Minutes of the DLS: February 10, 2005

We inducted our first new member of the semester, the lovely Miss Ashley Wilkinson. She regaled us with a tale of Northern bigotry as a justification of the use of Damn Yankee in the Upper Chamber.

During the usually dull committee reports, John Henry rose to announce the members of the debate team, himself, Miss Brown, Miss Pearl, Miss Duncan, and Mr. Williamson as an alternate. He then began brandishing an axe and promising to arrange his own beheading on he Robert Toombs stump if he could not carry the team to victory.

Miss Hoekstra then rose to levy an impeachment charge against our current president for, among other things, being a communist, contributing to the waxing of our hall, and cordial relations with the society whose building is currently surrounded by outhouses.

Miss Prabhakar then rose to present:
BIR, Wheareas DLS traditionally has not held a meeting on the Thursday before the ANM, we should not have a meeting on Thursday, 2/17/05.
RS, Radhika Prabakhar

The question was called and the resolution passed 14/6.

Mr. Moulds followed with
BIR: It should be politically correct to honor confederate leaders/soldiers.
RS, Steven Moulds

Mr. Elliot gave yet another, “my family” speech, disagreeing with the resolution because we should just let the past die because we can’t deal with it anymore.

Miss MacFarland rose to say that the past can be a scapegoat for things we don’t approve of today. She cited racism in WWII as a reason to be kind when passing judgment on people in the past.

We were then interrupted by the judicial council of the Heapers. They offered the annual challenge to debate.

Miss Hines then rose to defend those who history has deemed politically incorrect. She brought up the brave veterans of the Hunley and the third Reich. “Hitler had some good points, like organizational skills.” She said.

A guest rose to suggest that confederate soldiers should not be honored by the Federal government because the confederacy was not a part of the United States, but that states should honor their confederate veterans.

Mr. Williamson asserted that strongly devoted to a cause is not enough to redeem you in history, but reminded us that there was racism in the north and the south.

Mr. Addison reminded us that on the fiftieth anniversary of Pearl Harbor, Americans and Japanese came to honor the men who died there, because honoring those who die in battle is the only thing we as a society can promise our soldiers.

Mr. Ballard explained his bittersweet feelings after being signed up for the Sons of Confederate Veterans against his will. He encouraged us not to forget our history and to remember that the Confederacy was evil, but the men in it were not.

Mr. Burkhart proposed a compromise, suggesting that Confederate veterans deserve a proper burial, but not statues like Stone Mountain.

Mr. Earl drew a line between respect and dignity, which we should afford Confederate veterans, and respect, which we should not.

Miss Brown saluted the South for having the independence of spirit to secede from a nation that did not adequately represent them. She then claimed that fighting the war was an example of freedom of speech. I guess she missed the numerous court cases that all say that freedom of speech does not cover inciting people to violence or threatening national security.

Another guest then rose to say that morality changes over time, and that the South did not necessarily equal slavery.

Mr. Misztal asserted that the purpose of political correctness is not justice or honor, but respect. He also suggested that simply being a soldier did not necessarily merit honor, after which, Mr. Burkhart, Mr. Addison and Mr. Owens (members of on campus military student organizations) jumped him and instilled in him the proper respect for the U.S. military.

Miss Keyes-Blumer was against the resolution, and urged us not to idolize the founding fathers, bringing up examples of American genocide on Native Americans.

Mr. Weiss then rose to say that the 1994 Oklahoma City Bombings were done out of great moral conviction, this did not make them right.

The question was called and failed 9/7 among members but passed 4/7 among guests.
Mr. Vick abstained because the Civil War was a very long time ago.
It was noted in the minutes that the resolution drove away guests.

Mr. Moulds then presented the resolution presented to us by the Brickheap.

Mr. Owens, showing his face for the first time this semester, had the nerve to insinuate that the UN is not very good or effective. Now Mr. Owens, why would you think that an organization whose own peace-keeping forces can’t seem to keep from groping up every village girl in Africa would be bad or inefficient? He then did a very bad impression of Slobodon Milosevic.
Mr. Ballard then rose to affirm the resolution, because joining the court would bring the United States international prestige.

Mr. Martinson urged us to out liberal the liberals. He claimed that joining the court could precipitate the LA riots on a worldwide scale.

Mr. Elliot, sounding a bit like a member at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting rose to say, “I am Burklestan, and I dump toxic chemicals into the ocean.” He urged us not to underestimate the Heapers.

Mr. Addison reminded us that the Nuremburg trials, long believed to be a wonderful international community event, was really victor’s justice, which is not justice.

Miss Prabakhar advocated the court, because in it, Iraqis can call U.S. soldiers to court.

I then said that the court might be a good thing because many people in U.S. occupied countries feel that American soldiers can get away with murder under U.S. law.

Miss McFarland informed us that the death penalty would be a major part of the debate with the heapers.

Mr. Williamson agreed with the resolution, because some international bodies can govern, like NATO and the UN.

Mr. Misztal speculated that informed judges would probably be for the resolution, and brought up the fact that even with huge compromises in the treaty, we had refused to sign on.

Mr. Duffy also believed we should join the court because when the U.S. loses power, we will want protection from a superpower imposing its morals on us.

Mr. Theiss then said that we could not join the court because if we did, our citizens would be being tried with a jury that was not of their peers, and thus was unconstitutional.

Miss Keyes-Blumer urged the debate team to come up with a simple layman’s defense rather than over theorizing or over researching the topic, and also to be certain that they argued for what they believed in.

Mr. Ballard rose a second time to question whether having jurors of many different cultures would create more tension than it would resolve.

Mr. Hansen then brought up historical precedents for international bodies, like China, and Portugal and Spain.

Mr. Weiss pointed out that there seemed to be more arguments for the negative, and therefore it would be easier.

Mr. Misztal then said that intersociety resolutions are always picked by forming a trap, and therefore, before picking our judges, we need to research them heavily, by reading all their papers, and understanding their biases.

Mr. Ballard then spoke a third time, mostly to stroke his own ego. He did make a point about how international law is invalid, though.

The question was called, and it tied, six to six among members with the acting president JHT abstaining, and tied 0/0 among alumni.

It was noted that the society disregarded the value of the old person in the room.

Mr. Duffy gave a programs committee report on the upcoming body image debate and we adjourned after the lovely Miss Hoekstra’s critics report.

Respectfully Submitted,
Emily Erin Crawford

It was noted that Mr. Elliot was flagrantly misquoted all night.

It was also noted that the guests in the first resolution left because of prior engagements.