|
The Minutes of The Demosthenian Literary
Society
October 9th, 1997
Now for something completely
different...
"HI! My name's Dave. That's Dave
Stevenson, International Man of Mystery to all of you all who don't
really know who I am. That's OK if you don't, because I have a heck
of a time remembering my own name day-to-day. Just call me Dave;
it'll be easier for all of us.
"Well, probably this whole story needs
some background before you and I actually figure out what the heck
is going on. Well, to really excite my very Scottish girlfriend, I
have decided to follow in the footsteps of another Scottish stud,
Sean Connery, and become this secret agent person. I was approached
by the one that calls himself 'M,' and inducted into the
Demosthenian Secret Service. This super secret organization is run
from behind closed doors, in this one mysterious one bedroom
off-campus apartment, and deals with all manner of diabolical plots
against all manner of Demosthenians, Heapers, and other sundry
organizations such as the Roman Catholic Church.
"What was that?! Oh crud!! There I
go again telling all of those secrets that Mi-, er, 'M' doesn't want
me to tell!! I bet he'll be as mad about this one as he was for
that whole thing where I told this real pretty girl about how he
absolutely explo....."
[Insert record player needle being hastily
pulled across spinning record noise here...]
OK. It is time for me to be this
whole big Secretary person again, for things just seem to go haywire
whenever Dave gets the chance to tell his story in front of a group
of people without adult supervision, usually in the form of yours
truly. Anyway, Mr. Stevenson is the dashing, debonair, and
delightfully Dave-like intelligence agent of the Society, and of
course keeps tabs on everybody. The only problem with Dave in this
job is that though he is a thoughtful and perceptive agent, he
forgets just about everything he is told before he has a chance to
tell the power that is, 'M.'
The Society is lucky though, for Dave
has his attitude advisor, Mr. Slone, a.k.a. 'Q,' who constantly
tells Mr. Stevenson to be much more distrustful of all of those
around him for Mr. Slone is, well, a misanthrope ("Dave, you know,
I really hate it when you do that..."). Anyway, with this dynamic
duo, the Society should feel safe and secure at night.
The meeting was called to order at
7:21 PM. The Society had a flock of first time guests, including
Mr. Swardup, Ms. Law, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Logan, Ms. Castle, Mr.
Lewondowski, and Mr. Pratt. Ms. Kravig was back for her third time,
while You-Know-Who proved that some people can never escape the grip
of the Society, know matter how much older and wiser they appear to
be (Mr. Wells was in attendance, again). Mr. Bowman was appointed
Critic, and the Society moved into Committee Reports.
Mr. Weaver told of the products fabricated
by the Programs Committee in their meeting earlier in the week. The
Hall Re-Dedication will be held on February 21st, the day after the
All-Night Meeting. He also proposed a 4-Person structured debate,
and promised details later.
Mr. Bowman stated that the Finance Committee
approved $60 for the Pandora. His report was approved.
Ms. Shillington requested that the Society
submit pictures to her for the Pandora article.
The Society then moved into Old
Business, where
Ms. Brignac told the Society that she was
going over to the Heap to begin to normalize relations or
whatever...She is a much braver person than I.
Mr. Bowman explained the debate format to
the guests.
The Society then proceeded into New
Business, where Mr. Bowman took the floor, and began his speech by
asserting that all people are not equal. With this, he presented
the following resolution:
Be it Resolved: Those who are unable to
speak in defense of their own liberty cannot handle liberty, and
those who are unwilling do not deserve it.
Respectfully
submitted,
W. Derek Bowman
He concluded by stating that many people
confuse what they want as being what they are entitled to. As a
result of this phenomenon, many think that liberty should be handed
to them.
Mr. Weaver stated that many people have the
right to speak, but no one seems to exercise it. He cited famous
political philosopher Edmund Burke, who proposed that there are no
rights in abstract; rights are only earned or given. The speaker
concluded by arguing that American people are stupid and lazy.
Mr. Swardup (guest) asserted that all men
were born equal, and that man was put on earth to become better.
Mr. Shumaker took exception with a previous
speaker's argument that rights can be earned. I'm sure I said some
good stuff, but there are no notes for me to look at to really
tell...
Mr. Bowman retook the floor and argued that
if a right is to have value, then they have to be valueless. He
claimed liberty was a right, and drew a distinction between liberty
and privilege.
Ms. Kravig (guest) stated that no one
deserves liberty; instead it is a privilege or a gift that death
earns. She drew a comparison to Martin Luther King Jr.'s statement
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Mr. Johnson (guest) asserted that liberty is
worthless if no one is there to protect it. He told the story of
how he was jailed for trying to cross the border in Bulgaria.
