Changes for page Polytechnic Liu Neg

Last modified by Administrator on 2017/08/29 03:39

From version < 35.1 >
edited by jonathan liu
on 2017/01/14 22:38
To version < 60.1 >
edited by jonathan liu
on 2017/01/16 08:29
< >
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[0]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,61 +1,0 @@
1 -In 1939 the power of nuclear energy was discovered – the military industrial complex prioritized its own interests and forced the scientific community to focus its research on Uranium – in doing so it marginalized research into thorium energy.
2 -Puplava, 11 President, Chief Investment Strategist at PFS Group,” Kirk Sorensen States Thorium a Million Times More Energy Dense than Fossil Fuels“ http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/james-j-puplava/kirk-sorensen-thorium-a-million-times-more-energy-dense-than-fossil-fuels
3 -
4 -Thus the counterplan: Countries should invest in generation 4 liquid fluoride thorium reactors.
5 -Warming causes Extinction
6 -Brandenberg 99 (John and Monica Paxson, Visiting Prof. Researcher @ Florida Space Institute, Physicist Ph.D., Science Writer, Dead Mars Dying Earth, Pg 232-233)
7 -
8 -
9 -Geologic history goes negative.
10 -Bushnell 10 - Chief scientist at the NASA Langley Research Center Dennis Bushnell (MS in mechanical engineering. He won the Lawrence A. Sperry Award, AIAA Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Award, the AIAA Dryden Lectureship, and is the recipient of many NASA Medals for outstanding Scientific Achievement and Leadership.) “Conquering Climate Change,” The Futurist, May-June, 2010
11 -
12 -Thorium reactors are sustainable
13 -Barton, ‘9 Charles, retired counselor, writes for Energy From Thorium, “The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Paradigm,” http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4971/
14 -
15 -And, simply eliminating nuclear power doesn’t solve – only thorium reactors eliminate current toxic waste storages.
16 -Rhodes, 12 February, Professor Chris Rhodes is a writer and researcher. He studied chemistry at Sussex University, earning both a B.Sc and a Doctoral degree (D.Phil.); rising to become the youngest professor of physical chemistry in the U.K. at the age of 34. A prolific author, Chris has published more than 400 research and popular science articles (some in national newspapers: The Independent and The Daily Telegraph) He has recently published his first novel, "University Shambles" was published in April 2009 (Melrose Books), “Hopes Build for Thorium Nuclear Energy”, http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Hopes-Build-for-Thorium-Nuclear-Energy.html
17 -Reprocessing would solve for 100 percent of the waste.
18 -Bastin 8 (Clinton, Former Chemical Engineer at the Atomic Energy Commission, 21st Century Science and Technology, “We Need to Reprocess Spent Nuclear Fuel, And Can Do It Safely, At Reasonable Cost”, 2008, http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles202008/ Summer_2008/Reprocessing.pdf,)
19 -
20 -Thorium fuel reactors can be expanded and easily mass produced.
21 -Hargraves, 12 July, Robert, Robert Hargraves has written articles and made presentations about the liquid fluoride thorium reactor and energy cheaper than from coal – the only realistic way to dissuade nations from burning fossil fuels. His presentation “Aim High” about the technology and social benefits of the liquid fluoride thorium reactor has been presented to audiences at Dartmouth ILEAD, Thayer School of Engineering, Brown University, Columbia Earth Institute, Williams College, Royal Institution, the Thorium Energy Alliance, the International Thorium Energy Association, Google, the American Nuclear Society, and the Presidents Blue Ribbon Commission of America’s Nuclear Future. With coauthor Ralph Moir he has written articles for the American Physical Society Forum on Physics and Society: Liquid Fuel Nuclear Reactors (Jan 2011) and American Scientist: Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (July 2010). Robert Hargraves is a study leader for energy policy at Dartmouth ILEAD. He was chief information officer at Boston Scientific Corporation and previously a senior consultant with Arthur D. Little. He founded a computer software firm, DTSS Incorporated while at Dartmouth College where he was assistant professor of mathematics and associate director of the computation center. He graduated from Brown University (PhD Physics 1967) and Dartmouth College (AB Mathematics and Physics 1961). THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal, ISBN: 1478161299, purchased online at Amazon.com
22 -
23 -
24 -Renewables are not a viable option, investors are not interested.
25 -Jacobius, Staff Writer, 2012
26 -Arleen, “Clean-tech investing littered with mines”, Pensions and Investments,
27 -http://www.pionline.com/article/20120917/PRINTSUB/309179992/clean-tech-investing-littered-with-mines
28 -Generation 4 liquid based thorium reactors offer significant advantages over all alternative options.
29 -Cohen 12 (Armond, Co-founder and Executive Director of the Clean Air Task Force, Actively involved in CATF projects focusing on Arctic stabilization, low carbon technology innovation and coal transition, Armond led the Conservation Law Foundation's Energy Project starting in 1983, Graduate of Brown University and Harvard Law School, Served as judicial clerk for the late Harlington Wood, Jr. of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 1982-1983, Published numerous articles on climate, energy, and air pollution, and speaks and testifies frequently on these topics, Member of the Keystone Energy Board and US EPA's Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, Decarbonization: The Nuclear Option, February 13th, http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/02/is-america-poised-for-nuclear.php)
30 -
31 -
32 -It’s try or die, SMRs are the only solution that addresses the cataclysmic impacts of warming before it’s too late.
33 -Palley 11 (Reese Palley, The London School of Economics, 2011, The Answer: Why Only Inherently Safe, Mini Nuclear Power Plans Can Save Our World, p. 186-90)
34 -
35 -
36 -Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Nuclear is the best choice among imperfect options.
37 -Lynas 11 (Mark, Visiting Research Associate at Oxford University’s School of Geography and the Environment, Appointed advisor on climate change to the President of the Maldives, Longlisted for the Samuel Johnson Award for Non-Fiction, and short-listed for the Guardian First Book Award, Author of The God Species: How the Planet Can Survive the Age of Humans, Why nuclear power is still a good choice, http://articles.latimes.com/print/2011/apr/10/opinion/la-oe-lynas-nukes-20110410)
38 -
39 -Fossil Fuel usage is one of the largest proximate causes of daily death in the world, nuclear is the safest option.
40 -Mike Conley, 4/17/2015 Writer and Physicist, head of the energy reality project, The Energy Reality Project, http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/
41 -Nuclear energy is the cheapest method to power the country. Renewables can’t scale up
42 -Mike Conley, 4/17/2015 Writer and Physicist, head of the energy reality project, The Energy Reality Project, http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/
43 -
44 -
45 -A shift to renewables is fundamentally impossible – they will always produce intermittent power while what we need is baseload power.
46 -Mike Conley, 4/17/2015 Writer and Physicist, head of the energy reality project, The Energy Reality Project, http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/
47 -
48 -
49 -
50 -Generation 4 small modular reactors are better and safer.
51 -Mike Conley, 4/17/2015 Writer and Physicist, head of the energy reality project, The Energy Reality Project, http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/
52 -
53 -
54 -Nuclear power k2 stable desalinization, only solution for water shortages
55 -IAEA 15 ~-~- widely known as the world's "Atoms for Peace" organization within the United Nations family. Set up in 1957 as the world's centre for cooperation in the nuclear field, the Agency works with its Member States and multiple partners worldwide to promote the safe, secure and peaceful use of nuclear technologies, “New Technologies for Seawater Desalination Using Nuclear Energy,” IEAE TecDoc Series, 2015
56 -Warming is real, anthropogenic
57 -Nuccitelli 11 (Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor's Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis. He has been researching climate science, economics, and solutions as a hobby since 2006, and has contributed to Skeptical Science since September, 2010., Updated 2011, Originally Posted 9/24/2010, “The Big Picture”, http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html)
58 -
59 -
60 -Reducing CO2 is key before we pass the tipping point.
61 -Hansen et al 10 – Director of NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Makiko Sato (Physicist @ NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies), Dr. Pushker Kharecha (Researcher of earch sciences and astrobiology @ NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies), Dr. David Beerling (Professor of Animal and Plant Sciences @ University of Sheffield), Dr. Robert Berner (Professor Geology and Geophysics @ Yale University), Valerie Masson-Delmotte (Lab. Des Sciences du Climat et l’Environnement/Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, CEA-CNRS-Universite de Versailles Saint-Quentin en Yvelines), Dr. Mark Pagani (Professor of paleoceanography and paleoclimatology @ Yale University), Dr. Maureen Raymo (Paleoclimatologist/marine geologist @ Boston University), Dr. Dana L. Royer (Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences @ Wesleyan University) and Dr. James C. Zachos ( Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences @ University of California – Santa Cruzo) “Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?” Open Atmos. Sci. J. (2008), vol. 2, pp. 217-231
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-09-10 18:48:10.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Felix Tan
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Peninsula IG
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Polytechnic Liu Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -thorium cp
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -loyola
Caselist.CitesClass[1]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,7 +1,0 @@
1 -T
2 -Interpretation:
3 -The aff must defend more than one country prohibits the production of nuclear power Google n.d. “country” accessed 8/10/16
4 -google.com/search?num=40andsafe=offandespv=2andq=countries+definitionandoq=countries+definiti on plural noun: countries 1. a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.
