|
Hola, amigos. Been a while since I rapped at ya. Well, stuff's
been kind of crazy in Secretarial World, I gotta say. Take today,
for instance. I woke up like I did any other morning, to the
sound of my cellphone alarm clock playing the “chopped and screwed”
remix of Lee Greenwood's “Proud To Be An American.” I got in
the shower, stopping to eat breakfast between the rinse stage
and the repeat stage. My breakfast consists of a Yard-O-Beef
and a forty-ounce of Colt 45, the most American meal of which
anyone, who I should mention includes God, has ever conceived.
I consume it when covered entirely by soap. Many people ask
me why I choose a Yard-O-Beef and Colt 45. If you're a true
American, you know the answer is simple. Both are somewhat cylindrical,
and can thus be easily fit on the showerhead rack, between the
No More Tears and the bar of soap, in case I have some left
over for tomorrow. You have to remember that we're in a war
here, people; we have to exercise some sort of self-discipline.
And of course, I was listening to AM radio during the whole
process. Specifically, to the greatest hero in our nation's
broadcasting history.
If you think I'm talking about Edward R. Murrow, who almost
singlehandedly lost us World War II through his seditious “hearing
it now,” you're wrong. I'm referring, of course, to Rush Limbaugh,
who is to talk radio what Philip Glass is to minimalist score
composition. The microphone is his canvas, words are his watercolor,
cigar smoke and Oxycontin are the water in which he dilutes
his watercolor, which is actually made of words, as I've just
mentioned. Mr. Limbaugh's understanding of politics and culture
is more nuanced than most, which is why I think I'm able to
appreciate him more than, say, All Things Considered. Just the
other day, Mr. Limbaugh commented that watching an NFL game
reminded him of watching “a fight between the Crips and the
Bloods.” “There, I said it,” he finished, invoking the age-old
rule of “saying it.” That is to say, saying you “said it” after
saying it makes it OK that you said it in the first place, while
saying it without saying you said it would probably mean that
you ought not have said it at all, or something. Take this example,
for instance:
The meeting for Thursday, the 18th of January 2007 was called
to order. There were 39 first time guests and three returning
guests.
In programs, we had the vaunted “Great SGA Debate.” A guest,
the outgoing vice president of the Student Government Association,
presented
BIR: SGA should continue to operate.
Respectfully submitted, Matt Suber. SGA needs an opportunity
to change for the better. As a democratic entity, to abolish
it would be to disenfranchise students.
Mr. Weiss the Younger rebutted by noting that running unopposed
candidates does not constitute change. To abolish SGA would
be no great loss. After all, the University Union filled the
void the last time SGA was abolished.
Mr. Ballard spoke in the affirmative, asking whether or not
the University would be better off without SGA. He argued that
as a centralized body, SGA is able to lobby at local and state
levels, something smaller organizations would have difficulty
doing.
Mr. Weeks opined that since nobody wants to be in SGA, it
has failed its electorate. SGA's illegitimacy is sort of like
taking a girl home and being unable to get it up.
A guest, who was on SGA's Freshman Board at one point, saw
SGA accomplish change firsthand. She said that SGA made President
Adams “look into” environmentally-friendly changes to Tate II.
She then deferred her remaining time to another guest, the
presenter, who noted that while SGA has no specific enumerated
powers, it has influence.
Mr. Broach then called into question SGA's questionable financial
records. We work hard for our money as students, and he wants
to know where his money is going.
Ms. Keyes-Blumer reminded everyone that SGA has no control
over the allocation of student activity fees. As a member of
the SGA minority affairs committee, she saw international students
continue to be disenfranchised in SGA debates. Other organizations
can advocate and lobby for students more effectively.
A guest, the lone candidate for the SGA presidency, then proceeded
to note that the reason there are so many vacant seats on this
year's ballot is that SGA is giving students a greater voice
through other means. She then proceeded to give a campaign speech,
followed by a question and answer session.
Mr. Dutta didn't think SGA demanded enough from the administration.
Instead of lobbying on behalf of students, SGA sits in vapid
silence. The organization should reform and continue to exist.
