|
Minutes of the
Demosthenian Literary Society
October 24, 1996
Welcome to
Demosthenian Hall, built in 1824 to house the Demosthenian Literary
Society, the oldest student organization here at UGA. The Society
still calls it home, and I'm currently Secretary of the Society.
Now, back to the building. The ceiling was once called the most
beautiful -- what? Oh, so you're more interested in the Society?
Well, that's great -- we have weekly meetings on Thursdays at 7:00
or so. It's parliamentary-style debate, and, well, how 'bout if I
just show you what one of these meetings is like? I've got my
minutes from last week's meeting, and I can let you know how an
average meeting goes. Just have a seat and I'll do my best to show
you what goes on here on Thursday nights.
The meeting was
called to order at 7:21. I made a motion to postpone the reading of
the minutes until this week, because the notes from that meeting
were in the back of my car in Blairsville. Long story, but anyway,
I'll just read those to you now:
Minutes of the
Demosthenian Literary Society
October 17, 1996
The meeting was
called to order at 7:32. The minutes were read and approved. Ms.
Dyer, the chief justice of the society across the way, took the
floor to accept Demosthenian's invitation for an Intersociety
Meeting on 24 October. There were 3 first-time and 4 second- or
third-time guests. One alumnus, Mr. Terrance Heath, joined the
Society for the meeting. Mr. Hudson was appointed critic for the
evening.
The Society
entered into petitions for membership, and Mr. Gable took the
floor to relate what he described as the most depressing
conversation he had ever had. It was with an old high school friend
who had been lost to the world of sororities, and she did not
receive well Mr. Gable's familiar rants against academia.
She responded by telling him he was arrogant, elitist, and that
there is no truth -- Mr. Gable hung up, chalking her up to
another mind lost to postmodernism. Mr. Gable was accepted
into membership.
The Society moved
into Committee Reports, and Mr. Smith rose as librarian to
inform the Society that it had purchased a full page in the Pandora
and that the picture for that page would be taken at next week's
meeting. Further, any candid pictures would be accepted to fill the
rest of the page.
The Society
entered Old Business and Mr. Pyrdum censured those making
Committee Reports that do not need to be acted upon by the Society.
The Society
reached New Business and Mr. Shumaker, saying that there are
some things that just need to go, presented the following:
Be It Resolved:
Don't argue; destroy!
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Shumaker
Mr. Bowman
stated that the resolution was very vague and without context. He
agreed that there were bankrupt ideas, but that there was no good
way of destroying them without reverting to violence.
Mr. Pyrdum
began his speech with a series of grunts and poundings befitting a
Wookie. He reminded the Society that to follow this resolution, the
only ethical position is destruction -- we can't even argue about
whether we should destroy.
After an extended
bout of parliamentary wizardry in which Mr. Pyrdum attempted
to destroy the resolution and Mr. Van Meter tried to preserve
it (an ironic twist, for sure), Mr. Van Meter took the floor
to protest the previous, narrow interpretations of the resolution.
Embracing its ambiguity, he asked the members of the Society to
establish this new moral paradigm and embrace their anger and
aggression.
Mr. Carswell
agreed with the resolution, although he said there were strong
historical arguments on both sides. He said that destruction
demands decisiveness, but noted that it does rule out all
intellectual argument.
Mr. Hodgins,
taking his cue from the summer blockbuster "Independence Day," said
that we should all annihilate everyone else, for those who do not
destroy shall be destroyed. He also expressed his desire to bring
firearms to the Hall to break up the obnoxious civility of the
meetings.
Mr. Stuart
disagreed strongly with Mr. Carswell's supposed historical
arguments, saying that one argues when they realize they cannot
destroy. He argued that one can be destroyed through argument,
using the recent presidential debate as an example.
Mr. Smith
said there is historical precedent for this resolution, but then
lost his concentration and sat down.
Mr. Hudson
maintained that it is not morally weak to argue, and that this
resolution deals with one issue: thought or no thought. He
supported thought before any action, and declared that destroying
makes one weaker, not stronger.
The question was
called and failed 4-5.
Mr. Hortman
rose to say that affirmative action is an antiquated,
unconstitutional institution. He presented:
Be It Resolved:
Affirmative action is bad for the United States.
Respectfully submitted,
Jason C. Hortman
Mr. Stuart
said that no one knows what affirmative action really is, and if
they did, they could not oppose it. He argued that quotas are the
problem, but the equal opportunity offered to minorities through
affirmative action scares whites.
Mr. Gable
supported the resolution, but informed the Society that he is
neither a racist nor a bigot. He agreed that we should be willing
to stand on our own, and that people should be able to hire whomever
they want for whatever reason and the market will work out the rest.
Mr. Heath,
alumnus, told the Society that he worked with these issues every day
at his job. He said the reason we hear so much about affirmative
action is because white men know it works.
Mr. Pyrdum
disputed the previous speaker's logic and said that he was proud to
be a discriminator, in the literal sense. He agreed, however, that
affirmative action admits that we do not live in an equal society
and that this sort of special treatment is still needed today.
