Minutes of November 3, 2005
Minutes similar to these have been done before by other secretaries, but it They’re always worth doing whenever there is an all-male bench.
Ballard, Theiss, and I have talked it over, and decided it was best to let the society know. Enough people have already begun to suspect the truth, and foul rumors have begun to spread. Now, the first rule of spin is always to get the worst news out first, and we hope that this admission will end the backstabbing in the society, and let us get back some sense of dignity. So…Are you sure you want to go through with this, John Henry? And you, David? Alright…alright. None of us are wearing pants.
That’s right. As soon as we get up behind the bench, we slip them right off. We’re all hanging free as we speak. It all started in the early meetings at the end of summer. You will remember that the hall was stifling then, and any former benchers will recall that the bench is always a good five degrees warmer than the hall. Wearing our constitutionally-mandated suits, there was a very real threat of heat stroke and death. Some article of clothing had to go…it was a matter of our very survival, I tell you! Now, if we took off our jackets, we would be openly flouting the constitution, and we would bring shame to the society. But if we took off our pants, who would know? I’ll have you know that the femoral arteries are the most optimal heat-exchange sites on the human body.
So that’s how it started. But in honesty, I must admit that it soon moved beyond the demands of mere homeostasis. Well, what would you expect? We are the three most beautiful people in the society, and here we were, every Thursday, naked below the waste. I’m sure that you’ve noticed that Theiss always flashes the time signals with his left hand, and I always write with my right. You never see Theiss’ right hand or my left hand, and you hardly ever see either of Ballard’s hands at all. It’s all one big circle jerk. Furthermore…oh. Oh wait. Uhuh.uhuhuhuh.uh! whooooo. Oh. You guys really need to nominate yourselves for bench positions. You don’t know what you’re missing.
The meeting was called to order at 7:10.
There were five first time guests, 1 second time guest, and two alums.
Mr. Darcy petitioned for membership, telling of a burden that few men share: lefthandedness. He was joyously welcomed to the society.
In committee reports, Ms. Wilkinson stated that Demosthenian bureaucracy would select 10 people to go to the Patriot Act debate reception, although of course these ten people would be closely monitored.
Mr. Martinson reminded new members of their right to have keys.
In New Business
Mr. Mcguire gave a history of the misdeeds of the CIA, and presented
BIR: The CIA should be disbanded.
RS Brian McGuire
Mr. Moulds noted that overthrowing governments is the aim of war. If we don’t do it, someone will do it to us.
Mr. Williamson argued that the resolution throws the baby out with the bathwater. None of the evidence in support of the resolution was beyond reformation, and destroying the CIA would only bury intelligence gathering deeper within the governmental bureaucracy.
Mr. Pearl noted that intelligence is not intelligence if it is public.
Mr. Misztal asked who will watch the watchman; how dirty should the dirty cop be? We are less popular in nations in which the CIA has acted than we are in Vietnam.
Mr. Butt stated that the CIA does needed work. If we disband it, we will only give that work to other agencies, which already have roles to fulfill.
Mr. Chiego observed that the CIA is a tool. It is one of the most powerful tools we have, but it is neither good nor bad of itself.
Mr. Theiss noted that in a Democratic state, no government agency should have the right to hide facts from the citizenry. We are the CIA’s boss.
Mr. Richards argued that working without an intelligence agency is not only impractical, it is impossible.
Mr. Steinberg asserted that Mark Richt is on the sidelines for a reason: he knows what’s going on. We need an organization that knows what’s going on, and the Bay of Pigs proves that.
Ms. Shu finally ended the penis party, and stated that she personally needed the CIA. She needed to believe the government was sneaky and evil. She needed to believe that the CIA had given Ms. Meiers a sex change, and that elvis had been taken to a secret bunker in Alaska.
Mr. D. Weiss observed that if something messes up, you don’t disband it, you hit it with a newspaper and say, “Bad CIA! Bad!”
The question was called, and failed 4-19 among members, 1-6 among guests.
It was noted that Mr. Steinberg should never be allowed to run a football team.
Mr. Moulds then gave
BIR: The government should create tougher alcohol laws.
Mr. Patrick Williams began, “I’m not saying I advocate rape,” which is the coolest beginning I have ever heard. He went on to ask whether if he went to Denny’s and ate until his stomach exploded, he would then have the right to sue Denny’s.
Mr. Dowell noted that it is very hard to get liquor in Virginia when you are underage. Tougher laws really do work.
Ms. Crawford observed that communities protect their own while drinking. The government cannot replace communities, and should not try to.
A guest observed that you are a citizen at eighteen. How can you be a citizen if you don’t have the privileges that that status entails?
Mr. Bassey noted that most alcohol-related crime is both petty and amusing. The response is disproportionate to the problem.
Ms. Hines stated that it is a simple fact that alcohol exposes people to danger, and makes people dangerous.
Ms. Royal argued that it would make better economic sense to prosecute crimes committed by drunks rather than prosecuting drunkenness.
Ms. Hershman observed that rape is often performed by sober men on drunken women. Strengthening alcohol laws in order to prevent rape is legislating against the victim.
Mr. Miller reminded us that drunken driving is the number one killer of people our age.
A guest observed that we were having this whole debate because some stupid girl couldn’t hold her liquor and got herself raped. No: it is wrong to attempt to legislate the state of the victim, rather than the action of the perpetrator.
Mr. McGuire noted that certain groups of people are more prone to alcoholism than others. Therefore, the newer, touger laws should only apply to Irishmen, the rich and powerful, and other high-risk groups.
The question was called, and passed 14-13 among members, while failing 1-3 among guests.
Mr. Dowell graced us with a Brickheap, to whit:
BIR: as an example to other directors and for ruining films such as Star Wars, George Lucas should be given the Brickheap Award for hypocracy and the destruction of America’s cultural icons. Furthermore, the Secretary shall write a letter to Mr. Lucas informing him of his honor. R.S. Stephen B. Dowell III.
Mr. Pearl recalled the prequel trilogy, which went downhill as soon as people started talking.
Mr. Misztal noted that Lucas is not a hypocrite, for he has consistently acted out of self-interest. In our capitalist society, anything that makes money is good, and anything that loses money is bad: therefore, Lucas is a saint. The brickheap should go to Dowell for especting a rich man to make good art.
Mr. Williamson stated that no one is more anal than a Star Wars fan. Lucas is the most anal of them all, and works to make his art adhere more closely to his original vision.
Mr. Theiss asked if this was worthy of a Brickheap. We should be giving the award to Ralph Reed, or the president of Iran.
Ms. Kovall noted that Luucas’s stupidity hurt all of us.
Mr. D. Weiss stated that to say that Lucas sold out is to assume that he was good in the first place. This is obviously false.
Ms. Wilkinson noted that while the Heapers are hypocrites, they are primarily stupid. Instead of giving the award to Lucas for hypocrisy, we should give it to the moviegoers stupid enough to pay the price of admission.
Mr. Chiego imagined what Star Wars would be like if the Heapers had made it.
The question was called.
Mr. Theiss motioned to make this an important question, and the motion passed.
The question failed 6-14, with Mr.Earl voting in absentia for the resolution.
The motion for a guest vote narrowly passed 12-10, and the question failed among the guests 0-2.
It was noted that we are all a bunch of dorks.
The meeting was adjourned after Ms. Kovall’s 9-minute critic’s report, which she gave “in the manner of someone who is really bad at sex, and gets it done very quickly.” |
University of Georgia 