5 -Violation – aff defends one country
6 -Standard: limits,
7 -Grammar – only my interp is grammatical since it respects the plural form of the word country. Most predictable on common usage too – no one would look at your plan and think it proves countries ought to prohibit. Grammar is a constraint, it tells us what the res actually says.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-09-11 00:56:45.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Michael Harris
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Immaculate Heart
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -3
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -4
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Polytechnic Liu Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -t-countries plural
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -loyolla
Caselist.CitesClass[2]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,10 +1,0 @@
1 -Interpretation:  Countries
2 -Websters, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/countries
3 -a political state or nation or its territory
4 -
5 -Violation
6 -the aff doesn't defend the entirety of the resolution
7 -
8 -
9 -The Affirmative interpretation is bad for debate
10 -T and Extra-T voters because they're necessary for good, well-prepared debating
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-09-11 00:56:45.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Michael Harris
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Immaculate Heart
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -3
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -4
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Polytechnic Liu Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -t-countries
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -loyolla
Caselist.CitesClass[3]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,7 +1,0 @@
1 -Intrerpretation: Prohibit
2 -Dictionary.com, 8-5-2013, "the definition of prohibit," Dictionary, http://www.dictionary.com/browse/prohibit
3 -to forbid (an action, activity, etc.) by authority or law:
4 -
5 -Violation: decommissioning is distinct from prohibition.
6 -Dictionary.com, 5-15-2009, "the definition of decommission," http://www.dictionary.com/browse/decommission
7 -to remove or retire (a ship, airplane, etc.) from active service.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-09-11 15:53:21.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -arjun tambe
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -lynbrook
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -4
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -6
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Polytechnic Liu Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -t-decomission
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -loyolla
Caselist.CitesClass[4]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,7 +1,0 @@
1 -Banning nuclear power causes a shift to coal, empirics prove
2 -Korosec 11
3 -KIRSTEN KOROSEC, Fortune journalism, “Germany's Nuclear Ban: The Global Effect” Money Watch, May 31, 2011, 4:28 PMhttp://www.cbsnews.com/news/germanys-nuclear-ban-the-global-effect/ 
4 -
5 -
6 -Coal Kills 4,000 times more people than nuclear power
7 -Roos 11 Jerome; The Breakthrough Institute (researcher); 4/11/11; "Coal Kills 4,000 Times More People Per Unit of Energy than Nuclear"; http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/coal_kills_4000_times_more_peo; JLB (9/11/16)
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-10-08 21:25:26.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -paras kumar
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -quarry lane
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -5
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Polytechnic Liu Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Coal DA
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -voices
Caselist.CitesClass[5]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,8 +1,0 @@
1 -Nuclear power is the only way to generate sufficient energy for large-scale desalination
2 -IAEA 15 ~-~- widely known as the world's "Atoms for Peace" organization within the United Nations family. Set up in 1957 as the world's centre for cooperation in the nuclear field, the Agency works with its Member States and multiple partners worldwide to promote the safe, secure and peaceful use of nuclear technologies, “New Technologies for Seawater Desalination Using Nuclear Energy,” IEAE TecDoc Series, 2015
3 -
4 -Water crises cause escalating global conflict.
5 -Rasmussen 11 (Erik, CEO, Monday Morning; Founder, Green Growth Leaders) “Prepare for the Next Conflict: Water Wars” HuffPo 4/12
6 -
7 -That goes nuclear
8 -Zahoor 12 (Musharaf, Researcher at Department of Nuclear Politics – National Defense University, Water Crisis can Trigger Nuclear War in South Asia, http://www.siasat.pk)
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-10-08 21:25:27.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -paras kumar
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -quarry lane
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -5
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Polytechnic Liu Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Desal DA
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -voices
Caselist.CitesClass[7]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,5 +1,0 @@
1 -Prohibiting nuclear power means warming can’t be solved – impracticality of renewables combined with a switch to coal only makes warming worse. Harvey ‘12
2 -Fiona Harvey - award-winning environment journalist for the Guardian, used to work for financial times. “Nuclear power is only solution to climate change, says Jeffrey Sachs.” The Guardian. May 3, 2012. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/03/nuclear-power-solution-climate-change JJN *bracketing in original
3 -
4 -Climate change disproportionately affects people of color. Pellow 12
5 -David Naguib Pellow 12, Ph.D. Professor, Don Martindale Endowed Chair – University of Minnesota, “Climate Disruption in the Global South and in African American Communities: Key Issues, Frameworks, and Possibilities for Climate Justice,” February 2012, http://www.jointcenter.org/sites/default/files/upload/research/files/White_Paper_Climate_Disruption_final.pdf
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-10-08 21:25:28.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -paras kumar
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -quarry lane
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -5
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Polytechnic Liu Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -warming DA
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -voices
Caselist.CitesClass[14]
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -2017-01-14 22:38:10.135
1 +2017-01-14 22:38:10.0
Caselist.RoundClass[5]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -4,5,6,7
1 +4,6,7
Caselist.RoundClass[8]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -9
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-12-17 18:48:37.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Karen Qi
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Lynbrook NA
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,2 +1,0 @@
1 -1ac-neolib
2 -1nc-neolib k
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -college prep
Caselist.RoundClass[10]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +14
Caselist.CitesClass[15]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,35 @@
1 +Policies of restraint towards competing powers is zero sum.
2 +Machiavelli, Renaissance man (historian, politician, diplomat, philosopher, humanist, and writer), 1532
3 +Niccolò, The Prince, Chapter III: Concerning Mixed Principalities, GW ***We do not endorsed gendered language***
4 +Again, the prince who holds a country differing in the above respects ought to make himself the head and defender of his powerful neighbours, and to weaken the more powerful amongst them, taking care that no foreigner as powerful as himself shall, by any accident, get a footing there; for it will always happen that such a one will be introduced by those who are discontented, either through excess of ambition or through fear, as one has seen already. The Romans were brought into Greece by the Aetolians; and in every other country where they obtained a footing they were brought in by the inhabitants. And the usual course of affairs is that, as soon as a powerful foreigner enters a country, all the subject states are drawn to him, moved by the hatred which they feel against the ruling power. So that in respect to these subject states he has not to take any trouble to gain them over to himself, for the whole of them quickly rally to the state which he has acquired there. He has only to take care that they do not get hold of too much power and too much authority, and then with his own forces, and with their goodwill, he can easily keep down the more powerful of them, so as to remain entirely master in the country. And he who does not properly manage this business will soon lose what he has acquired, and whilst he does hold it he will have endless difficulties and troubles. The Romans, in the countries which they annexed, observed closely these measures; they sent colonies and maintained friendly relations with the minor powers, without increasing their strength; they kept down the greater, and did not allow any strong foreign powers to gain authority. Greece appears to me sufficient for an example. The Achaeans and Aetolians were kept friendly by them, the kingdom of Macedonia was humbled, Antiochus was driven out; yet the merits of the Achaeans and Aetolians never secured for them permission to increase their power, nor did the persuasions of Philip ever induce the Romans to be his friends without first humbling him, nor did the influence of Antiochus make them agree that he should retain any lordship over the country. Because the Romans did in these instances what all prudent princes ought to do, who have to regard not only present troubles, but also future ones, for which they must prepare with every energy, because, when foreseen, it is easy to remedy them; but if you wait until they approach, the medicine is no longer in time because the malady has become incurable; for it happens in this, as the physicians say it happens in hectic fever, that in the beginning of the malady it is easy to cure but difficult to detect, but in the course of time, not having been either detected or treated in the beginning, it becomes easy to detect but difficult to cure. Thus it happens in affairs of state, for when the evils that arise have been foreseen (which it is only given to a wise man to see), they can be quickly redressed, but when, through not having been foreseen, they have been permitted to grow in a way that every one can see them. there is no longer a remedy. Therefore, the Romans, foreseeing troubles, dealt with them at once, and, even to avoid a war, would not let them come to a head, for they knew that war is not to be avoided, but is only put off to the advantage of others; moreover they wished to fight with Philip and Antiochus in Greece so as not to have to do it in Italy; they could have avoided both, but this they did not wish; nor did that ever please them which is for ever in the mouths of the wise ones of our time:— Let us enjoy the benefits of the time — but rather the benefits of their own valour and prudence, for time drives everything before it, and is able to bring with it good as well as evil, and evil as well as good.
5 +
6 +cp:The United States federal government should develop and deploy Prompt Global Strike systems
7 +
8 +The PGS system’s speed increases rapid deployment capabilities and trades off with nukes. It’s going to be fantastic for heg and fighting terror
9 +Grossman 6 (Elaine, reporter with Global Security Newswire, July 1, http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090701_5635.php AD: 6/28/10)JM
10 +Under the conventional
11 +postures to work."