Mr. Carswell
said that the previous speaker's assumptions would require some
absurd actions that sound like Robin Hood gone mad. He took
affirmative action to what he saw as its logical conclusions and
portrayed a crazy world of complicated allegiances.
Mr. Bowman
defined affirmative action as all laws designed to create a level
playing field, not establish special privileges. He maintained that
we should not do away with an entire set of anti-discrimination laws
based on a few extreme cases.
Mr. Shumaker
looked at the resolution economically and called it a wash, assuming
that the businessman would do what is in his best interest and hire
the best people anyway. In looking at the question morally,
however, one should look at whether or not the programs help those
who are fighting for themselves.
The question was
called and failed on the President's decision, 2-3.
Mr. Hudson
delivered his critic's report, and the Society adjourned at 10:15.
Okay, that was two
weeks ago. After that, we recognized guests -- one first-timer and
6 who had been to a meeting before. One of our members, Mr.
Smith, was appointed critic, and then we heard a petitioning
address from Mr. Fonsecka. He spoke about death and
destruction and pondered why there is so much of it. He came to the
conclusion that there is creation and destruction at all times, and
that we must accept both as equal parts of life. He was accepted
into membership.
Another person by
the name of Mr. Weaver, a former member, repetitioned the
Society for membership. He said that he had grown up over the
summer and asked us all to grow up with him and allow him to return
to the Society. He said that his temper is gone and that
Demosthenian is his home. The Society tabled his petition.
A recess was taken
so that the Society could take a photo for the Pandora. After we
finished that, we messed with the order of business, got into new
business, and then our rival Society, the Heap, arrived at about
8:45 or so. From here on out, I'll do my best to give you a sense
of what these speakers are like. I'll just tell you what the guests
say, to be fair, but the rest are fair game.
For example, their
president, Mr. King: Thanks for hosting this Intersociety
Meeting, and let's raise the standard of rivalry and communication
to that of our predecessors, Toombs and Stephens. Oh yeah, and
please just forget all those cutdowns, shenanigans, intimidation
tactics, and snubs that I've dished out to you over the years -- I
was just kidding.
Our president,
Ms. Polentz: Thanks for accepting our invitation and I hope this
meeting will live up to its tradition. Let's improve our skills
together tonight.
Now that you've
got the gist of things, I'll just go on with the speeches.
Mr. Pyrdum:
I don't agree with this resolution, but I guess I'll present it
anyway since I always bail the Society out when no one stands up
with one.
He presented this
resolution for us to talk about:
Be It Resolved:
The quest for truth is more important than the truth we seek.
Respectfully submitted,
Jason C. Hortman
Carl S. Pyrdum
Mr. Hortman:
I support this resolution, because the truths are not absolute, but
the quest will always exist. Majorities establish truth, but
revolutionaries initiate and maintain the quest for new truth.
Mr. Stuart: I agree with the resolution because there is
no absolute truth -- only theory. Do I have to remind you of
Descartes' only absolute truths: I exist and I think? Roads and
journeys have more meaning than truth.
Mr. Bowman: Uhm, you must define the truth before
discussing this resolution. A society's belief in knowledge or
opinion doesn't make it true. We've got to move beyond this and
look at the objective here.
Mr. Rice: Look folks, you can't seek the truth without
believing the truth exist. Whether or not you can find it, you
have to establish the goal first, thus making it more
important. Oh, and Demosthenians wear their mother's panties --
heh, heh.
Mr. King: I agree that absolute truth exists, but that
does not mean the quest is less important. People want to know
rather than to seek and admit their lack of knowledge, but the
quest is more important, if not more socially acceptable.
Mr. Hudson: See, you gotta look at this resolution as if
you're a child, making all kinds of new discoveries -- man, we
just gotta keep our eyes open! The quest, it requires personal
improvement, you know, and that's enough to make it more
valuable.
Ms. Moultrie, guest: The quest is more exciting, more
motivating -- it's the meaning of life! If we ever do reach the
goal of the truth, we'd be disappointed and want to get back in
the saddle again.
Mr. Shumaker: I just feel like there must be something out there
called truth, and that's worth just as much as all these
philosophical arguments. Byron said this, Coleridge said that, but
they all made truth their goal and transmit to us the worthiness of
the quest, not, not what they found.
Ms. Brannen:
People have been seeking the answer to this question throughout
the philosophic tradition. Each person cannot speak for any other,
and relative truth is reality -- DEAL with it!
Mr. Parker:
Ipso facto sigma delta Athena schema deus maxima Macedonia -- this
resolution has Socrates written all over it! Socrates says he only
knows that he knows nothing, but hey, I know Greek!
Mr. Gable:
This infinite regression of self-acknowledgement of ignorance
becomes silly, but Aristotle's ideas allow us to move beyond this
circularity.
Mr. Knoshkood,
guest: Can humanity comprehend absolute truth? If not, the
process is the only thing and we must accept it as superior to the
incomprehensible.
