| There's a lot of talk in America today about civic disengagement
and political apathy. Newspapers are going under. People are
tired of partisan politics. The framework of the American system
is crumbling, so it would appear.
But we Demosthenians are a different breed, aren't we? That's
why a few of our more politically-inclined members attended
something in Washington last week called the Conservative Political
Action Conference, a convention where right-wingers of all stripes
came together and traded gossip, talking points, and witty bumper
stickers. At this Conference, they heard a great many notable
speakers. Rumor has it that Dick Cheney refused to appear unless
he were billed only as a “senior administration official.” Intellectual
leaders of the movement, such as Cobb County's own Newt Gingrich,
threw out innumerable pearls of wisdom, like the victims of
Hurricane Katrina were simply too stupid to get out of the way.
Why didn't they think of that? Michelle Malkin, famous for writing
a book justifying the Japanese internment, was also spotted.
And let's not forget Ann Coulter, who at one point indirectly
called John Edwards a very naughty word that also happens to
be a British slang term for a cigarette, or perhaps a bundle
of sticks, garnering predictable outrage from the gay community,
Democratic and progressive bloggers, as well as Romney and Giuliani.
But let's put that phony outrage aside, folks. Think about
it: what right do you have to be outraged if I exercise my freedom
of speech in a way I see fit? In America, we believe in a little
something called “freedom of expression.” But more relevant
to tonight, we in America believe in a little something called
“freedom of association.” And I hesitate to use the phrase “more
relevant,” because the two freedoms are tightly linked. If you're
what Ann Coulter calls a British slang term for a cigarette,
or perhaps a bundle of sticks, then you have no business attending
CPAC, now, do you? If you don't think Waco was just the beginning,
will you be invited to join my militia as we take on the New
World Order? Of course not. Also, I happen to enjoy apple pie.
Knowing this, will you invite me to your dinner party knowing
full well that the dessert is pecan pie? No way. And getting
back to tonight's debate, if you're an atheist, will you try
to join my Christian fraternity? Heavens, no. Why should we
pretend otherwise? Why should the law pretend that you want
equal treatment?
Anti-discrimination policies muddy the clear, bubbling streams
of insight which we drink from daily as students in a major
research university, filtered by freedom of association. That
is why I can only hope that someone against the anti-discrimination
policy will propose the one thing that will ebb the gush of
political correctness across this campus: separate bathrooms
and water fountains. And as for CPAC... well, I'd bore you with
what I really thought about it, but these days you have to go
into rehab if you refer to something as a “proto-fascist circle
jerk.”
The meeting of Thursday, the 1st of March 2007 was called
to order at half past seven. There were no first-time guests
present, but two returnees.
We had one petition for membership. Mr. Hill compared the current
War on Drugs to Prohibition, pointing out that they are equally
futile. He was rapturously welcomed into the Society, if only
because he probably has really good “stuff.”
In committee reports, Mr. Sharp discussed his litany of projects
he has undertaken as glorious leader of the People's PR Revolution.
I informed the chamber about the belated contact list.
Around 8 or 8:30, Mr. Addison managed to be appointed critic.
In New Business,
Mr. Weiss the Separate But Equal told us that the success
of collegiate literary societies depends directly on their not
being involved in any sort of national organization. He presented,
BIR: The Demosthenian Literary Society should not support the
reformation of the American Association of Literary Societies.
BFR: The DLS should organize a united congress of literary societies
to debate the issue during the Spring of 2008.
Respectfully submitted,
Josh D. Weiss
The resolution was tabled.
Mr. Darsie then rose to tell the chamber about the undue influence
of donors, and the conflicts of interest brought about by open
campaign contributions. He presented,
BIR: Campaign contributions by private
citizens to Presidential campaigns should not be limited, but
should be blinded so that the campaigns do not know who contributions
come from.
Respectfully submitted,
M. Stephen Darsie
Mr. Miller responded that the resolution does not prevent
donors from revealing themselves to candidates. Nothing is changed
by the resolution.
Mr. Vaudo argued that unlimited donations would allow candidates
to expand, due to their bigger support base.
Mr. Dolan said that unlimited donations are problematic. Those
with large amounts of money will maintain a disproportionate
influence, while those with less will be drowned out.
Mr. Weeks claimed that all presidential campaign donors want
to do is to change their communities for the better. The resolution
allows for such changes, which makes it good.
Mr. Hansen spoke in the negative, arguing that the resolution
does two things: it widens the flow of influence while stifling
the flow of knowledge. In doing this, it stifles the engine
of democracy, which is freedom of information.
