During elections I vowed, albeit not very clearly, to essentially defecate in the stream of consciousness. Indeed I ran on a platform of mediocrity that, for whatever reason, appealed to the society, which has led us to the dreadful butchering of the English language I have before me.
When we last spoke, the year was two thousand naught five. Back then the men were men, except of course for the women, who were not men but may well have wished they were, except for perhaps a slim majority, being man hating feminists using what many scholars have referred to as “Their better judgement.” But regardless of that, they had breasts, which are empirically proven to be what ten out of ten men prefer, although according to a general social survey roughly three to four men prefer male breasts to female. Actually, I was far too lazy to research using the GSS, so I made that figure up.
What is important is not what is important but rather only what we consider to be important, that is to say importance being a social object, the only importance is in what we invest, thereby making the most important events of the preceding year whatever happened on the OC or twenty four if you swing that way, whatever celebrity got married to whatever used car salesman or Kennedy or what have you, as well as whatever iteration of lord of the rings, rocky, star wars, police academy, etcetera etcetera came out and stunned slash amazed audiences with it's amazing special effects slash suck factor.
But speaking of the past which the river of time has vanquished, it is now my obligation to discharge the duty of reading minutes of my own production for the edification of members of the society, for the founders of our storied society realized even then that time flows like a river, and history repeats, which is a good thing because otherwise time would have to flow in an entirely different way and our lives would be the basis for some amazingly bad science fiction novella where time flows like a whirlpool in some sort of clever coffee mug that reads “Caution: contents may or may not be hot” the analogy thereof leading to some amazingly simplistic plan that could have only been devised by my alter ego, Dr. Tim Tingleschadt.
Without further adieu then, these are the minutes for a meeting that took place sometime between elections and Christmas, to the best guess of our crack team of koala archaeologists, who have been burning the midnight oil for days on nothing but eucylaptis leafs and some illicit substance whose use would surely defame the name of our great society so I might as well say it, sweet sweet cocaine.
The meeting was called to order around seven fifteen and Mr. Josh P. Weiss presented the Censor Meorum's report and revealing that he was in fact, either the least fit or best fit person for the job in the history of the society, depending on how you look at it. He cursed a lot, and while I could describe everything he said in burning and gory detail, we have recovered from antiquity what people of the period refered to as “money shots.”
- A million sperm and he was the best.
- He just likes the idea of a culture where you can sleep with twelve year old boys.
- He's banging a chick from across the way and from what I hear he's doing a bad job of it.
- You know more about cock than Ron Jeremy.
- The Blue lipstick makes you look like you just sucked off a smurf.
- You look like a cigarette.
- Lets talk about your speech impediment, it's usually your foot.
- She doesn't like food, ergo she must be burned like a witch.
- From now on, I shall call you my little curry love.
At some point, I was accused of looking like Ed Norton. Well well, Mr. Weiss. Zing. Zing indeed. I am surely slain. For the record, when I attempted to calculate his fine for profanity with the judicial council, an error in calculation produced a fine in excess of Twenty two million dollars. Therefore, I for one welcome Mr. Weiss's presence on the wall of fame for the largest donation in the history of the Demosthenian Literary Society. Everyone, lets give him a hand.
We then proceeded to New Business.
Mr. Chiego rose to assert that we aren't helping the Iraqi's build a new democratic state, and presented
Be it resolved, The United States should immediately withdraw all military personnel from Iraq.
Among other notations he noted that indeed, when we withdraw we will be confronted with a civil war, but that war is the birth mother of nations, and that leaving is the only way to eventually stabilize Iraq. He also suggested that Iraq could be partitioned before our departure to create a more stable region.
Mr. Theiss then rose to say that we wage a very effective war of attrition against the insurgency, which is effective because people don't have time to plan for when they are under pressure. He argued against the partition on the grounds that it would lead to an unequal distribution of resources, and further that neighbors in the region would be upset at the creation of a Kurdish state.
Mr. Dowell, student of the classics that he is, compared Iraq to Roman Britannia. He pointed out that the departure of the Roman army is generally correlated to getting sacked by the Vikings and that pulling out would lead to attacks by viking like nations, such as Saudi Arabia.
Ms. Meeks rose to say, “This is the stupidest resolution I have ever heard.” Ms. Meeks, clearly you were not here for Be it resolved, CANDY CANDY CANDY CANDY CANDY CANDY CANDY CANDY. Either way, she stated that we made a promise, and we have to keep our promises, even if we made them for bad reasons. If Iraq cannot defend itself then withdrawal is unconscionable.
