Changes for page Katy Taylor Wang Neg
Summary
-
Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)
-
Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 10 removed)
Details
- Page properties
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -XWiki. amb3rwang@gmailcom1 +XWiki.lwzhou10@yahoocom
- Caselist.CitesClass[0]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,26 +1,0 @@ 1 -===Their threats of terrorism are paranoid creations proliferated by the military industrial complex—making policies based on these assumptions about the world cause serial policy failure and ensure a self fulfilling prophecy- means you cause your own impact. ValenzuelaManuelValenzuela , social critic, commentator, Internet essayist and author of Echoes in the Wind, “perpetual war; perpetual terror”=== 2 - 3 -Without war, violence and weapons there is no Pentagon. And so to survive, to remain a player, wars must be created, weapons must be allocated, profits must be made and the Military Industrial Complex must continue exporting and manufacturing violence and conflict throughout the globe. And, as always, in the great tradition of the United States, enemies must exist. Indians, English, Mexicans, Spanish, Nazis, Koreans, Communists and now the ever-ambiguous Terrorists. The Cold War came to an end and so too the great profits of the MIC. Reductions in the Pentagon budget threatened the lifeblood of the industry; a new enemy had to be unearthed. There is no war – hence no profit – without evildoers, without terrorists lurchingat every corner, waiting patiently for the moment to strike, instilling fear into our lives, absorbing our attention. We are told our nation is in imminent danger, that we are a mushroom cloud waiting to happen. And so we fear, transforming our mass uneasiness into nationalistic and patriotic fervor, wrapping ourselves up in the flag and the Military Industrial Complex. We have fallen into the mouse trap, becoming the subservient slaves of an engine run by greed, interested not in peace but constant war, constant killing and constant sacrifice to the almighty dollar. Brainwashed to believe that War is Peace we sound the drums of war, marching our sons and daughters to a battle that cannot be won either by sword or gun. We are programmed to see the world as a conflict between “Us” versus “Them”, “Good” versus “Evil,” that we must inflict death on those who are not with us and on those against us. The MIC prays on our human emotions and psychology, exploiting human nature and our still fragile memories of the horrors of 9/11, manipulating us to believe that what they say and do is right for us all. We unite behind one common enemy, fearing for our lives, complacent and obedient, blindly descending like a plague of locusts onto foreign land, devastating, usurping, conquering and devouring those who have been deemed enemies of the state, those who harbor and live among them, “evil ones,” “evildoers” and “haters of freedom,” all for the sake of profit and pillage, ideology and empire. Power unfettered and unleashed, our freedoms die and are released. The so-called “War on Terror” is but a charade, a fear-engendering escapade, designed to last into perpetuity, helping guarantee that the Military Industrial Complex will grow exponentially in power. It is a replacement for a Cold War long ago since retired and unable to deliver a massive increase in defense spending. Terrorists and the countries that harbor them have replaced the Soviet Union and Communists as enemy number one. With a war that may go on indefinitely, pursuing an enemy that lives in shadows and in the haze of ambiguity, the MIC will grow ever more powerful, conscripting hundreds of thousands of our youth, sending them to guide, operate and unleash their products of death. Rumblings of bringing back the draft are growing louder, and if you think your children and grandchildren will escape it, think again. In a war without end, in battles that do not cease, the MIC will need human flesh from which to recycle those who perish and fall wounded. Empire building needs bodies and drones to go with military might, instruments of death need trigger fingers and human brains, and, with so many expendable young men and women being conditioned in this so-called “war on terror,” MIC will continue its reprogramming of citizen soldiers from peaceful civilians to warmongering killing machines. After all, “War is Peace.” Yet the Department of War, ever steadfast to use its weaponry, fails to realize that noamount of money will win this war if the root causes of terrorism are not confronted as priority number one. If you get to the roots, you pull out the weed. If not, it grows back again and again. But perhaps a perpetual war is what MIC has sought all along. A lifetime of combat, a lifetime of profit, a lifetime of power. Assembly lines of missiles, bombs, tanks and aircraft operate without pause, helping expand a sluggish economy and the interests of the Pax Americana. Profit over people, violence before peace, the American killing machine continues on its path to human extinction, and it is the hands and minds of our best and brightest building and creating these products of decimation. While we look over our shoulders for terrorists and evildoers, the world ominously looks directly at us with both eyes intently focused on the armies of the “Great Satan” and the “Evil Empire,” not knowing which nation will be attacked or on whom the storm of satellite-guided-missiles will rain down on next. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In becoming pre-emptive warmongers, we are also becoming victims of our own making, helping assure a swelling wrath of revenge, resentment and retaliation against us. If we kill we will be killed, if we destroy we will be destroyed. The MIC is leading us down a steep canyon of fury, making us a pariah, a rogue country in the eyes of the world. We are becoming that which we fear most, a terrorist state. As political scientist and ex-marine C. Douglas Lummis has said, “Air bombardment is state terrorism, the terrorism of the rich. It has burned up and blasted apart more innocents in the past six decades than have all the anti-state terrorists who have ever lived. Something has benumbed our consciousness against this reality.” Today we are seen, along with Israel, as the greatest threats to world peace. When hundreds of thousands throughout the planet call Bush “the world’s number one terrorist,” that less than admirable distinction is automatically imputed onto the nation as a whole and the citizens in particular. This can be seen in the world’s perception and treatment of us today. 4 - 5 -===Securitization is a precondition to genocide- their advantage descriptions will be used to justify massive violence. === 6 -Friss Karsten Friis, UN Sector @ the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, 2k Peace and Conflict Studies 7.2, “From Liminars to Others: Securitization Through Myths,” http://shss.nova.edu/pcs/journalsPDF/V7N2.pdf#page=2 7 - 8 -The problem with societal securitization is one of representation. It is rarely clear in advance who it is that speaks for a community. There is no system of representation as in a state. Since literately anyone can stand up as representatives, there is room for entrepreneurs. It is not surprising if we experience a struggle between different representatives and also their different representations of the society. What they do share, however, is a conviction that they are best at providing (a new) order. If they can do this convincingly, they gain legitimacy. What must be done is to make the uncertain certain and make the unknown an object of knowledge. To present a discernable Other is a way of doing this. The Other is represented as an Other ~-~- as an unified single actor with a similar unquestionable set of core values (i.e. the capital “O”). They are objectified, made into an object of knowledge, by re-presentation of their identity and values. In other words, the representation of the Other is depoliticized in the sense that its inner qualities are treated as given and non-negotiable. In Jef Huysmans (1998:241) words, there is both a need for a mediation of chaos as well as of threat. A mediation of chaos is more basic than a mediation of threat, as it implies making chaos into a meaningful order by a convincing representation of the Self and its surroundings. It is a mediation of “ontological security”, which means “...a strategy of managing the limits of reflexivity ... by fixing social relations into a symbolic and institutional order” (Huysmans 1998:242). As he and others (like Hansen 1998:240) have pointed out, the importance of a threat construction for political identification, is often overstated. The mediation of chaos, of being the provider of order in general, is just as important. This may imply naming an Other but not necessarily as a threat. Such a dichotomization implies a necessity to get rid of all the liminars (what Huysmans calls “strangers”).This is because they “...connote a challenge to categorizing practices through the impossibility of being categorized”, and does not threaten the community, “...but the possibility of ordering itself” (Huysmans 1998:241). They are a challenge to the entrepreneur by their very existence. They confuse the dichotomy of Self and Other and thereby the entrepreneur’s mediation of chaos. As mentioned, a liminar can for instance be people of mixed ethnical ancestry but also representations of competing world-pictures. As Eide (1998:76) notes: “Over and over again we see that the “liberals” within a group undergoing a mobilisation process for group conflict are the first ones to go”. The liminars threaten the ontological order of the entrepreneur by challenging his representation of Self and Other and his mediation of chaos, which ultimately undermines the legitimacy of his policy. The liminars may be securitized by some sort of disciplination, from suppression of cultural symbols to ethnic cleansing and expatriation. This is a threat to the ontological order of the entrepreneur, stemming from inside and thus repoliticizing the inside/outside dichotomy. Therefore the liminar must disappear. It must be made into a Self, as several minority groups throughout the world have experienced, or it must be forced out of the territory. A liminar may also become an Other, as its connection to the Self is cut and their former common culture is renounced and made insignificant. In Anne Norton’s (1988:55) words, “The presence of difference in the ambiguous other leads to its classification as wholly unlike and identifies it unqualifiedly with the archetypal other, denying the resemblance to the self.” Then the liminar is no longer an ontological danger (chaos), but what Huysmans (1998:242) calls a mediation of “daily security”. This is not challenging the order or the system as such but has become a visible, clear-cut Other. In places like Bosnia, this naming and replacement of an Other, has been regarded by the securitizing actors as the solution to the ontological problem they have posed. Securitization was not considered a political move, in the sense that there were any choices. It was a necessity: Securitization was a solution based on a depoliticized ontology.10 This way the world-picture of the securitizing actor is not only a representation but also made into reality. The mythical second-order language is made into first-order language, and its “innocent” reality is forced upon the world. To the entrepreneurs and other actors involved it has become a “natural” necessity with a need to make order, even if it implies making the world match the map. Maybe that is why war against liminars others are so often total; it attempts a total expatriation or a total “solution” (like the Holocaust) and not only a victory on the battlefield. If the enemy is not even considered a legitimate Other, the door may be more open to a kind of violence that is way beyond any war conventions, any jus in bello. This way, securitizing is legitimized: The entrepreneur has succeeded both in launching his world-view and in prescribing the necessary measures taken against it. This is possible by using the myths, by speaking on behalf of the natural and eternal, where truth is never questioned. 