Word on the street is that various secrets have been unearthed. But when you think about it, secrets are sort of weak. I far prefer things that are so complex, it would just be extraneous to make them secret. Take the totally non-secret Demosthenian handshake for example. It's so complicated few people can even remember the steps, let alone actually perform it. Given that a handshake takes two people, it's really no wonder that we've never seen it done. Just a few steps of the eighty seven step manuver go like this:
Grip left hand to right hand, put left hand on partners forehead, push back and remove, twirl left once, put right index finger on tongue, flick left ear, high five with left hands then perform a barrel roll followed by extending right hands to one another as if doing a heil hitler then spin around like a helicopter and say PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW
It goes on and on. Just who would we need to keep that secret from anyway?
Anyway, these are the minutes for March 30th, 2006
Mr. Ballard talked to us for a little bit about the ISD and pointed out that the Ecology department is having a debate similar to that. He asked permission to give them the DVD which was granted.
In new business Mr. Theiss rose to ask, what exactly, is a citizen? Who should have rights? Who should have what rights? To this end he presented:
BIR, Any person who has been on welfare for over twelve months shall have their right to vote suspended. R. S. John Henry Theiss.
People who don't contribute don't deserve a voice in the electoral machinery.
Ms. Meeks has met some very intelligent yet impoverished people who happened to be on welfare. People who suffered Hurricane Katrina would simply be arbitrarily excluded from voting by the resolution. The resolution simply doesn't care why someone is below the poverty line.
Mr. Moulds thought the resolution was rather hypocritical. After all, many farmers are not poor, yet they get more money than they pay in taxes from the government. If you happen to be on a Hope scholarship, you're probably in the same boat. The resolution simply singles out a specific class.
Mr. Ballard worried such policies would encourage people to disengage from society. We don't need more barriers to keep people from voting, and if you believe the government has a role in the economy, this could trap groups in a cycle.
Mr. P. Weiss pointed out that most of us would not be allowed to vote at the nations founding, given that we aren't all white, land owning males, except for Mr. Ballard. Teenagers sometimes pay taxes in and get nothing out, yet they can't vote. Really, the resolution doesn't go far enough; we built this country on the benjamins, which is why we put him on our money.
Mr. Head noted that Demosthenes and Socrates disagreed on many things, but they agreed that rights are not priviledges. Meanwhile, in France a little while ago, people set fire to a bunch of stuff because they felt disenfranchised. If you don't want people to receive federal money, then you should try to stop giving it to them.
Ms. Hines works with people on welfare, and she pointed out that living on welfare really stinks. After all, if you happen to also have a job, it's probably in the low paying poopsmithing industry, if not at taco bell or doing something with chickens. People aren't on welfare because they're bored.
A guest rose to point out that restricting the right to vote is necessarily wrong, even if the welfare state also is. You don't want to generate situations where people refuse to contribute to society. Taking away ones right to vote and keeping them eligible for the draft is simply wrong.
Ms. Keyes-Bloomer argued that compared to Europe, our welfare is fake. Besides, the people this resolution affects will probably not vote anyway. Regardless, for the few who do exercise that right, it's hypocritical. The only reason the resolution makes sense is if you hate them.
Mr. Burkhart agreed with the resolution because a system of government should necessarily reward virtue.
Mr. Misztal rose to respond to previous comments, and pointed out that you don't vote because you think you'll make a difference, so it's mistaken to see it as a disincentive.
A guest, who was also a professor and rather well spoken, was intrigued by the relationship between incentive and behavior exemplified by the resolution. Most democracies have similar problems with keeping citizens productive, and the resolution does not provide a strong enough incentive.
Ms. Servidio argued that people on welfare aren't contributing to the very system they benefit from. Voting rights are a privilege, and the poor ought to make their own way, just as poor immigrants did before them.
Mr. Darcey argued that the resolution creates the danger of generating a class/caste based society, which uses a one dimensional way of evaluating contribution. The work ethic measures drive, but not who you are as a person. Turning to people with money to patronize elections is akin to feudalism.
Mr. Chiego claimed that job opportunities exist for anyone who wants them, but that despite this, there are free loaders. He felt that free loading should be a felony.
Mr. Earl argued that the issue is ideals. Scholarships are not in lieu of self-support. The ability to make money is an ability to survive, and by extension the ability for the society to make money and survive. Welfare recipients do not make a society.