Mr. Pearl then rose to point out that forty percent of Iraqis think it's OK to hurt Americans in Iraq, which is now a lightning rod for terrorists. Our presence is the unconscionable factor.
Mr. Hanson rose to bring up the issue of Population Dynamics. A population will exploit a critical resource until it goes extinct, however with predators sniping at the population in question, the population can last indefinately. He then completely avoided any labeling as a social darwinist by stating that the War of attrition prevents a stabilization of population which thereby allows, in his view, the terrorists and insurgents to survive forever since the resources of their outposts will last indefinitely. Pulling out of Iraq doesn't mean we wont protect it from invasion.
Mr. Williamson then spoke unto us and stated that via a calculated withdrawal we may get a more controlled instability. Or maybe not. When, he questioned, does staying the course mean staying the mistake? And why must Iraq be a western democracy. McDonalds changes itself in other countries to appeal to the culture, why shouldn't Democracy?
Mr. Richards cautioned us against accepting what he called “The Very Bad Idea.” Which is to say the notion that having already invested in Iraq pulling out now would waste said investment of blood, resources. Greater future debts outweigh current debts, so we should accept the resolution.
Mr. Steinberg then drew this out with an analogy to poker. You get a great hand and go in big but the flop sucks yet you stay in because you're already invested. He then pointed out that International Peacekeeping is NOT, in fact, poker. He said we should let Iraq out of its baby carriage and depart, giving them the tough love they need.
The question was called and failed five to thirteen among members and passed one to love among guests. Mr. Chiago opposed his own resolution.
Mr. Theiss may have been feeling a little down, or so I surmise from the resolution he rose to present,
“Be it resolved, being a Christian shall be made a crime punishable by death.”
Why? Because groups who abuse freedom of expression must be stopped, and in his view there are people who are christians only for the benefits it provides. And this cost to being Christian is admittedly a pretty failproof solution for solving the freerider problem.
Mr. Dowell pointed out that the resolution is a violation of the first amendment and on top of that it's not very fair since Christianity is a gigantic amorphous group. Catholics aren't christians in the same way as say, snake handlers or the Amish.
Mr. Moulds rose to say that society drives religion and that we'd still see the same problems if we had another dominant religion. He said that the US is not a very religious nation and that if you got rid if it you'd end up with another religion doing the exact same things.
Mr. Misztal rose to point out that the bench was slouching and told us a story about an ideal confucian town where a law was passed to kill anyone wearing confucian clothes, but the rulers were foiled when nobody respected the law and thereby increased the cost of enforcement for the government.
Ms. Barnett rose to say that there is a problem with mass Christian culture. Religion is a beautiful thing, but as it is imposed on others in the US of A, it is rather opressive. If you get upset over the statement “Happy Holidays”, then you are silly.
Mr. Pearl then cited the various Tate preachers, and if they aren't a good reason to keep the wall between church and state strong, he doesn't really know what is a good reason.
Mr. Richardson then quoted Ann Coulter a bit and followed up by saying that we need to psych out Christians. The protestant work ethic drove the US and our economy, and our way of life.
Mr. Morgan said that Mr. Theiss's goal was to find true believers, if you had an age limit on being religious it would be more genuine since it wasn't socialized, and society would be improved since people would be more genuine.
Mr. Earl then rose to say that death wouldn't solve anything, and then brought up the holocaust. He pointed out that it imposed massive preasures on the US and Britain which lead to the formation of Israel, which has obviously worked out great and given us a very strong ally in the middle east. Heck, why not, lets go for it, we need more allies in the middle east.
A Jewish guest, the relevance of such will become clear, rose to say that we should ban sects in relationships, that some people are too jewish even for her, and that practices such as ritual shaving do not place you closer to god. Differences make the world go round. Religion ought to be less invasive, although this might limit freedom to proselytize, we'd be able to get along a bit better.
Ms. Murro rose to say that christians are too powerful and ought to town it down. She brought up the example of a radio preacher who was massively popular by virtue of his appeal as a religious leader, and who said unpopular things about the bombing of Japan. She pointed out that his opinion of Japan was not related to any love for Jesus.