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 -===Security begins at the level of the speech act – individual constructions of threat scenarios in the debate space are portrayed as real threats accepted and internalized by the audience as relevant. This means by virtue of reading the 1AC you have already started the process of internalization in the audience.=== 13 -Mackenziein ’12: Megan MacKenzie, lecturer of Government and International Relations at the University of Sydney, “Female Soldiers in Sierra Leone: Sex, Security, and Post-Conflict Development”, NYU Press, Aug 27, 2012 14 -The Copenhagen school’s approach to security fits well with Duffield’s analysis of the radicalization of development and is referred to throughout the book. According to the Copenhagen school,security is not a fixed concept and cannot be defined in a static manger.Instead, it is argued thatsecurity is constructed through the “speech act,” or the act of securitizing actors naming and thereby constructing a security concern.Securitizing actors are defined as individuals, or a group- including government, leaders, or military groups- who perform the speech act.Once a matter has been securitized, it is prioritized above “normal politics” and “extraordinary means” are necessary to address the problem.As a result of the prioritization, Rita Abrahamsen argues that securitization “has clear political implications”These implications result from the heightened profile and increased attention typically given to securitized issues in terms of policy making, funding, and media attention.The Copenhagen school’s rendering of securitization as a speech act places the securitizing actor and the audience as the central players in the construction of security. According to this approach, parties who are able to constitute a security concern typically hold positions of power and possess a “particular legitimacy”Securitization then becomes a strategic practice aimed at swaying a targeted audience to accept the securitizing actor’s speech act that an issue will become securitized. 15 - 16 - 17 -===Alternative: Enframing 18 -Vote negative to reject the AC’s enframing. Intellectual endorsements are key to breaking down dominant paradigms of thought that control policy. My evidence is great on this- it gives multiple empirical examples where speaking out or criticizing dominant paradigms has created tangible changes. Critical intellectualism key to solve the security paradigm—-voting negative outweighs hypothetical plan consequences === Jones99—IR, Aberystwyth (Richard, "6. Emancipation: Reconceptualizing Practice," Security, Strategy and Critical Theory, http://www.ciaonet.org/book/wynjones/wynjones06.html, AMiles) 19 - 20 -The central political task of the intellectuals is to aid in the construction of a counter hegemony and thus undermine the prevailing patterns of discourse and interaction that make up the currently dominant hegemony. This task is accomplished through educational activity, because, as Gramsci argues, “every relationship of ‘hegemony’ is necessarily a pedagogic relationship” (Gramsci 1971: 350). Discussing the relationship of the “philosophy of praxis” to political practice, Gramsci claims: It the theory does not tend to leave the “simple” in their primitive philosophy of common sense, but rather to lead them to a higher conception of life. If it affirms the need for contact between intellectuals and “simple” it is not in order to restrict scientific activity and preserve unity at the low level of the masses, but precisely in order to construct an intellectual-moral bloc which can make politically possible the intellectual progress of the mass and not only of small intellectual groups. (Gramsci 1971: 332-333). According to Gramsci, this attempt to construct an alternative “intellectual-moral bloc” should take place under the auspices of the Communist Party – a body he described as the “modern prince.” Just as Niccolo Machiavelli hoped to see a prince unite Italy, rid the country of foreign barbarians, and create a virtu-ous state, Gramsci believed that the modern price could lead the working class on its journey toward its revolutionary destiny of an emancipated society (Gramsci 1971: 125-205). Gramsci’s relative optimism about the possibility of progressive theorists playing a constructive role in emancipatory political practice was predicated on his belief in the existence of a universal class (a class whose emancipation would inevitably presage the emancipation of humanity itself) with revolutionary potential. It was a gradual loss of faith in this axiom that led Horkheimer and Adorno to their extremely pessimistic prognosis about the possibilities of progressive social change. But does a loss of faith in the revolutionary vocation of the proletariat necessarily lead to the kind of quietism ultimately embraced by the first generation of the Frankfurt School? The conflict that erupted in the 1960s between them and their more radical students suggests not. Indeed, contemporary critical theorists claim that the deprivileging of the role of the proletariat in the struggle for emancipation is actually a positive move. Class remains a very important axis of domination in society, but it is not the only such axis (Fraser 1995). Nor is it valid to reduce all other forms of domination – for example, in the case of gender – to class relations, as orthodox Marxists tend to do. To recognize these points is not only a first step toward the development of an analysis of forms of exploitation and exclusion within society that is more attuned to social reality; it is also a realization that there are other forms of emancipatory politics than those associated with class conflict.1 This in turn suggests new possibilities and problems for emancipatory theory. Furthermore, the abandonment of faith in revolutionary parties is also a positive development. The history of the European left during the twentieth century provides myriad examples of the ways in which the fetishization of party organizations has led to bureaucratic immobility and the confusion of means with ends (see, for example, Salvadori 1990). The failure of the Bolshevik experiment illustrates how disciplined, vanguard parties are an ideal vehicle for totalitarian domination (Serge 1984). Faith in the “infallible party” has obviously been the source of strength and comfort to many in this period and, as the experience of the southern Wales coalfield demonstrates, has inspired brave and progressive behavior (see, for example, the account of support for the Spanish Republic in Francis 1984). But such parties have so often been the enemies of emancipation that they should be treated with the utmost caution. Parties are necessary, but their fetishization is potentially disastrous.History furnishes examples of progressive developments that have been positively influenced by organic intellectuals operating outside the bounds of a particular party structure (G. Williams 1984). Some of these developments have occurred in the particularly intractable realm of security. These examples may be considered as “resources of hope” for critical security studies (R. Williams 1989). They illustrate that ideas are important or, more correctly, that change is the product of the dialectical interaction of ideas and material reality.One clear security-related example of the role of critical thinking and critical thinkers in aiding and abetting progressive social change is the experience of the peace movement of the 1980s. At that time the ideas of dissident defense intellectuals (the “alternative defense” school) encouraged and drew strength from peace activism. Together they had an effect not only on short-term policy but on the dominant discourses of strategy and security, a far more important result in the long run. The synergy between critical security intellectuals and critical social movements and the potential influence of both working in tandem can be witnessed particularly clearly in the fate of common security. As Thomas Risse-Kappen points out, the term “common security” originated in the contribution of peace researchers to the German security debate of the 1970s (Risse-Kappen 1994: 186ff.); it was subsequently popularized by the Palme Commission report (Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues 1982). Initially, mainstream defense intellectuals dismissed the concept as hopelessly idealistic; it certainly had no place in their allegedly hardheaded and realist view of the world. However, notions of common security were taken up by a number of different intellectuals communities, including the liberal arms control community in the United States, Western European peace researchers, security specialists in the center-left political parties of Western Europe, and Soviet “institutchiks” – members of the influential policy institutes in the Soviet Union such as the United States of America and Canada Institute (Landau 1996: 52-54; Risse-Kappen 1994: 196-200; Kaldor 1995; Spencer 1995). These communities were subsequently able to take advantage of public pressure exerted through social movements in order to gain broader acceptance for common security. In Germany, for example, “in response to social movement pressure, German social organizations such as churches and trade unions quickly supported the ideas promoted by peace researchers and the SPD” (Risse-Kappen 1994: 207). Similar pressures even had an effect on the Reagan administration. As Risse-Kappen notes: When the Reagan administration brought hard-liners into power, the US arms control community was removed from policy influence.It was the American peace movement and what became known as the “freeze campaign” that revived the arms control process together with pressure from the European allies. (Risse-Kappen 1994: 205; also Cortright 1993: 90-110). Although it would be difficult to sustain a claim that the combination of critical movements and intellectuals persuaded the Reagan government to adopt the rhetoric and substance of common security in its entirety, it is clear that it did at least hadvea substantial impact on ameliorating U.S. behavior. The most dramatic and certainly the most unexpected impact of alternative defense ideas was felt in the Soviet Union. Through various East-West links, which included arms control institutions, Pugwash conferences, interparty contacts, and even direct personal links, a coterie of Soviet policy analysts and advisers were drawn toward common security and such attendant notions as “nonoffensive defense” (these links are detailed in Evangelista 1995; Kaldor 1995; Checkel 1993; Risse-Kappen 1994; Landau 1996 and Spencer 1995 concentrate on the role of the Pugwash conferences). This group, including Palme Commission member GeorgiiArbatov, Pugwash attendee Andrei Kokoshin , and Sergei Karaganov, a senior adviser who was in regular contact with the Western peace researchers Anders Boserup and Lutz Unterseher (Risse-Kappen 1994: 203), then influenced Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev’s subsequent championing of common security may be attributed to several factors. It is clear, for example, that new Soviet leadership had a strong interest in