|
Hi, everyone. Word on the street is that tonight is the SGA
debate. What's more, we're debating SGA's right to exist. In
fact, so much is at stake that we even have with us real live
members of SGA to advocate their position. The vice president,
even. Now, unlike you usual lot of smarmy, loudmouthed, ivory
tower elitists, I understand that SGA is designed to provide
a voice for the University's student population. I understand
that SGA is steeped in a longstanding tradition of speaking
for the common man in the face of seemingly insurmountable opposition.
SGA represents students in opposing the administration's deafening
calls for horrific atrocities like “academic rigor” and “plus-minus
grading” and “writing-intensive curricula,” atrocities reminiscent
of Saddam gassing the Kurds after he gave them a take home,
blue book exam. What people refuse to realize is that when the
people speak, SGA spends their money. And where I come from,
a little place called suburban Atlanta, they call that democracy.
But more importantly, I think it's admirable for us to have
this debate because the average student isn't familiar with
Robert's Rules of Order as both we as Demosthenians and our
guests in SGA are, and everyone knows that a civilized society
needs rules and parliamentary procedure lest it dissolve into
chaos.
But since the average student, let's call him Bob, shall we?,
can't fathom the impossibly dense strata of procedure and seemingly
arbitrary rules that accompany debates such as this, and since
SGA is accountable to the people, and the people need to know
what their representatives are doing, allow me to make a proposal
to bring the debate home to my friend Bob. Many of you are familiar
with the MTV reality series “Next.” If you aren't, then you're
living in the past. I bet you drive an Edsel, or still wear
one of those poofy skirts that were popular when I was a freshman.
On the show “Next,” an attractive young man or woman, who has
been pre-screened and deemed suitable to pass on his or her
genes by Viacom International, owner of MTV, is presented with
a representative sample of the opposite sex, similarly approved
for entry into the Orange County gene pool. These prospects
emerge from a trailer, one by one, each attempting to make a
good enough impression on this person to be asked out on a second
date. If they screw up or say something beefheaded or “fratastic,”
they are “nexted,” or sent back to the trailer, for re-education
and re-introduction into the fetid gene swamp that exists outside
of MTV studios. Contestants can be “nexted” for a variety of
reasons, including the improper modes of speech I've just mentioned.
Since these same modes of speech are the ones that this society
seeks to correct, and since my friend Bob understands that to
be “nexted” is to be proven foolish, unprepared, or otherwise
inadequate, I propose a system of “nexting” for this debate.
In the interests of goodwill, if any of you crafty Demosthenians
use your bag of rhetorical tricks against our well-meaning friends
in SGA, who come here tonight on behalf of my friend Bob, who
doesn't much care for silly arguments from overachieving international
affairs kids, the critic shall shout “next!” in order to allow
someone else who better understands the basic principles of
representative democracy to speak. This will show how inclusive
and sensitive we in this chamber can be to the needs of my friend
Bob and his cohorts. Otherwise, we're no better than the terrorists,
or President Adams. Word is born, son.
The meeting of Thursday, the 11th of January 2007 was called
to order at 7:15PM. There were seven first time guests.
In Programs, Mr. Williamson gave his very presidential Presidential
Address.
There were two petitions for membership. Mr. Etheridge discussed
the television series The Office, which is a miserable portrayal
of miserable people, and praised awkwardness as a comic device.
Ms. Vines told the society about a recent road trip from Atlanta
to Monterrey, California, and learning to drive a stick while
meandering through uncharted territory in a Subaru. Like taking
a road trip, joining the society is something you “just have
to do” sometimes.
Both were raucously welcomed into the society.
In committee reports,
Ms. Buhlig, the vice president, noted that she was still taking
requests for committee assignments.
Mr. Broach told of the other society's incompetence in choosing
a topic for this year's intersociety debate. As chief justice,
he has already instilled the fear of god, i.e. himself, into
his heap-based counterpart.
Ms. Wilkinson spoke on behalf of the tournament committee.
There was to be a meeting this week for all parties interested
in judging and writing resolutions.
Mr. Weiss the Younger informed the society about the SGA debate
which will be happening in mere moments, before your very eyes,
in stunning 3-D vision.
Ms. Turlington, head of the PR committee, sought designs for
new flyers.
Ms. Herschman, Digital Media committee head, encouraged interested
parties to join said committee.
Mr. Darsie, treasurer, noted that dues were due, and the Mr.
Broach's mattress had bedbugs.
In new business,
Mr. Weiss the Younger opined that in order to make the United
States more united, the same crime should be given equal weight
in all circumstances, and presented
BIR: Hate crime legislation should be repealed.
Respectfully submitted, Josh D. Weiss.
Mr. Addison noted that the US is not as far removed from its
past as the resolution assumes. Just forty years ago this chamber
was filled with white men calling minorities all sorts of horrible
things. The resolution only works in an ideal society.