A guest, a “brutha” of the illiterary society and an outgoing
member of SGA, bemoaned the lack of data presented by the negative
side. Standing in front of the podium, he said he wasn't Greek
but was still in SGA, rendering null the negative's main argument.
He also said the Red & Black is biased, and stuff.
Mr. Morgan advocated Facebook as a replacement for SGA. SGA
has so few accomplishments that the few that exist can be summed
up in a series of Facebook groups. He also noted that Dr. Adams
can veto whatever he wants, regardless of SGA input.
A guest said that if students took it upon themselves to get
more information, then they would attend and care about SGA
more. Apathy is the problem.
Mr. Vaudo asked if SGA was the only organization that could
accomplish its goals. For example, he talked to Dr. Adams personally,
who got something accomplished on his behalf.
A guest was excited because changes were going to take place.
Ms. Meek also said that the problem was apathy. Students at
the University get excited over three things: “football, beer,
and Jesus.”
Ms. Sheu said, or rather, yelled, that the Internet and other
technological advances had rendered SGA obsolete. Students can
have a voice through other means, and don't need SGA to lobby
for them.
Mr. Addison presented himself as a typical college student,
unconcerned with lobbying the administration. Since most people
have different priorities than those in SGA, the organization
is simply making the best of a bad situation.
The question was called and passed 33 to 26 among a combined
electorate of members and guests. It was noted that Mr. Broach
was grossly misinformed about SGA's finances.
In committee reports,
Ms. Wilkinson spoke on behalf of the Tournament Committee.
Mr. Darsie spoke as treasurer, reminding members to pay their
dues.
Ms. Turlington spoke on behalf of the PR committee, reminding
members of the activities fair.
Mr. Sharp reminded members of the society's Relay For Life
team.
Mr. Dowell, custodian, encouraged members to clean the hall
before the debate tournament.
In new business,
Mr. Weiss the Younger presented a resolution to raise dues
to $20. The resolution was tabled.
Mr. Sharp, invoking Nazi Germany and other very very bad times
in history, argued that all attempts to make people better have
backfired or failed, and presented
BIR: People do not treat each other better
now than in times past.
Respectfully submitted, Casey Sharp.
Mr. Weeks opposed the resolution because it was “meaningless.”
An ability to increase compassion would mean a change in human
biology.
Mr. Hansen noted that the capacity in question can change by
way of nurturing patterns.
Mr. Williamson framed the resolution as a question of humanity's
infallibility, arguing that ethics and morality are not normative.
I spoke in the affirmative, arguing that the nature of humanity's
mistreatment of others has simply changed. For example, the
government kills people in private now, rather in public.
Mr. Pearl noted that there was no definite answer to the question,
because information about past humanity is biased and written
by the “pen of the victor.”
Mr. Dowell opined that things are very slowly getting better
for the human species. The world is slowly turning against mass
acts of intolerance. Humanity is slowly recognizing its infallibility.
Mr. Brettschneider said that how humans treat atrocities has
changed.
A guest said that humans are becoming more aware of others,
and thus getting better.
Mr. Etheridge said that the resolution asks humanity to set
up a grading scale for measuring compassion.
The question was called, and passed 11 to 10 among members
and tied 1 to 1 among guests. It was noted that Mr. Pearl abstained.
Mr. Brettschneider then presented
BIR: The dialectic is an immoral method
of persuasion.
Respectfully submitted, Daniel Brettschneider.
Mr. Dowell disagreed. Socrates was executed because he was
a jerk, not because of his method of argumentation. The dialectic
lets people “catch shit,” and cannot be considered immoral because
it gives both participants an equal floor.
Mr. Pearl said that rhetoric is like a tool. Like a gun, it
can be used for moral or immoral ends.
Mr. Weeks noted that the presenter was using a circular argument,
using the dialectic method to speak against the dialectic method.
The presenter did something akin to a killer killing someone
while saying killing is wrong.
Mr. Weeks was then ejected for some reason. Procedural chaos
ensued. Eventually, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30, subject
to Mr. Miller's critic's report.
There, I said it. Respectfully submitted,
William D. Richards |
University of Georgia 