Minutes of the DLS: February 26, 2004

Norwegian legislator, Oeystein Hedstroem, presented a resolution to his colleges last Wednesday, asking them to lower import duties on eggs over the next coming weeks. He warns that a rush to buy and dye eggs for Easter will result in a catastrophic shortage of 3.3 million eggs.

City officials in Aliso Viejo, California were considering banning foam cups fearing the potentially dangerous properties of dihydrogen monoxide, an odorless, tasteless chemical that can be deadly if accidentally inhaled. Yes, that’s right folks – H2O, otherwise known as WATER – is odorless, tasteless, and deadly if inhaled.

According to a study done by the University of Arizona, toilet seats are cleaner than computer keyboards. It makes you wonder why I typed these minutes…

But I did, and so here are the minutes for the Meeting of February 26, 2004.

We began the meeting by inducting 2 new members - Ms. Sara Brown and Ms. Crystal McFarland.

Mr. Addison got debate started by presenting the resolution for the inter-society debate, “BIR: limitation based on country of origin are an ethical means to restrict immigration into the United States.” He then spoke against the resolution, arguing that country-of-origin immigration laws were not ethical and were, in fact, a horrible idea.

I then said that why ideally America could let everyone in, realistically, we could not. It simply would not work economically.

Mr. Owens told us that if the US is going to advertise how we’re the best, we can’t turn away the people who come here looking for a better life.

Ms. Steinburg spoke of the differences between America before 1840 and today. We should support a person’s hard work before their race, class, or nationality.

Mr. Theiss argued that country of origin cannot be the only restriction on emigration. We need to look at health, skill, and many other things.

Ms. Prabhakar informed us that restricting immigration of hard-working people is a bad idea and hurts our nation.

Mr. Moulds supported the resolution, pointing out that people in wars do not recognize borders.

Ms. Benton, a guest, said this nation has always been founded on immigrants and there should not be such restrictions on immigration.

Ms. Hines defined ethics and argued that our first duty was to people in the United States.

Mr. Misztal asked what would happen if two equally qualified people applied to immigrate to the United States but had different nations of origin. Should we turn away qualified people simply because of where they are immigrating from?

Mr. Addison claimed that discrimination to defend Americans is ethical, but asked if we meant what was written on the statue of liberty?

Mr. Vick argued that if cheap labor were unavailable in the United States, companies would take their business – and their money – elsewhere.

Ms. D’Andrea then rose and implored the members of the society to stretch their minds because this was for the debate team.

Ms. Duncan pointed out that many distinctions are hard to make, because, for example, educated people are not necessarily intelligent.

Mr. Owens said that this could work the other way around as well, allowing for “reverse discrimination,” (if that existed).

I then argued that nationalism was more important to many people from other nations and some immigrants might have different loyalties.

Mr. Theiss said “forget everything I just said” and then pretended to commit suicide.

Ms. Brown told us that country of origin policies were less discriminatory than other guidelines we could use.

Mr. Hansen claimed that people from nations we have hurt deserve to immigrate first, but I can’t see how that would narrow things down any.

Mr. Owens asked, what if we are at war with another nation. Would we limit immigration of their citizens?

Ms. Hines pointed out that we would be restricting immigration from all nations and reminded us that we can’t pay for all benefits for everyone.

Mr. Misztal revealed that he would not let Jesus immigrate to the US as an exception to immigration laws. “What would Jesus do?” Mr. Ballard’s notes ask.

Ms. Duncan said that if we allowed people who hate our enemies to immigrate, it could weaken those hostile nations.

Next, I presented “BIR: Language does not convey true meaning.”

Mr. Vick claimed there was no point in speaking if it cannot convey true meaning and we all knew that when he said “sex” he did not mean “genital hugging.”

Mr. Owens brought up the “Miracle of Life” video and said “menstruation.” Then he asked if we were the masters of language or if language was our master?

Mr. Hansen told us of an experiment in which it was proven that it was easier to teach someone how to make an arrowhead by pantomime than with words.

Mr. Martinson revealed his superpower of being ignored even when speaking, but after he gave SGA as an example, Ms. Keyes-Blumer’s minutes began to ignore him and rant about the evils of SGA.

Ms. Crawford said that language conveys meaning to other people, even if it is not perfectly understood.

Ms. Duncan argued that it must be possible to think without language and that people look at things and interpret them differently.

Mr. Theiss said that we cannot always define what we feel. Language is a human construct created to verbalize pictures and internal metaphor.

At this point in the minutes, Ms. Keyes-Blumer has noted “God is angry! Raar!”

Mr. Lerner then took the floor, telling us that language predates speech, meaning can exist outside of language, and that there must be some truth to language or we wouldn’t use it.

Mr. Williams spoke of how there were ideas and concepts that do not lend themselves to language. The more familiar something is, the easier it is to express.

Mr. Ballard claimed that the fact that we couldn’t even pin down a definition of “true” proved this resolution. The minutes then read “pink flamingos, babble, babble.”

The question was called and passed 9 to 7, but it is noted that when Mr. Moulds said the resolution passed, it me ant nothing to Mr. Vick.

Mr. Ballard then presented “BIR: Whereas San Francisco’s Mayor, Gavin Newsom is in violation of the California State Penal Code, Section 115, the Demosthenian Literary Society should send a letter to the Mayor, asking him to request to be arrested.”

Mr. Theiss impersonated Arnold Schwarzenegger and spoke of how he opposed the 10 Commandments in the court house in Alabama because it violated the law. He then referred to Robert Toombs as a great civil rights leader.

Mr. Owens put his head in his hands and cried out “GOD!” While he respects Mr. Ballard, he asked him “what the heck are you thinking man?” Civil disobedience does not necessarily have to break the law.

Mr. Smith told us of David Thoreau originating the idea of “civil disobedience” and said that it has to have a certain seriousness to it in order to make people think. He does not believe gay marriage does.

Ms. Keyes-Blumer argued that punishment is not necessary for the mayor to be breaking the law. She then offered us a subjectivist argument of the situation, which completely lost me because philosophy scares me.

Mr. Moulds brought to our attention the fact that the city of San Francisco could have its charter revoked by the state if the mayor does not stop breaking the law.

Mr. Theiss claimed that civil disobedience is when you look at the law, say it is unjust, and decide to disobey it.

Ms. Winchell pointed out that the key issue here was that the DLS should send a letter and that is absurd. How can Mayor Newsom turn himself in if the whole nation knows where he is and what he’s doing?

I compared the battle for gay marriage with the suffragette’s movement at the turn of the century. Also, this is a constitutional issue.

Mr. Martinson said that the office of the mayor is committing the crime, so Mayor Newsom cannot be charged, but he can be removed from office.

Mr. Hansen changed his position because of a connection to Ray Moore. The courts will decide if Newsom has overstepped his bounds, currently what he is doing is not a crime.

The question was called, but not as an important question, and failed 6 to 11 among member and 0 to 2 among guests. Mr. Smith, while he disagreed with the idea of writing a letter, agreed with the spirit of the resolution.

We then adjourned after Mr. Smith’s wonderful critic’s report.

Respectfully Submitted,
Jennifer Skrmetti