Minutes of the DLS: August 25, 2005

This time last week, there was a lot of talk about what is wrong with America. Well, I’d think you’d darn well know the answer to that. I tried to remind you, just in case you’d forgotten, but would you give me the time of day? Oh no. I’m your own father, and what I had to say just wasn’t important, as it? Went on with your own stuff, never minding me, just yack yack yack yack yack.

Well, but you have to listen to me now, don’t you, son? And are you in for an earful. What’s wrong with America is you, plain and simple. You are a shame on your family and a disgrace to your countrymen, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you single handedly proved to be the downfall of this nation.

You are shaming your grandparents. Deeply. Your grandmother won’t even speak to me anymore, and last night your grandfather came to me late, and he was pulling his beard out in clumps. Clumps I say! “What have you done, my son,” he asked, “what have you done to give me a monster and a hoodlum for a grandson?” And I couldn’t answer him. Maybe you can tell me. Have I done something wrong?

Your grades are horrid, boy. Just horrid. And now this news that you’re changing majors? I thought we were agreed that you would become a doctor.

You insist on having that ridiculous hairstyle, and you shame yourself by wearing those filthy western clothes. You are out at all hours gallivanting around with those worthless friends you have. I never thought I’d have a hoodlum for a son.

Why did you leave Julia? She was a nice girl. Not like those dogflesh women you’ve been dragging home lately. It’s good for her that she left you, though. You’d likely have given her the plague.

Your mother is very disappointed in you, boy. She spends the night weeping softly into her pillow. That doesn’t make life pleasant for me, lad. That doesn’t make life pleasant for me at all.

As for the events of last week, well, they speak for themselves, don’t they?

The meeting was called to order at 7:10 PM.

In New Business

Mr. Moulds began the evening with
BIR: It is acceptable for a U.S. President to allow for his citizens to be attacked.
R.S. Steven Moulds

The presenter argued that there were at least three occasions (Pearl Harbor, the Mexican-American War, and September 11) in which it is conceivable that a U.S. president allowed a foreign agency to kill Americans in order that the president would have moral authority to declare war. This ultimately prevented the loss of even more civilian lives, and gave the troops sufficient morale to prosecute the war effectively, and thus was required by the office of commander –in-chief.

Mr. Owns agreed, stating that public opinion and a strong home front are the best weapons in any army. It is the duty of the commander in chief to equip his army as well as possible. Therefore, it is required that the commander in chief perform these actions when the occasion demands.

Ms. Prabhakar stated that the argument reduces to the question, “do the ends justify the means?” and asserted that such actions are never excusable.

Mr. Williamson reminded us that it is not always best to tell what you know, and proposed that there are occasions when presidents must keep secrets. However, a moment when large number of civilian lives are in mortal peril can never be one of those occasions.

A Guest stated that it is far ore plausible to assume that the three cases given were the result of bureaucratic stupidity rather than presidential will. However, hypothetically granting that they were willed, if risking some lives can save many more, it is always better to save the many rather than the few.

Mr. Addison asserted that it is the state which is in all cases most important, the state which must always be saved. If you say that the people of America are more important than the idea of America, you’re missing the point.

A Guest affirmed that the president must answer to the will of the people, not manufacture events to deceive us. We do not give the president the right to gamble with the lives of civilian, particularly if it is to the end of manipulating our opinions.

A Guest stated that far fewer people died at Pearl Harbor and September 11 than hypothetically could have died there. Thus, if the events were foreplanned, far more lives were gambled than were actually lost. Further, the acts described would fall under the powers of congress, rather than the powers of the executive.

A guest averred that our nation should only engage in war to defend our borders after a hostile attack. We never know what will happen, who will benefit, and who will die when we attack.

Ms. Brown dared us with “if you think the social contract is null and void, go ahead and vote for this resolution.” If the government risks our security, why did we surrender our liberties to it?

A Guest reminded us that “America is built on personal liberties. Personal. Not those of the government as a whole.” If we sacrifice American people, we also sacrifice the American Idea.