I argued that the resolution is obfuscatory, if not inconsequential.
All it does is obscure things society would rather not know
anyway. We don't want to know where McDonald's comes from, just
like we don't want to know where campaign money comes from.
Ms. Meek said that unlimited contributions infringe on other
voters' rights. Contribution limits equalize influence.
Mr. Sharp informed the chamber that the courts have ruled
that anonymity is limited in certain forms of freedom of expression.
Campaign donations, therefore, cannot be anonymous.
Mr. Pearl said that the resolution curtails transparency.
Mr. Webber said that the resolution gives power to those that
are persuasive.
Mr. Brettschneider argued that anonymity is an important part
of free speech in most cases, but in the case of campaign donations,
it can be dangerous.
Ms. Herschman noted that the resolution is bad. Also, we should
think of the poor people.
Mr. O'Donnell disagreed with the second portion of the resolution,
because there is no sure way to make such contributions totally
blind.
The question was called, and failed 5 to 13 among members
and tied 2 to 2 among guests.
Mr. Vaudo then gave every libertarian in the room heart murmurs,
presenting
BIR: The U.S. Constitution should be amended
to negate the 2nd Amendment.
Respectfully submitted,
Zak Vaudo
The gun lobby wastes everyone's time by talking about guns,
when there are more important matters at hand.
Mr. Beusse rose to say that the founding fathers realized
that citizens must be able to protect themselves from government,
necessitating the 2nd Amendment.
Mr. Darsie disagreed with the premise of the resolution. Talking
about ideas is never a waste of time, regardless of personal
support or disdain.
The hall was cleansed, following a brief visit by two Illiterates
that lasted three speeches.
Ms. Turlington reminded the chamber that those looking to
protect themselves from the government will need much more than
just a gun. She also reminded us that most gun deaths are the
result of accidents, rather than defense.
Mr. Weeks said that if we get rid of the 2nd Amendment we
should go ahead and do away with all the other constitutional
protections.
Mr. O'Donnell asked how citizens can be expected to defend
themselves if the government has all of the guns. Oh, and democracy
is overrated.
Mr. Addison noted that human rights are a social construct.
Because governments by definition hold a monopoly on violence,
the 2nd Amendment is simply a facade. Besides, nobody has successfully
uprisen against the U.S. government.
Mr. Garcia slid down a slippery slope, claiming that affirmation
of the resolution would pave the way for getting rid of other
rights.
Mr. Brettschneider argued that if only the Jews had semiautomatics,
the Holocaust never would have happened. Riiiiiiiiiiight. It
is the moral responsibility of citizens to put down the government
when it oversteps its boundaries.
The question was called, and failed 4 to 19 among members.
Mr. Weiss the Separate But Equal abstained, because the 2nd
Amendment is mainly about militias rather than guns. Mr. O'Brien
noted that when all else fails, we will vote from the rooftops.
He then rose to present:
BIR: All federal laws should be written
in rhyming verse, as if it's worth making a law, it's worth
writing a poem about it.
Respectfully submitted,
Kevin O'Brien
Mr. Darsie agreed, saying that watching the Supreme Court
issue an interpretation in verse would be beneficial.
Mr. Miller seconded, arguing that the resolution would finally
bring emo kids into Congress.
Ms. Barnett presented a counterexample. Dactylic hexameter
is inordinately difficult to write.
Mr. Garcia was ejected for singing in the style of Blink-182.
Mr. Vaudo, as a free verse poet, objected to the resolution's
exclusion of such poetry.
The question was called, and passed 14 to 8 among members.
It was noted that all who opposed did so because they lack the
ability to rhyme. Also, Ms. Barnett will answer Mr. Williamson's
challenge to come up with a verse in dactylic hexameter. Also,
Mr. Garcia was ejected because no one understands him. Finally,
Mr. O'Brien reminded us that friends don't let friends write
bad poetry.
Mr. Darsie then rose, again, to issue a harsh rejoinder to
those who have led the rash of attempts to censor the minutes,
including Mr. Weiss, formerly the Lesser but now the Separate
But Equal, and Mr. Etheridge, among others. He presented,
BIR: Censor this, bitch.
Respectfully submitted,
M. Stephen Darsie
The resolution passed 22 to 3 among members. It was noted
that those who opposed are in fact bitches.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:39, subject to Mr. Addison's
blistering critic's report.
Respectfully submitted,
Bill Richards
|
University of Georgia 