Minutes of the DLS: February 19, 2004

We had 3 first time guests, 3 second or third time guests, and 2 alumni.

First, an update on the saga of Ralph Reed. In committee reports, Mr. Trivedi said that he used a drill that was just too powerful when attempting to hang Ralph Reed last weekend. When the physical plant people came to fix the wall, they instead chose to hang the picture. The plaster on the wall is still cracked, but Mr. Trivedi said he kind of likes the idea of something messed up behind Ralph Reed.

The evening began with the untabling of Mr. Misztal’s proposed amendment to the constitution – “BIR: The Preamble of the Constitution shall be changed as follows: The phrase: ‘and by these means we may acquire benefits, and contract friendships which shall not be forgotten when we meet in the serious business of life’ shall be added to the third line following the word ‘manner.’”

Mr. Moulds rose in support of the resolution, reminding us that the three men who founded the society had been good friends. He also pointed out that the proposed change did not require you to be friends with everyone or to take a bullet for anyone. Besides, the phrase was originally in the constitution and was only removed after the Civil War.

Mr. Elliott, after explaining to us what happened to his hair, told us he loved us. He said that you can’t hang out with the same people every week and not become friends.

Mr. Keenan opposed the resolution because when he first joined, he came to listen to the debate, not to hang out with friends. He also said that we are not all friends, because everyone in the society has one person they don’t like and one person who doesn’t like them.

Mr. Addison reminded us that while we may disagree, we also share a lot. In order to disagree but get along and continue debate, we need these friendships.

Mr. Ballard was impressed by the friendships in the society, even after he joined. He said he had expected envy, since he was clearly the best speaker and the best looking person in the society. Mr. Trivedi acknowledged Mr. Ballard looked better and said he hated him.

Mr. Miller said that when this was originally removed, the society had decided that there could be debate without friendship. He also said that he gained more from debating with people who he disagreed with most vehemently.

Ms. Frawley, an alumna, supported this resolution by telling us that the Supreme Court has recognized diversity as an ideal of higher education and what better represented diversity than the wide range of opinions in the society. Just because you are not friends with everyone doesn’t mean that you don’t have friends in the society.

Mr. Lerner then rose saying that friendship was not the reason for the society and that when it came down to making a choice, the society had to come first. However, given the nature of our society the lasting friendships should be recognized in the preamble.

Mr. Owens told us that friends are people who come together with a common interest – which is what we do every Thursday. He himself is a better speaker because of those friendships since he wants to impress his friends and make them proud of him.

Ms. McFarland, a guest, said that friendship affected individuals within the society, but not the society as a whole. Institutionalizing friendship would make this society a Heapish-clique.

Ms. Hines acknowledged that friendship is a wonderful by-product of the society, but that debate is its purpose. Debate brought her here even though she didn’t know anyone in the society and debate kept her here as well.

Ms. Brown, a guest, told us that friendship made the debate better because it forces you to hold the speaker to a higher standard, for their own good.

Ms. Bell, an alumna, let us know that she is more likely to shoot her friends down than her enemies, a point I can attest to personally. The proposed change does not *require* friendship between all members, but rather, acknowledges its existence. She drove here partly for debate, but mostly for friendship.

Mr. Misztal said that friendship does not necessarily hold back competition – friendship is also a bond in Skull and Crossbones, but it won’t stop Bush and Kerry from attacking each other in the election. He also reminded us that after you leave the society, you are still a Demosthenian and we share a common bond.

Mr. Theiss said that since we all hold debate dear, thus sharing a common interest, we are friends. However, putting friendship in the constitution would bring prospective members in who were more interested in that than in debate.

Mr. Hanson said that the proposed change has a very powerful purpose because it will change the very nature of the society. The purpose of Demosthenians is debate, not friendship.

Ms. Keyes-Blumer claimed that adding words to the constitution will not have dire consequences, but rather, will merely acknowledge what already exists.

The question was called and failed with a vote of 13 to 7 because it did not have the required 2/3 vote.

It is then noted that I was a better looking President than Mr. Lerner.

Next, Ms. Keyes-Blumer rose and presented “BIR: Experience is not a prerequisite to knowledge.”

Mr. Misztal said that the points presented in the first speech countered the resolution itself. Knowledge can bring experience and experience can bring knowledge, so the resolution does not hold water.

Ms. Brown, a guest, told us that anthropology did not truly begin to develop until anthropologists lived with the cultures they were studying and really experienced their way of life. Studying without experience can only bring partial knowledge.

Mr. Addison said that to define experience, you need knowledge. Moreover, you can never have perfect knowledge or perfectly experience something.

Mr. Miller reminded us that the presenter specified personal experience in her speech. He than said that although human beings are chemical metabolic processes and so is fire, he does not know what it is like to be fire. He also assured us that he had never personally experienced a land mine.

