Minutes of the DLS: January 29, 2004

We had 2 new guests and 0 returning guests and we inducted our first new member of the semester, Mr. Nathan Williams.

Mr. Trivedi then got things started on a high note, saying in his committee report the cold done killed the back door and we should hang Ralph Reed.

Old business got started with the untabling of Mr. Miller’s “BIR: Vices are not crimes and should not be a subject of criminal prosecution.”

Mr. Addison rose and pointed out the problems of defining vice and drawing the line between what harms only one’s self and what harms others. He also, somewhat surprisingly, said he supported keeping the drinking age at 21.

Mr. Misztal supported the resolution saying that people should be allowed to gamble, drink, etc. but not to break other laws. He also said that treatment was better than criminalization.

Ms. Keyes-Blumer said that not selling alcohol on Sunday is a religious law and shouldn’t be a vice regulated by the government.

Mr. Elliot asked us to consider the issue of prostitution, since that was a personal favorite of his. He also said that people needed Sunday as a day to sober up.

Ms. Skrmetti then spoke about the Dixie Mafia and how legalizing gambling in Biloxi had helped the community and Mr. Misztal, who was acting as secretary at the time, drew me a lovely picture of a stick man pulling the handle of a giant slot machine. Thank you, Mr. Misztal.

Mr. Skiles then asked if the point of law was not to legislate morality, what was the point?

Mr. Sparks, a guest, said that marijuana use does not contribute to terrorism. He pointed out that legalizing and taxing drugs could provide funding for rehab instead of packing our prisons full.

Mr. Moulds said that the drinking age was not a vice issue, but a matter of innerstate-commerce. He also said that blue laws were not vice laws. He said that money people spent on gambling and alcohol went to the Mafia and that is why vices are now a matter of law.

Ms. D’Andrea pointed out that our behavior does not soley affect us and that a motorcycle accident could harm people other than the cyclist if those people had to see his brains splattered everywhere.

Mr. Hanson said that the biggest drains on the economy were comic books and video games since people wasted so much time with them.

Mr. Owens said that vices are political since the FCC regulates profanity and the government had sodomy laws. “Who does sodomy hurt?” he asked. He then reminded us that regulation inspires rebellion.

The vote tied 9 to 9 among the members and since Mr. Lerner abstained, it remained tied. It passed 2 to 0 among the guests.

After Mr. Lerner finally remembered to open the floor to new business, Mr. Misztal presented “BIR: Governmental funding of faith-based institutions, as outlined by the current administration, is detrimental to the social welfare of those it is meant to serve and to society as a whole.”

Ms. Crawford opposed the resolution, saying that faith based initiatives were more successful that secular ones and should receive additional funding.

Mr. Flanagan said that if we allowed this mixing of the church and state that the Catholic Church would take over, which, he admitted, would be kind of cool, except for all you Protestants out there.

Mr. Addison spoke of how the battered women’s shelter in his hometown was going to be able to stay open thanks to government money, but that they shouldn’t have to take the religious component out of their treatment to receive the money because they did good and essential work.

Mr. Sparks, a guest, spoke of how the secular government was the law of the land, not the law of a particular god or goddess. He said that religious organizations held their allegiance to their deity, not their government, and thus complications could ensue.

Mr. Moulds said that Americans are Americans first and that this was anti-Catholic regulation being passed by Protestants.

Mr. Smith said that religion makes people less responsible while it gives a message of hope to the poor. Therefore, he argued, this resolution should be supported.

Meanwhile, Mr. Theiss, who was the acting vice-president chanted to Mr. Lerner in Japanese. No one on the bench was quite sure why.

Mr. Ballard then spoke of the corruption in secular groups and the governments and said that religious groups had higher success rates than secular ones.

Ms. Skrmetti then rose and said that it was not an anti-Catholic conspiracy and that we should maintain separation of church and state.

Ms. Ballou spoke of Thomas Jefferson’s interpretations of the Constitution being the source of the idea of separation of church and state and pointed out that many faith based initiatives were not soley concerned with proselytizing.

