This week, Danish cartoonists were successful in creating the largest international incident ever created by playful cartoons depicting a religious figure as a murderer. In what the BBC calls a “Row” the newspaper Jyllands-Posten published illustrations of Mohammad as a terrorist back in September. In delayed response, Islamic nations across the middle east bore witness to demonstrations against Denmark over the past two days. One such demonstration on the Gaza strip with a crowd chanting “War on Denmark, Death to Denmark.” Which is kind of curious since you'd think they might say it in Danish instead of English. The incident also sparked off a massive boycott that ground sales of Danish goods in the region to a halt.
This was all much to the chagrin of Canadian bloggers, who have been publishing cartoons nonstop on websites in order to invoke the ire of Muslims and thus prove Canada is a real country too. Unfortunately the acts have been largely ignored by the Arab street, which like the rest of the world isn't entirely aware that Canada is not a part of the United States.
The entire drama came to a head as the United Kingdom began debate on the “Racial and Religious hate” bill, which some British comedians believe will stifle free speech, and may, it is argued, make distribution or airing of the “Spanish Inquisition” episode of Monty Python's Flying Circus illegal in Britian.
To all this we can only say, NO ONE EXPECTS THE MINUTES.
The meeting of January 26th was called to order. We had five first time guests and two returning guests.
We went into committee reports and immediately did something sneaky. Then after ceasing shenanigans Ms. Smith mentioned the Demosthenian Race for the Cure team, which has been theme less since 1803. If you find it, please contact her. Mr. Ballard announced a meeting of the tournament committee to review how the DLS Classic went, and thanked everyone who helped out. Supposedly the high schoolers thought it was a smashing success.
Mr. Darsie was appointed as our adlatus.
The floor was opened for the rampaging barbarians of new business, and Ms. Koval took the floor. Because she works at a pharmacy, she deals with old, angry people and their insurance. A new plan took effect on Jnuary 1st, 2006, and she does not approve of it. The new plan asks too much of the elderly vis a vis computer literacy and small details in the plan can ruin one's coverage, and people who get new prescriptions are often out of luck.
She presented BIR, The new medicare/medicaid prescription drug plans should have never happened. RS, Erin C. Koval
Mr. Williamson stated that the resolution was a battle between government and the private sector. The new plan may be difficult at first, but he suspected it was worth it in the long run since competition for medicare dollars creates new benefits such as home dilevery. Older people dislike it because they are set in their ways.
Mr. Burkhart said that insurance companies are bad because of patents which result in monopolies on certain drugs. Further, a month for the paperwork required to use the plan is ridiculious.
Mr. Pearl cited a political cartoon with Republican elephants shooting old people in the chest with a medicare arrow. Even with help, it still took her grandmother twelve minutes to find a suitable plan. Someone asked him, how long is twelve minutes, really? My sources say 720 seconds.
Mr. P. Weiss said he had come from Israel and told us about purchasing Codeine there. It is much cheaper. The new program is horrible because it is too bureaucratic and does not protect citizens. He suggested that a proper bureaucracy would have one person working a case from beginning to end, and said there should have been a transitional period between plans.
Mr. Ballard said that the program was a GOP failure and cited a Congressional Accounting Office figure of $700 billion. He called it a boondoggle that only gets worse with babyboomers retiring and various drains on our nation's finances. He argued that the procedure used to pass the law was inappropriate and that it gave drug companies more money without reducing their profit margins.
The question was called and passed fifteen to four among members and four to nothing among guests.
Mr. P Weiss abstained because there was too much bureaucracy in the resolution, Mr. Misztal supports $3 Codeine on bus rides, and Mr. Miller abstained for not knowing enough.
Mr. Misztal then rose and said that social regulation leads to poor efficiency. He presented:
BIR, If it were free and feasible, we should strive to de-gender our children so they may gender themselves.
He stated that there are costs to imposing gender stereotypes on children, and that by not imposing artificial concepts society is improved. He cited stereotypes of business women. There is no reason to force gender roles down throats. If we could somehow do it, the world would be a better place.
Mr. Theiss rose in opposition, Sex, unlike race, is genetically identifiable and is rooted in natural law. He also pointed out that sometimes stereotypes go both ways, and that there are a plurality of stereotypes to examine.
Mr. Dowell agreed that there are real physical differences between the two but felt that they should not carry over to a social context. He cited a powerful classical civilization without gender roles as a reason for adopting the resolution.