The question was called and failed three to eighteen among members and failed one to three among guests. Ms. Wilkinson abstained because she takes handouts and I abstained because I've always depended on the kindness of strangers.
Mr. Head outlined the story of Isaac and Ishmael's births, and then argued that we ought to make religious education mandatory in the U.S. To this end, he presented:
Resolved, That Religious instruction be made a mandatory part of education in the United States, Respectfully Submitted, Gilbert Head.
He felt such a policy would directly confront zealotry, since people would not confront religion from ignorance. Given that the purpose of education is to dispel ignorance, the school system is a perfectly good place to examine religion.
Mr. Williamson argued against the resolution firstly because it violated the establishment Clause. Secondly, it serves no purpose not already served. Classes in World History can already educate someone about that sort of thing.
Mr. Richards argued that schools are bad enough at teaching core classes. What if they mess this one up? If we are going to do it, we ought to do it critically and unapologetically, which we cannot trust the school systems to do.
Mr. Ballard's cousin used to hate muslims because apparently they were always talkin' bout their Buddah. Americans are mostly ignorant; it's hard for us to understand, for example, the Catholic stance on Birth control, and we ought to change that. He disagreed that the resolution violated the establishment clause because he felt it would not violate the Limit test.
Mr. Dowell argued that the resolution would help us become more accepting, and helps us learn a lot more about our own society. He presented the state flag of Virginia as an example.
Mr. Miller pointed out that the Denmark Cartoon incident sparked debate in America mostly because we don't quite understand Islam. More Americans should have known that Muslims really don't like pictures of Muhammad.
Ms. Keyes-Bloomer said we need religious education in the schools. Also, we could make the education optional, but given that parents want their children to be educated it shouldn't prevent most students from learning.
Mr. Darsey felt teaching religion is a horrible idea. To some extent, we have to lie to children; the resolution compromises that.
Mr. Chiego was studying for a religion test at the time. They don't (and wont) talk about the Bible in class. Courses sugarcoat religion, and this is about mandatory education. We have to change how the political system works to make it happen in high schools, or else we wouldn't properly service the subject.
Mr. Pearl took a World History class where evolution somehow got taught. What sort of religions and ideas would you end obligated to teach? Rastafarianism and and intelligent design? There are many religions and schisms to cover in a finite period of time.
Mr. Steinberg felt the resolution was a sort of multicultural requirement that simply broadens people. Learning about religion involves all sorts of things.
Ms. Meek took two years of world history in Rochester, and there were, in fact, religion sections. There are ways to hit upon core parts of religion that will broaden your mind. There are ways to teach it, and we shouldn't avoid that simply because it's hard.
Mr. Moulds stated that it would end up being unconstitutional, even if it could technically be constitutional; mandatory classes could be used maliciously and become de facto violations of the establishment clause.
Mr. P. Weiss pointed out that knowing about religion probably wont help you in your chosen profession, but people who can perform say, heart surgery, probably know something about religion. School tries to make you a well rounded person-- is teaching religion trying to make you believe anything? It is a teachers responsibility to inform children.
Mr. Theiss mentioned the difference between an apologetic versus an academic study. Teaching history has the exact same problems, but we still want to teach that. The fact that it might go wrong is not decisive against the resolution.
A Guest rose to point out that the same problems happen in Political science courses. It is a wise course of action to teach religion given the potential benefits.
Mr. Misztal agreed with the resolution but said you can't really teach such classes in high school.
The question was called and passed twelve to seven among members and two to one among guests. I abstained because I wasn't sure what Jesus would do.
Mr. P Weiss then rose to present:
BIR – The society should supply soft comfortable toilet paper maintained by the Hall Custodian, ~Josh “The P is for perfect potty” Weiss.
Mr. Hansen pointed out in that compelling way of his that yes, this will kill us all. Also we'd end up using some soft bird to wipe our butts with. Mr. Richards was willing to take that chance. Mr. Dowell pointed out that we save a lot of money with yon John Wayne toilet paper. Ms. Servidio felt we should focus on toilets themselves. The question was called and failed nine to eleven among members but passed two to nothing among guests.
Mr. Williamson noted that he wants to use the leaf. It was also noted that the PR committee ought to find private toilet paper for the guests.
Mr. Chiego rose to present a resolution about taking over UGA, which most of us weren't sure about since it would mean giving up our shadow control of Athens Clarke County.
We then adjourned subject to Ms. Brown's Critics Report.
Respectfully submitted,
Jacob R. Martinson |
University of Georgia 