Mr. de Guzman argued that liberty is not
denied to him because he is not an American citizen. Liberty is
instead given to members of American society, and that we protect
our liberties by earning them.
Mr. Bowman rose AGAIN!!! and stated that
those that didn't speak didn't earn the right to not hear him
again. He concluded, FINALLY, that if one is incapable of
understanding and exercising rights, then one does not deserve
liberty, but one does retain some rights.
Ms. Yarber agreed that there are some people
who cannot have rights, and argued that she has a freedom to be at
the meeting and to learn even if she doesn't exercise her right to
speak.
Mr. Norman stated that liberty is a
privilege, and that it is dictated to us from the Constitution. He
continued that one cannot earn liberty here, it is either given or
taken.
Ms. Cunningham stated that liberty exists in
an absolute definition. In short, everyone deserves it.
Mr. Leuwendowski (guest) argued that the
inability to defend a right does not preclude it, for our society is
a society of specialists. We choose those that are the best at
defending our rights to speak for us.
The question was called and failed by
a vote of 11-1.
Ya see...It gets sorta boring hearing just
my account of the minutes. Therefore, here is Ms. Shillington's
account of the next resolution, complete with accurate
colloquialisms.
Mr. Shumaker took the floor next and
presented the following resolution completely contrary to his very
un-rad philosophy experience:
Be it Resolved: "Knowing enough is
enough is always enough."
--Lao-tzu
Respectfully
submitted,
Michael J.
Shumaker
The speaker said that people get into
trouble when they get in over their heads, and then said something
complementary about his rear-end. Or maybe that was just me talking
to myself again...
Mr. Pyrdum stated that he hated to disagree,
but that knowing your limits is not always this real good thing.
One must dream the impossible dream (and then try to run 10 miles
like I did today).
Mr. Weaver cited the example of Columbus as
contrary to the intent of the resolution. Knowing one's limits is a
defeatist attitude.
Mr. Lowe talked about how knowing one's
limitations does not limit one's success. He quoted Lao-tzu when he
said, "Be the stream," evidence of the lack of tension that one
should have in life. He concluded by admitting that some butchers
KNOW their meat (heh heh heh).
Ms. Kravig (guest) outdid this whole other
economist person with her drawings detailing the law of Diminishing
Marginal Returns. She knows her limits. She rules.
Mr. Leuwendoski (guest) stated that knowing
enough is enough is not enough for one must act on the knowledge.
Mr. Wells (alum) wowed the Society with his
obscure reference to a Barbra Streisand/ Donna Summers disco hit
that he incorporated into his sermon, which coincidentally has a lot
to do with this here resolution. He argued that more is never
enough, and that if we keep on trying to have more, we'll end up old
and gross.
Ms. Moultrie clarified the dumbness of the
Kansas corn-fed presenter, and argued that knowing a limit was not
the point of the quote at all. Instead, the quote is an argument
against the definition of success; it is not a deterrent to success.
Mr. Stuart stated that the resolution
basically read, "Be it Resolved: Complacency." He continued by
arguing that knowing enough is enough is all well and good, but it
is a question of thinking versus acting.
Ms. Cunningham argued that the only limits
that exist are those that are bodily. These limits can be stretched
out over time by hard work or technology, sort of like that whole
Secretary doin' all sorts of push-ups...25,789 to be exact.
An impassioned Mr. Bowman took the floor and
stated that philosophy IS reality, and then spoke about the origins
of the quote. He felt that it was incorrect to assume that once one
has knowledge, that that is all there is. Too bad he didn't say
"Donna RULES!!"
Mr. Lowe retook the floor, and just stood
there...Doing nothing...It almost drove me nuts...I mean, shouldn't
he have been doing SOMETHING?! Just STANDING THERE?!
AAAAARRRRGGGHHH!!! And then he said that by doing nothing, he did
have a profound effect on the Society, partly proving Lao-tzu's
point. He concluded that that rad Chinese philosopher's comments
are deliberately misleading, at that these words show how logic
fails at times.
Mr. Pratt (guest) stated that this
resolution had been beaten to death, and that he had a problem with
the word "always," for it can be taken to mean way too many
different things.
The question was called by that
President person, and passed by a vote of 7-5.
OK. I'm back.
Mr. Stevenson took the floor, and recounted
a recent dining-hall experience in which he lost control of his
bowels. After telling his friend the story, the two devised a
scheme for Dave to get out of trouble in the quickest, least
embarrassing way. As a result of this horrifying experience, he
presented the following resolution:
Be it Resolved: To a true friend, you
can tell anything.