alleviating tensions in East-West relations in order to facilitate much-needed domestic reforms (“the interaction of ideas and material reality”). But what is significant is that the Soviets’ commitment to common security led to significant changes in force sizes and postures. These in turn aided in the winding down of the Cold War, the end of Soviet domination over Eastern Europe, and even the collapse of Russian control over much of the territory of the former Soviet Union. At the present time, in marked contrast to the situation in the early 1980s, common security is part of the common sense of security discourse. As MccGwire points out, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) (a common defense pact) is using the rhetoric of common security in order to justify its expansion into Eastern Europe (MccGwire 1997). This points to an interesting and potentially important aspect of the impact of ideas on politics. As concepts such as common security, and collective security before it (Claude 1984: 223-260), are adopted by governments and military services, they inevitably become somewhat debased. The hope is that enough of the residual meaning can survive to shift the parameters of the debate in a potentially progressive direction. Moreover, the adoption of the concept of common security by official circles provides critics with a useful tool for (immanently) critiquing aspects of security policy (as MccGwire 1997 demonsrates in relation to NATO expansion). The example of common security is highly instructive. First, it indicates thatcritical intellectuals can be politically engaged and play a role – a significant one at that – in making the world a better and safer place.Second, it points to potential future addressees for critical international theory in general, and critical security studies in particular. Third, it also underlines the role of ideas in the evolution in society. CRITICAL SECURITY STUDIES AND THE THEORY-PRACTICE NEXUS Although most proponents of critical security studies reject aspects of Gramsci’s theory of organic intellectuals, in particular his exclusive concentration on class and his emphasis on the guiding role of the party, the desire for engagement and relevance must remain at the heart of their project. The example of the peace movement suggests that critical theorists can still play the role of organic intellectuals and that this organic relationship need not confine itself to a single class; it can involve alignment with different coalitions of social movements that campaign on an issue or a series of issues pertinent to the struggle for emancipation (Shaw 1994b; R. Walker 1994). EdwardSaid captures this broader orientation when he suggests that critical intellectuals “are always tied to and ought to remain an organic part of an ongoing experience in society: of the poor, the disadvantaged, the voiceless, the unrepresented, the powerless” (Said 1994: 84). In the specific case of critical security studies, this means placeingthe experience of those men and women and communities for whom the present world order is a cause of insecurity rather than security at the center of the agenda and making suffering humanity rather than raison d’etat the prism through which problems are viewed. Here the project stands full-square within the critical theory tradition. If “all theory is for someone and for some purpose,” then critical security studies is for “the voiceless, the unrepresented, the powerless,” and its purpose is their emancipation. The theoretical implications of this orientation have already been discussed in the previous chapters. They involve a fundamental reconceptualization of security with a shift in referent object and a broadening of the range of issues considered as a legitimate part of the discourse. They also involve a reconceptualization of strategy within this expanded notion of security. But the question remains at the conceptual level of how these alternative types of theorizing – even if they are self-consciously aligned to the practices of critical or new social movements, such as peace activism, the struggle for human rights, and the survival of minority cultures – can become “a force for the direction of action.” Again, Gramsci’s work is insightful. In the Prison Notebooks, Gramsci advances a sophisticated analysis of how dominant discourses play a vital role in upholding particular political and economic orders, or, in Gramsci’s terminology, “historic blocs” (Gramsci 1971: 323-377). Gramsci adopted Machiavelli’s view of power as a centaur, ahlf man, half beast: a mixture of consent and coercion. Consent is produced and reproduced by a ruling hegemony that holds sway through civil society and takes on the status of common sense; it becomes subconsciously accepted and even regarded as beyond question. Obviously, for Gramsci, there is nothing immutable about the values that permeate society; they can and do change. In the social realm, ideas and institutions that were once seen as natural and beyond question (i.e., commonsensical) in the West, such as feudalism and slavery, are now seen as anachronistic, unjust, and unacceptable. In Marx’s well-worn phrase, “All that is solid melts into the air.” Gramsci’s intention is to harness this potential for change and ensure that it moves in the direction of emancipation. To do this he suggests a strategy of a “war of position” (Gramsci 1971: 229-239). Gramsci argues thatin states with developed civil societies, such as those in Western liberal democracies, any successful attempt at progressive social change requires a slow, incremental, even molecular, struggle to break down the prevailing hegemony and construct an alternative counterhegemony to take its place. Organic intellectuals have a crucial role to play in this process by helping to undermine the “natural,” “commonsense,” internalized nature of the status quo.This in turn helps create political space within which alternative conceptions of politics can be developed and new historic blocs created. I contend that Gramsci’s strategy of a war of position suggests an appropriate model for proponents of critical security studies to adopt in relating their theorizing to political practice. THE TASKS OF CRITICAL SECURITY STUDIESIf the project of critical security studies is conceived in terms of war of position, then the main task of those intellectuals who align themselves with the enterprise is to attempt to undermine the prevailing hegemonic security discourse. This may be accomplished by utilizing specialist information and expertise to engage in an immanent critique of the prevailing security regimes, that is, comparing the justifications of those regimes with actual outcomes. When this is attempted in the security field, the prevailing structures and regimes are found to fail grievously on their own terms. Such an approach also involves challenging the pronouncements of those intellectuals, traditional or organic, whose views serve to legitimate, and hence reproduce, the prevailing world order. This challenge entails teasing out the often subconscious and certainly unexamined assumptions that underlie their arguments while drawing attention to the normative viewpoints that are smuggled into mainstream thinking about security behind its positivist façade.In this sense, proponents of critical security studies approximate to Foucault’s notion of “specific intellectuals” who use their expert knowledge to challenge the prevailing “regime of truth” (Foucault 1980: 132). However, critical theorists might wish to reformulate this sentiment along more familiar Quaker lines of “speaking truth to power” (this sentiment is also central to Said 1994) or even along the eisteddfod lines of speaking “truth against the world.” Of course, traditional strategists can, and indeed do, sometimes claim a similar role. Colin S. Gray, for example, states that “strategists must be prepared to ‘speak truth to power’” (Gray 1982a: 193). But the difference between Gray and proponents of critical security studies is that, whereas the former seeks to influence policymakers in particular directions without questioning the basis of their power, the latter aim at a thoroughgoing critique of all that traditional security studies has taken for granted. Furthermore, critical theorists base their critique on the presupposition, elegantly stated by Adorno, that “the need to lend suffering a voice is the precondition of all truth” (cited in Jameson 1990: 66). The aim of critical security studies in attempting to undermine the prevailing orthodoxy is ultimately educational. As Gramsci notes, “every relationship of ‘hegemony’ is necessarily a pedagogic relationship” (Gramsci 1971: 350; see also the discussion of critical pedagogy in Neufeld 1995: 116-121). Thus, by criticizing the hegemonic discourse and advancing alternative conceptions of security based on different understandings of human potentialities, the approach is simultaneously playing apart in eroding the legitimacy of the ruling historic bloc and contributing to the development of a counterhegemonic position.There are a number of avenues of avenues open to critical security specialists in pursuing this educational strategy.As teachers, they can try to foster and encourage skepticism toward accepted wisdom and open minds to other possibilities.They can also take advantage of the seemingly unquenchable thirst of the media for instant pundistry to forward alternative views onto a broader stage. Nancy Fraser argues: “As teachers, we try to foster an emergent pedagogical counterculture …. As critical public intellectuals we try to inject our perspectives into whatever cultural or political public spheres we have access to” (Fraser 1989: 11). Perhaps significantly, support for this type of emancipatory strategy can even be found in the work of the ultrapessimistic Adorno, who argues: In the history of civilization there have been not a few instances when delusions were healed not by focused propaganda, but, in the final analysis, because scholars, with their unobtrusive yet insistent work habits, studied what lay at the root of the delusion. (cited in Kellner 1992: vii) Such “unobtrusive yet insistent work” does not in itself create the social change to which Adorno alludes. The conceptual and the practical dangers of collapsing practice into theory must be guarded against. 