12 +
13 +US leadership prevents great power war and existential governance crises
14 +Brooks et al 13 (Brooks, Ikenberry, and Wohlforth ’13) (Stephen, Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, John Ikenberry is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, William C. Wohlforth is the Daniel Webster Professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College “Don’t Come Home America: The Case Against Retrenchment,” International Security, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Winter 2012/13), pp. 7–51)
15 +
16 +A core premise of deep engagement is that it prevents the emergence of a far more dangerous global security environment. For one thing, as noted above, the United States’ overseas presence gives it the leverage to restrain partners from taking provocative action. Perhaps more important, its core alliance commitments also deter states with aspirations to regional hegemony from contemplating expansion and make its partners more secure, reducing their incentive to adopt solutions to their security problems that threaten others and thus stoke security dilemmas. The contention that engaged U.S. power dampens the baleful effects of anarchy is consistent with influential variants of realist theory. Indeed, arguably the scariest portrayal of the war-prone world that would emerge absent the “American Pacifier” is provided in the works of John Mearsheimer, who forecasts dangerous multipolar regions replete with security competition, arms races, nuclear proliferation and associated preventive war temptations, regional rivalries, and even runs at regional hegemony and full-scale great power war. 72 How do retrenchment advocates, the bulk of whom are realists, discount this benefit? Their arguments are complicated, but two capture most of the variation: (1) U.S. security guarantees are not necessary to prevent dangerous rivalries and conflict in Eurasia; or (2) prevention of rivalry and conflict in Eurasia is not a U.S. interest. Each response is connected to a different theory or set of theories, which makes sense given that the whole debate hinges on a complex future counterfactual (what would happen to Eurasia’s security setting if the United States truly disengaged?). Although a certain answer is impossible, each of these responses is nonetheless a weaker argument for retrenchment than advocates acknowledge. The first response flows from defensive realism as well as other international relations theories that discount the conflict-generating potential of anarchy under contemporary conditions. 73 Defensive realists maintain that the high expected costs of territorial conquest, defense dominance, and an array of policies and practices that can be used credibly to signal benign intent, mean that Eurasia’s major states could manage regional multipolarity peacefully without the American pacifier. Retrenchment would be a bet on this scholarship, particularly in regions where the kinds of stabilizers that nonrealist theories point to—such as democratic governance or dense institutional linkages—are either absent or weakly present. There are three other major bodies of scholarship, however, that might give decisionmakers pause before making this bet. First is regional expertise. Needless to say, there is no consensus on the net security effects of U.S. withdrawal. Regarding each region, there are optimists and pessimists. Few experts expect a return of intense great power competition in a post-American Europe, but many doubt European governments will pay the political costs of increased EU defense cooperation and the budgetary costs of increasing military outlays. 74 The result might be a Europe that is incapable of securing itself from various threats that could be destabilizing within the region and beyond (e.g., a regional conflict akin to the 1990s Balkan wars), lacks capacity for global security missions in which U.S. leaders might want European participation, and is vulnerable to the influence of outside rising powers. What about the other parts of Eurasia where the United States has a substantial military presence? Regarding the Middle East, the balance begins to swing toward pessimists concerned that states currently backed by Washington— notably Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia—might take actions upon U.S. retrenchment that would intensify security dilemmas. And concerning East Asia, pessimism regarding the region’s prospects without the American pacifier is pronounced. Arguably the principal concern expressed by area experts is that Japan and South Korea are likely to obtain a nuclear capacity and increase their military commitments, which could stoke a destabilizing reaction from China. It is notable that during the Cold War, both South Korea and Taiwan moved to obtain a nuclear weapons capacity and were only constrained from doing so by a still-engaged United States. 75 The second body of scholarship casting doubt on the bet on defensive realism’s sanguine portrayal is all of the research that undermines its conception of state preferences. Defensive realism’s optimism about what would happen if the United States retrenched is very much dependent on its particular—and highly restrictive—assumption about state preferences; once we relax this assumption, then much of its basis for optimism vanishes. Specifically, the prediction of post-American tranquility throughout Eurasia rests on the assumption that security is the only relevant state preference, with security defined narrowly in terms of protection from violent external attacks on the homeland. Under that assumption, the security problem is largely solved as soon as offense and defense are clearly distinguishable, and offense is extremely expensive relative to defense. Burgeoning research across the social and other sciences, however, undermines that core assumption: states have preferences not only for security but also for prestige, status, and other aims, and they engage in trade-offs among the various objectives. 76 In addition, they define security not just in terms of territorial protection but in view of many and varied milieu goals. It follows that even states that are relatively secure may nevertheless engage in highly competitive behavior. Empirical studies show that this is indeed sometimes the case. 77 In sum, a bet on a benign postretrenchment Eurasia is a bet that leaders of major countries will never allow these nonsecurity preferences to influence their strategic choices. To the degree that these bodies of scholarly knowledge have predictive leverage, U.S. retrenchment would result in a significant deterioration in the security environment in at least some of the world’s key regions. We have already mentioned the third, even more alarming body of scholarship. Offensive realism predicts that the withdrawal of the American pacifier will yield either a competitive regional multipolarity complete with associated insecurity, arms racing, crisis instability, nuclear proliferation, and the like, or bids for regional hegemony, which may be beyond the capacity of local great powers to contain (and which in any case would generate intensely competitive behavior, possibly including regional great power war). Hence it is unsurprising that retrenchment advocates are prone to focus on the second argument noted above: that avoiding wars and security dilemmas in the world’s core regions is not a U.S. national interest. Few doubt that the United States could survive the return of insecurity and conflict among Eurasian powers, but at what cost? Much of the work in this area has focused on the economic externalities of a renewed threat of insecurity and war, which we discuss below. Focusing on the pure security ramifications, there are two main reasons why decisionmakers may be rationally reluctant to run the retrenchment experiment. First, overall higher levels of conflict make the world a more dangerous place. Were Eurasia to return to higher levels of interstate military competition, one would see overall higher levels of military spending and innovation and a higher likelihood of competitive regional proxy wars and arming of client states—all of which would be concerning, in part because it would promote a faster diffusion of military power away from the United States. Greater regional insecurity could well feed proliferation cascades, as states such as Egypt, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Saudi Arabia all might choose to create nuclear forces. 78 It is unlikely that proliferation decisions by any of these actors would be the end of the game: they would likely generate pressure locally for more proliferation. Following Kenneth Waltz, many retrenchment advocates are proliferation optimists, assuming that nuclear deterrence solves the security problem. 79 Usually carried out in dyadic terms, the debate over the stability of proliferation changes as the numbers go up. Proliferation optimism rests on assumptions of rationality and narrow security preferences. In social science, however, such assumptions are inevitably probabilistic. Optimists assume that most states are led by rational leaders, most will overcome organizational problems and resist the temptation to preempt before feared neighbors nuclearize, and most pursue only security and are risk averse. Confidence in such probabilistic assumptions declines if the world were to move from nine to twenty, thirty, or forty nuclear states. In addition, many of the other dangers noted by analysts who are concerned about the destabilizing effects of nuclear proliferation—including the risk of accidents and the prospects that some new nuclear powers will not have truly survivable forces—seem prone to go up as the number of nuclear powers grows. 80 Moreover, the risk of “unforeseen crisis dynamics” that could spin out of control is also higher as the number of nuclear powers increases. Finally, add to these concerns the enhanced danger of nuclear leakage, and a world with overall higher levels of security competition becomes yet more worrisome. The argument that maintaining Eurasian peace is not a U.S. interest faces a second problem. On widely accepted realist assumptions, acknowledging that U.S. engagement preserves peace dramatically narrows the difference between retrenchment and deep engagement. For many supporters of retrenchment, the optimal strategy for a power such as the United States, which has attained regional hegemony and is separated from other great powers by oceans, is offshore balancing: stay over the horizon and “pass the buck” to local powers to do the dangerous work of counterbalancing any local rising power. The United States should commit to onshore balancing only when local balancing is likely to fail and a great power appears to be a credible contender for regional hegemony, as in the cases of Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union in the midtwentieth century. The problem is that China’s rise puts the possibility of its attaining regional hegemony on the table, at least in the medium to long term. As Mearsheimer notes, “The United States will have to play a key role in countering China, because its Asian neighbors are not strong enough to do it by themselves.” 81 Therefore, unless China’s rise stalls, “the United States is likely to act toward China similar to the way it behaved toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War.” 82 It follows that the United States should take no action that would compromise its capacity to move to onshore balancing in the future. It will need to maintain key alliance relationships in Asia as well as the formidably expensive military capacity to intervene there. The implication is to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, reduce the presence in Europe, and pivot to Asia— just what the United States is doing. 83 In sum, the argument that U.S. security commitments are unnecessary for peace is countered by a lot of scholarship, including highly influential realist scholarship. In addition, the argument that Eurasian peace is unnecessary for U.S. security is weakened by the potential for a large number of nasty security consequences as well as the need to retain a latent onshore balancing capacity that dramatically reduces the savings retrenchment might bring. Moreover, switching between offshore and onshore balancing could well be difficult. Bringing together the thrust of many of the arguments discussed so far underlines the degree to which the case for retrenchment misses the underlying logic of the deep engagement strategy. By supplying reassurance, deterrence, and active management, the United States lowers security competition in the world’s key regions, thereby preventing the emergence of a hothouse atmosphere for growing new military capabilities. Alliance ties dissuade partners from ramping up and also provide leverage to prevent military transfers to potential rivals. On top of all this, the United States’ formidable military machine may deter entry by potential rivals. Current great power military expenditures as a percentage of GDP are at historical lows, and thus far other major powers have shied away from seeking to match top-end U.S. military capabilities. In addition, they have so far been careful to avoid attracting the “focused enmity” of the United States. 84 All of the world’s most modern militaries are U.S. allies (America’s alliance system of more than sixty countries now accounts for some 80 percent of global military spending), and the gap between the U.S. military capability and that of potential rivals is by many measures growing rather than shrinking. 85
17 +Heg solves terrorism
18 +Walt, international affairs professor at Harvard, 2002
19 +(Stephen, “American primacy: its prospects and pitfalls - prominence of United States in economic, international affairs”, Naval War College Review, Spring, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JIW/is_2_55/ai_88174226/pg_2/, ldg)
20 +
21 +Perhaps the most obvious reason why states seek primacy~-~-and why the United States benefits from its current position~-~-is that international politics is a dangerous business. Being wealthier and stronger than other states does not guarantee that a state will survive, of course, and it cannot insulate a state from all outside pressures. But the strongest state is more likely to escape serious harm than weaker ones are, and it will be better equipped to resist the pressures that arise. Because the United States is so powerful, and because its society is so wealthy, it has ample resources to devote to whatever problems it may face in the future. At the beginning of the Cold War, for example, its power enabled the United States to help rebuild Europe and Japan, to assist them in developing stable democratic orders, and to subsidize the emergence of an open international economic order. (7) The United States was also able to deploy powerful armed forces in Europe and Asia as effective deterrents to Soviet expansion. When the strategic importance of the Persian Gulf increased in the late 1970s, the United States created its Rapid Deployment Force in order to deter threats to the West's oil supplies; in 1990-91 it used these capabilities to liberate Kuwait. Also, when the United States was attacked by the Al-Qaeda terrorist network in September 2001, it had the wherewithal to oust the network's Taliban hosts and to compel broad international support for its campaign to eradicate Al-Qaeda itself. It would have been much harder to do any of these things if the United States had been weaker. Today, U.S. primacy helps deter potential challenges to American interests in virtually every part of the world. Few countries or nonstate groups want to invite the "focused enmity" of the United States (to use William Wohlforth's apt phrase), and countries and groups that have done so (such as Libya, Iraq, Serbia, or the Taliban) have paid a considerable price. As discussed below, U.S. dominance does provoke opposition in a number of places, but anti-American elements are forced to rely on covert or indirect strategies (such as terrorist bombings) that do not seriously threaten America's dominant position. Were American power to decline significantly, however, groups opposed to U.S. interests would probably be emboldened and overt challenges would be more likely.