Ms. Keyes-Blumer recalled that the fact that you cannot know the end result of your actions cannot be used to argue either for or against those actions.

A guest reminded us that most modern wars are at least ostensibly based on a clash of ideologies, and asked, “Do opinions justify the loss of human lives? Do opinions matter that much—that some child will wake up without a father?”

Mr. Lerner, an alumnus, asked “Isn’t it strange that genocide isn’t strong enough provocation to go to war? Isn’t it strange that we need to be attacked before we move to stop genocide?”

Mr. Misztal averred that war can only be justified by lies, a fact that is also true of genocide. If we go to war to prevent genocide, we are only strengthening the mechanisms that allow genocide to occur.

The resolution Failed 5-14 among members, Failed 6-12 among guests, and Passed 1-0 among alumni.

Mr. Earl, citing the public menace posed by beggars and the resources that they drain from society, graced us with

BIR: Those people who cannot provide economically for their livelihood should receive no welfare, handouts (governmental or otherwise), or monetary help in any form.
R.S. Darren Earl.

Mr. Theiss stated that although the government is the wrong instrument to give aid, it is essential that aid be given.

Mr. Moulds asserted that the government has the right to prevent people from annoying the citizenry, and thus was well within its rights in illegalizing panhandling.

Ms. Pearl reminded us that there are many people that have no individual to care for them, and must be helped by the government or large organizations. “I don’t see where the devaluation of human life inherent in this resolution has any legitimacy whatsoever.”

Mr. Addison stated that it is funny that a libertarian should tell anyone what to do with their money, and went on to claim that “we owe it to ourselves to help the poor.”

A guest said “As much as I dislike panhandling, I can’t be Scrooge. I can’t let peole die in the streets in the cold snow.”

Mr. Vick asserted that “Beggars do not equal welfare. This isn’t laissez faire: this is insanity.”

Ms. McFarland argued that “this shouldn’t be a resolution. I’ve been homeless twice in my life. It’s just not acceptable that it can be funny or it can be cue to throw someone on the street who has worked as hard as they can and just been handed a really hard bill in life.”

Mr. Weiss claimed that “to say that all these people are undeserving is completely unfounded. If you have the ability to help these people, you should. There’s no reason not to.”

A guest stated that “beggars are potentially dangerous, but so is everyone. I could have brought a gun in here today.” Giving money to beggars, or to children, is taking a chance that they will become a productive person.

Mr. Lovell reminded us of a certain “great poet” who said “ask not for whom the bell tolls, for no man is an island.” As American as it is to raise yourself up, it is also American to raise up others.

A guest proposed that we regulate beggars with ID cards and regular assessments of mental health.

The resolution failed 1-13 among members and 1-16 among guests, with Mr. Burkhart abstaining because even though he’s cold, he’s not that cold.

Mr. Burkhart then presented a resolution that contained a dirty word and was rendered very, very unofficial due to a lack of quorum. Four members debated, and the resolution passed in its very unofficial way.

Quorum was restored, and Mr. Weiss reminded us that “the idea of punk is that you stay small and don’t sell out. But if nobody listens to you, why make music?”
Therefore, he presented

BIR: Punk never died, it was stillborn.

A guest spoke against the word “sellout.” Why create something if you don’t want it to succeed?

A Guest asserted that Punk is not a style. It is about music being a catalyst for change. If joining a major label helps you be that catalyst, then you are still punk.

Mr. Burkhart averred that “Punk started as a bunch of kids banding together. They fought for unity. Punk is not a movement, it is an individual endeavor.”

The motion failed 2-2 among members and 0-3 among guests, with most members abstaining because they had no idea what was going on.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:10, subject to Ms. Keyes-Blumer’s very enlightening critic’s report.

There you have it. Do you have anything to say for yourself? I didn’t think so. Now get out of my sight, and don’t come back until you have a conscience.
R.S. Chris Hansen