21 - 22 - 23 -===Framing – ROB 24 -The judge should concern themselves with being a critical intellectual. This means your job is to question the knowledge claims of the 1AC since they form the baseline of the debate. When a student turns in a awful project, the teacher gives them an F- they don’t make a new project. This means pointing out major issues with the 1AC is enough to vote negative. Our understanding of the world is shaped by our particular discourses- so if your enframing is bad you should lose. The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater that best challenges oppressive norms. ===JonesLee Jones is lecturer in International Relations at Queen Mary, University of London, BA Honors Univ of Warwick, MA in IR St Anthony’s, PhD IR Nuffield , Journal of Critical Globalization Studies Issue 1 2009 25 - 26 -Having conceded where Nye has a point, let’s now consider the ways in which he may simply be wrong. His assumption is that the academic should be, needs to be, policy-relevant. As indicated above, this can be a very pernicious assumption. As an invitation to academics to contribute to discussions about the direction of society and policy, no onecould reasonably object: those who wished to contribute could do so, while others could be left to investigate topics of perhaps dubious immediate ‘relevance’ that nonetheless enrich human understanding and thus contribute to the accumulation of knowledge and general social progress (and, quite probably, to those scholars’ research communities and their students). As an imperative, however, it creates all sorts of distortions that are injurious to academic freedom. It encourages academics to study certain things, in certain ways, with certain outcomes and certain ways of disseminating one’s findings. This ‘encouragement’ is more or less coercive, backed as it is by the allure of large research grants which advance one’s institution and personal career, versus the threat of a fate as an entirely marginal scholar incapable of attracting research funding – a nowadays a standard criteria for academic employment and promotion. Furthermore, those funding ‘policy-relevant’ research already have predefined notions of what is ‘relevant’. This means both that academics risk being drawn intopolicy-based evidence-making, rather than its much-vaunted opposite, and that academicswill tend to be selected by the policy world based on whether they will reflect, endorse and legitimise the overall interests and ideologies that underpin the prevailing order.Consider the examples Nye gives as leading examples of policy-relevant scholars: Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, both of whom served as National Security Advisers (under Nixon and Carter respectively), while Kissinger also went on to become Secretary of State (under Nixon and Ford). Kissinger, as is now widely known, is a war criminal who does not travel very much outside the USA for fear of being arrested à la General Pinochet (Hitchens, 2001). Brzezinski has not yet been subject to the same scrutiny and even popped up to advise Obama recently, but can hardly be regarded as a particularly progressive individual. Under his watch, after Vietnam overthrew the genocidal Khmer Rouge in 1978, Washington sent tens of millions of dollars to help them regroup and rearm on Thai soil as a proxy force against Hanoi (Peou, 2000, p. 143). Clearly, a rejection of US imperialism was not part of whatever Kissinger and Brzezinski added to the policy mix. In addition to them, Nye says that of the top twenty-five most influential scholars as identified by a recent survey, only three have served in policy circles (Jordan et al, 2009). This apparently referred to himself (ranked sixth), Samuel Huntington (eighth), and John Ikenberry (twenty-fourth).2 Huntington, despite his reputation for iconoclasm, never strayed far from reflecting elite concerns and prejudices (Jones, 2009). Nye and Ikenberry, despite their more ‘liberal’ credentials, have built their careers around the project of institutionalising, preserving and extending American hegemony. This concern in Nye’s work spans from After Hegemony (1984), his book co-authored with Robert Keohane (rated first most influential), which explicitly sought to maintain US power through institutional means, through cheer-leading post-Cold War US hegemony in Bound to Lead (1990), to his exhortations for Washington to regain its battered post-Iraq standing in Soft Power: The Means to Succeed in International Politics (2004). Ikenberry, who was a State Department advisor in 2003-04, has a very similar trajectory. He only criticised the Bush administration’s ‘imperial ambition’ on the pragmatic grounds that empire was not attainable, not that it was undesirable, and he is currently engaged in a Nye-esque project proposing ways to bolster the US-led ‘liberal’ order. These scholars’ commitment to the continued ‘benign’ dominance of US values, capital and power overrides any superficial dissimilarities occasioned by their personal ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ predilections. It is this that qualifies themto actas advisers to themodern-day ‘prince’; genuinely critical voices are unlikely to ever hear the call to serve. The idea of, say, Noam Chomsky as Assistant Secretary of State is simply absurd. At stake here is the fundamental distinction between ‘problem-solving’ and ‘critical’ theory, which Robert Cox introduced in a famous article in 1981. Cox argued that theory, despite being presented as a neutral analytical tool, was ‘always for someone and for some purpose’. Problem-solving theories ultimately endorsed the prevailing system by generating suggestions as to how the system could be run more smoothly. Critical theories, by contrast, seek to explain why the system exists in the first place and what could be done to transform it. What unifies Nye, Ikenberry Huntington, Brzezinski and Kissinger (along with the majority of IR scholars) is their problem-solving approach. Naturally, policy-makers want academics to be problemsolvers, since policies seek precisely to – well, solve problems. But this does not necessarily mean that this should be the function of the academy.Indeed, the tyranny of ‘policy relevance’achieves its most destructive form when itbecomes so dominant that it imperils the spacethe academy is supposed to provide to allow scholars to think aboutthe foundations of prevailing orders in a critical, even hostile, fashion. Taking clear inspiration from Marx, Cox produced pathbreaking work showing how different social orders, corresponding to different modes of production, generated different world orders, and looked for contradictions within the existing orders to see how the world might be changing.1 Marxist theories of world order are unlikely to be seen as very ‘policy relevant’by capitalist elites (despite the fact that, where Marxist theory is good, it is not only ‘critical’ but also potentially ‘problem-solving’, a possibility that Cox overlooked).Does this mean that such inquiry should be replaced by government-funded policy wonkery?Absolutely not, especially when we consider the horrors that entails. At one recent conference, for instance, a Kings College London team which had won a gargantuan sum of money from the government to study civil contingency plans in the event of terrorist attacks presented their ‘research outputs’. They suggested a raft of measures to securitise everyday life, including developing clearly sign-posted escape routes from London to enable citizens to flee the capital. There are always plenty of academics who are willing to turn their hand to repressive, official agendas. There are some who produce fine problem-solving work who ought to disseminate their ideas much more widely, beyond the narrow confines of academia. There are far fewer who are genuinely critical. The political economy of research funding combines with the tyranny of ‘policy relevance’ to entrench a hierarchy topped by tame academics. ‘Policy relevance’, then, is a double-edged sword. No one would wish to describe their work as ‘irrelevant’, so the key question, as always, is ‘relevant to whom?’Relevance to one’s research community, students, and so on, ought to be more than enough justification for academic freedom, provided that scholars shoulder their responsibilities to teach and to communicate their subjects to society at large, and thus repay something to the society that supports them. But beyond that, we also need to fully respect work that will never be ‘policy-relevant’, because it refuses to swallow fashionable concerns or toe the line on government agendas. Truly critical voices are worth more to the progress of human civilisation than ten thousand Deputy Undersecretaries of State for Security Assistance, Science, and Technology. (p. 127-30) - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-10 06:09:00.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Dino De La O - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lindale AR - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Katy Taylor Wang Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -SEPTOCT- Security K - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Grapevine
- Caselist.CitesClass[1]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,17 +1,0 @@ 1 -===The 1AC falls into the trap of linear time- they analyze time as a series of events that independently happen. There’s the past, present and the future. What they fail to realize is that the narrative of linear time is a tool used by the state and dominant powers to placate revolution and reinforce the idea that structural violence can be changed by appeals to legislation.=== Dillon, 2 -Stephen Dillon. “It’s here, it’s that time:” Race, queer futurity, and the temporality of violence in Born in Flames. University of Minnesota. Women and Performance: A journal of feminist theory, 2013. 3 -In one of the first lines of the film, a state newscaster covering the celebration of the revolution’s tenth anniversary says that the news program will look “at the progress of the last ten years, and will look forward to the future.” 4 Progress is central to the discourses produced by the revolutionary state and is the liberal conception of time that the Women’s Army attempts to undo. Progress is named as a time that is cyclical and forcefully forgetful (Söderbäck 2012, 303). Indeed, progress, patience, and reform are the temporalities used by the state to justify and erase the violence that continues under the names of justice, equality, and democracy. The state describes the future as a space of safety and security in order to maintain the violence of the present, and to temper the rage of those who refuse to wait for the future’s warm embrace to arrive. According to the state media, the Women’s Army is not “interested in the progress of all of us” because their actions and demands contradict the teleology of state development and reform.5 The state declares change will come, to be patient, to trust in the progress of time. Critically, this narrative is not just produced by the state, but also by the white feminist editors of the Socialist Youth Review. When asked about the actions of the Women’s Army, and more specifically about the continuation of sexual violence in the revolution, they respond: Well, I think statistics will show you that the percentage of rape and prostitution at this point is lower than it was in pre-revolutionary society and that obviously it’s an advancement, it’s a step forward. It’s impossible to talk about the complete, you know, abolition of sexual violence, because this is not the nature of this government, they don’t abolish … it’s a question of a gradual move toward something, and I think everything is leading up to the point where those things will no longer exist. Here, white feminism aligns itself with the state through its adherence to liberal Western notions of time and history. This is a notion of history where the passage of time washes away the violence of then and now so that the future is free from the horrors of the past. In this way, the past is constructed as a space of radical alterity, an aberration to the progress of the future. Sexual violence will be left behind by the progress of the revolution. Time will temper terror. Yet, the very ability of the editors to believe in the progress of time is tied to the immunity of whiteness from structural forms of racial violence, regulation, and social death. For instance, when Adelaide Norris, the black lesbian leader of the Women’s Army, goes to the editors of the Socialist Youth Review to ask for their support, their conversation highlights the divergent temporalities of black feminism and white feminism. When Norris tells the editors, “You’re oppressed too and it’s pathetic that you can’t even see it!” they respond, “There are problems, we know. But things are so much better than they were before. Things are not going to happen overnight. It’s important that the party remains strong so progress can be made.” 7 Norris’s response sutures gender and race to a different theorization of time: You know the way my