22 +
23 +
24 +Hegemony decline causes prolif.
25 +Rosen, professor of National Security and Military Affairs at Harvard University, 2003
26 +(Stephen, “An Empire, If you Can Keep It”, National Interest, Spring, lexis, ldg)
27 +
28 +Rather than wrestle with such difficult and unpleasant problems, the United States could give up the imperial mission, or pretensions to it, now. This would essentially mean the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from the Middle East, Europe and mainland Asia. It may be that all other peoples, without significant exception, will then turn to their own affairs and leave the United States alone. But those who are hostile to us might remain hostile, and be much less afraid of the United States after such a withdrawal. Current friends would feel less secure and, in the most probable post-imperial world, would revert to the logic of self-help in which all states do what they must to protect themselves. This would imply the relatively rapid acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Iran, Iraq and perhaps Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Indonesia and others. Constraints on the acquisition of biological weapons would be even weaker than they are today. Major regional arms races would also be very likely throughout Asia and the Middle East. This would not be a pleasant world for Americans, or anyone else. It is difficult to guess what the costs of such a world would be to the United States. They would probably not put the end of the United States in prospect, but they would not be small. If the logic of American empire is unappealing, it is not at all clear that the alternatives are that much more attractive.
29 +
30 +Proliferation guarantees massive nuclear escalation and war
31 +Utgoff, Institute for Defense Analyses deputy director, 02
32 +Victor A., former National Security Council staff, “Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions,” Survival, vol. 44, p85-102
33 +
34 +Once a conflict reaches the point where nuclear weapons are employed, the stresses felt by the leaderships would rise enormously. These stresses can be expected to further degrade their decision-making. The pressure to force the enemy to stop fighting or to surrender could argue for more forceful and decisive military action, which might be the right thing to do in the circumstances, but maybe not. And the horrors of the carnage already suffered may be seen as justification for visiting the most devastating punishment possible on the enemy.7 Again, history demonstrates how intense conflict can lead the combatants to escalate violence to the maximum possible levels. In the Second World War, early promises not to bomb cities soon gave way to essentially indiscriminate bombing of civilians. The war between Iran and Iraq during the 1980s led to the use of chemical weapons on both sides and exchanges of missiles against each other's cities. And more recently, violence in the Middle East escalated in a few months from rocks and small arms to heavy weapons on one side, and from police actions to air strikes and armoured attacks on the other.
35 +Escalation of violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels unimagined by the participants beforehand.8 Intense and blinding anger is a common response to fear or humiliation or abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever levels of violence are readily accessible. In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-16 08:29:06.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Daniel Park
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harker AM
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +11
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Polytechnic Liu Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Machiavellian IR
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard Westlake
Caselist.CitesClass[16]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,4 @@
1 +The world is a dark and hopeless place - the affirmative’s politics of optimism and affirmation cause us to ignore our own complicity in violence—negation resolves the aff better
2 +
3 +Pozo 9 (ANTONIO GUTIÉRREZ, Filozofická fakulta, Sevilská univerzita, Sevilla, Španielsko POZO, A. G.: Utopia in Black: The Negative Aesthetics of Adorno and the Contemporary Black Art, FILOZOFIA 64, 2009, No 5, p. 481-6)~-~-mm ***We don’t endorse holocaust rhetoric.
4 +The Materialistic Aesthetics of Black Art. Colours talk, mean; they are texts1. Als the black one. Adorno considers that the black colour tells the truth. This thesis can agglutinate the aesthetic theory of Adorno, that it has in the black colour, already risen to the category of maximum aesthetic/philosophical relevance, its ‘ideal’. Black is the colour of the negative aesthetics of Adorno. The paragraph that he dedicates to black colour in his Ästhetische Theorie (AT 65-7)2 summarizes the spirit of this work and in general the spirit of that the truest contemporary art says, a black art (schwarze Kunst). Adorno is a black thinker, a black writer, as the thinkers, writers and artists who exerted bigger and deeper attraction and influence on him were: Sade, Poe, Baudelaire, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Kafka, Beckett or Ionesco (DA 139).3 An aesthetics can not be built with the help of pure intellect, and to the margin of the real experience of art. The negative aesthetics concretely tells what black art of its time says, an art that Adorno calls “radical art (radikale Kunst)” (AT 65), that is to say, an art that thinks, an art that tells the truth. Art thinks, it is a “complexion of the truth” (AT 152, 391). For Adorno, to affirm that art thinks or that tells the truth, means to affirm that it consists on “unconscious writing of the history (bewuβtlose Geschichtsschreibung)” (AT 286, 387). The contemporary radical is so by force of thinking the truth of his (our) times, and it is a black, ugly art, because the reality that thinks of is black, ugly, horrible. Black colour is the true of our time. Today, Adorno concludes, a radical art is equal to a dark, gloomy art, “an art whose fundamental colour is black colour” (AT 65). The thesis of Adorno about the work of art as writing of the history supposes a nonidealist understanding of art. Black colour tells the truth. But on what the eloquence of black colour is based?. The works of art are, in principle, appearances, manifestations, and in this sense Adorno compares them with fireworks and circus. As the former, theworks of art “are showed in the shine of an instant in their expressive manifestation”, they are “writing that shines during an instant and goes out (aufblitzende und vergehende Schrift)” (AT 125-6). It is certain that every work of art tries to plot with the circus, but it annuls its primary artistic stratum if it does not imitate circus, if it does not include the moment of the appearance, that it is as the frame of a picture that notices us that right there the real world is interrupted and that another one begins, a imaginary, new and hopeful universe. The same role plays the curtain of the theatre: “The instant in that the curtain rises is the expectation of the appearance” (AT 126). Even Beckett, an author that represents the maximum expression of the contemporary radical art for Adorno4, he is faithful to the circus when using the stage and when “raising the curtain full with promises”, and it is in spite that his intention is “to exorcize the multicoloured thing of the circus” (AT 127). The authors that suppress “the charm of the backstages”, the moment of hope of the appearance, are signing the surrender of art. The proposal of Adorno suggests that negative art can not abdicate of its artistic level if it intends to be negative, black. Only being art it will be able to be anti-art. But the works of art are not simple manifestations. For Adorno they are more than that: “The works of art become such when producing that more (Mehr), when creating its own transcendency” (AT 122). The works exceed the manifestation (Erscheinung) itself on which they consist; they are manifestations that are transcended by themselves (AT 123). Art is not only manifestation; it is also spirit. Basically it is a spiritual phenomenon: “The spirit (Geist) of the works of art is what converts them, as regards manifestations, in more than they really are” (AT 134). The spirituality is what makes them talk, say; it is what is in the base of the eloquence of colour. The works of art are language, and this – their linguistic character (Sprachcharakter)- is what it allows them to transcend their character of thing (AT 122, 249). The spirit is what transforms them into language. However, Adorno underlines, “the spirit is nothing in the works of art outside of their words” (AT 135). The spirit of the works of art is nothing spiritual: “In their fullness works of art are not anything spiritual” (AT 122). They are, rather, something historical-social. The spirit transforms the works of art into language, in writing of history, because the spirit itself is spiritualised history. The aesthetic spirit is not an in itself, but the deposited history that speaks in the works of art. The ‘more’ that is the spirit of the work of art is said by the context – by the history and by the society. In contrast to the radical spiritualization of the aesthetics, Adorno points out that “the spiritual moment of the art is not what idealism calls spirit, but rather the proscribed mimetic impulse (mimetische Impuls)” (AT 139). The aesthetic spirit is the mimesis that allows the work of art to be the language of the historical reality. Adorno affirm that “the linguistic moment (sprachliche Moment) of art is its mimetic moment (Mimetisches)” (AT 305). Everything that talks in the work of art is said by the historical-social context. The negative aesthetics of Adorno is then a materia- listic aesthetics: “Art is cell of materialism”, says (KKA 186). In contrast to the idealistic interpretation, Adorno sustains that neither the colours, nor the sounds, intervene in art as if they themselves already express something (AT 140). Adorno defends that colours and sounds and forms do not speak per se. What they tell, “its eloquence only comes from the context in which they appear” (AT 140). The colour is certainly a text, writing, but not in idealistic key: it is the historical-social reality the one who writes. What black colour says it does not say for itself, but because it tells about a blackened reality. Ideological Art and Critical Art. The radical contemporary art is black art because is writing of a blackened historical reality. Black colour’s truth is not in itself but in the historical reality whose writing is so. The totalitarian logic of dominion, and with it horror, injustice and desperation, seem to have been taken possession of the historical life. The situation is ugly, black. The disenchantment (Entzauberung) and/or the blackening of the historical world are very patent. The enlightened critical reason, far from liberating, has become dominance instrument, condemning the humanity, that supposedly would liberate, to black darkness. This is the “dialectics of enlightenment”: the process of necessary metamorphosis (Verwandlung) of the pure idea (freedom, justice …) in dominion (DA 239-40, 254-55). The dominion is practiced by means of the identification (annulment and forgetfulness) of the differences in the whole of the social system. The idealistic philosophy of Hegel, centred in the “thought of the identity (Identitätsdenken)” (JE 506), represents for Adorno the highest philosophical expression of the dominion. Auschwitz will be then the supreme realization of this metaphysics of the identity: the genocide is the most horrible form of the individual’s homogeneity (ND 355). The homogeneity of the individuals in the society of the total dominion, the administered world (verwaltete Welt), that is to say, the identity a priori imposed between reality and reason, it is what Adorno calls the “system of the horror (System des Grauens)” (MM 126), the world in which the individuals are annulled, des-individualized. In fact, the pain, the individual thing, is the negative thing, the different thing, what can not be said or integrated by the system, the inexpressible thing, the incomprehensible thing. “The whole, Adorno writes down, is the no-real thing (Das Ganze ist das Umwahre)” (MM 55). The concrete, suffering and bloody of the historical reality escapes to the concept; it is black, opaque. The concept can not say that because it tends to sense, to