|
(Meeting after the oxford debate)
While I had initially intended to start this week’s minutes
with my traditional jab at our president’s literary aspirations,
I have a confession that I need to make. It is a confession
I am not proud of, but one that I am sure will resonate with
every woman and most of the men in this room. Bobby, Sarah,
I am sorry, but I was pulling for Oxford. Now, before you lynch
me, it’s not my fault. I had every intention of cheering for
the home team, after all, there were no brickheapers around
to sully my enjoyment. But, from the moment the first dulcet
tones of the English language, spoken as it was meant to be
spoken, came softly over the reflective sound system, I was
gone. Now I, as an English major, am particularly susceptible
to the power of a proper English accent, and as a woman, I have
a weak spot for the lilting, soft pallet of Scottish speech.
No American woman is immune to that power, and I am very glad
that my boyfriend declined to accompany me to the debate, allowing
me to swoon unchecked. Even though Fraser is from Glasgow, a
city where the average American will understand about 1/3 of
what is spoken, I’m sure that Ms. Bell and I could listen to
him read the phone book for hours and never look back. Ms. Barns,
the same goes for you with your glorious London accent that
I have often imitated unsuccessfully in the hopes of being popular.
It has now been about a year and a half since I finished my
four month stay on the sceptered isle. And though I can never
give blood again because of their mad cows, or should I say,
Coos, I never regret the time I spent in the UK. I will spare
you my tired stories because I know most of you are tired of
hearing them, but permit me just this one. Towards the end of
my trip, I made a pilgrimage to Duram Cathedral, to see the
grave of the Venerable Bede, author of the Ecclesiastical History
and father of English literature. There, in the cool semi-dark
one finds only in the narthex of English cathedrals, I wept
that I could touch the coffin that held the bones of this man.
For the first time in my life, I understood the pilgrims at
Mecca who travel days through the sand to reach that holy city.
Though I traveled a mere 2 hours in an air-conditioned coach
on British Rail, I felt that same draw to the grave of my holy
man, the founder of my religion of English Literature.
So the next time you trip over an American tourist who’s stopped
to take a picture of a post box or keep left sign, remember
the power your country still has over us colonials and bear
with us as we faun over your words. We might just be the easiest
audience you’ve ever had.
And, now, on with the show…
Mr. Trivedi started us off with his State of the Society address,
reinforming us of everything we already knew but hadn’t been
told. Afterwards we inducted 3 new members, Ms. Gold, Mr. Hanson,
and Mr. Elliot, who makes a delightful naughty priest. Congratulations
once again.
After some shuffling, Mr. Miller took the floor and presented
“BiR: The United States should not have
the power to impose economic embargoes on other countries.”
Respectfully Submitted, Bill Lee Miller.
Ms. Steinberg disagreed, saying that Embargoes are necessary
to prevent nuclear proliferation.
Mr. Moulds pointed out that Embargoes are a type of warfare
and no matter what you would like to think, citizens are legitimate
targets in warfare as government supporters.
Mr. Lerner quipped that stopping food, penicillin and air conditioners
are not what Embargoes are about, they are about limiting what
could be used in a military environment. Without embargoes,
we are left only with violence.
Ms. Skrmetti was in support of the resolution. Who says that
US policy has to or will be followed by foreign nations? We
cannot force cooperation, embargoes are ineffective.
Mr. Ballard reminded us that sanctions have prevented violence
in the past and thus provide an alternate option to violence.
Mr. Addison, in his wisdom, pointed out that everyone exports
to America, thus conceding economic sovereignty for prosperity.
If we are going to keep playing the Super Power, we have to
make a choice between a gun and sanctions.
Mr. Owens, a guest, in one of the shortest speeches I’ve ever
head given said that by throwing away embargos completely you’re
throwing away the baby with the bathwater.
Ms. Parker said that the US shouldn’t have the power to enact
embargoes.
Mr. Elliot showed us that sanctions have worked in both S.
Africa and Serbia. They provide us with a little tool verses
the club of war.