mom brought us up; there were eight of us and she took care of the domestic work all by herself. And abortions; she couldn’t even think of abortions. And daycare – hmph – we took care of ourselves, no one took care of us. And there are plenty of women who are living now in the same manner: Black women, Latin women, young women living in that same lifestyle.8 For the editors, the future of the revolution will be free from state and non-state forms of racialized and gendered violence because the reforms sutured to time’s progression will undo the horrors of the present. But for Norris, gendered racism built into the banality of everyday life undoes the imagined progress of time, so that time’s passage is merely the modification and intensification of older modes of subjection and subjugation. For those bearing the brunt of white supremacy and heteropatriarchy, the past, present, and future are not distinct temporal spaces. In other words, Born in Flames documents the amplification, modification, and protraction of the past in the present, where the past is not an isolated aberration of what is here, but, rather, is an anticipation of the present and future. The past is an image of the future because the future will be a repetition of the past. In this way, the film critiques normative notions of time and a liberal conception of history. In Specters of the Atlantic: Finance Capital, Slavery, and the Philosophy of History, Ian Baucom argues for a conception of history that undoes liberal notions of progress, change, and time. Baucom’s theory of history centers on the massacre of 132 slaves aboard the slave ship The Zong in 1781. Over three days, the slaves were handcuffed and thrown overboard in order to collect the insurance money that sealed their value even in death. For Baucom, the massacre is the paradigmatic event of modernity. It encompasses the racial, financial, and epistemological regimes that have not only failed to dissolve with the passage of time, but instead, have intensified so that our current moment finds itself anticipated and enveloped by this event. As Baucom argues: “Time does not pass, it accumulates” (Baucom 2005, 24). Time does not erase what has happened, dissolving terror and violence into the progress of the future, nor is the past passively sedimented in the present. Rather, the past returns to the present in expanded form so that the present “finds stored and accumulated within itself a nonsynchronous array of past times” (29). The present is possessed by the logics and protocols of racial capitalism’s past – by a perfectly routine massacre that was and is repeated endlessly across space and time in the (post)colony, prison, frontier, torture room, plantation, reservation, riot zone, and on and on. Racial terror returns from a past that is not an end to take hold (of bodies, institutions, infrastructure, discourse, and libidinal life) and does not let go. In this way, the past and present are not ontologically discrete categories, but are, rather, complex human constructs. The present is not a quarantined, autonomous thing. What was begun does not end but instead intensifies so that the past and present become indistinguishable 4 - 5 -===The promise of a future free of x prevents a full confrontation with temporality as accumulation. There is no relief to come in some mystical future. Only understanding violence as accumulation and captivity allows us to understand the existing conditions of violence and come up with solutions.=== Dillon 2, 6 -Stephen Dillon. “It’s here, it’s that time:” Race, queer futurity, and the temporality of violence in Born in Flames. University of Minnesota. Women and Performance: A journal of feminist theory, 2013. 7 -According to Spillers, the anti-blackness inaugurated under chattel slavery is a death sentence enacted across generations, one that changes name and shape across time and space even as its continuity endures. Yet, for Spillers, time not only accumulates, it also captures. Her conception of temporality means that time is a form of captivity: one that makes her a “marked woman” (65). She is marked by a history of violence, trauma, and terror that alters normative conceptions of temporality. In other words, anti-blackness and racial terror are epistemological and bodily forces, but they are also temporal intensities that structure subjectivity and life chances. Baucom and Spillers’s theorizations of time as accumulation and capture have profound implications for how we understand the future. Traditionally, the future is a space and time we do not know, a place of possibility and hope. The emptiness of the future is imagined as a space of seamless progress: a myth of Marxist teleology; a capitalist dream; a fantasy of nationalism and colonialism. When we imagine the future as the outcome of the passage of time, the past falls away and the present disappears so that the future becomes relief from the devastating weight of everything that has come before. For example, José Esteban Muñoz argues that the way out of the crushing weight of today is to hold on to the future because now is not enough. According to Muñoz, the future is the domain of queerness, a “warm illumination of a horizon imbued with potentiality” that allows us to think “then and there” when here and now is not enough (2009, 1). For Muñoz, the call for no future is only available to those who have a future to deny. He worries that abandoning the future to a heteronormative white world will only lead to the deaths of more queer people of color. Yet, if time does not pass but accumulates, then the future is not the triumph of a tendency inscribed in the present. It is not the dissolution of the past or the undoing of the present. If time does not pass but accumulates, then the future is not liberated from the constraints of yesterday, but, rather, is the place where the wreckage of then and now lives on. When we think of time against the temporal regimes of the state, heternormativity, the nation, and capital, time drags, reverses, compresses, and accumulates. Engaging queerness as a force that distorts and undermines normative logics of sequence is to know that the conditions of possibility for the atrocities of the past have not faded, but, rather, have intensified (Freeman 2010, 27). It is to deploy what Jasbir Puar calls an “antecedent temporality” where one can see, feel, and engage the ghosts that are not yet here, but will be tomorrow and the next day and the next (Puar 2007, xx). Muñoz writes that the past tells us something about the present: “It tells us that something is missing, or something is not yet here” (2009, 86). Baucom and Spillers extend this assertion by arguing that past forms of racial terror are a lesson about the present, but also a vision of what is to come. If time does not pass but accumulates, then the past is where the future is anticipated, recollected, and demonstrated (Baucom 2005, 213). If there is no progress, but instead repetition, modification, intensification, reversals, and suspensions, then we know what the future will be. The future will be what was before. The actions of the Women’s Army work against a notion of history as progress, and in its place, engage the repetitions, accumulations, and intensifications of time as it circulates, suspends, and speeds up. For them, the progress of the revolution means “cutbacks in daycare centers, ending of free abortions, forced sterilization of minority women, discrimination against single women and lesbians in housing, and firing of single women in favor of men with families.” 9 The revolution is a new formation that reproduces and expands past forms of white supremacist and heteropatriarchial regulation and subjection. Isabel from Radio Regazza describes the revolutionary state as such: Angry unemployed people are rioting in the streets and the city is on fire with their rage. Now what do you think the government plans to do about this situation besides beating them over the head with billy clubs? Do they plan to supply them with jobs, with training programs, or with decent housing? Nah, uh uh. You know what they’re going to do? The same bloody tactic they pulled before the revolution, remember, and I’m here to warn you, it’s going to happen again. They’re already starting a shuffle board, an act on a grand scale where all the poor and the unemployed will be shoved economically into the ghetto.10 my emphasis Isabel’s declaration that “it’s going to happen again” deploys an anticipatory logic that theorizes the past and present as a “preemption of future possibilities” (Clough and Willse 2011, 2). The future and the present compress and collide because the temporality of state violence is a time of repetition, intensification, and accumulation. Franz Fanon’s concept of “historicity” is instructive here. For Fanon, the past is ontologically sutured to race so that when “I discovered my blackness … I was battered down by tom-toms, cannibalism, intellectual deficiency, slave-ships, and above all else, above all: ‘Sho’ good eatin’” (Fanon 1967, 112). For Fanon, white supremacy functions as a type of temporal prison where black liberation is delayed and destroyed by the capacity of past traumas, rooted in colonization and slavery, to affect, shape, and possess the present. Fanon looks to the past of European colonization and sees a mirror of the future, an “endless past/present of colonial domination” (Scott 2010, 76). In other words, white supremacy is not just a spatial technology that inhabits infrastructure and institutionality; it is also a temporal regime that refuses to abide by the progress of the law, language, or the passage of time. As Kara Keeling writes: “The past constricts the present so that the present is simply the reappearance of the past” (2007, 26). And as Isabel makes clear, state violence limits the possibilities of the present and future by binding both in a closed circuit of reverberation and magnification. When time accumulates, it possesses, detains, and immobilizes: this is time as a form of capture. In short, Isabel knows what is coming because it has already happened – in the past that is the future that has already arrived. There is not relief from knowing the past is gone because the past is a warning of what is coming. It’s going to happen again. 8 - 9 -===If the future is the accumulated past, then the only way to destroy the future is the break the present as we know it. Embrace the incoherence of multiplicity and difference in contrast to the state’s focus on coherence and linear temporality.=== Dillon 3, 10 -Stephen Dillon. “It’s here, it’s that time:” Race, queer futurity, and the temporality of violence in Born in Flames. University of Minnesota. Women and Performance: A journal of feminist theory, 2013. 