In the interim since we last met, the Vice President of the United States literally shot a man. Some might ask whether this is an analogy for the administration. I ask what are you doing hunting when you're seventy-eight. Unfortunately, as it would seem, the victim knew all too well what he was doing hunting. Not only did he sneak up on a quail to scare it, he also somehow evaded the secret service, on heightened alert given that Cheney had left the secret bunker. From this, we can only draw one lesson. geriatric ninjas are not our friends.
It thus follows, or perhaps not, that these are the minutes for Thursday the 9th, 2006.
The meeting was called to order and we recognized three first time guests as well as five returning guests. Ms. Kayte Servidio gave a maiden address about brevity, saying that lectures, reports, etc, ought to be like kilts; long enough to be informative, yet short enough to keep it interesting.
Moving into new business, Mr. Morgan rose to present a resolution impeaching Ms. Pearl for a variety of reasons, all of them good, ranging from inappropriately fraternizing with members of the opposing society, poking members via the facebook, as well as making Oprah Winfrey skinny, then fat, then skinny, then fat, then a robot.
Mr. Dowell then rose to present the resolution that we would debate at the Intersociety debate, the minutes for which I've cleverly expunged from the offical record, although they will be available to members of the debate team on demand. Although, those speaking included Myself, Mr. Owens, Mr. Moulds, Mr. Earl, Ms. Meeks, Mr. Misztal, Mr. Vick, Mr. Richards, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Pearl, Mr. Steinberg, Ms. Keyes-Bloomer, Mr. Josh P. Weiss and Ms. Bernhard.
The resolution itself was
BIR, The United States of America should increase significantly its use of nuclear power for the purpose of generating energy.
Concidentally, the resolution passed twelve to eight among members yet failed nothing to two among guests.
Mr. Ballard then rose to speak about the market place of ideas and cartoons. He also made a personal attack at Mr. Richards, since he does the editorial cartoon for the red and black, but drew a distinction between calling him out and pulling a pistol on him. In reference to the recent cartoons in Denmark, he said that they made a legitimate point. He presented:
BIR, Every major Newspaper in the United States should reprint the controversial “Danish Cartoons.”, RS David Ballard.
Mr. Moulds stated that this was a horrible idea. Free speech comes with a cost and what you say has consequences. The Danish cartoons could have infuriated and threatened a region of the world, and the cartoonists crossed the line. Potential consequences of such an action include the murder of American Journalists.
Mr. Pearl favored the resolution saying that these cartoons were published a while ago, but that it wasn't until they were reprinted that the row started; nevertheless, rational people should not respond like this.
Mr. Theiss said the cartoons weren't printed for the benefit of the middle east. Ultimately, the resolution is for our own benefit and the resolution asserts our own rights; we have to determine what sort of society we are.
Ms. McFarland pointed out that Muhammad didn't want to be seen as a God, which is why the prohibition against drawing pictures of him exists. All religions have a fatal flaw of intolerance; It's ignorant to not understand the consequences of such an act.
Mr. Chiego argued that the people committing the terrorist acts are Muslims, and Christians do not, as a rule, bomb embassies. Abortion clinics yes, embassies no. He asserted that we were in a battle of wills and asked if we will be pushed by multicultural appeals against free speech or whether we will fight for free speech.
Ms. Meek rose to point out that not all Muslims are terrorists, or even most. They've been oppressed for a long period of time and they're at their wits end. When no one will listen to your culture, terrorism constitutes a rational act.
Mr. Richards, our resident cartoonist, rose to salute Mr. Ballards resolution, which he saw as aiming to advance his profession. However, he took issue with the resolution because he felt it constituted the use of the work by a radical segment of the population to anger people of a different skin color. Obviously, the Cartoons failed to engage the Muslim faith, so maybe someone ought to come up with some that will.
Mr. P. Weiss implored use to cool our jets and then complained about his roommate turning off the hot water when he takes a shower if his dirty dishes are in the sink. Much like Mr. Earl's actions, the purpose of reprinting the cartoons would be simple vengeance. We ought to protect safety before free speech.
Mr. Misztal pointed out that Catholics are the exact opposite of Muslims; they love images. Just look at Buddy Jesus on the dashboard, nevertheless, there would be riots if you made fun of the Madonna. He concluded that we are in a prisoners dilemma with Europe and that we ought to just let them take the heat.
Mr. Hansen asked what was in the best interests of the parties. Most people protesting are protesting in relatively peaceful ways. Indonesia is the apex of modern Islam, and they are just as mad. The duty of the paper is to serve their community, how does this serve the community?
Ms. Wilkinson asked if we aren't supposed to be welcoming of new people into the United States. We have peaceful Muslims, so why attack the religion itself? Political cartoons should be about politics, not religion.
Mr. P Williams said that the resolution does not give an intent and that it is important how the action would be perceived. Maybe we ought to reprint them simply for informational purposes so that people actually know what is being protested against.
A guest said that the point of the resolution does not seem to be free speech. The resolution is extremist; you can't generalize Muslims based on a few examples anymore than you can take Pat Robertson to epitomize Christianity.
Mr. Theiss rose a second time to claim that Muslims are imposing their speech on the US.
Mr. Josh D. Weiss said that ideals are rarely reality, and free speech is an ideal. Just look at Janet Jackson, very closely, during the super bowl. There was a backlash and there are reasons for that. In real life, you have to deal with issues like retaliation. It's easy to tell the publisher that they should take the heat from the republication.
Mr. Darcey said that if the real point is to test free speech, then why publish cartoons about Muhammad in the US that almost nobody would be offended by? We ought better to satirize all that would really tick people off.
Ms. Crawford said that at the Red and Black they get pictures that they have to ask themselves weather or not to print. She suggested that we take a good long look the following day at a picture of a man cutting himself to death in protest over the cartoon.
Mr. Pearl rose a second time to say that as americans we have a right to know what the pictures look like.
The question was called and failed five to sixteen among members and one to love among guests, which means that I don't want to see at least sixteen of you holding a knife, ever.
It was noted that those who voted against the resolution were not against free speech.
A guest abstained because of the heatedness of the debate.
Mr. P Weiss then rose to talk about circumcision, and personally I cringed for the next five minutes that he talked. He presented:
BIR, Circumcision should be condemned from society. RS. Josh P. Weiss.
Ms. Misztal then rose to analyze the purpose of a car cover.
The question was called and failed seven to nine among members and one to love among guests.
Mr. Hanson noted that printing circumcision would be offensive.
Mr. D. Weiss asked me to stress the P in the presenters name.
We then adjourned subject to big P's critic's report.
Respectfully submitted,
Jacob R. Martinson |
University of Georgia 