identify it to itself, while the reality is black, illogical. Idealism ‘has told’ pain, but “the suffering (Leiden), Adorno has writen down, when becomes concept, remains silent and sterile” (AT 35). To say it or to understand it in idealistic terms is equal to identify it, to project a sense to it, and that is to deny it, to forget it, to conceal it. The pain is silenced, it fades; it is translated (masked) in sense. For Adorno, to translate it into concept, to rationalize it, that it is precisely what the Hegelian positive dialectics and the current social system intend, is in fact an injustice: “The sensibility is not less able to see a talkativeness in every statement of the positive of the existence, an injustice (Unrecht) towards the victims, and it has to rebel against the extraction of a sense, as abstract as it can be, of that tragic destiny” (ND 354). The price of the sense is the forgetfulness of the innocents’ pain. But the wounds continue open, and pain persists in silence: “Each philosophical term is the toughened scar of an unsolved problem” (PhT II, 10-1). When translating pain into concept, an injustice is not only committed with the victims, but also we reconcile with reality. This is the ideological function of the search for sense, of the translation of pain to concept. To extract sense of what seems negative, illogical, to understand the horror of the real thing, it is to legitimate it, to glorify the world just as it is. But Auschwitz, an open wound specially bleeding and suffering, radically goes further from the concept evidencing the philosophy and the society of the identity. In opinion of Adorno the essential danger resides in that the social system identifies everything with itself, homogenizes everything and integrates it in itself, repressing all that denies it, keeping the pain silent. To dominate is to silence, to remove the word to the negative thing. To the integration through the silence. The system of horror does not want to be recognized as such and it wants to hide the proofs. The critic’s key element is art, because art, Adorno writes down, is “the world for second time” (AT 208). Art is then a place of transgressions, is another thing regarding the bourgeois modern world. Therefore, “there is nothing in art, even being the most sublime one, that does not come from the world; not even anything that has not been transfigured” (AT 208). This ‘second world’ of art presents a negative –critical- tendency against the first one. The definitive feature of the aesthetics according to Adorno is criticism, the resistance and the protest against what it is. “The works of art are negative a priori” (AT 201). To understand art it is necessary to see it in negative relationship with the reality.5 The authentic work of art is a revolution (Revolte) in itself, so that “a conservative work of art is a contradiction in terms in itself” (AT 13, 264, 303, 339). The polemic character a priori of art is due do its own artistic nature. Its (critic) social function resides then in maintaining its aesthetic autonomy, its immanent difference with the real6: “The comforting of the big works of art is less in what they say (aussprechen) that in the fact that they were able to be pulled up of the existence” (MM 253). But not the whole current art is critic, resistance. Only the radical art is so. Adorno points out that there is also an art that “in a infantile way is happy with the colours” (Matisse?), a colourist and happy art (heitere Kunst) (AT 65-6), an art that adopts the attitude of comfort and narcotic before the blackened empiric reality by means of the false beautification of the world. Following the precept that ‘mundus vult decipi’ (AT 34, 350), it intends to improve the appearance of the horrible real world from its colourist world, but only a naïve person, Adorno adds, can believe possible that the discoloured and disenchanted world recovers its colours from art (AT 66). There is also an art that – like the idealistic concept-serves to the dominion, a art entkünstet, that has lost its artistic character, its critical capacity (AT 32-4), and that serves to the same end: to silence and to sterilize the pain. The ideological character of this art reaches its maximum expression with the cultural industry (Kulturindustrie) that is not but the reproduction to great scale of that colourist art, transforming it in a gigantic dominion machinery: while we console ourselves of the black historical reality with the false colourist beauty of this art, we conceal the reality of the existent thing, we legitimate it and we leave it just as it is. The conversion of art in consumption object by the cultural industry coincides with its reduction to pure diversion, what supposes the suspension of its critical and utopian power (DA 152). It promises ‘di-version’, that is, escape, evasion, but this promise is the mask of its ideological character as instrument of the dominion. Really, Adorno writes down, “escape art, escape movies are abhorrent not because they turn their back to a discoloured existence but because they do not do that with enough energy”, so that, “the escape is all a message. The message seems just the opposite, what wants to escape to escape from the flight (Flucht)” (MM 228). Diversion (Vergnügen) is flight, but not of the negative reality but of the “last resistance thought” that becomes agitated against that situation (DA 167). The diversion, far from escaping from this disenchanted world, it affirms it; it is what is most committed with the exploitation and the dominion. The message that the flight carries with itself really means ‘to be in agreement’: diversion is to collaborate, to forget the suffering, to abandon criticism (DA 167, 181). As Pascal7, Adorno conceives diversion like a mask, like turning one’s back before reality not to face the real problems face to face, in sum, as a closing in false of the wounds, what impedes to man the possibility to solve them in a more appropriate way: utopia. The diversion is the opposite side to the suffering conscience, the conscience that is nurtured of blood that flows from a wounded reality; the message of diversion is the suppression of the conscience of pain, the only way to salvation. This is the aesthetic hedonism that Adorno condemns. This cheerful and charming art that forgets and conceals horrors, is an injustice against “the deads and the accumulated pain and without word (akkumulierten und sprachlosen Schmerz)” (AT 66). Adorno assumes those verses of Brecht in which it is prohibited for our time an art that does not want to realize of horror: “What kind of times are they, where / a talk about trees is almost a crime / because it implies silence about so many horrors!” (AT 66). The poetry that has become impossible after Auschwitz, for being barbarian (KG 30), is the colourist poetry. For this reason Adorno has written that “maybe it has been false to say that after Auschwitz it can no longer be possible to write poems” (ND 355). They can be written, whenever they are black poems!. In this sombre time, an art that has lost all evidence (Selbstverständlichkeit) and legitimacy (AT 9-10), is art as embellishment, the ideological art that conceals and justifies the current reality. The Expressive Mimesis as Instrument of Criticism. The other art, the contemporary radical art, the black and critical art of Kafka and Beckett, as long as it gives word to pain, is the only hope. In contrast to art understood as false embellishment or reconcilable enchantment, an art able to transform deceptively the negative into positive, the irreconcilable in reconciliation, the chaotic in order, Adorno affirms that “today the mission of art is to introduce chaos in the order (Ordnung)” (MM 251). That mission is carried out by black art giving the word to pain. What Adorno tries with black art is to return to art its right to exist after Auschwitz, in a discoloured world. In opinion of Adorno, amid the more extreme (Äuβersten) and gloomy or dark (Finstersten) of reality, that is, amid the terrifying current reality, art can only subsist by becoming equal (sich gleichmachen) to that (black) reality (AT 65). Only the spiritual principle of the mimesis is guarantee of aestheticity. Only black art is art. And it is so because black art, in spite of becoming equal to the empiric reality, is not simple reflection, but essentially criticism, negation, utopia and hope. How is it possible that an art is critical being equal to the reality that denounces? In the current state of things, Adorno writes that art “is only able to be opposition by means of the identification with that against it rebels” (AT 201). Only being black – only becoming equal to the empiric reality- it can be critical and utopian. In a blackened world, black is the colour of criticism, of resistance, of negation and of utopia. This is the paradox of the contemporary radical art. If dominion is silence and integration, concealment of what suffers, criticism and utopia can only be scream, failure of (identifier) tendency that silences and conceals. The scream represents the statement of the difference faced with the horror of des-individualization. If the dominion system heals the wounds in false, resistance and hope depend onthat the wounds bleed again. Black art represents for Adorno the maximum exit to pain, the absurdity and the ugliness of the current reality (AT 171). Then black colour expresses the experience of the no-identical, what does not allow itself to be dissolved in the concept; it is the highest expression in the aesthetic phenomenon, understood as opening of the conscience to the other thing, what is not reducible to sense. This transcendency toward the other thing, on which radical black art consists, also constitutes the essence of the artistic mimesis. The mimetic logos of art consists then on alienation, in becoming equal to pain, in giving the word to that silences the society of dominion. This mimesis, last refuge of criticism, should be understood in a deeper sense than the usual: not as ‘representation’ but as ‘expression’ (Ausdruck). There is not aesthetic mimesis without expression (AT 171-5). Black art has become equal to the absurd, black and ugly reality, becoming absurd, black and ugly; becoming “social wound (gesellschaftliche Wundmal)” (AT 353). In this sense black art is for Adorno “language of suffering (Sprache des Leidens)” (AT 35). Beckett’s and Kafka’s art embodies the oppressed by the totalitarian society, what does not allow itself to be led, nor to be identified, nor to be integrated: the other thing. It tears the conciliatory facade that recovers the “lack of moderation of pain (Unmaβ des Leidens)” (AT 348; KG 262). Black art does not speak ‘of’ but rather ‘is’. Becoming equal, it is made ‘thing itself’. Instead of imposing to the object, art becomes its instrument, in the language of the thing itself, expression of its total negativity: to express the pain, to be the wound itself. The “central criterion” of the works of art, of its aesthetic and critical character, is the “force of its expression, thanks to which tension the works of art become eloquent with an gesture without words” (AT 353). The opposition to the society that art represents is not said, because to say is to understand, to rationalize, to find sense and to legitimate; it can not be made in the content but in the form, ‘becoming itself’ just that against what protests. The commitment of the works of art is not manifested by means of harangue, thesis or doctrines; it is rather executed in the form. More than to say it, it is expressed. The works tell by means of the form, not by means of the content. But what the work says is always a historical-social truth. And this is what Adorno finds fulfilled in an exemplary way in Picasso’s Guernica, that “achieves in its inhuman construction that expression that transforms it into a sharp social protest beyond any contemplative misunderstanding” (AT 353). In this way art tells, that is how it gives the world to pain and becomes language of the suffering. In the Kafkian style, and not so much in what it says, it is where Adorno finds Kafka’s criticism to the dehumanised society (AT 342). The aesthetic identification with that that it denies is expressive, that is to say, it has to load on itself all the blackness and the pain of that denied reality, and to express it, to show it, not to represent it or to say it. The black radical art is identified to the world by giving it the word, making the world be expressed through the works.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-16 08:29:07.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Daniel Park
