Minutes of the DLS: January 22, 2004

Last Tuesday the bid for “the entire state of West Virginia” jumped to just shy of $100 million dollars. The seller, identified only as “fishstuffnthings” (one word), reminded buyers to “please note, you will have every right to succeed from the union, but that has been tried in the past without much success.”

But if you’re not up to ruling your own state, you can start out by purchasing the rustic town of Bridgeville, California for just over $700,000.

And if you aren’t interested in simply owning parts of the mortal world, talk to Adam Burtle, as student at the University of Washington who sold his soul on ebay in 2001 for $400, warning buyers that, "Please realize, I make no warranties as to the condition of the soul. As of now, it is near mint condition, with only minor scratches."

And now, the minutes for the meeting of January 22, 2004.

There were 3 first time guests and 2 second or third time guests.

The Judicial Council revealed the identity of this year’s Brickheap trashing… I mean, intersociety debate team. Mr. Ballard, Mr. Elliot, Ms. D’Andrea, Mr. Trivedi and our very own Napoleonic president, Mr. Lerner, will have the privledge of celebrating most heavily after this year’s debate.

Old Business began with the untabling of Mr. Misztal’s proposed constitional ammendment regulating record-keeping for hall keys.

Mr. Miller argued that this was simply a defensive measure, trying to force UGA regulations into the constition.

Mr. Theiss said that we need to know where all our keys are to prevent keys from falling into the wrong hands.

Mr. Addison reminded us that UGA can take the hall away and knowing who has access to the building is a good way to avoid potential problems.

Ms. Ballou pointed out that we don’t need to notify the administration of every change we make to our constition and that if they do come to us, we can point to this as an attempt to prevent any problem.

New business began with “BIR: Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon should resign from office.” I argued that actions taken by Sharon are undermining attempts to secure peace.

Mr. Addison than rose to argue that there is no proof of Sharon’s wrongdoing and he is innocent until proven guilty.

Mr. Miller pointed out that we were not compelling Sharon to resign, since resigning is voluntary by nature. He also said that both Sharon and Arafat were old and one of them would probably “””resign””” soon enough.

Mr. Elliot said that this was just a ploy to get Sharon out of power and that the hardliners who will take his place will just be worse.

Ms. Keyes-Blumer claimed that Israel needed a more liberal leader to prevent the deaths of innocents.

Mr. Sparks, a guest, said he does not like Sharon or Arafat, but that proof was needed to link Sharon to various deaths in the area.

Mr. Moulds admitted that Sharon did questionable things as a general, but pointed out that Arafat was simply a remnant of the Cold War.

Mr. Ballard, after proclaiming his “teenage girl-hood,” said that hardliners were not going to lose control of the Israeli government anytime soon and with Sharon there is a real chance at peace.

The question was called and failed 5 to 13 among members and 0 to 9 among the guests.

Mr. Addison then rose and pointed out that, while the Reverand Mr. Dr. Martin Luther King (no one ever did decide on the proper form of address) was a great man, he had plagerized his doctoral thesis and “BIR: Martin Luther King’s doctorate should be revoked.” It is noted, however, that Mr. Addison has nothing but respect for Martin Luther King.

Mr. Elliott then rose and said that we should let bygones be bygones and that King should be remembered for the man he was.

Ms. Duncan said that his doctorate should remain, because to remove it would disagree with what the symbol of MLK stands for.

Ms. Prabhakar pointed out that MLK was dead and thus could not defend himself and that this resolution opened the door to revisionist history.

Mr. Owens, after inventing the word “doctoralness” in a question to Ms. Prabhakar, let us know that Hitler was dead and that he, Mr. Owens, had come to this realization sitting in his seat during the past few speeches.

Mr. Misztal said that while parts of MLK’s thesis had been plagerized, only people who were against him would bring it up.

Ms. Skrmetti then said that nothing is worse in the academic world than plagerism and that it wasn’t fair to let MLK keep his doctorate because he got to sleep while writing his thesis.

Ms. Winchell said that revoking MLK’s degree will not make us think less of him, since we will still appreciate his civil rights work.

Mr. Keenen claimed that letting MLK keep his doctorate cheapened the work everyone else did for theirs.

Mr. Theiss told us he wanted a PhD and agreed with Mr. Keenan that by letting MLK keep his, Mr. Theiss’ own future degree would be worth less. Moreover, having a more human icon is better.