11 -The temporal break between those without a future who demand this is “our time” and the time of the state that declares your time is the future, is most striking in the final scenes of Born in Flames. Towards the end of the film, the president of the United States delivers a national televised address to announce a new reform that will pay women for housework. Simultaneous with the announcement, a cadre of the Women’s Army storms the state-run TV station and interrupts the president’s address with a video that exposes the imprisonment and murder of their leader, Adelaide Norris. Norris was murdered, in part, because of how she understood the relationship between time and violence. This is evident in internal discussions within the Women’s Army concerning the use of violence. When Hilary Hurst and Norris, the two leaders of the Women’s Army (according to the FBI), discuss the role of violence in the actions of the Women’s Army, they have competing visions of the relationship between time and violence. When Hurst tells Norris, “The reality of having to deal with taking up arms, Adelaide, is really heavy, I mean whether we can accept or be responsible for the potential violence thrust upon us, from our own violence thrust out ...” Norris simply replies, “I’m telling you it’s already happening. It’s here. It’s that time.”12 Norris’s response invokes two forms of violence. First, she implies that the state violence Hurst is concerned will come if they take up arms has already arrived (indeed Norris will be imprisoned and murdered within a few days of this conversation). She also indicates that the time is right to intensify their efforts through the deployment of violence. The time is right for counter-violence, because state violence is already the past, present, and future. Norris mobilizes a black feminist analytic where there is no outside to the forms of violence, terror, and subjugation produced by white supremacy, anti-blackness, and heteropatriarchy. As a queer black woman, Norris does not encounter violence in isolated moments of exceptional transgression. Space nor time will bring relief because there is no contingent relationship between blackness and violence (Wilderson 2010, 88). This fact leads to a politics of impatience, immediacy, and spontaneity by the Women’s Army. When the future is not relief, but intensification and accumulation, then the present is all that is left. “Our time” is a time of the present, an anticipatory time that sees the no future of the future as it is. This anticipatory urgency is described beautifully by James Baldwin in his 1970 letter to the then-imprisoned Davis, “An Open Letter to My Sister, Angela Davis.” When Baldwin wrote to Davis, “For, if they take you in the morning, they will be coming for us that night,” he argued that the present was a sign of what was to come (1971, 23). The dawn of a new day did not mean things would be better. Time’s passage was not relief from the violence of yesterday; rather, what was happening to Davis was a promise of what the future would bring. If Davis had been taken, then no one was safe. Baldwin argued that the past and present were lessons about the future. He began his letter with a example of temporality’s repetition and stasis: “Dear Sister: One might have hoped that, by this hour, the very sight of chains on Black flesh, or the very sight of chains, would be so intolerable a sight for the American people, and so unbearable a memory, that they would themselves spontaneously rise up and strike off the manacles. But, no, they appear to glory in their chains; now, more than ever, they appear to measure their safety in chains and corpses” (19). For Baldwin, hope that the United States had progressed beyond the time of slavery was only a fantasy. The present told a different story. The horrors of slavery were not an “intolerable sight” nor an “unbearable memory” to the American people; instead, slavery’s visual economy and policing technologies composed a lesson about what was happening to Davis and countless others. The stillness of time meant the present and past were not aberrations to the radical alterity of the future, but, rather, were anticipatory reflections of what lay ahead. After the murder of Norris, Isabel declares on the now underground Radio Regazza: Wake up! We’re being murdered out there in the streets. And if you’re going to sit back and watch it happen, Sister, you better get it together and wake up. Because all your babies and yourself, you’re going to be cleaned out, we ain’t gonna be around no more, there ain’t gonna be nothing, a wasteland, a wasteland sister, now get it together, it’s time to fight.13 In the dystopian future of Born in Flames, the violence of the past will endlessly repeat so that the future will be death and nothingness. Isabel knows there is no brighter future to hope for or better day to move towards. She understands the future (and the present) as what Denise Desilva calls a “horizon of death” (De Silva 2007). Yet, she also implies that the murder of Norris indicates something about the relationship between anti-blackness and the future. In “People of Color Blindness: Notes on the Afterlife of Slavery,” Jared Sexton writes, “Black existence does not represent the total reality of racial formation – it is not the beginning and the end of the story – but it does relate to the totality; it indicates the repressed truth of the political and economic system” (2010, 48). For Sexton, to understand anti-blackness is to understand power in its totality; it is to confront the truth of our present moment and the (no) future that is already here. It is to see the paradigm even as we also confront “the example, the incident, the antidote” (2011, 34). Norris’s death is the paradigmatic event of the film (and of the social order represented in the film). It is an event that speaks the truth of the revolutionary state – a truth that drives the Women’s Army deeper into the “wasteland,” towards the impossibility of “no more,” closer to the unthinkablity of “nothing.”14 Like Baldwin’s plea that Davis’s imprisonment was a sign of what the night would bring, Isabel warns that Norris’s death is the future’s promise: it is all that the future holds. The Women’s Army not only understood themselves as inhabiting their future deaths – expecting to be killed or captured at any moment – they also argued that if the present had a future, the future would never come. A future under the colluding rule of anti-blackness, white supremacy, and heteropatriarchy was a future the Women’s Army attempted undo by trying to bring an end to the present. If there was to be a future there could be no present. And so, they pursued the destruction of the present in order to usher in the future. Born in Flames argues for a confront ation with the future as a horizon of death through a politics of urgency and presentism, but it deploys multiplicity and difference to challenge time as accumulation and capture. 12 - 13 - 14 -===Only the alternative has the capacity to change the way violence operates- certain bodies are denied personhood by definition. Legal reformulations and the state’s demarcations mean that we need a method to articulate subjectivity and personhood outside of the traditional western order. === Weheliye, 15 -HABEAS VISCUS Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human ALEXANDER G. WEHELIYE Duke University Press Durham and London 2014.p. 48-49 16 - 17 -We are in dire need of alternatives to the legal conception of personhood that dominates our world, and, in addition, to not lose sight of what remains outside the law, what the law cannot capture, what it cannot magically transform into the fantastic form of property ownership. Writing about the connections between transgender politics and other forms of identity-based activism that respond to structural inequalities, legal scholar Dean Spade shows how the focus on inclusion, recognition, and equality based on a narrow legal framework (especially as it pertains to anti-discrimination and hate crime laws) not only hinders the eradication of violence against trans people and other vulnerable populations but actually creates the condition of possibility for the continued unequal “distribution of life chances.” If demanding recognition and inclusion remains at the center of minority politics, it will lead only to a delimited notion of personhood as property that zeroes in comparatively on only one form of subjugation at the expense of others, thus allowing for the continued existence of hierarchal differences between full humans, not-quite-humans, and nonhumans. This can be gleaned from the “successes” of the mainstream feminist, civil rights, and lesbian-gay rights movements, which facilitate the incorporation of a privileged minority into the ethnoclass of Man at the cost of the still and/or newly criminalized and disposable populations (women of color, the black poor, trans people, the incarcerated, etc.). To make claims for inclusion and humanity via the US juridical assemblage removes from view that the law itself has been thoroughly violent in its endorsement of racial slavery, indigenous genocide, Jim Crow, the prison-industrial complex, domestical and international warfare, and so on, and that it continues to be one of the chief instruments in creating and maintaining the racializing assemblages in the world of Man. Instead of appealing to legal recognition, Julia Oparah suggests counteracting the “racialized (trans)gender entrapment” within the prison-industrial complex and beyond with practices of “maroon abolition” (in reference to the long history of escaped slave contraband settlements in the Americas) to “foreground the ways in which often overlooked African diasporic cultural and political legacies inform and undergird anti-prison work,” while also providing strategies and life worlds not exclusively center on reforming the law. Relatedly,Spade calls for a radical politics articulated from the “‘impossible’ worldview of trans political existence,” which redefines “the insistence of government agencies, social service providers, media, and many nontrans activists and nonprofiteers that the existence of trans people is impossible.” A relational maroon abolitionism beholden to the practices of black radicalism and that arises from the incompatibility of black trans existence with the world of Man serves as one example of how putatively abject modes of being need not be redeployed within hegemonic frameworks but can operationalized as variable liminal territories or articulated assemblages in movements to abolish the ground upon which all forms of subjugation are administered. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-10 18:21:18.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Robey Holland - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Strake Jesuit WD - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Katy Taylor Wang Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -SEPTOCT- Linear Time K - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Grapevine