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harker AM
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +11
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Polytechnic Liu Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +K-Pozo
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard Westlake
Caselist.CitesClass[17]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,4 @@
1 +The affirmative joins a growing liberal consensus that the state must be reformed to resist violence, but their mono-political approach recreates the conditions of ontological enframing
2 +
3 +Joronen ‘13 (Mikko, Department of Geography and Geology, Geography Section, University of Turku, Finland, “Conceptualising New Modes of State Governmentality: Power, Violence and the Ontological Mono-politics of Neoliberalism” Geopolitics, 00:1–15, pp. 10-11)
4 +As I have suggested,52 ontological monopolisations constitute violence through two reciprocally conditioning mechanisms. First, through the oblivion of the mechanism of ‘appropriation’ (Ereignis), which works by intrinsically concealing the openness of being and its reservoir of ungrounded possibilities; and second, through the violence intrinsic in particular historical modes of revealing, for instance, the ontological ordering of entities in neoliberal enframing. The first mechanism of violence apparently refers to the fundamental (im)possibility for the different forms of life to emerge. It is a question concerning particular appropriations of being, which take place by monopolising their own mode of revealing, thus refusing their intrinsic condition of possibility, the abyssal richness of open being. The second mechanism of violence, in turn, is related to the designated positions, such as the neoliberal enframing, which violently enframe human existence and the revealing of the real to particular modalities of ontology. At the level of the first mechanism, neoliberal fabrication of particular mode of existence takes advantage of what I have discussed, by following Heidegger, the ontological ambiguity of being, its happening as a concealing-revealing.53 Accordingly, while disclosing a peculiar mode of existence, the appropriation of being always conceals the open possibility for the other modes of revealing to come about. Such concealment is an intrinsic necessity for all revealing to take place: all modes of revealing conceal their originary source, the inexhaustible plenitude of open being. Neoliberal governmentality, however, follows the logic of violent mono-politics and complete grounding of the revealing of things to the point of abandoning the possibility for ontological change. It remains solely withdrawn to the optimised arrangement of ontic realities: it concentrates on the calculative ordering of things (beings), and as a result, hides the ontological question concerning its own mode of revealing (being). Neoliberalisation thus covers not only the ontological mechanism of concealing-revealing, but its own ontological finitude. By monopolising its own modality of revealing, neoliberal enframing veils its own finitude, its nature as a finite ‘Event of appropriation’ (das Ereignis), thus passing the originary openness of being into oblivion. The latter mechanism of ontological violence, in turn, refers to the inner logic of neoliberal enframing. Neoliberalisation operates, first, by reducing political capabilities of individuals to the internalised rule of the maximum economy, but also by moulding all things into reserves of profits. First of all, neoliberalisation violently enframes human existence into bare reserves of human capital, which are increasingly used by states in their tactics to succeed in global competition. The neoliberal state, governing its population by the means of encouraging economically calculating subjectivity, is not established out of the violent act of territorial inclusion and order, but above all, out of the violent fact of reducing human existence into usable capital. Second, as a drive to reveal things as profitable reserves, neoliberalisation violently divests natural entities from their abrupt happening and phenomenological richness of revealing. Altogether, such reductions constitute the post-political situation of neoliberal governmentality: they create a world of technical solutions and politics-free zones abrogating the politics of ontological revealing. The depoliticising conduct of the neoliberal state is an ultimate political act, which paradoxically establishes an anti-political abrogation of all political acts through the concealment of the politics of ontological possibility. Such ‘ontological mono-politics’ thus intertwines with the first mechanism of ontological violence: by fabricating the real, including human existence, for the use of economic calculations and profits, neoliberal governmentality monopolises a particular mode of revealing, and thus, fades the ontological openness of being and its finite Event (Ereignis) to the background.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-16 08:29:08.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Daniel Park
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harker AM
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +11
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Polytechnic Liu Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +K-Joronen
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard Westlake
Caselist.CitesClass[18]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,4 @@
1 +their affirmation may be all well and good, but tying it to a desire for recognition by an external social authority such as the judge produces a form of dependence on authority that turns the case
2 +
3 +McGowan 13 (Todd, Prof @ U of Vermont, Enjoying What We Don’t Have: The Political Project of Psychoanalysis, p. 87-90)//LA
4 +When subjects enter into society, the social order confronts them with a demand. This demand for the sacrifice of enjoyment offers them social recognition in return. Recognition grounds the subjects' identities and allows them to experience themselves as valuable. The socially recognized subject has a worth that derives solely from recognition itself. Popular kids may believe that their sense of worth is tied to an activity-playing football, obtaining good grades, being a cheerleader -but in fact it depends on the recognition that an anonymous social authority accords those who engage in these activities. Though we might imagine the football player fully enjoying himself and his popular status, the recognition that comes with this status renders enjoyment impossible insofar as popularity adheres to the social authority's demand rather than its unarticulated desire.17 The demand that confronts the subject entering the social order is directly articulated at the level of the signifier. Social authority says to the subject, "Act in this way, and you will receive approval (or recognition)." But the demand conceals an unconscious desire that is not articulated on the level of the signifier. What the authority really wants from the subject is not equivalent to what it explicitly demands in signifiers. This desire of social authority or the Other engenders the subject's own desire: the subject's desire is a desire to figure out what the Other wants from it-to solve the enigma of the Other's desire and locate itself within that desire. The subject becomes a desiring subject by paying attention not to what the social authority says (the demand) but to what remains unsaid between the lines (the desire). The path of desire offers the subject the possibility of breaking from its dependence on social authority through the realization that its secret, the enigma of the Other's desire, does not exist - that the authority doesn't know what it wants. Such a realization is not easy to achieve, but adopting the attitude of desire at least makes it possible. For the subject who clings to the social authority's demand, dependence on this authority becomes irremediable and unrealizable. This is the limitation of pseudo-Hegelian political projects oriented around garnering recognition. They necessarily remain within the confines of the order that they challenge, and even success will never provide the satisfaction that the project promises. Full recognition would bring with it not the sense of finally penetrating into the secret enclave of the social authority but instead the disappointment of seeing that this secret does not exist. The widespread acceptance of gay marriage in the United States, for instance, ·would not provide a heretofore missing satisfaction, because the social authority that would provide the recognition is not a substantial entity fully consistent with itself. Even though institutional authority can grant a marriage certificate to gay couples and the majority of the population can recognize the validity of the marriage, there is no agency that can authorize such a marriage that is itself authorized. Social authority, in other words, is always unauthorized or groundless, and this is the ultimate reason why the pursuit of recognition leads to frustration. Those who seek social recognition structure their lives around the social authority's demand, and recognition is the reward that one receives for doing one's social duty. For instance, in order to gain popularity, one must adhere to the social rules that lead to popularity. This involves wearing the proper clothes, hanging out with the right people, playing the approved sports, and talking in the correct fashion. Too much deviation from the standard dissolves one's popularity. Even those who disdain popularity most often align themselves with some other source of recognition and thereby invest themselves in another form of it. The outsider who completely rejects the trappings of the popular crowd but slavishly obeys the demands of fellow outsiders remains within the orbit of social recognition. This devotion to social recognition is more apparent, though not more true, among the young; the adult universe employs strictures with a similar severity.18 Following the path of desire - going beyond the explicit demand of the social authority- has a cost in terms of social status. Those who restrict themselves to the authority's demand do not necessarily evince more obedience to actual laws than others do. In fact, the social authority’s demand often conflicts with laws because it demands love, not just obedience. Criminals who flaunt the law for the sake of accumulating vast amounts of money are among those most invested in this demand. There is no inherent radicality in criminal behavior, and most criminals tend to be politically conservative." The object of the demand is the subject's complete sacrifice for the sake of the social authority, not simply adherence to a set of laws. By imposing a demand that requires subjects to violate the law, the authority creates a bond of guilt among those who follow this demand. For instance, contemporary capitalist society demands the unrestricted accumulation of capital, even if this requires bypassing ethical or legal considerations at some point. Those who adhere to this demand to such an extent that they break the law or act against their own conscience find themselves all the more subjected to the social authority than if the demand didn't include the dimension of transgression. The guilt that the demand engenders in them seals their allegiance. This is the logic of the hazing ritual, which always necessitates a violation of the law or common morality. The demand aims to redirect subjects away from their own enjoyment and toward social productivity. This turn is unimaginable without guilt, which is the fundamental social emotion. Subjects who sacrifice enjoyment for the sake of recognition do so with the expectation that this sacrifice will pay off on the other side, that the rewards of recognition will surpass the enjoyment that they have given up. This wager seems to have all the empirical evidence on its side: every day, images of the most recognized subjects enjoying themselves bombard us. We see them driving in the nicest cars, eating in the finest restaurants, wearing the most fashionable clothes, and having sex with the most attractive people, among other things. On the other side, we rarely see the enjoyment of those who remain indifferent to the appeal of recognition. By definition, they enjoy in the shadows. What’s more the apparent misery of those who do not receive recognition is readily visible among the social outcasts we silently pass every day. To all appearances, the sacrifice of enjoyment for the sake of recognition is a bargain, as long as one ends up among the most recognized. The problem with this judgment sterns from its emphasis on visibility; it mistakes the display of enjoyment for the real thing. Someone who was authentically enjoying would not need to parade this enjoyment. The authentically enjoying subject does not perform its enjoyment for the Other but remains indifferent to the Other. As Joan Copjec notes, "Jouissance flourishes only there where it is not validated by the Other."20 Enjoyment consumes the subject and directs all of the subject's attention away from the Other's judgment, which is why one cannot perform it andwhy being a social outcast doesn't bother the enjoying subject. One immerses oneself completely in enjoyment, and the enjoyment suffices for the subject. In contrast, recognition, though it offers its own form of satisfaction, ultimately leaves the subject eager for something else. No matter what level of recognition subjects receive, they always find it insufficient and seek more. Unlike enjoyment, recognition is an infinite struggle. But no one can make a direct choice of enjoyment instead of recognition. The initial loss of enjoyment, the initial sacrifice, is inevitable. As I have insisted in earlier chapters, this enjoyment only exists insofar as it is lost: there is no way for the subject to avoid altogether the loss of enjoyment for the sake of recognition. But what the subject might avoid is the perpetuation of this abandonment of enjoyment through the embrace of recognition. One can't initially reject recognition, but one can subsequently revisit the original acceptance of the social demand and refuse it by becoming indifferent to recognition's appeal.