in the natural
division of labor between men and women. If staying at home was
viewed as a good, then fewer of the bad things described throughout
the debate would happen.
A hoppin' mad Ms. Visser took the floor
next, and stated that she thought that men were real funny: they
have no idea how a stay at home parent works. She spoke of the
early importance of having large families so that the older children
could take care of the younger ones, but even in this situation, the
woman still gets stuck with the chores around the house.
Mr. Shumaker took the floor next and
explained to the Society the economic theory behind the resolution.
According this Little-Mr.-Know-it-All, it is possible that the
women's lib. movement deleteriously affected the nation's economy
for awhile, but now, women are needed in the work force in order to
maintain economic growth.
Mr. Stevenson strutted to the lectern, and
argued, "What breakdown?" If we continue to have this bad attitude
about the world, the problems will only get worse. Mr. Stevenson
had a lot more to say, I think, but was cruelly cut off by our
President, thus sending the idealistic young lad into shock.
Mr. Slone argued caring only for yourself
can go too far, but being completely selfless is also not
necessarily a good thing. The mother staying at home because she
has to is not fair or in the best interest of all.
Mr. Smith (alum) stated that kids can be
completely screwed up even with both parents at home. He added that
a strong male role model, in some cases, may be better than the
maternal role model that is missing.
Mr. Norman asked the Society: "Did women's
lib. actually work?" He thought it would have been nice if it
hadn't been necessary, and he asserted that one cannot blame all of
society's ills on just one thing.
Ms. Richie took the floor next, and stated
that the Society did not have a clear view of what the real
situation was, because the real question lies in the ability of
families to balance the need for money with familial quality time.
In the end, the parent that is most capable of taking care of the
children should take care of the children, regardless of the sex.
Mr. Lowe asserted that there is now
technology available so that both parents can stay at home.
According to the speaker, the women's lib. movement was the impetus
behind the development of the fax machine and video conferencing,
two items that allow a greater flexibility to the wage earner.
Ms Singh (guest) stated that many people
accept immoral and selfish acts as a matter of course, and that this
seeming apathy toward the problems of the family begets only more
selfishness ultimately.
Ms. Mingledorff began by stating that having
two parents at home would be a scary proposition, but that having at
least one parent at home was, according to most studies, a good
thing. After her mother's own life experience, a single parent
family can work, but that success has everything to do with the
situation and the time.
Ms. Visser argued that women's lib. has
helped parents accurately describe to their children what type of
benefits can be reaped by working outside of the home. In short,
the movement gave many people a higher sense of self-worth,
Ms. Kravig (guest) asserted that there must
be at least two people involved in any sort of quarrel, and there is
no family in "I." She continued by stating that the focus of a
family is to love and support each other, and that selfishness was
the real reason behind the breakdown of the American family.
The question was called, and failed
12-0.
Mr. Pyrdum asked the Society "What is good,
and what is right?" He then presented the following resolution:
Be it Resolved: Religion is a poor
excuse for morality.
Respectfully,
Carl Pyrdum
Mr. Pyrdum argued that forcing someone to
believe what you think is right is inherently bad, and that people
needed to make decisions on what is right and wrong on their own.
Mr. Weaver took us for a walk, and then
argued that religion is a good excuse for morality, for most people
feel more comfortable with the clergy telling us what to believe.
Mr. Bloomfield stated that being told what
is and isn't wrong is conflicting and bad for those who do this are
using religion in lieu of having a strong moral character. In the
long run, religion ultimately tells people what to do.
Ms. Brignac felt that religion is history,
and that man should learn from his past mistakes. Consequently,
religion acts as a way to have morality; religion gives one the
morality necessary to make the right decisions in life.
Mr. Smith (alum) argued that religion is
separate from the will of God, and that to find the true Word of
God, people should read the Scriptures and interpret it for
themselves.
Mr. Hortman swept down from off his perch
and equivocated morality with ethics. He continued his argument by
stating that religion is the cause of ethics because, in most areas,
idea of morality is almost symmetrical to that of the religious
doctrine espoused.
Mr. Pyrdum took the floor again to clarify
his resolution. He stated that religion was part of an external
conscience; this conscience is distinct of the inner sense of
morality. Consequently, the doing something good for fear of
punishment is not a good type of morality.
Mr. Wells (alum) rose and stated that
religion tries to explain the unexplainable, and the things that
cannot be understood. Religion provides the answers, but because of
the ease in setting hard and fast rules, it can lead to a tyranny of
morality.