Mr. Carswell:
The quest is more important because nothing in life exists in
isolation. You have to find the truth and use it in a productive
manner, but you have to find it first.
Mr. Brunson:
I am just up here to repeat what all my brothers, sister, cousins
and sons have said. Wow, isn't this a cool stick?!
After that, the
question wa called and passed 7-3. The Heap voted separately
and passed it 15-3.
After we took a
recess to engage in forced conversation and partake of refreshments
with Heapers, we returned upstairs and let a Heaper present a
resolution.
Mr. Brunson:
You know, elected judges do some stupid stuff. Here's my resolution
--
Be It Resolved:
The judges of the state of Georgia should be appointed and not
elected.
Respectfully,
Robert D. Brunson
Mr. Van Meter:
Actually, judicial reform is moving judges closer to the
electorate rather than toward appointment, as this resolution
suggests. Current appointed judges impose their will on a nation
out of hubris and judicial activism rather than true justice.
Ms. Dyer:
Judges won't be swayed by the will of the masses if they are safe
from politics. I'm in law school, and I met all these neat
important judge-people, and they all told me that they didn't want
to have to go through the campaign process, so I agree with them.
Ms. Wilson:
It's a tradition in my family to pick our judges by the letters in
their name. If you want to be protected -- I WILL NOT YIELD, NO, I
WILL NOT YIELD!! -- from people like me as voters, make judges
appointed.
Mr. Carswell:
This is really all about accountability, and anyone who doesn't
agree with me is obscenely stupid and has no reason to be in this
room. The Senate was corrupt under a system apart from the people,
and moving those offices to public elections revolutionized the
Senate.
Mr. Hodgins:
Just think of Justice Souter, who was appointed to the Supreme Court
and then ran way to the left. This appointment thing is all wrong,
but let's just get rid of this whole justice system and all go out
for a beer.
Mr. Rice:
You know, there are racists everywhere, and they're keeping black
people off the bench in those tiny, backwoods, podunk, useless,
butthole towns down in South Georgia. Prejudice is such a problem,
and you lowlife, do-nothing, Demosthenians should know all about
it. Why do I bother coming to this dump?
Mr. Pyrdum:
Well, appointments don't exactly avoid prejudice, especially if
Mr. Rice is making the appointments. Neither system is good,
and people who are unqualified to pick justices are going to do just
that given either option.
Mr. Stuart:
Our current system has a little bit of both, and that's been good so
far. Judges shouldn't legislate from the bench, but our appellate
process is the best check against it, not where the judges come
from.
Mr. King:
Presidents always fail when trying to pick good justices, so why
should the governor have any better luck? Elected judges are less
corrupt because the infinite power of lifelong appointments is too
inviting not to abuse.
This question was
then called and failed among the members of the Society,
1-6. The Heap took a separate vote and approved it
8-3. The Heap left and the Society breathed a collective sigh
just to clear the air of the stench. Then I took the floor again.
Mr. Van Meter:
The pumpkin jaunt into North Georgia cost me some money and a car,
so we'd better have some damn Yankee good pumpkins. These are the
people on the committee.
Whereas a long
tradition of witchery, debauchery, and moral turpitude requires us
to wear our collective black heart on our sleeve once a year,
Be It Resolved:
The following members shall serve of the 1996 Demosthenian
Pumpkin Carving Committee and are charged with presenting two carved
pumpkins to the Society for display on October 31, 1996:
Cheong Choi,
chairman
Phil Gable
Robby Smith
Becky Richie
Beth Shapiro
Martin Magda
Respectfully submitted by
the Pumpkin Jaunt
attendees,
Ryan J. Van Meter
Jason C. Hortman
Clarissa
Cunningham
Mr. Stuart:
God, those Heapers are STUPID! As usual, we bested them, but I'm
offended that I'm not on the pumpkin carving committee. I was
planning on getting some underling members together, getting trashed
and carving some pumpkin.
After a series of
friendly amendments, the resolution suddenly made the committee
solely composed of Mr. Stuart.
Mr. Pyrdum:
I'm going to have to vote against this resolution now, because
Andrew isn't competent to handle knives, pumpkins, and certainly not
younger members.
Mr. Smith:
I want to amend the amended amendment to the second resolution
to...oh, we're not talking about the amendment anymore? Sorry!
Mr. Hodgins:
I wanted to be on the committee! What's wrong with this Society
when it stops associating me with depravity?
After I failed in
having our Sgt. At Arms remove himself from the Hall, the question
was called and passed 9-2.
Keeping with the
weirdness of the meeting, we entered Committee Reports.
Mr. Hortman:
Please approve this money, but no more money, because we don't have
any money, and I hope we don't have to spend this money that I'm
asking you to approve.
Mr. Smith
gave his critic's report, and we adjourned at 12:02.
Do you think you
have a good idea of what goes on here now? Good. Well, come see it
for yourself sometime and you can make your own JUDGMENT. Happy
Halloween!
Respectfully
submitted on this 31st day of October,
Ryan J. Van Meter, Secretary |
University of Georgia 