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-16 08:29:08.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Daniel Park
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harker AM
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +11
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Polytechnic Liu Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +K-McGowan
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard Westlake
Caselist.CitesClass[19]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,4 @@
1 +The 1AC isn’t tied to the affirmative team—all art is autonomous of its creators—vote neg on presumption
2 +
3 +Bryant 12 - Professor of Philosophy at Collin College (Levi R., Author of a number of articles on Deleuze, Badiou, Zizek, Lacan, and political theory, July 24th, 2012, http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/radical-ethnography-or-situated-knowledge-a-response-to-a-friend/)
4 +Your tone here sounds a bit irritated. I hope I didn’t provoke that as it wasn’t my intention. I don’t think I understood your point, but genuinely disagree with you. While I readily acknowledge that the cave painters were the cause of the paintings, I strongly disagree that the painters are a part of the being of the painting. Just as ones parents are the cause of one’s being while nonetheless the child is an autonomous being, the painting is an autonomous beings that have its own power that exceed any particular cultural or historical context. I don’t disagree that the question of what the paintings were for the cave painters is an interesting and important one, but in raising that question we’ve entered into a new machinic relation and are no longer talking about the paintings for themselves as autonomous entities that circulate throughout the world beyond their origins. What they were for a particular group is an important issue. My only point is that no work can ever be reduced– nor any entity, for that matter –can be reduced to what it is for another entity.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-16 08:29:09.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Daniel Park
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harker AM
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +11
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Polytechnic Liu Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +K-Bryant
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard Westlake
Caselist.CitesClass[20]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,4 @@
1 +There’s no meaningful relationship between debate about the character of the law and social change—get out of the argument room
2 +Schlag ‘3 (Pierre, Distinguished Prof. @ U. of Colorado and Byron R. White Professor @ Colorado Law School, 57 U. Miami L. Rev. 1029)
3 +The presumption is that the words of the judge (if they are well crafted) will effectively produce a social reality that corresponds roughly with the words uttered. But what reason is there to believe this? False Empowerment (No. 2) The endlessly repeated question in first year, "What should the court do?" leads law students to believe that courts respond to the force of the better argument. This would be tolerable if one added two provisos:1. The better argument often means little more than the one the courts are predisposed to believe; and 2. In the phrase "force of better argument" it's important to attend not just to the "better" part, but to the other term as well. False Empowerment (No. 3) Law students first learn of many complex social and economic realities through the medium of case law. What they learn is thus the law's vision of these economic and social realities. Not surprisingly, there is an almost magical correspondence between legal categories and social or economic practices. This magical fit leads law students (later to become law professors) to have an extremely confident view of the efficacy of law. Many law students are cured of this belief-structure by a stay in the legal clinic or by law practice. n4 There is one group of people, however, who are generally not cured of this belief-structure at all, but whose faith is actually intensified. These are the people who hold prestigious judicial clerkships where an emotional proximity to and identification with their judge ("my judge") leads to an even greater confidence in the efficacy of law. These people are frequently chosen to teach in law schools. False empowerment can be disempowering. It can also lead to pessimism and despair. Many people react to a loss of faith in law or legal studies with despair or pessimism. But this is the despair and pessimism that comes from giving up a naieve or a romantic vision of law and/or legal studies. The onslaught of this despair and pessimism is a good thing. It is like the thirty-something who realizes that he is mortal and that life is brief. Generally, this is not welcome news. At the same time, it may help prevent a life spent in Heideggerian dread, tanning salons, or the interstices of footnote 357.When the academic loses faith in law or legal studies, typically that person is most troubled because she has lost the framework that makes her academic project possible. But so what? Isn't the demand that law conform to an academic project arguably a selfish one? The Con, The Joke, and The Ironic Truth The Con: In the courtroom, the appellate judge is typically seated behind an elevated bench. On the classroom blackboard the appellate judge is chalked in above the plaintiff and the defendant. This is both a reflection and a reinforcement of the belief that the appellate judge is an intellectually and politically privileged legal actor. The Joke: In actuality, the appellate judge is a person who operates in conditions of severe information deficits and whose outlook is thoroughly manipulated by professional rhetoricians. Very often he has little or no understanding of the configurations of the social field to which his rulings will apply. What's more, this is a person who is prohibited from talking about the social field, except with a highly restricted number of people. The Ironic Truth: On the other hand, because we believe the appellate judge is a particularly privileged intellectual and political actor, we contribute to making him so. Legal intellectuals like to believe that law is an intelligent enterprise. They like to believe that the law offers an interesting vocabulary, grammar, and rhetoric through which to think about the world and law itself. This is naive. The political demand that law be efficacious means that law must track, must indeed incorporate popular beliefs about social and economic identities, causation, linguistic meaning, and so forth. (Those beliefs are often intellectually bereft.)The Argument Room The argument room is a place where academic advocates go to argue passionately about law and politics. (Apologies to Monty Python.) Within the room, arguments are won and lost; triumphs and defeats are had. But generally, no one outside the room pays much attention to what goes on inside the room. Sometimes there is seepage and fragments of the conversations are heard outside the room. Participants most often spend their time arguing about what should happen outside the room. This they call “knowledge” or "understanding" or "jurisprudence" or “scholarship” or “politics.” The one thing that generally cannot be talked about inside the room is the construction of the room itself. Politics (No. 1) For progressive legal thinkers, politics is a "theoretical unmentionable": The concept "politics" does a great deal of theoretical work and yet its identity remains generally immune from scrutiny. The categories (right, left) and the fundamental grammar of politics (progress, reaction, and so forth) generally go unquestioned. Oddly, while everything else seems to be contingent, conditional, contextual, and so on, the categories of politics seem to be oddly stable, nearly transcendent. Strangely, this occurs at a time when the categories, left and right (and even politics itself), seem increasingly fragile and non-referential.Still, this is an intensely political time - political not in the sense of significant social contestation (not much of that) nor in the sense of ideological struggle (not happening much either). Rather, political in the sense of very significant reorganizations and reallocations of power, wealth, and so on. Capital (for lack of a better term) is in a period of rapid self-reorganization in which it increasingly regiments precincts of life previously offering some resistance to its grammar - to wit: time, family, media, public space, wilderness, and so forth. The point is not that these precincts were immune to capital before, but rather that capital is advancing at such an intense rate to bring about a significant disruption and a qualitative change in these precincts. This change is manifest not only in the colonization of new precincts, but in the self-organization of capital *1034 (new financial vehicles) and, of course, in new literary and intellectual forms (postmodernism as both symptom and diagnosis). Meanwhile, the old categories, the old grammar, the old answers, seem to have lost some of their hold. The right is intellectually stagnant. And the left is, as a social presence, ontologically challenged. Indeed, in the United States, we seem at present to have several right wings and no left wing. This does not mean that "politics" as a social category is necessarily dead. It might mean simply that we (and others) have not understood, have not grasped, have not articulated its new configurations.What would be required on the intellectual level is a re-evaluation not only of the conventionally articulated categories, but of the social and economic ontology. At its best, postmodernism (and there has been a lot of bad reactionary and nostalgic postmodernism) is an attempt to trigger such a re-evaluation. Progressives, understandably, strive to protect their categories, grammar, and self-image from these challenges. But this is not without cost. To argue in favor of political positions is sometimes political. But it is not always political. Sometimes taking up a political argument is political and sometimes it has no consequences whatsoever. One cannot know beforehand. But it is a serious mistake to suppose that arguing in favor of a political position is in and of itself political. Very often in the legal academy, to argue for a political (or normative) position is not political at all. It simply triggers a scholastic, highly stereotyped meta-discourse about whether the arguments advanced are sound, accurate, should be adopted, or the like. Traditionally, the left has defended the victims