Mr. Pearl said that the resolution was an equality resolution. He said that the ability for women to conceive forces employers to treat them differently. Employers prefer people who cannot get pregnant in order to not lose labor, especially in blue collar jobs where workers are easily replacable.
Mr. Moulds claimed the resolution is narrow, and agreed that biases hurt the economy, but claimed biases would exist anyway. You can't ignore 10,000 years of history. If we didn't have this bias, we'd have another one. He pointed out that we have gender conceptions of computers too; when was the last time you heard a male computer?
Ms. Koval said people are ascribed characteristics at birth, and that the resolution said it doesn't matter what your gender is in the workplace. People who make more money because of being male anger her. This phenomenon exists because of the stereotype of the man as provider.
Mr. Chiego cited a study of monkeys playing with a truck and a doll. They seemed to have gender roles. People are not embracing diversity when they say we ought to be the same; men and women have separate ways to control the world.
Mr. Hansen continued with monkeys and pointed out that Bonobo monkeys are happy because their primary form of angry interaction is hate sex. The conceptual differences between male and females is, however, a basis of logic; we cannot be X and also not X. What makes us human is our ability to work by analogy, but binary thought has ceased to serve us and we ought to lose the gender conceptions.
Mr. P Weiss brought up the social perception of women walking alone. He argued it started because we didn't want women cheating on men. Now a man has the right to ask if a baby is his. Inheritance is the focus and basis of social norms. He also argued that progress in equality can still continue without destroying gender conceptions.
Ms. Keyes-Bloomer opposed, saying that people just want to express themselves. To degender children is to make them all the same, and by making their choice later they will gain a gender and make choices about how to express their preferences; you still end up with one or the other.
Mr. Miller said that when we are born we are locked into gender roles. He contrasted with the previous speaker by bringing up a book by an individual who claimed to be neither male nor female, which is a role society will not accept.
Mr. Earl opposed the resolution because he felt that gender blindness would hurt the concept of the significant other because it attacks longing for symbiosis.
Ms. Smith said that our current media enforce gender stereotypes-- people have sometimes bad gender roles but it would destroy a sense of our culture and lead to confused sexuality. Women in unconventional roles are frowned upon because they are empowered.
Mr. Webber said to do away with gender actually steals something from the effect manifested via hormones. There is no rational reason to ban gender. There is no social stigma sufficient to completely stop say, women from playing soccer.
Mr. Martinson, by whom I mean myself, cited the lower crime rates of women and suggested that there is a functional benefit to gender roles for society.
The question was called and failed seven to fifteen, and failed two to two among guests.
Mr. Misztal noted that Bonobos should be lawyers because they screw everyone over, and Mr. President was very confused about her gender.
Then a guest rose to present a resolution. He made a contrast between primary and secondary responsibility, referring to the resident of Russel Hall, Lewis Fish, who recently drowned in his own vomit. He said that Lewis Fish chose to drank and drank excessively. He felt that to blame anyone else was to remiss the issue of responsibility and that laws forcing him to hide his drunkenness may have prevented his going to the hospital. He presented:
BIR: The death of Lewis Fish is his own fault with the only exception of the retrograded drinking laws, that encourage underage individuals to drink as an act of excessive rebellion, that should be changed. Respectfully submitted, Your Honored Guest, Jody Ballew
Mr. Misztal disagreed, saying that laws restricting consumption to persons twenty-one and older are necessary and proper. Although it may not eliminate underage drinking, you do limit it's excessive use with the laws.
Another guest rose to agree with the resolution. The illegality of alcohol consumption glamorizes it, unlike in Europe where it is often introduced as part of a family setting. He also cited the netherlands as an example, where legal marijuana is consumed at an apparently slower rate per capita than in the United States.
Mr. Moulds opposed the resolution because people who are under twenty-one aren't necessarily responsible. Statistics say that our age group is most likely to die from driver inexperience and alcohol. Further, to say that it is only Fish's fault is absurd. Giving an underage person alcohol circumvents laws about serving them alcohol.
Mr. Williamson cited how often underage people drink in the first place and asked why anyone should have assumed Mr. Fish would be different. People are hungry to place blame, but we ought to place it on the person who drank the alcohol. Mr. Fish also had a fake identification.