Mr. P Weiss agreed with the resolution because he doesn't like people and supports any resolution that eases population pressures regardless of the religion in question. As it regards Christianity, he was slightly confused given that we're predestined, possibly for hell, yet subject to God's eternal love, and said that Christianity is too accepting because they want to brainwash you. If they didn't want to control the world they wouldn't be so accepting.
Ms. Smith rose and pointed out that many important people in her life are devoted Christians. Yet, her catholic position sometimes makes her hated by Christian individuals, who ought to live by their word regardless of their opinions about other religions.
Ms. Herschman said that the ideal religion encourages one to be a good person. Christianity shouldn't be banned, just killed. It says don't follow blindly or you'll be killed. The resolution wants people to think for themselves, and if they choose Christianity they should just call it something else.
Ms. Shaw informed us that she was not Christian. A girl asked her about her race and religion on the bus and was then promptly informed by the girl that she would be going to hell. Although she attends Wesley she has not converted to Christianity. She stated that Christanity has become about how much you remember the Bible, not how you lead your life.
The question was called and failed nine to fifteen.
Mr. Misztal rose and stated that Abortion is a rough topic, and that his resolution therefore didn't concern it at all. However he sees the US as supporting a mother up until the birth of their child and then pulling out support entirely. He presented:
Be it resolved, The US Govt. should fund and license private day care agencies to provide child care twenty four seven to any parent who wants it for their children.
I must apologize in advance as this was not the final version of the resolution. It was changed via friendly amendment, but I somehow did not acquire the final copy.
Mr. Misztal then stated that there would be no more single income career households where taking care of ones child must be a full time job. People feel more at home at work, after all it presents one with rewards and respect, whereas home is just work, dishes, and demands. Further, since democracy is not an entirely self-perpetuating institution, we need to improve our education. Schools aren't the only problem, people have to educate children outside school. If the family doesn't do it, (and, he says, it usually wont) we're boned.
Mr. Pearl then rose to oppose the resolution by pointing out that Government sucks. Don't trust government employees. They would be poorly funded because of resources appropriated incorrectly, similar to the saga of No Child Left Behind. Funding isn't something we do well in the US of A, and the free market creates the best daycare and we ought to manipulate that.
Ms. Herschman said that family values would deteriorate. Indeed, there would be no latch-key children if they had an affordable, by which we mean free place to put one's children, but this resolution allows near total neglect since they could simply be left there indefinitely.
Ms. Meek said daycare for her sister consisted of TV at a neighbor's house. She didn't see the resolution as threatening family values but simply saw it as infeasible. Suburban schools are better. Throw more money at the problem and you'll somehow end up with great suburban daycares.
Mr. Darcy said that single family homes need a single reliable form of daycare. Costs to pay for their children force them into a lower socioeconomic bracket. The government could provide requirements for this daycare which would make sure that the children do indeed stay safe and educated.
Ms. Buhlig said that we need better parents, not better daycare. We need people to invest time in their children.
Mr. P Weiss said that it takes a village to raise a child. Unfortunately the general population is full of idiots and cannot raise children. We could thus rehabilitate society through this program. America is getting worse, and this can only help.
Mr. Steinberg said that we should have mandatory summer camps.
Ms. Iqbal said that family values could be hurt by these daycares, and that we need adequate resources to raise families. We should focus on fixing day cares already in existence.
Mr. Ballard didn't much like the resolution at all since he saw it as a self-perpetuating entitlement program that would strain and defeat itself, creating a population boom. Daycare is detrimental to a child's psychology because it removes them from the family. We should focus on private organizations like the YCMA and churches.
The question was called and failed fourteen to nine.
Mr. Dowell then rose and presented a resolution about annexing Canada saying that surely we would die in shame if our manifest destiny was not realized, Mr. P Weiss responded by saying Canada might as well already be the fifty first state and that they wouldn't fight back anyway, Ms. Meek pointed out that she might as well be from Canada because shes from Rochester, and i'd like to point out that we cannot actually afford as many drugs there as Ms. Meek suggests we use, Mr. Morgan said that we had to get out of British rule but Canada was the only nation man enough to take the heat, since it's really cold there, then I got up and said something salient about pornography. At this point Mr. Dowell became acting secretary and got cute by taking the minutes in Greek, Mrs. Buhlig then said, I think, that we've already invaded Canada and continued to challenge the nation to a duel using... Pickles? The question was then called and passed twelve to six, which was followed by a quick surrender from the French, which confused us until Ms. Hoekstra gave us her critics report to sort everything out. |
University of Georgia 