I rose to speak and the minutes seem to be a series of equations about knowledge and experience, but since even I did not understand what I said, I can’t really blame the acting secretary.

Mr. Ballard said that knowledge is hard to define, but that you must test knowledge to gain experience.

Mr. Hanson said that inductivism was specific to scientific knowledge and that relativism defines experience as perceived by the mind, and so the resolution has nothing to support it.

Mr. Smith told us that culture is what you define it as. He said that he may or may not have experienced British culture last fall, depending on how you defined it. All knowledge requires experience.

The question was called and passed 8 to 6.

Mr. Owens rose with impeachment charges against our very own Napoleon, saying that he had misused funds, committee heads, his power, and access to the hall, as well as “reprehensible personal conduct reflecting poorly upon the high moral caliber of the Society.” He had obtained the requisite signatures of 1/3 of the society and the charges were tabled until tonight. The exact wording of the charges will be recorded in those minutes.

Mr. Owens then rose again to tell us how important the 2004 presidential elections would be and therefore “BIR: Senator John Edwards is the only Democratic candidate that can beat G.W. Bush, but is not specifically endorsed by the DLS.”

Mr. Miller told us of how exit polls have revealed that people who voted based on the issues voted for Edwards, whereas people who voted based on electability voted for Kerry. He doesn’t understand why people think Kerry is so electible.

I then spoke of how no senator since Kennedy had been elected president because of their voting record, and therefore Edwards had a better chance of winning with his shorter voting record.

Mr. Ballard gave us a demonstration of Howard Dean’s now infamous yell and spoke of how Kerry’s track record will definitely hurt him because he is a flip-flopper. Edwards is therefore the best choice.

Mr. Moulds opposed the resolution because although he agreed with Edwards, he though Kerry had a better chance of winning. Edwards would make a much better vice-presidential candidate.

The resolution passed 7 to 6 among members, 2 to 1 among guests, and failed 0 to 2 among alumni. Mr. Keenan abstained.

Ms. Crawford spoke of the hazards of trailer homes and presented “BIR: Trailer homes should be outlawed.”

Mr. Elliot said that while trailers are death traps, cardboard boxes burn more easily and provide less protection from the elements. Living in a trailer allows a person to get their finances in order and put their lives back together.

Mr. Miller said that there are no basements in Louisiana because of the water level and so should we ban living in Louisiana? He also told us of a group called the Madhousers who built shacks for people to live in because a shack is better than nothing.

Mr. Misztal gave us some “good” alternatives to trailers. He said you could like in your car and gave advice on how to cook on the engine or you could live in a housing project because they are funded by the government and everyone knows how well-funded and safe anything the government does is.

Ms. Bell, an alumna, opposed the resolution because a lot of her family lives in trailers and she doesn’t want them moving in with her. Moreover, trailers allow people to earn and save enough money to buy their own home.

I said that the idea that houses were safer was an idea propagated by evil technocrats and that public housing can kill too.

Ms. Keyes-Blumer claimed that family housing projects caused people to lose their drive because they were thrown in with people who had no drive. People living in trailers are often trying to buy their own home.

Mr. Moulds told us that trailers were an eyesore and brought down property values. He said they were full of morons, at which point Mr. Lerner asked him about all those big houses on Millage Avenue that were also filled with morons.

The question was called and failed 4 to 10 among members, 0 to 1 among guests, and 0 to 2 among alumni.

Mr. Mizstal than rose to present “BIR: Control of the ‘no-sex list’ should be handed over to the Judicial Council.”

I said that I was the current arbiter of the ‘no-sex list’ and reminded everyone that Mr. Misztal was on there for saying that “all Demosthenian women spread like peanut butter” and Mr. Theiss was on it for repeatedly bringing up his breast milk resolution.

Mr. Elliott told the men of the society to rise up against this female domination and he will take them to places they can get some for the low, low price of a six-pack.

Mr. Keenan revealed that he had just learned that women like sex too and if ever a man becomes secretary the list can be turned against the women of the society.

Mr. Miller reminded us of the roots of the ‘no-sex list,’ saying that is was simply an acknowledgement of how the people on it – namely, Mr. Misztal and Mr. Theiss – were unlikely to ever get any.

Mr. Theiss claimed that the ‘no-sex list’ was intended as a form of censorship and should therefore be controlled by the Judicial Council. He then cried out “break the power of the matriarchy which controls the world and of which the president is a mere puppet.”

It is then noted that while the President claims to have no strings, he has gone mad with power.

Much to my sadness, the resolution passed among members, but failed 0 to 2 among guests. Mr. Trivedi abstained because he can’t afford to be on any no sex list and it is noted that Mr. Elliot used the word “cockblock.”

We then adjourned after Mr. Theiss’ critic’s report.

Respectfully Submitted,
Jennifer Skrmetti