Ms. Richie described three levels of
morality from a psychological point of view. The lowest level of
morality was the fear of being caught; the only concern of this
person is for himself. The highest level of morality comes from the
attempt to make the greatest good for the most number of people, and
she concluded by stating that this type of morality is necessary to
the preservation of society.
Mr. Lowe stated that religion started out as
an explanation, but became a standard; it changed from explaining
what is and what isn't, to explaining what is good and what is bad.
He concluded by arguing that the best decisions that people can make
are made through logic and a sense of responsibility to themselves
and others.
Mr. Bloomfield described the ethnocentrism
intrinsic within our culture by telling a story of an anthropologist
reading Hamlet to a "primitive" tribe. According to the her
audience, the researcher found that the tribe had no problem with
the story. Consequently, the speaker concluded that there is no way
to separate ourselves from our own biases concerning what is right
and wrong.
Mr. Bowman stormed to the floor, and ranted
and raved about how society is so wrapped up in relativism that we
cannot blame atrocities on those that committed them. In a society
trapped between relativism and ethnocentrism, it is hard to come up
with a conception of what is moral, but there is obviously some
middle ground out there.
The question was called and passed on
a vote of 8-1.
Mr. Shumaker took the floor, and presented
the following resolution:
Be it Resolved: Intellectual
arrogance is the flaw to a University education
Respectfully submitted,
Michael
J. Shumaker
The speaker (That's ME!) argued that anyone
who stakes all of their pride or reputation on being right is
usually wrong. By constantly assuming that one is correct, the
ability to learn is stifled.
Mr. Bowman took the floor, and finally got
to tell his world-famous Socrates story. By paying too much
attention to what looks right, the truth and what is right usually
slips away. A dedication to finding what is true is vital to
growing as an intellectual being.
Mr. Pyrdum stated that intellectual
arrogance is a good quality, for it allows professors to shoot down
incorrect ideas, and to encourage the finding of fact. By being
arrogant, a good teacher becomes a great teacher.
Mr. Lowe copping a major 'tude, took the
floor and argued that a teacher should explain clearly to a student
why they are wrong; the professor should create a dialog with the
student in order to help the student learn.
Ms. Kravig (guest) felt that intellectual
arrogance in a teacher made it impossible for her to learn. The
professor should not come across as being better than anyone else.
Mr. Slone stated that the resolution could
be split in two because he has seen both good and bad professors
being arrogant. In the end, however, the best professors are those
that are arrogant, but have enough knowledge to pull it off.
Mr. Hortman asserted that professors must be
confident in their knowledge, but an over-confidence comes across as
apathy toward the students. Some arrogance is OK, but a balance
must be found for the student to learn anything at all.
Mr. Smiley stated that the best professors
are those that force you to examine your own thoughts, and challenge
you arguments. It is by finding out how you are wrong that one
finds out what is right.
The question was called and failed on
a vote of 3-2, with 2 abstentions.
Following Ms. Mingledorff's Critic's Report,
the Society adjourned at 11:20 PM.
The Demosthenians quickly whirled
around to see behind them, emerging from the Hall, the very rumpled
and good-natured form of the HortMan, still attired in coat and
tie. In addition to the "slept in" look our faithful leader was
exhibiting, he also appeared to be covered with dust and fragments
of really cheap brick. At this point, the curious Demosthenians
knew what had really happened to the Heap: the HortMan had
unleashed his super-powers upon it!
With some help from witnesses
that had seen the HortMan that evening, it was determined that it
was not a pack of elephants that had descended upon the evil home of
the society across the way; it was merely the drunken HortMan
leaning up against the front of the building while relieving his
pressures from the entire evening. In the process of alleviating
some discomfort, our dutiful President did one of characteristic "HortMan
Re-equlibrating His Balance Acts," and bumped into the Heap, causing
the entire thing to immediately collapse into a pile of bricks and
dust.
When it was realized by the gaggle of
Demosthenians surrounding the debris that it was indeed just the
HortMan that had caused this really neat thing to happen, the
Society streaked across the Quad to give our lovable hero a big
hug...The HortMan had finally done what no one else could have ever
done: Made the Heap any worse than it already was. With that, the
Society returned to Munchies, with HortMan as their new-found
reluctant hero to celebrate their great victory.
Respectfully submitted, on the ninth day of
October,1997
Michael J.
Shumaker
|
University of Georgia 