|
The Minutes of The Demosthenian Literary
Society
October 30th, 1997
OK. You'll have to use your brains
quite a bit to figure this whole thing out. Imagine it:
Demosthenian, only the Middle Ages. The thing is, this type of
situation would sort of rule, you know. Instead of debating
everything into the ground, we could just call our squires to bring
our horses around, and handle things the way real members should:
with a joust. Oh yeah, and then there's that whole issue of who
"us" would be...I mean, really, it would be just us suit of armor-wearin'
type of folks around; that's right, just us fellas, and Ann
Mingledorff (Don't mess with her...She's a mean one...). So in any
case, Demosthenian would be a great deal different; I'll let you
decide whether or not this difference is for the best.
Anyway, in this type of organization,
we'd have a king instead of a president. Therefore, our faithful
leader is no longer, HortMan, the prez, but King HortMan. Well, as
all kings do, King HortMan feels the need to do really ridiculous
stuff, just to make his tenure seem even more glorious.
Consequently, one day, all of his faithful Demosthenians were called
to his throne room.
Amid the dim lights and sorority
girls, the King addressed all of his faithful subjects: "Ya see
here folks, we need to do somethin' just so that we all keep on
looking like we know what the heck is going on. So, do ya'll have
any ideas?"
With that, Norm of Norman piped up,
"Let's have a Crusade!!"
After much grumbling and arguing and
coughing and scratching and organ music, all of the fellas, plus
that whole not a fella person all decided that a Crusade was exactly
what everybody needed. So, with not much ado, the motley tribe
rounded up provisions, and began its journey. No real goal was
evident, and so they left and headed on down the road mysteriously
known as Lumpkin.
The meeting was called to order at
7:25 PM, and the Society was joined by first time guests Brian
Crawford and Laura Stevenson. The Society was also joined by a
second time guest, Justin Sanders. Also, the lighthouse for all
wayward Demosthenians was present: after seeing Mr. Wells (Alum) in
attendance, I have a feeling that all of us will be scared straight
from the craggy shore of life-long Demosthenian involvement. Mr.
Bowman was appointed to be Critic, and the Society moved into
Committee Reports.
Mr. Bowman took the floor as Treasurer, and
stated that he had recently received an account statement from the
University Foundation, and that everything was just about like he
though it would turn out.
The Society zoomed through Old Business,
just for Ms. Shillington, who eagerly leapt to the floor following
the Society's move into New Business. She began her speech by
detailing the summer-long saga of how some Athens-Clarke County
police officers hog-tied an overly aggressive suspect, who died from
asphyxiation as a result of his restraints. Following this act, a
beat reporter for the local paper began hounding the officers for
the incident, but it later was revealed that the same reporter had
been arrested for DUI a few months prior by one of the implicated
officers. This reporter was subsequently fired, causing the speaker
to pose the following resolution:
Be it Resolved: Objectivity is an
attainable idea for the media.
Respectfully,
Donna
Shillington
According to the speaker, the paper was
correct in its actions, for objectivity needed to be preserved.
Mr. Bowman argued that though objectivity is
a noble goal, it can become nothing but just that due to the nature
of the human beings that report the news. Ultimately, what is
printed is left to the choosing of a small number of people: they
choose what they think the public would have the most interest for.
Therefore, bias is inherent within the system.
Mr. Weaver stated that people want the new
media to be fair because objectivity is almost as elusive as
altruism. Both are worthy ideals, but are ignored out of one;s own
self-interest.
Mr. Shumaker asserted that the news media
generally tries to be fair, but cannot be completely objective due
to space and cost limitations. By presenting all sides of the
story, and by presenting even the most marginally newsworthy story,
it would take a great more time/space to tell the story. In short,
the media could be objective, if we wanted them to be as consumers.
Mr. Pyrdum stated that objectivity was an
attainable goal, for there is always one section of the paper that
is completely objective: the weather forecast.
Mr. Wells (alum) argued that journalism is
an art; to be successful in journalism, one must make choices, and
present the news through the lens of a reporter. This lens can be
good, and can maintain society, or it can be bad, and attempt to
make a buck off other people. In this way, it is neither a
desirable or attainable goal for the media to be objective.
The question was called, and passed on
a vote of 6-5.
Mr. Stevenson, donning his lab coat
and engineer's cap, took the floor and presented the following
resolution:
Be it Resolved: Human DNA, be it
genetic or somatic, should not be artificially altered.