- Caselist.CitesClass[2]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,2 +1,0 @@ 1 -===Declaring that you are racist does nothing to solve the problem. The declaration alleviates white guilt and is a tactic to distance oneself from the problem. It allows the problem to become more malignant and reinforces the SQUO. Symbollic politics does nothing.=== Ahmed Sarah Ahmed. Declarations of Whiteness: The Non-Performativity of Anti-Racism. The University of Lancester. Borderlands Ejournal. Volume 3, Number 2, 2004. 2 -21. To declare oneself as being racist, or having been racist in the past, ofteninvolves a cultural politics of emotion:we might feel bad for one’s racism, a feeling bad that ‘shows’ we are doing something about ‘it’. But what does declaring one’s bad feeling do? For example, what would it mean to declare one’s shame for being or having been implicated in racism, which may or may not take the form of shame about being white? In Australia, the demand for recognition of racism towards Indigenous Australians, and for reconciliation, takes the form of the demand for the nation to express its shame (Gaita 2000a, 278; Gaita 2000b, 87-93). This demand has of course been refused by Howard and his wittingly racist government. It might seem like an odd strategy, but I want us to think a little about the political consequences of the action that has been refused: that is, what would it mean for the nation to declare its shame for being racist? Let’s recall the preface to Bringing them Home:It should, I think, be apparent to all well-meaning people that true reconciliation between the Australian nation and its indigenous peoples is not achievable in the absence of acknowledgement by the nation of the wrongfulness of the past dispossession, oppression and degradation of the Aboriginal peoples. That is not to say that individual Australians who had no part in what was done in the past should feel or acknowledge personal guilt. It is simply to assert our identity as a nation and the basic fact that national shame, as well as national pride, can and should exist in relation to past acts and omissions, at least when done or made in the name of the community or with the authority of government (Governor-General of Australia, Bringing them Home 1996).22. In this quote, the nation is represented as having a relation of shame to the ‘wrongfulness’ of the past, although this shame exists alongside, rather than undoing, national pride. This proximity of national shame to indigenous pain may be what offers the promise of reconciliation, a future of ‘living together’, in which the rifts of the past have been healed. The nation posited here as ‘our identity’, in admitting the wrongfulness of the past, is moved by the injustices of the past. In the context of Australian politics, the process of being moved by the past seems ‘better’ than the process of remaining detached from the past, or assuming that the past has ‘nothing to do with us’. But the recognition of shame – or shame as a form of recognition – comes with conditions and limits. In this first instance, it is unclear ‘who’ feels shame. The quote explicitly replaces ‘individual guilt’ with ‘national shame’ and hence detaches the recognition of wrong doing from individuals, ‘who had no part in what was done’. This history is not personal, it implies. Of course, for the indigenous testifiers, the stories are personal. We must remember here that the personal is unequally distributed, falling as a requirement or even burden on some and not others. Some individuals tell their stories, indeed they have to do so, again and again, given this failure to hear (see Nicoll 2002, 28), whilst others disappear under the cloak of national shame.23. Indeed, white people might only appear within the document as ‘well meaning people’, people who would identify with the nation in its expression of shame. Those who witness the past injustice through feeling ‘national shame’ are aligned with each other as ‘well meaning individuals’; if you feel shame, then you mean well.Shame ‘makes’ the nation in the witnessing of past injustice, a witnessing that involves feeling shame, as it exposes the failure of the nation to live up to its ideals.But this exposure is temporary, and becomes the ground for a narrative of national recovery. By witnessing what is shameful about the past, the nation can ‘live up to’ the ideals that secure its identity or being in the present. In other words, our shame shows that we mean well. The transference of bad feeling to the subject in this admission of shame is only temporary, as the ‘transference’ itself becomes evidence of the restoration of an identity of which we can be proud.24. National shame can be a mechanism for reconciliation as self-reconciliation, in which the ‘wrong’ that is committed provides the very grounds for claiming national identity. It is the declaration of shame that allows us ‘to assert our identity as a nation’. Recognition works to restore the nation or reconcile the nation to itself by ‘coming to terms with’ its own past in the expression of ‘bad feeling’.But in allowing us to feel bad, shame also allows the nation to feel better or even to feel good.This conversion of shame into pride also shapes the Sorry Books, which have been posted on the web as a virtual form of community building. Sorry Books work as a form of public culture; individual postings are posted, and together form the book. Each posting works as an apology for the violence committed against Indigenous Australians, but they also work as a demand for the government to apologise on behalf of white Australia (for a consideration of the apology as a speech act see Ahmed 2004. All Sorry Book websites accessed 13/12/2002).25. Take the following utterance. ‘The failure of our representatives in Government to recognise the brutal nature of Australian history compromises the ability of non indigenous Australians to be truly proud of our identity’. Here, witnessing the government’s lack of shame is in itself shaming. The shame at the lack of shame is linked to the desire ‘to be truly proud of our country’, that is, the desire to be able to identify with a national ideal. The recognition of a brutal history is implicitly constructed as the condition for national pride: if we recognise the brutality of that history through shame, then we can be proud. As another message puts it, ‘I am an Australian citizen who is ashamed and saddened by the treatment of the indigenous peoples of this country. This is an issue that cannot be hidden any longer, and will not be healed through tokenism. It is also an issue that will damage future generations of Australians if not openly discussed, admitted, apologised for and grieved. It is time to say sorry. Unless this is supported by the Australian government and the Australian people as a whol I cannot be proud to be an Australian’ (see link) .26. Such utterances, whilst calling for recognition of the ‘treatment of the indigenous peoples’ does not recognise that subjects have unequal claims ‘to be an Australian’ in the first place. If saying sorry, leads to pride, who gets to be proud? I would suggest that the ideal image of the nation, which is based on some bodies and not others, is sustained through this very conversion of shame to pride. In such declarations of national pride, shame becomes a ‘passing phase’ in a passage towards being as a nation. Nowhere is this clearer than in the message: ‘I am an Australian Citizen who wishes to voice my strong belief in the need to recognise the shameful aspects of Australia’s past -– without that how can we celebrate present glories’. Here, the recognition of what is shameful in the past – what has failed the national ideal – is what would allow the white nation to be idealised and even celebrated in the present.27. Such expressions of national shame are problematic as they seek within an utterance to finish an action, by claiming the expression of shame as sufficient for the return to national pride. In other words, such public expressions of shame try to ‘finish’ the speech act by converting shame to pride: it allows what is shameful to be passed over in the very enactment of shame. Declarations of shame can work to re-install the very ideals they seek to contest.As with the declarations of racism I discussed in declaration 2, they may even assume that the speech act itself can be taken as a sign of transcendence:if we say we are ashamed, if we say we were racist, then ‘this shows’ we are not racist now, we show that we mean well.The presumption that saying is doing – that being sorry means that we have overcome the very thing we are sorry about – hence works to support racism in the present. Indeed, what is done in this speech act, if anything is done, is that the white subject is re-posited as the social ideal. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-10 18:23:06.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Robey Holland - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Strake Jesuit WD - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Katy Taylor Wang Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -SEPTOCT- White Responsibility DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Grapevine
- Caselist.CitesClass[3]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,7 +1,0 @@ 1 -===Expert consensus and rigorous scientific studies overwhelmingly conclude that nuclear power is key to curb emissions and protect global biodiversity=== 2 -Connor 15 – (Jan 3, “Nuclear power is the greenest option, say top scientists” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nuclear-power-is-the-greenest-option-say-top-scientists-9955997.html) 3 -Nuclear power is one of the least damaging sources of energy for the environment, and the green movement must accept its expansion if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change, some of the world's leading conservation biologists have warned. Rising demand for energy will place ever greater burdens on the natural world, threatening its rich biodiversity, unless societies accept nuclear power as a key part of the "energy mix", they said. And so the environmental movement and pressure groups such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace should drop their opposition to the building of nuclear power stations. In an open letter published on the Brave New Climate blog, more than 65 biologists, including a former UK government chief scientist, support the call to build more nuclear power plants as a central part of a global strategy to protect wildlife and the environment. The full gamut of electricity-generation sources, including nuclear power, must be used to replace the burning of fossil fuels such as oil, coal and gas if the world is to have any chance of mitigating severe climate change, their letter says. The letter is signed by several leading British academics including Lord May of Oxford, a theoretical biologist at Oxford University and former chief scientific adviser; Professor Andrew Balmford, a conservation biologist at Cambridge; and Professor Tim Blackburn, an expert in biodiversity at University College London. As well as reducing the sources of carbon dioxide, the chief man-made greenhouse gas implicated in climate change, the expansion of nuclear power will leave more land to support biodiversity and so curb the extinction of species, they say. Recognising the "historical antagonism towards nuclear energy" among environmentalists, they write: "Much as leading climate scientists have recently advocated the development of safe, next-generation nuclear energy systems to combat climate change, we entreat the conservation and environmental community to weigh up the pros and cons of different energy sources using objective evidence and pragmatic trade-offs, rather than simply relying on idealistic perceptions of what is 'green'." It is too risky to rely solely on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power for replacing fossil fuels because of problems to do with scalability, cost, materials and land use, they explain. "Nuclear power – being far the most compact and energy-dense of sources – could also make a major, and perhaps leading, contribution …. It is time that conservationists make their voices heard in this policy area," they say. A golf-ball-sized lump of uranium would supply the lifetime's energy needs of a typical person, equivalent to 56 tanker trucks of natural gas, 800 elephant-sized bags of coal or a renewable battery as tall as 16 "super" skyscraper buildings placed one on top of the other, they said. The letter was organised by Professor Barry Brook of the University of Tasmania and Professor Corey Bradshaw of the University of Adelaide. The two co-authored a paper in the January issue of Conservation Biology outlining the scientific case of nuclear power in terms of environmental protection. Of seven major technologies for generating electricity, nuclear power and wind energy had the highest benefit-to-cost ratio, they concluded. "Trade-offs and compromises are inevitable and require advocating energy mixes that minimise net environmental damage. Society cannot afford to risk wholesale failure to address energy-related biodiversity impacts because of preconceived notions and ideals," they said. Professor Corey told The Independent on Sunday: "Our main concern is that society isn't doing enough to rein in