Mr. Miller told us of his yet unnamed personal religion and claimed that small religious groups receiving government funding was not discriminatory.

The resolution was called and passed 13 to 6 among members and 1 to 0 among guests.

Mr. Addison then rose and told us of the problems of living in a fraternity house with no kitchen and thus “BIR: Eating out is preferable to staying home and cooking for one’s self.”

It is then noted that whoever has the society’s recipe book should return it.

Mr. Owens straddled the fence but said that when you cooked for yourself you could customize the meal.

Mr. Sparks, a guest, told us of how he liked to eat out with his family when he was home and he also enjoyed eating alone in public.

Mr. Wesley said that being in a relationship he expected to eat out more, but that fasting sometimes was the best way to go. In response to Mr. Owen’s question, he did acknowledge that the government should support fasting only education.

Mr. Elliot then commented on how you should do unto others as you would have done unto you and that the ladies needed to get with it. Alas, now all Mr. Elliot’s women will be shopping elsewhere.

Mr. Lerner then also straddled the fence, saying that you should take pains to avoid spoiled food and said that he really wanted a recipe book.

Mr. Flanagan said that he was tired of his fraternity brothers eating out at his restaurants and that he will no longer share his wisdom. It was revealed in his speech, though, that it may be unwise to drink the Pina Coladas at his fraternity house.

Mr. Theiss, a repeat member of the no dining list, then rose to argue that eating out a lot was an unwise use of resources and he doesn’t like conversation before or after. Does it help to tell yourself that, Mr. Theiss?

Ms. Skrmetti then rose and spoke of how there were fewer options on campus for women and that men and women needed different equipment when cooking for themselves. Also, it would be very disturbing for a woman to come home and find 2 men cooking in her kitchen.

Mr. Hansen then said that he really liked cooking for himself and then discussed the merits of bubblegum. Mr. Elliot was ejected from the upper chamber for asking him to explain.

Mr. Trivedi said that you cannot eat alone in the library, but that eating out was too expensive. He also bemoaned the fact that he didn’t seem to be being very funny, which the rest of us had already figured out some time ago.

At this point in my notes the secretary, Mr. Williams, I believe, has written “I hate cats.” I have no idea if that was part of Mr. Trivedi’s speech or not. Mr. Williams also does not remember why he wrote that.

After Mr. Elliot was reinstated, Ms. Crawford said that eating alone didn’t have to be a drab, lonely affair, especially if you cooked while watching the Food Network’s Naked Chef.

Mr. Misztal said that there were all kinds of websites and TV shows to help you find recipes and wondered if it was better to dine with someone who ate out a lot or to help someone discover the joys of eating out for the first time.

The resolution passed 12 to 7 among the members and Mr. Moulds followed in Mr. Lerner’s steps by completely forgetting to resume the bench.

At this point in the minutes it is noted that we are all going to hell.

Ms. Skrmetti then rose with “BIR Erik Zimmerman, Patrick Perry, and Ivan Garcia should be given a Brickheap Award for the ‘coon skinin’ incident of 2003.”

Mr. Addison then spoke of the negative attention the incident had brought to the Greek community and that he wished there was more we could do than give them a Brickheap Award.

Mr. Miller argued that we should give the gentlemen in question an honorary Darwin award, but was then disappointed to discover that everyone involved in the incident was alive except for the raccoon.

Mr. Owens then went to make a quorum call, although, from the sounds of it he was actually wrangling cattle.

Mr. Moulds then spoke of the possible repercussions from the fraternity for presenting their members with this award and how we could be putting the hall or members at risk.

Mr. Owens said he supported the resolution, but that our love for the hall should be more powerful than a joke.

Ms. Kravig then pointed out that drunkenness impairs judgment and that many of us had done stupid things while drunk. She said that this raccoon was an act of god and asked us how we would have responded.

The question was then called, after being made ball and vase vote and an important question. It failed.

We then adjourned after Mr. Addison’s critics report.

Respectfully Submitted,
Jennifer Skrmetti