Ms. Ballou pointed out that many of the people we honor in US history are flawed and since other people have had their awards revoked for less reason, we should revoke MLK’s too.

Ms. D’Andrea said that we need icons and by revoking MLK’s degree we would mar his image and lose an important icon.

Mr. Sparks, a guest, claimed that icons are subjective and that people will remember MLK as a great civil rights leader regardless of his thesis.

Mr. Moulds said that people who supported this resolution are using today’s standards for people from the 1950s. If Boston University has accepted the situation, so should everyone else.

Mr. Miller told us that MLK was famous because he was a compelling speaker and if Boston University revoked his degree they would have trouble with fund-raising.

Mr. Clouse, a guest, asked what the big deal was with MLK’s title of “doctor” because if you took it away, he still changed the course of American history.

Mr. Williams, also a guest, said that this argument was not about MLK’s thesis, but rather, about his movement and that if we didn’t remove his title, we would be taking a step back in race relations.

Mr. Skiles than said that to take MLK’s doctorate away would damage his character and that his other actions were more important.

Mr. Hanson reminded us that America has taken fraudulently from Indians but the past is the past and we have to take it as it is.

The question was called and passed, 13 to 10 among members, and failed 2 to 6 among the guests.

Mr. Smith then brought up the question of the All-Night Meeting with “BIR: The Society should invite Vince Dooley to speak at this year’s All Night Meeting.”

Mr. Addison said that President Adams would not care because the relationship between him and Dooley was not as strained as the media portrayed it to be.

Ms. Winchell agreed with Mr. Addison for the second time that night, saying that Adams would not care, but she was unsure if Mr. Dooley was a good speaker for the All-Night Meeting.

Ms. Ballou pointed out that Adams and Dooley were both big boys and they could behave.

Mr. Lerner, after acknowledging that swinging his feet under the desk and not speaking was driving him nuts, said that Dooley has shown interest in the society and should be invited, but that we need to be careful if inviting him and Adams. He then presented his master plan of what order to invite which person in.

Mr. Miller suggested that it would be a diplomatic move to ask Adams if he cared and then invite people accordingly.

Mr. Misztal spoke of old, scathing letters and Brickheap awards and that while we should vote to keep the hall safe, we should also keep our principles.

Mr. Trivedi told us about Dooley’s fond memories of speaking at the All-Night Meeting and that careful scheduling would allow both Adams and Dooley to come, and speak if the wanted, without interacting with each other or even have 2 all night meetings, if his liver would handle it.

Mr. Moulds said that while everyone is afraid of a catfight, Adams and Dooley are both big boys. He also pointed out that Adams had lost his political clout and reminded us that no one had shut the society down yet – not US presidents, not Generals, no one.

Mr. Owens pointed out that Dr. Morrow hates Adams and that cloak and dagger scheduling probably wasn’t the best idea.

The question was then called after Mr. Owens called the house and Mr. Smith called the Sergeant at Arms. It passed 14 to 1 among the members with Mr. Miller abstaining because the vote had upset his well crafted plan. Mr. Martinson also abstained.

Mr. Wesley then rose, did the Todd Lewis dance, although he claims that his own dance is far superior, and then proposed K-Bob’s as an after meeting alternative to Little Italy’s. When a question revealed that K-Bob’s might close at 10, Mr. Wesley’s face looked like that of a 4 year old who have just found out there is no Santa Claus.

It was later determined that K-Bob’s does, alas, close at 10 and Mr. Wesley withdrew his resolution.

Mr. Miller then rose to point out that lots of laws serve no purpose other than to make it more difficult to prosecute real criminals.

A motion to adjourn then failed and Mr. Miller re-took the floor to actually present “BIR: Vices are not crimes and should not be a subject of criminal prosecution.”

Mr. Owens then rose and basically stalled for time to determine the K-Bob’s issue. He proclaimed K-Bob’s a vice and then rambled for a bit. When Mr. Wesley politely asked if the speaker would go to hell, Mr. Owens claimed that K-Bob’s was hell. Mr. Wesley and Mr. Smith then carried him out of the upper chamber.

The meeting then adjourned, following Ms. Winchell’s critic’s report.

Respectfully Submitted,
Jennifer Skrmetti