Respectfully,
David
Stevenson
The speaker educated the Society on all of
the science inherent within the resolution, and then argued that it
would be wrong to genetically alter adult human beings. By treating
patients in this way, only the condition would be treated, while the
same genetic illnesses remain to plague the offspring.
Mr. Pyrdum, never afraid to have clash in
the debate, argued against the presenter's notions of genetic
engineering. If we do not use this technology, many kids will die
due to having multiple copies of potentially fatal genes. In this
sense, it would be tough to be providing the best for our children
if we do not allow them to receive this treatment.
Mr. Bowman stated that just because we have
technology that has advanced to this point does not necessarily mean
that we must use it now. If we do not understand the full social,
philosophical and future ramifications of using this technology,
then we probably shouldn't use it.
Ms. Shillington told of the possible unknown
effects of the DNA correction. If we move too fast, then we may
have a huge clean-up ahead of us, but she still supports the
resolution, as long as the technology stays in the lab for a while
longer.
Ms. Visser put the resolution in terms of
LeConte Hall, and the mysterious cancers that were caused by
careless dumping of chemicals behind the building before the effects
of such actions were known. In short, we won't know the full
effects of this technology for several generations, and empirically,
by taking away obstacles to human life, bad things have happened.
Mr. Weaver stated that he hates science,
because scientists refuse to consider the effects of what the do.
By making children less prone to this type of disease, humans are
messing with natural selection, and possibly leading to world
overpopulation.
Mr. Bloomfield argued that by providing
children with vaccinations, we are tampering with life to the same
degree that we would if we used genetic engineering. In this case,
which one would be morally correct?
Mr. Shumaker asked "how we can we ever know
if we are ready to use a particular technology?" Every good has a
bad side to it, and to make rational decisions, we must weigh the
probability of the good happening versus the chance the bad will
happen. In this case, we have no real idea of what would happen, so
we really cannot evaluate the question.
Mr. Sanders (guest) stated that it would be
great if we could see the effects of genetically altering life right
away; unfortunately we cannot. The speaker cited the Irish potato
famine, and the ability of native species to ward off disease better
than to simply have one genome to work from. In this case, by
becoming more genetically similar, man becomes more susceptible to
catastrophic diseases.
Mr. Stevenson asked if we wanted to create
the perfect human race. By undertaking genetic engineering, we
eliminate natural selection, the mechanism that generally weeds out
harmful mutant alleles.
Mr. Pyrdum stated that we have one debate
like this a year, and that he was going to take advantage of it
while he could. He said a lot of biological jargon that this here
Secretary could not understand, and I would like to ask him to
explain (slowly) his speech later.
Mr. Pratt (guest) argued that biogenetic
engineering will happen; the more money that we put into this
program, the more minds will be put into it, and the safer it will
become. In short, the technology exists, and by having an incentive
to use the technology, we will use the technology, and by using the
technology, we will find out more about it.
The question was called and passed on
a vote of 9-7.
Mr. Bowman took the floor and presented the
following resolution:
Be it Resolved: The 1998 All-Night
Meeting should be moved from Friday to Saturday following the Hall
Re-Dedication.
Respectfully,
Derek Bowman
The speaker argued that we needed to put our
best foot forward on the Hall Re-Dedication, and by having this
event nine hours after the end of the All-Night Meeting, it would be
very difficult to do just that. If we have the two events scheduled
in this way, we would not be giving our best to those that really
matter, the alumni and large donors.
Mr. Weaver read a written statement that he
had composed concerning his feelings towards the whole situation.
He stated that actions were taken in bad faith, and that everybody
had an opportunity to voice these concerns a long time ago. He then
resigned as Programs Committee Chair.
Ms. Brignac stated that the All-Night
Meeting is very important on the grounds of maintaining a valuable
tradition. It is our tradition, and it is ridiculous to move it.
Mr. Pyrdum argued that we stand on this day,
and this day alone when we decide what is best for the Society. In
short, tradition is something to follow when you have nothing else
to go on. We must give our best effort for the Re-Dedication, and
by having the events scheduled in the manner mandated by the
resolution, we would allow old alumni to become Demsothenians again.
Mr. Wells (alum) asserted that regardless
of what day we have the two events, we must be active in attempting
to get alumni back for both.
Ms. Visser argued that this resolution was
brought up in very bad faith, and was in every sense sabotage. By
having both events in one day, it would be logistically impossible,
and it also detracts from both events.
Mr. Smiley stated that there are no right
reasons to move the meeting. We are all adults, and we can all
handle being tired, and we can all be responsible enough to handle
ourselves appropriately the night before.
Mr. Weaver told the Society of a 5-hour
Committee Meeting that he had, and that some of those in favor of
the resolution were not in attendance at that meeting.