Respectfully,
David J. Stevenson
Michael J. Shumaker
Mr. Bowman (surprise, surprise) took the
floor, and continued that really dopey side debate about Christopher
Columbus. He then spoke on the resolution by arguing that a true
friend would try to enlighten someone else with tact.
Mr. Stuart, who took this opportunity to hit
on another more willing Secretary, stated that he liked telling his
friends that they are wrong. Once this assumption is made, things
tend to go better with his relationships.
Ms. Shillington argued that a true friend
would spare another the details if gory or inappropriate.
Mr. Pyrdum stated that the resolution acts
as a test of whether someone is a true friend or not, while one can
always tell anyone anything.
Ms. Cunningham took the floor and stated
that one can have a friend or an acquaintance. The real test of a
friendship is in the resolving of conflicts between two people.
Mr. Slone told of his friendship with the
presenter, and stated that he never knew where the boundaries would
lead him (Don't we all...). He drew a distinction between "can" and
"will," and argued that in some cases little white lies are fine.
Mr. Shumaker felt that lies were
antithetical to the idea of friendship; to be friends with someone,
one must trust the other's judgment. In short, in being friends
with someone, trust is inherent.
Mr. Smiley stated that a true friend could
not always tell him anything; if the friend wanted to tell it all,
he could go to a psychiatrist.
The question was called and passed on
a vote of 9-2.
Mr. Pyrdum took the floor next, and
presented the following resolution:
Be it Resolved: Creationism should
not be taught alongside evolution is any school environment below
the collegiate level.
Respectfully,
Carl Pyrdum
The speaker argued that people don't
understand the science of evolution, and so they are opposed to it.
As a result, people need to stop clinging to the old and untrue, and
learn the truth as biology teaches it.
Mr. Stevenson stated that a theory is
something that fits the facts; evolution was a hypothesis, but is
now a theory. He concluded by arguing that it was dangerous to
teach young children other scenarios: it would only confuse them.
Mr. Weaver called the resolution evidence of
society's hatred of religion. This loss of religion is the real
problem with society; man is losing sight of something bigger.
Mr. Hortman agreed with the previous speaker
in that scientists are "some of the most pagan jerks around," but
that the science of creationism is gaining favor in the scientific
community because the evolutionary timeline is so spotty.
Mr. Wells (alum) told the Society of his own
research done into what scientific creationism really believed. In
his opinion, this theory was trying, but failing, to meld the great
divide between science and religion.
Mr. Bowman argued that neither side in this
debate was going to die out anytime soon, due to the great level of
noise each produced. He agreed with the resolution, and stated that
the job of science is to pursue knowledge, while religion was after
something completely different.
Mr. Norman argued that we should not teach
either in such low level classes for both theories are far too
complex for the kids to understand.
Ms. Cunningham argued for the separation of
church and state; she felt that federal tax dollars should not be
spent to teach creationism.
Mr. Weaver retook the floor, and apologized
for sounding like a zealot in his last speech. He clarified his
remarks by stating that society is anti-religious, and that the
government inhibits religion by neither supporting it nor funding
it.
Mr. Hortman stated that people were labeling
each other by the tone of their arguments.
Ms. Visser agreed with the resolution
because she felt that religion is not about science, it is about
faith. With this dichotomy in mind, it would be incorrect to teach
creationism; it is contrary to the goals of religion.
The question was called and passed by
a vote of 10-3.
Following Mr. Bowman's Critic's Report, the
Society adjourned at 11:45 PM.
"Well, it me Dave again...I'm
whispering so that mean Shumaker won't come and hear me telling you
all of these stories about how he dresses up in women's clothing and
prances around in bars...Here he comes now."
Anyway, the whimsical Double-O Dave
and his friend 'Q' were in the office of 'M,' which was punctuated
by a fifteen foot portrait of the lost Mr. Gable, doing his best
impersonation of Marilyn Monroe over a vent in the sidewalk. It was
time for Dave and his team to go back out into the field, and this
project was going to be rough; the two were to assassinate two
members deemed deleterious to debate: Mr. Pyrdum and Mr. Bowman.
"Ya see here folks, these here people
are just evil. They monopolize the debate, and give multiple
speeches, making a certain Secretary's life a living hell. I mean
that damn Yankee Bowman gave three speeches on his own damn Yankee
resolution!! I mean really..."
"Well, uuhhhh, boss, how do we get 'em?"
said Dave, worried at the prospect of taking another human life.
"Yeah, I hate killing people.
Actually, I just hate everything," moaned the omnipresent 'Q.'
"OK...Here's the plan...You've got to
keep it Top Secret...We're going to make them live together...MWAH
HAH HAH HAH!!!"
The intrigue continues, next week...
Respectfully submitted this sixteenth day of
October, 1997
Michael J. Shumaker
|
University of Georgia 