Mr. Misztal, drunken boy scout that he is, said that Cuba is
not communist, they are Nationalist. All embargoes do is kill
children and make the US more hated than it already is.
Mr. Theiss stated in a rather convoluted way that the power
to hurt a country also gives us the power to help it. Depriving
us of embargos denies us the power to do either.
Ms. Prabhakar asked how could you support something as expansive
as an embargo? Trade helps everyone including the US. Civilians
who die from embargoes are just as dead as civilians who die
in wars.
Ms. Murray, a guest, pointed out that black markets thrive
on embargoes and that by enforcing them the US strengthens the
criminal element in a region.
Mr. Gallagher, played by fiery preacher Gallagher, dictated
that the idea of an embargo that only effects a government is
ridiculous because you cannot separate the government from the
people. He went on to say that it is not ok for a Super Power
to point nukes at any country, unless that superpower is the
US.
Mr. Guest asked who’s going to limit us? We must stand on the
strength of our own ethics, not violence.
Mr. Martinson played the devil’s advocate, pointing out that
free trade also kills people.
The Question was called and failed 7-12 among members and was
tied 3-3 among guests.
Next, the lovely Ms. Crawford presented
“BiR: Every normal, healthy, heterosexual
is subject to a “Rule of Three,” that is, that there do exist
3 people of the same sex he/she would willingly have sex with.”
Respectfully submitted, Emily Crawford.
Ms. Crawford, however, declined to name her own 3 lucky ladies.
Mr. Elliot refuted the rule of 3, saying that he does not desire
nor would willingly have sex with any man. If you desire 3 same
sex people, then you are not straight.
Mr. Owen (a guest) called in a question of syntax, the word
that matters in this resolution is “willing.”
Ms. Aaron said that there are indeed 3 women that she would
gladly have sex with in the hopes that some of their greatness
would “rub off” on her. Jaja Gabore, Julie Andrews, and Vita
Sackville-West, however, at my party last Friday the list was
updated to include Ms. Ballou, Ms. Gold, and Ms. Parker bringing
the total to 6 lucky ladies. Does this make me a raging lesbian?
If so, can I still stalk Hugh Jackman?
Ms. Keyes-Blumer (a guest) does not have any sexual attraction
to women, too bad.
Mr. Bogue would not have gay sex under normal circumstances,
but he would have gay sex to save the USA, even 3 at one time.
You are a true patriot, Mr. Bogue.
Mr. Miller likes the idea of having sex with 3 men at the same
time and wants people to support this resolution for his own
benefit. Somehow, we were not surprised.
Ms. Parker quite rightly pointed out that this resolution is
a moot point since there are no normal heterosexual people in
the world.
Mr. Addison cold-heartedly killed the debate and the question
was called, failing 7-11.
Ms. Steinberg got us back on a wholesome American track with
“BiR: A Boston Red-Sox – Chicago Cubs World
Series is the only salvation for an abysmal baseball season.”
xxx ooo xxx ooo – Jocelyn Steinberg.
Mr. Bogue brought in the spirit by proclaiming that God wills
this to happen and God will save baseball.
Mr. Addison had a slightly more realistic and less sarcastic
view, namely that baseball is beyond saving, because once a
Cubs/Sox match up happens we’ve seen it all and there’s no more
reason to watch baseball ever again.
Ms. Skrmetti played the role of a damn Yankee saying that Baseball
is doomed because it is boring and that God will not save it
because Wayne Gretzgie is God and he couldn’t care less.
Mr. Moulds, ever the policy buff, argued that baseball needs
salary caps. He also announces that since he was a Marxist tonight,
he might as well argue against the big capitalist system. Only
7 teams in Baseball make money anyway.
Mr. Martinson was existentialist and claimed that there’s no
proof that Baseball exists anyway. Baseball is a cruel mistress.
As we were all dieing of starvation, the question was called
and failed 6-8 idealistic hopefuls and tied 1-1 among the guests
that had hung on that long.
|
University of Georgia 