Minutes of the DLS: March 18, 2004

We had 3 first time guests.

In committee reports, Ms. Aaron tried to take back the Digital Media Committee, Ms. Keyes-Blumer pleaded for people with connections to the orientation people to get in contact with her or Ms. Crawford, and Mr. Keenan discussed the ‘casa de Lerner’ for some unknown reason.

Mr. Addison began new business with “BIR: Might makes right in international politics.”

Ms. Steinburg argued that if the US is going to follow its self-proclaimed goal of bringing democracy to the world, one sentence quips like this cannot define our foreign policy.

Ms. D’Andrea claimed that this was all that was wrong with the conservative right. If might makes right, then Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini were all right.

Ms. Hines pointed out that just because other nations haven’t taken action against us does not mean that we are right in invading Iraq.

I spoke of imperial overstretch and said that even the US will reach a point when it can no longer keep up with all of the issues it is involved with around the world.

Mr. Elliot said that with nothing stopping the US, we can continue to decide what is right. Moreover, the US controls the UN.

A guest then posited that with right defined as capability, the resolution is self-defeating because the US will become too tangled up in foreign policy to deal with domestic issues.

Ms. Aaron acknowledged that our military was unbeatable, but said that this doesn’t make what it is doing right.

Ms. Brown likened America to a parent for the rest of the world, saying that America can provide support, but cannot beat and abuse its children. If might doesn’t make right in domestic policy, why should it in international politics?

Mr. Ballard argued that might makes right because appeasement is wrong. Someone needs to ensure the protection of the citizens of the world.

Ms. McFarland pointed out that there are checks on US power, such as the World Trade Organization which asserts power over America because we are a consumer based society.

Mr. Hansen defined right as being in accordance with truth and thus moral might makes right. Therefore, you cannot be mighty if you are not right.

Mr. Vick asked if there were a glass ceiling on morality that stopped it from going beyond the national level. America must be ever-vigilant in watching morality.

Mr. Moulds said that it was all about power. Morality as an issue must be separate from international conflict.

Ms. Keyes-Blumer said that US democracy was supported by our constitution, but that our constitution hadn’t been accepted by the rest of the world, so we cannot force it on others.

Mr. Theiss argued that what is “right” is what is “lawful.”

Mr. Mizstal pointed to history, saying that those who are in power always want to keep power. The more powerful are those in the “right wing.”

Mr. Lerner asked us to look at how the least imposing member of Demosthenians was in charge. The mere ability to force your will on others does not make it right.

Mr. Miller claimed that President Bush would not believe in this resolution. An argument needing force is not one that is backed up by good faith.

Mr. Owens told us that morality is relative and thus you cannot force one single moral system on the whole world.

Ms. Duncan said that the resolution is an absolute statement, but that Mr. Addison’s definition of the word “right” was incorrect. She also said that the international community is not a state of anarchy.

The question wax called and failed 6 to 16 among members and 0 to 3 among guests.

It is then noted that just because the opposition has more might, that doesn’t mean that it is necessarily right. Mr. Owens pleaded Affirmative Action for the supporters of the resolution, but no fraternity boys will ever get Affirmative Action.

Then, in old business, we untabeled “BIR: Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution should be changed as follows: ‘closing debate on a question and any call for adjournment shall require a ¾ majority vote’.”

Mr. Misztal rose to support the resolution, arguing that it was not extreme, but would bring back the spirit of the society, because it was a crime not to let everyone express themselves.

Mr. Addison argued that amending the constitution was a permanent solution to a temporary problem. The real issue is with members losing attention and leaving during debate.

I pointed out that if no one cared, no one would be here. Passing this resolution would make every call an important question and that a number like 2/3 would be more realistic.

Ms. Prabhakar said that amendments have been taken lightly lately and that we should think carefully about this sine it alters the foundation of our society. Moreover, everyone who wants to speak usually does.

Ms. Ballou opposed the resolution because DLS is about standing up for your rights and Roberts Rulers are about promoting efficiency.

Mr. Moulds’ motion to change the resolution to 2/3. He then said that personal problems were not a reason to close debate early. People learn from practice and closing early prevents this.

Mr. Wesley told us of how he was always the guy who spoke right before the question was called because it took him that long to get his thoughts together. He then encouraged members to challenge themselves to get up and speak extemporaneously.

Mr. Elliot said that this proposed amendment stemmed from the raccoon debate and the fact that not everyone got to speak. He learned to get up quickly and speak and encouraged guests to do the same.