Mr. Brettschnieder alluded to Machiavelli. When you take away
the ability to express an idea, the idea itself goes away. Therefore,
by reacting to hate crimes, society perpetuates racism.
Ms. Keyes-Blumer said that supporters of equality should support
the resolution. By saying present generations are responsible
for the actions of past generations, we set other groups apart.
Mr. Weeks stated that things vary. At what point do you draw
the line between hate crimes and hate-free crimes? In order
to facilitate the proverbial melting pot, we should repeal hate
crime laws.
Mr. Hansen argued that to pretend people are all equal conflicts
with empirical data stating that people are indeed not equal.
For example, 12% of black males are in jail. Hate crime laws
exist to correct biases within the justice system.
Mr. Dutta pointed to exclusionary non-discrimination policies
in arguing that states have not achieved equality. That said,
though, all crimes should be equal and the resolution should
be supported.
Mr. Ballard noted that by not acknowledging the existence
of hate crimes, we promote healing between races.
Ms. Moxley said that the presenter and supporters of the resolution
used a distorted definition of hate crime. A diverse society
needs to embrace differences.
Ms. Turlington made the point that our society is indeed not
colorblind. Society needs to acknowledge and correct obvious
racism that occurs during certain criminal acts, and recognize
the history behind crimes through hate crime laws.
Mr. Etheridge argued that the government should not punish
thoughts, and that it is un-American to punish people in such
a way for committing hate crimes.
Mr. Broach said that crimes alone should be punished, not
thoughts, and that we should “send 'em all to the chair.”
The question was called, and passed 17 to 8 among members
and 2 to 0 among guests. It was noted that Mr. Weiss the Younger
abstained, and that Mr. O'Brien is colorblind, which does not
affect his opinion on race.
Ms. Barnett then rose to tell a harrowing tale of food abduction
from the society's communal refrigerator, presenting
BIR: The Demosthenian Literary Society
should not steal others' food, and should use a system of stickers
and sharpies for food labeling.
Respectfully submitted, Connie Barnett.
Ms. Buhlig noted that she and her roommates all label the
food in her apartment, therefore the resolution is a good idea.
Mr. Weiss the Elder opined that the refrigerator is communal,
implying sharing, and that we have enough money as a society
to afford food.
I then argued passionately in the negative, in a manner Cicero
would have admired, invoking the human race's origin as a society
of hunter-gatherers. Just as our forbears hunted woolly mammoth,
I have occasionally found myself living in the hall with no
food options other than to forage in either the wild or the
communal refrigerator. Furthermore, to persecute food thieves
would be to commit a hate crime.
Mr. Hansen then presented food exhibits of his own design,
suggesting alternative methods for disguising and preserving
food in the fridge. He advocated his own method, making food
so revolting others would never think of consuming it.
Mr. Broach, as chief justice, proposed solving the problem
by putting one container of tainted food in the fridge each
month as bait.
Ms. Bernhard, as an experienced refrigerator sanitation engineer,
advised renting out space in said fridge.
The question was called. The first portion, that Demosthenians
should not steal each others' food, passed 19 to 8 among members
and failed 0 to 1 among a guest. The second portion, that the
Society should implement a labeling system, failed 4 to 18 among
members.
It was noted in the minutes that Mr. Weiss the Elder abstained
because he “wanted to see someone eat the poop.” I guess you
had to be there.
Mr. Weiss the Elder then rose to remind us that because labels
carry meaning,
BIR: The Demosthenian Literary Society
should be referred to in full in the “how do you know this person”
section on facebook.
Respectfully submitted, Josh P. Weiss.
The resolution was tabled, mercifully.
Ms. Herschman then rose to present a resolution, but quickly
succumbed to the tyranny of the majority.
Mr. Brettschneider then rose to present
BIR: It is the divine right of the United
States to conquer and civilize the entire middle east.
Respectfully submitted, Daniel Brettschneider.
Mr. Garcia opined that as the most quintessentially American
institution, the adult film industry serves as a good metaphor
for America, dominating the middle east in a powerful and manly
fashion befitting God himself. In the manner of adult film star
Lexington Steele, President Bush should rain down freedom on
the middle east.
Mr. Broach invoked a recent chat he had with God, who told
him not only that America should unleash a rain of nukes on
the middle east, but also who ate Ms. Barnett's aforementioned
food. Mr. Broach also noted that he “eats liberty and craps
freedom.” It's true; I've seen it.
Mr. Pearl reminded us that God hates San Francisco, and then
leafed through the bible to find the exact passage.
The question was called, and failed 5 to 17 among members
and 0 to 1 among a guest. It was noted that Mr. Broach is the
greatest American ever. Mr. Vaudo noted that everyone who has
ever claimed to speak for God has proven to be “retarded.”
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45PM, subject to Mr. Weiss
the Younger's critic's report.
Repectfully submitted,
William D. Richards
|
University of Georgia 