emissions… Unless we embrace a full, global-scale assault on fossil fuels, we'll be in increasingly worse shape over the coming decades – and decades is all we have to act ruthlessly. "Many so-called green organisations and individuals, including scientists, have avoided or actively lobbied against proven zero-emissions technologies like nuclear because of the associated negative stigma," he said. "Our main goal was to show – through careful, objective scientific analysis – that on the basis of cost, safety, emissions reduction, land use and pollution, nuclear power must be considered in the future energy mix," he explained. The letter aims to convince people of the potential benefits of nuclear power in a world where energy demand will increase as the climate begins to change because of rising levels of greenhouse gases, Professor Corey added. "By convincing leading scientists in the areas of ecological sustainability that nuclear has a role to play, we hope that others opposed to nuclear energy on purely 'environmental' – or ideological – grounds might reconsider their positions," he said. 4 - 5 -===Biod loss causes extinction~-~--consensus of newest scientific evidence=== 6 -Torres 16 – (Apr 11, Phil, is the founding director of the X-Risks Institute, a contributor for the Future of Life Institute, an affiliate scholar at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, and the author of The End: What Science and Religion Tell Us About the Apocalypse. His writing focuses on apocalyptic terrorism, emerging technologies, and existential risks. “Biodiversity loss: An existential risk comparable to climate change” http://thebulletin.org/biodiversity-loss-existential-risk-comparable-climate-change9329) 7 -According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, the two greatest existential threats to human civilization stem from climate change and nuclear weapons. Both pose clear and present dangers to the perpetuation of our species, and the increasingly dire climate situation and nuclear arsenal modernizations in the United States and Russia were the most significant reasons why the Bulletin decided to keep the Doomsday Clock set at three minutes before midnight earlier this year. But there is another existential threat that the Bulletin overlooked in its Doomsday Clock announcement: biodiversity loss. This phenomenon is often identified as one of the many consequences of climate change, and this is of course correct. But biodiversity loss is also a contributing factor behind climate change. For example, deforestation in the Amazon rainforest and elsewhere reduces the amount of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere by plants, a natural process that mitigates the effects of climate change. So the causal relation between climate change and biodiversity loss is bidirectional. Furthermore, there are myriad phenomena that are driving biodiversity loss in addition to climate change. Other causes include ecosystem fragmentation, invasive species, pollution, oxygen depletion caused by fertilizers running off into ponds and streams, overfishing, human overpopulation, and overconsumption. All of these phenomena have a direct impact on the health of the biosphere, and all would conceivably persist even if the problem of climate change were somehow immediately solved. Such considerations warrant decoupling biodiversity loss from climate change, because the former has been consistently subsumed by the latter as a mere effect. Biodiversity loss is a distinct environmental crisis with its own unique syndrome of causes, consequences, and solutions—such as restoring habitats, creating protected areas (“biodiversity parks”), and practicing sustainable agriculture. The sixth extinction. The repercussions of biodiversity loss are potentially as severe as those anticipated from climate change, or even a nuclear conflict. For example, according to a 2015 study published in Science Advances, the best available evidence reveals “an exceptionally rapid loss of biodiversity over the last few centuries, indicating that a sixth mass extinction is already under way.” This conclusion holds, even on the most optimistic assumptions about the background rate of species losses and the current rate of vertebrate extinctions. The group classified as “vertebrates” includes mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and all other creatures with a backbone. The article argues that, using its conservative figures, the average loss of vertebrate species was 100 times higher in the past century relative to the background rate of extinction. (Other scientists have suggested that the current extinction rate could be as much as 10,000 times higher than normal.) As the authors write, “The evidence is incontrovertible that recent extinction rates are unprecedented in human history and highly unusual in Earth’s history.” Perhaps the term “Big Six” should enter the popular lexicon—to add the current extinction to the previous “Big Five,” the last of which wiped out the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. But the concept of biodiversity encompasses more than just the total number of species on the planet. It also refers to the size of different populations of species. With respect to this phenomenon, multiple studies have confirmed that wild populations around the world are dwindling and disappearing at an alarming rate. For example, the 2010 Global Biodiversity Outlook report found that the population of wild vertebrates living in the tropics dropped by 59 percent between 1970 and 2006. The report also found that the population of farmland birds in Europe has dropped by 50 percent since 1980; bird populations in the grasslands of North America declined by almost 40 percent between 1968 and 2003; and the population of birds in North American arid lands has fallen by almost 30 percent since the 1960s. Similarly, 42 percent of all amphibian species (a type of vertebrate that is sometimes called an “ecological indicator”) are undergoing population declines, and 23 percent of all plant species “are estimated to be threatened with extinction.” Other studies have found that some 20 percent of all reptile species, 48 percent of the world’s primates, and 50 percent of freshwater turtles are threatened. Underwater, about 10 percent of all coral reefs are now dead, and another 60 percent are in danger of dying. Consistent with these data, the 2014 Living Planet Report shows that the global population of wild vertebrates dropped by 52 percent in only four decades—from 1970 to 2010. While biologists often avoid projecting historical trends into the future because of the complexity of ecological systems, it’s tempting to extrapolate this figure to, say, the year 2050, which is four decades from 2010. As it happens, a 2006 study published in Science does precisely this: It projects past trends of marine biodiversity loss into the 21st century, concluding that, unless significant changes are made to patterns of human activity, there will be virtually no more wild-caught seafood by 2048. Catastrophic consequences for civilization. The consequences of this rapid pruning of the evolutionary tree of life extend beyond the obvious. There could be surprising effects of biodiversity loss that scientists are unable to fully anticipate in advance. For example, prior research has shown that localized ecosystems can undergo abrupt and irreversible shifts when they reach a tipping point. According to a 2012 paper published in Nature, there are reasons for thinking that we may be approaching a tipping point of this sort in the global ecosystem, beyond which the consequences could be catastrophic for civilization. As the authors write, a planetary-scale transition could precipitate “substantial losses of ecosystem services required to sustain the human population.” An ecosystem service is any ecological process that benefits humanity, such as food production and crop pollination. If the global ecosystem were to cross a tipping point and substantial ecosystem services were lost, the results could be “widespread social unrest, economic instability, and loss of human life.” According to Missouri Botanical Garden ecologist Adam Smith, one of the paper’s co-authors, this could occur in a matter of decades—far more quickly than most of the expected consequences of climate change, yet equally destructive. Biodiversity loss is a “threat multiplier” that, by pushing societies to the brink of collapse, will exacerbate existing conflicts and introduce entirely new struggles between state and non-state actors. Indeed, it could even fuel the rise of terrorism. (After all, climate change has been linked to the emergence of ISIS in Syria, and multiple high-ranking US officials, such as former US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and CIA director John Brennan, have affirmed that climate change and terrorism are connected.) The reality is that we are entering the sixth mass extinction in the 3.8-billion-year history of life on Earth, and the impact of this event could be felt by civilization “in as little as three human lifetimes,” as the aforementioned 2012 Nature paper notes. Furthermore, the widespread decline of biological populations could plausibly initiate a dramatic transformation of the global ecosystem on an even faster timescale: perhaps a single human lifetime. The unavoidable conclusion is that biodiversity loss constitutes an existential threat in its own right. As such, it ought to be considered alongside climate change and nuclear weapons as one of the most significant contemporary risks to human prosperity and survival. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-10 18:25:36.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Greg Malis - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Greenhill MR - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Katy Taylor Wang Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -SEPTOCT- Biodiversity DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Grapevine
- Caselist.RoundClass[0]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-10 06:08:57.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Dino De La O - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lindale AR - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Grapevine
- Caselist.RoundClass[1]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-10 18:21:17.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Robey Holland - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Strake Jesuit WD - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Grapevine
- Caselist.RoundClass[2]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-10 18:23:05.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Robey Holland - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Strake Jesuit WD - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Grapevine
- Caselist.RoundClass[3]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-10 18:25:34.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Greg Malis - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Greenhill MR - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Grapevine
- Caselist.RoundClass[4]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-11-19 17:58:42.19 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Robey Holland - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Bettendorf - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Glenbrooks
- Caselist.RoundClass[5]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-11-19 17:59:30.992 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Robey Holland - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Bettendorf - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Glenbrooks