Mr. Chiego had friends who drank in high school who peer pressured him by asking him why the drinking age should be 21. He then looked at the MADD website and agreed with it. The age restriction correlated with a fifty percent reduction in alcohol related fatalities.
Mr. P. Weiss said that responsibility was the issue; to give a minor alcohol is not unlike putting a gun in the hands of babes. He said that there was a slippery slope in pushing blame past Mr. Fish that could eventually go straight to the manufacturer-- similar to tobacco.
Mr. Ballard felt that the drinking age should be lowered to eighteen because it denies access to basic healthcare in situations such as this. You will have more DUI's in young people because they don't get the same amount of responsibility for their actions.
Mr. Pearl pointed out that the media bombards us with images such as the OC that glorify underage drinking. His parents taught him that drinking isn't bad unless it's overdrinking. Although raised by a corrupt culture, an individual is responsible for his own actions.
Ms. Pearl then rose from her seat to say that all laws of this type must have some element of arbitrariness to them, but because people are rebellious is not a valid reason to eliminate the law.
Mr. Earl then argued that the primary problem creating the high rate of alcohol fatalities prior to the universal drinking age was the bloody borders where two states had different age requirements; people didn't suddenly get more responsible between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one. The laws have no empirical justification.
Mr. Dowell pointed out that if you get caught drinking underage at UGA you now go to Jail, which probably made it less likely for Mr. Fish to seek medical attention. He said that you can reduce the incidence of events like this by reducing the punishment.
Mr. Hansen said that laws do not have a natural right to exist and that it is not our job to prove that a law ought to be struck down; it needs to be proven necessary first. He said it was not the rebellious impulse that led to overconsumption but the perception of rarity generated by being underage.
The question was then called and failed ten to thirteen among members and passed two to one among guests.
Mr. Theiss then rose to ask us about his hair.
He presented, BIR: John Henry Theiss has a greater probability of picking up girls with long hair. RS, Radhika Prabhakar care of John Henry Theiss.
Mr. Dowell said he ought to have a mullet and took an informal vote. Mr. P Weiss said that he ought to work on his personality first. Mr. Earl equated women with wild animals, esp. ferrets and birds, and pointed out that they like shiny objects. Mr. Hansen then poked himself in the eye to show that attracting birds to shiny objects is a bad idea. Ms. Johnson is attracted to shiny things, but she advised Mr. Theiss to go with a Farah Faucet look. Ms. Prabahkar suggested we go to a lot of trouble to determine the answer. Ms. Koval said that his hair makes him look innocent. Ms. Barnett has short hair and wanted his to go because it looks better than hers. Ms. Crawford saw both and prefered the short hair. Mr. Hansen was ashamed of us and reminded us that not all zeroes are equal, and that Mr. Theiss is a zero. Mr. Steinberg said that with short hair he would look like an eight year old, and that his name was too long for most women to remember, so they ejected him. Ms. Smith said she likes shiny things, at which point she was distracted by Mr. D Weiss jingling his keys. You have to have bling. Ms. Buhlig was unaware that the men in the upper chamber have 99 problems, but not the one she cited. Then I rose, causing the floor to burst into chaos as a trophy looking suspiciously like Hitler was revealed and Ms. Myers, Ms. Wilkinson, and Ms... Williamson ran to fawn over it. Then I said that chicks are attracted to fire so Mr. Theiss should set his hair on fire. Ms. Wilkinson then said the trophy guy is the pinnacle of American beauty, but I still think it looks like Hitler. Mr. Richards said the resolution is logically invalid; frat guys have cards and shiny objects. Then the question was called and the ghost of Robert of Rules fame burst into the upper chamber to throw us into disarray like God smote the tower of Babel. Mr. Pearl abstained because he didn't care, Mr. Williamson abstained because he says he isn't gay, I abstained because I haven't seen his hair on fire, Mr. Ballard identified himself as a woman, and Mr. Chiego abstained because he would somehow break the unofficial UGA sexual harassment code. Oh, and then there was a vote, but the acting secretary only counted the votes of women, who always lie about what they want to see in men anyway. Either way, it somehow came out to Pi over 3 to i to the 8th power, which I am told is shorthand for six to four among women, which passes.
We then adjourned subject to Mr. Theiss's thirty four minute and nine second critic's report.
Respectfully submitted,
Jacob R. Martinson |
University of Georgia 