Mr. Owens spoke of his many 30 second speeches and argued that a simple majority was enough to call the question for other groups, so it should be enough for us too.

Ms. Brown claimed that many new members end up speaking later because it is harder for the president to figure out what side of the debate they will support. People who get up repeatedly at the beginning and don’t get the floor become frazzled and leave.

Mr. Ballard pointed out that right now 51% of the membership could shut down the question or the meeting even if 49% wanted to speak. Everyone who speaks can add a new argument to the debate. Also, having a brawl for the podium would be cool.

Ms. Aaron said that debate is never stale because someone’s speech can always save it. Mr. Kennedy saved debates all the time. She also said that she doesn’t know when to shut up, a claim she then demonstrated by being in midsentance as the gavel banged.

Ms. Duncan told us that if 51% of the people want to leave, they will leave. Moreover, she doesn’t always feel the need to get up and speak because not everyone needs to speak on every resolution.

Mr. Gallagher argued that this amendment presented two different questions. Perhaps adjourning with a 2/3 majority is fine, but that is too much for calling the question. Besides, having more shorter and varied resolutions was better to keep people interested.

Mr. Martinson acknowledged that he has sometimes wanted to speak and not gotten the floor in time, but that it was okay because he is learning to wear flashy suits and to be faster and louder.

Mr. Theiss said that this is not a short term problem and there have been plenty of cases when we needed calling the question to be a 2/3 vote. Some of the best speeches have come after debate has begun to ebb. Time should not matter for adjournments.

Mr. Vick claimed that the society was here to teach us to be more assertive and it is crucial to speaking. With no sort of time restraint, we are not giving extemporaneous speeches.

Mr. Lerner asked that if you objected to the amendment, it should be because you want debate to be better. This society is not for the best speakers, but for those who want to improve.

Mr. Owens asked if the question could be split. He then said that it is better to call the question and keep good debate going.

Mr. Moulds motioned that the resolution be split and it was.

Ms. Ballou proposed that we table the resolution and give it a trial run as a regular resolution first.

Mr. Addison then told us that personal attacks were out of line in the upper chamber.

Mr. Miller pointed out that he was not sure how he would vote, because this impacted the younger members more. They will have to live with it and so he will vote based on how they vote.

The question was then called and the first half of the resolution, the proposed change to 2/3 to call the question, failed while the second half, the change to 2/3 to adjourn, passed.

Meanwhile, Mr. Keenan found Mr. Wesley’s old notebook and Mr. Wesley was now as giddy as a school girl.

We then resumed new business with Mr. Theiss’ “BIR: The Catholic Church must declare moral and spiritual bankruptcy.” He also informed us that the conversion rate was $10,000 for a kilo of good deeds.

Mr. Wesley said that capitalism rocks and he is finally convinced that the market is the greatest thing ever. The Catholic Church should use capitalism to sell what they have – the body of Christ.

Mr. Addison asked that if a get-out-of-hell-free card was worth $10,000, but what would God do with ten grand?

Mr. Moulds then noted that we are all going to hell and this building is sinking into the ground.

I claimed that while God didn’t need the money, the Pope could sure use it because he needs more bling, a new body, and hot babes. I also threatened to throw Mr. Owens down the stairs.

The acting secretary has noted “Dear God Father Almighty, Please forgive me for participating in this debate.” Mr. Addison added that we are definitely going to hell and Mr. Owens said that we are going to hell just like his momma says. Mr. Wesley then claimed that Ms. Erin’s life is sad.

Ms. Brown said that the Catholic Church has an excess of indulgences, especially since they accrue interest over time, and should sell them. The more good deeds they sell the more money they make, and the more money they have the more good deeds they can fund and so the cycle will perpetuate itself.

Mr. Miller, a recovering Catholic, said that it was originally a sin to exchange money. Besides, the church is a monopoly.

Mr. Moulds told us of how the Catholic Church has allowed us to have many holidays on which to eat meat and get drunk. After all that partying, you need indulgences.

Ms. Aaron suggested the church sell the flesh of the Pope, making him sound rather like a hooker. She also accused the Catholic Church of trafficking drugs and so Columbia should be the new Mecca.

Mr. Misztal argued that the church couldn’t sell indulgences because it creates false Christians.

The question was called and failed 4 to 12. Mr. Wesley abstained because no one addressed the resolution, Mr. Lerner abstained because he is not registered to vote in this election, and it is noted that the Pope moonlights as Shaft.

We then adjourned after Mr. Addison’s critic’s report.

Respectfully Submitted,
Jennifer Skrmetti