Minutes of the DLS: September 1, 2005

Here is an example.

A man walked in to a talent agency with his wife, his son, his daughter, a trained Ecuadorian llama, his dead grandmother, various ladders and pails, and a 46-member debate society. He said, “I’ve got an act. It’s a family act.”

The agent replied, “I don’t do family acts. They’re too cute.”

“Just wait ‘till you see this!” said the man, and he began:

The meeting was called to order at 7:17 PM. There were 13 first-time guests, 17 second-time guests, and an alumna.

In Committee Reports
A strange woman took the podium and gave a report for a bizarre committee with no relation whatsoever to the Demosthenian literary society.

In New Business,
Mr. Misztal assured us that he loves America, its policemen, and its servicemen, and went on to elaborate a plan that he claimed would increase their utility, to wit:

BIR: The U. S. Armed Forces should practice nation-building starting with the neighborhoods in the U.S. that need it most.
R. S. Maciej Misztal

Mr. Misztal asked, “if we can’t do it in L.A. how can we do it in Iraq?”

Mr. Williamson seized on the word “practice.” Working in poor areas of America would train soldiers to deal with similar problems abroad. Such a program would expand and supplement existing regimes such as the National Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers.

Mr. Dowell warned that powerful generals acting within their own borders lead to the creation of juntas. The National Guard is meant to perform the tasks described by previous speakers, and its limited power eliminates the threat of the military seizing control.

A guest treated us to a bevy of arguments against the resolution, stating that it is unconstitutional to send federal troops into a state, and that the program would shift the state-federal balance, be the largest welfare program ever, and encourage foreign nation-building, which is not the proper role of the military.

Mr. Weiss asserted that soldiers are trained to be killing machines, not peacebuilders, and reminded us of the slogan “fighting for peace is like fornicating for virginity.”

Mr. Theiss claimed that the army is a broadsword, not a scalpel. It is meant to take out large military installations, not to deal with persistent domestic ills. If the military is placed on the streets, escalation is a very real danger.

Mr. Moulds recalled that “it is not uncommon for the military to perform exercises in concert with civilians.” Servicemen routinely perform urban exercises, and have not yet responded to the running of red lights by calling out the B52’s.

A Guest claimed that nationbuilding abroad should consist of allowing nations to build themselves, and nationbuilding at home should consist of properly funding police and letting the national guard do the work they were meant to do.

Ms. Johnson proclaimed that when we send soldiers abroad we force them to do things that destroy their minds. When they are home, humanitarian work in poor neighborhoods might help rebuild their psyches.

Ms. McFarland was torn. While she adored the thought of hunky soldiers roaming the street, she remembered how much her marine father messed her up, and suspected that marines would mess up cities even more.

A Guest stated that if she were dirt poor and knew that no one would help her, she would sell drugs. We need to help the poor with education and urban revitalization, not scare them with guns.

Ms. Hines introduced us to Broken Windows Theory, which holds that the mere presence of entities capable of applying force will reduce violence, even without the exercise of that force.

The question failed 6-15 among members, 4-23 among guests, and 0-1 among alumni.

Ms. Brown then rose, stating that if the goal of feminism is to empower women, it would be better served by women enrolling in useful programs, rather than studying a discipline that “explores the oppression of women.” She offered,

BIR: The University of Georgia should discontinue its women’s studies major.
R.S. Sarah Brown.

Mr. Burkhart asserted that male dominance has become so engrained in our society that we need a concerted feminist push to bring our culture to balance.

Mr. Weiss stated that the women’s studies department is too small to be self-sustaining.

Mr. Dowell cited his own classics major, and stated that the fact that a major does not imbue its students with a comparative advantage does not imply that the major should be discontinued.

Ms. Hines recalled that women’s studies majors have a comparative advantage over history majors in law school applications. Further, women still are more demeaned by popular culture more than men are so demeaned.

A guest affirmed that feminism is not synonymous with man-hating; it is about equality.

Ms. Koval stated that if students are willing to have a certain major, that major should be provided.

Mr. Moulds stated that the funds for Women’s Studies would be better used in endowing chairs in various departments. Thus, we could assure that women’s perspectives in history, policy, etc. would be heard in those departments, rather than echoing back and forth in a converted gas station on Lumpkin Street.
Mr. Addison asserted that Women’s Studies does not follow accepted academic paradigms. It has neither theory nor method.

A guest stated that we need an MRS degree to balance Women’s Studies. The MRS students could spruce up the Women’s Studies gas station.

A guest asserted that he had to read many inferior works in A.P. literature simply because they were written by women or minorities. It is bizarre that we let a fixation with oppression reduce the quality of our curriculum.

Mr. Theiss stated that it is a disgrace to feminism that that the existence of Women’s Studies programs has become such an important issue. We should instead be focusing on the very real grinding problems that women face.

I then claimed that something is lost when interdisciplinary programs are disbanded and returned to their parent disciplines.

The question failed 7-8 among members, 5-6 among guests, and 0-1 among alumni.

Ms. Crawford reminded us of Homer, medieval bards, and Dylan, and asserted that societies throughout time have honored those who tell stories in verse. Therefore, she presented

BIR: Country is the most creative, intellectual form of pop music. R.S. Emily Crawford

Mr. Weiss recalled that country is not the only genre that tells stories. Other storytelling songs can be as, or more, intelligent.

Ms. McFarland asserted that there’s only so much moonshine-drinkin’, truck-drivin’, dog-huntin’ music you can take.

Mr. Dowell considered quoting certain choice lines, but quickly reconsidered.

A Guest described how he slowly arrived at his now deeply-rooted love of country music.

A guest stated that though country can’t be universally disparaged, having given us Johnny Cash, it also can’t be universally praised, having given us Billy Rae Cyrus.

Mr. Williamson stated that country music is the most universal of all our arts. It consists of songs about fishing and women and family and god.

Ms. Johnson asserted that country made her cry, and it takes a lot to make her cry.

Mr. Ballard claimed that the best form of music is Romanian Pop, and began singing Ozone while jumping about like a leprechaun on acid.

Mr. Addison said that truly universal music is not what everyone loves, but what everyone tolerates. Therefore, country has unusual powers to unite.

I attempted to get some of the honor that accrues to those who tell stories in verse, but failed.

The question failed 6-8 among members and 2-7 among guests.

The meeting was adjourned after Ms. Brown’s 14 minute critic’s report.

The agent sat silent, his mouth open completely aghast. He started to say something. Only a groan came out. He shook his head, he rubbed his eyes, and finally managed to, stuttering, say: “I’ve never seen anything so immensely disturbing, so unspeakably foul and obscene. What could you possibly call an act like that?”

And the man replied, “The Aristocrats!”

Respectfully Submitted,
Chris Hansen