Mr. Pyrdum created an analogy between this
resolution and having parents over to see a new apartment before the
crazy house-warming party. By having the two events on the same day,
the two complement and add to each other by allowing the older
alumni to fully participate in both.
At this point and time, let it be
hereby noted that Your Dashing Secretary has yet again foiled any
sort of precedent of decorum and/or non-chauvinism on the bench by
surrounding himself with Ms. Shillington and Ms. Richie. Its good
to be the king...
Mr. Hortman argued that good intentions have
been wasted on both sides, and that fighting about this type of
thing during the meeting is not the best way to solve the problem.
The issue should be hammered out in committees.
Ms. Mingledorff took the floor wearing a lot
of hats. This type of Re-Dedication does not come along very often,
and so the afternoon time for this event will allow it to be set
apart, and make it stand out. Out of control drinking at this
meeting could cost her her job, and responsibility needs to be
exercised by everyone in order to maintain the proper decorum for
the entire evening. By keeping the two on separate days, we can all
savor the moment in each.
The question was called and failed, on
a vote of 4-7.
Mr. Norman took the floor with an evil
gleam in his eye and presented the following resolution:
Be it Resolved: Halloween is not evil
nor the work of the devil.
Respectfully
submitted,
Adam L. Norman
The presenter argued that Halloween was a
fun and frivolous holiday, contrary to those that feel that it is a
tribute to the forces of evil everywhere. All Halloween exists as
is a way for people to have fun and to scare each other a little bit
once a year.
Ms. Brignac stated that Halloween was indeed
evil, and that was why she liked it so much. She told the Society
of how she and a friend were dressing up in Catholic School
Uniforms, a definitively evil proposition...A proposition so evil
that I will have to remember that image the next time I'm in that
middle chair...
Mr. Shumaker took the floor an proclaimed
that he was indeed the devil, and that he really had nothing to do
with it all. Of course, this assertion could all be a lie, and that
the devil has everything to do with Halloween. Anyway, it is on
this occasion that people take the opportunity to have some fun; not
something that is in anyway the work of the devil.
Mr. Bowman argued that Halloween was evil
because we are neglecting our responsibility to visit our dead
relatives that rise from their graves on that night. Instead of
feeding them, we go out and trick-or-treat, leaving them to starve.
Mr. Weaver stated that Halloween was evil
because it taught children to beg through Trick-or Treating. In
this sense, Hallmark "pimps" us out to make a quick buck.
The question was called and failed, on
a vote of 5-3.
The meeting adjourned at 11:13 PM
following Mr. Bowman's Critic's Report.
The Crusaders trudged down the road,
wondering what exactly they were crusading for. Unfortunately, not
even Sir Bert of Guy could figure out what to get all morally
indignant about, even though that is his life's work. Soon enough,
Sir Dave the Naked announced, "I'm hungry. Let's go over to my
place and get something to eat and get naked."
After some consternation, the not-so-merry
men plus Ann decided that they didn't have anything better to do,
and that their armor was beginning to chafe. With that they headed
down the road towards Castle Stevenson, also known as, "Zee Louve
Chaque." (That's Olde English, and stuff...)
At this point, one of the knights who
prefers to joust verbally seemed to be overcome with a type of
paranoia. Derek of Bowman appeared horribly distracted an
concerned. His pal, Sir Carlahad, asked, "What's the matter...Did
you lose your Plato or something?"
Derek of Bowman calmly replied, "It is
close...Never before have I felt it so strong or so near, but an
overwhelming feeling of darkness seems to be descending over me."
Norm the Norman, always one to look for
adventure, announced that finding this type of darkness, defeating
it completely, and making the poor creature run for miles in a
futile attempt to overcome its own shame was exactly what
Demosthenian needed. The only dissenter was Sir Slone, the
Complainer, who said, "It is cold out...I hate fighting evil when
its cold out." With that, Derek of Bowman seemed hypnotized,
muttering a strange mantra of "She RULES!! She does!!," and
staggering about all in the direction of a cave set into the side of
the cliff. Soon, using crampons and other mountain climbing gear,
the brave knights made it up to the summit, and there emerged a
sound most horrifying: "You are mesmerized by me, NO?!"
It was the Donnamal. At that point, the
whole group knew that things would never be the same again.
Come back next week for the battle royale
between Stalwart Demosthenian and the elusive, evil Donnamal...I
promise it'll be good.
Respectfully submitted this sixth day of
November, 1997
Michael J. Shumaker
|
University of Georgia 