of capitalism, imperialism, and racism. Indeed, this is an important part of what it means to be "on the left." Meanwhile, in the university, scholarly attention depends upon the production of new exciting ideas and research agendas. This poses a problem for the left: the victims of capitalism, imperialism, and racism remain the same. The political-intellectual defenses advanced on behalf of victims remain the same. This leads to a certain sense of weariness and deja vu - stereotyped arguments, standard rhetorical moves. A tendency to fight the same old fights. Machines. This is a problem. A Problem for Progressive Legal Thinkers As the author of Laying Down the Law, it just isn't clear to me that law is the sort of thing that is endlessly perfectible. At times it seems to me that law is a lot like military strategy. You can try making military strategy the best it can be (maybe you should). But when you get done it's still going to be military strategy. In that context it would be a good thing to have a few people (I volunteer) to be less than completely enthralled by military strategy. The same would go for law. It could be that law is objectionable in important respects because, well ... it's law. From this standpoint it seems odd that someone should feel authorized to say: "You should do X." Legal Thought as Arrogance The belief is that the future of the free world, the maintenance of the rule of law, the welfare of the republic, the liberation of oppressed peoples, the direction of the Court, the legitimacy of the Florida election, hangs on a law professor's next article. This is the esprit serieux gone nuts. The most significant effect of this belief is to arrest thought and end the play of ideas necessary for creativity.Yes, legal interpretation sometimes takes place in a field of pain and death. n9 But that hardly means that legal studies takes place in a field of pain and death. It is a residual objectivism that enables legal academics to believe that when they write about law - what it is or what it should be - they are somehow engaged in the same enterprise as judges. They're not. It is not that legal scholarship is without consequence. It's just that the institutional and rhetorical contexts are sufficiently different that the consequences are different as well.There is an important, indeed foundational, category mistake that sustains American legal thought - it is the supposition that because academics and judges deploy the same vocabulary and the same grammar, they are involved in largely the same enterprise. I just don't think that's true. My own view is that legal academics are but one social group (among many) competing for the articulation of what law is. Judges are another. Social movements, corporations, public interest groups, administrative officials, criminals, etc., are some of the others. For most of the history of the American law school, academics have anointed judges as privileged speakers of law. In turn, legal academics have adopted the habits, forms of thought, and rhetoric of judges - thereby accruing to themselves the authority to say what the law is.Legal academics legitimate their claim to say what the law is by fashioning law as an academic discipline requiring expertise. Legal academics then hold themselves out as possessing this expertise. Among those critical theorists who seek to contest this expertise, one can distinguish two approaches. One approach is to try to reveal the emptiness of the claims to expertise among the legal intelligentsia and to reveal how these claims nonetheless gain power. Another approach is to try to relocate the authority to say what the law is among those who have been excluded.I do not see these approaches as antithetical, but rather as complementary. Furthermore, both approaches will in fact reinscribe, will performatively reinforce, precisely the sort of rhetorics and hierarchies they contest. No way around that.I think critical thinkers all do this - though in different ways. And it's certainly worthwhile pointing out how it is being done. At the same time, no one is safe or immune from this sort of criticism.To learn to laugh at what is taken seriously, but is not serious, is a serious thing to do. To take seriously what is not, is a drag. A Problem for Progressives
4 + Progressives wish to pursue a politics that is efficacious. This means keeping track both of the social context in which progressivism articulates itself (on the side of the subject), and the social context in *1038 which progressivism seeks to register its results (on the side of the object). But this work of reconnaissance - a work that is necessary - may bring unwelcome news: namely that progressivism unmodified is no longer a terribly cogent project. Choices will have to be made: to defend progressive thought against this unwelcome news or to put the identity of progressive projects at risk by encountering this unwelcome news. Formalism is virtually an inexorable condition of legal scholarship in the following sense: a legal academic generally writes scholarship outside the social pressures of what a lawyer would call real stakes, real clients, or real consequences. The failure of an argument in the pages of the Stanford Law Review is generally very different from the failure of an argument in a brief or an opinion. The difference in context changes the character and consequences of the acts - even if the authors use exactly the same words.Binary and Not (Insider/Outsider, Immanent/Transcendent, Mind/Body etc. etc. etc.)It's one thing to deploy oppositional binarism to describe the broad structures of a text. It's quite another to adopt binarism as an intellectual lifestyle choice. Oppositional binarism has a special hold/appeal in American law precisely because: 1) law is often identified with what appellate courts say it is; and 2) by the time a case gets to an appellate court, the reductionism of litigation and the binary structure of the adversarial orientation has reduced the dispute to an either/or (e.g., liberty vs. equality or formal equality vs. substantive equality, and so on).But ... .Oppositional binarism flounders because law does not have fixed, uncontroversial grids. Hence, for instance, the notion that a person is an insider or an outsider just doesn't track with much of anything (except perhaps the author's own formalism).If one thinks about it, a person is an insider in this respect (he's white) but an outsider in that respect (he's working class) and then an insider with respect to his pedigree (he went to Columbia) but really an outsider within his insider Columbia status because he was profoundly *1039 alienated from the Columbia social scene and blah blah blah. After a while (very soon, actually) the insider/outsider distinction loses its hold. The point is, unless you happen to have a well-formed, non-overlapping fixed grid (and this would be a very strange thing for a critical theorist to have!), oppositional binarism (like everything else) ultimately collapses.Interestingly, there was a moment of slippage in the history of critical legal studies (or perhaps the fem-crits) when binary oppositionalism slid from a heuristic into (of all things) a metaphysic!The Machines In Keith Aoki's comic strip, the agents of R.E.A.S.O.N. and P.I.E.R.R.E. fight each other in a comically cliched fashion. It is Nick Fury jurisprudence. And there is something strikingly right about that (however humbling it may be for me and others).One of the things that happens in the Nick Fury comic strips (as in Keith Aoki's contribution) is that the antagonists deploy machines against each other. In legal thought, we have a lot of machines in operation. n13 By this I mean that a great deal of so-called legal thought is not really thought at all - but the deployment of a series of rhetorical operations over and over again to perform actions (usually destructive in character) on other peoples' texts or persons. Every argument tends to become a machine. Over time, legal academics tend to become their own arguments. Then, of course, they become their own machines. At that point, it's time to move on.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-16 08:29:09.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Daniel Park
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harker AM
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +11
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Polytechnic Liu Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +K-Schlag
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard Westlake
Caselist.CitesClass[21]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,4 @@
1 +The aff will be ruined by its own success—to have one’s status as exception legally sanctioned by the law is the equivalent of smelting one’s self new chains
2 +
3 +Dolar 6 (Mladen, Jan Van Eyck Academie, A Voice and Nothing More, p. 177-180)//HarvardBS
4 +But in her role as artist she is also the capricious prima donna; there is the whole comedy of her claims for her rights. She wants to be exempt from work, she requires special privileges, work allegedly harms her voice, she wants due honor to be paid to her services, she wants to be granted a place apart. She "does not want mere admiration, she wants to be admired exactly in the way she prescribes" (p. 362). But the people, despite their general esteem for her, do not want to hear about any of this, they are cold in their judgment- they respect her, but want her to remain one of them. So there is the whole charade of the artist who is not appreciated as she deserves, she does not get the laurels that she thinks belong to her, she puts up a preposterous act of genius not understood by her contemporaries. Out of protest she announces that she will cut down on her coloratura—this will teach them a lesson—and maybe she does, only nobody notices. She keeps coming up with all sorts of whims, she lets herself be begged, and only reluctantly gives in. There is the comedy of hurt narcissism, megalomania, an inflated ego, the high mission of the artist's overblown vocation. So one day she indeed stops singing, firmly believing that there will be some huge scandal, but nobody gives a damn, everybody goes about their business as usual, without noticing a lack—that is, without noticing the lack of a lack, the absence of the gap. Curious, how mistaken she is in her calculations, the clever creature, so mistaken that one might fancy she has made no calculations at all but is only being driven on by her destiny, which in our world cannot be anything but a sad one. Of her own accord she abandons her singing, of her own accord she destroys the power she has gained over people's hearts. How could she ever have gained that power, since she knows so little about these hearts of ours? ... Josephine's road must go downhill. The time will soon come when her last notes sound and die into silence. She is a small episode in the eternal history of our people, and the people will get over the loss of her.... Perhaps we shall not miss so very much after all, while Josephine . . . will happily lose herself in the numberless throngs of the heroes of our people, and soon, since we are no historians, will rise to the heights of redemption and be forgotten like all her brothers. (p. 376) Despite her vanity and megalomania, people can easily do without her, she will be forgotten, no traces of her art will be left—this is not a people of archivists, and besides, there is no way one could store, collect, archivize her art, which consists purely in the gap. So this is the second strategy: the strategy of art, of art as the non-exceptional exception, which can arise anywhere, at any moment, and is made of anything—of ready-made objects—as long as it can provide them with a gap, make them make a break. It is the art of the minimal difference. Yet the moment it makes its appearance, this difference is bungled by the very gesture which brought it about, the moment this gesture and this difference become instituted, the moment art turns into an institution to which a certain place is allotted and certain limits are drawn. Its power is at the same time its powerlessness, the very status of art veils what is at stake. Hence the whole farce of the egocentric megalomania and misunderstood genius which occupies the major part of the story. Josephine wants the impossible: she wants a place beyond the law, beyond equality- and equality is the essential feature of the mouse-folk, equality in tininess, in their miniature size (hence her claims to greatness are all the more comical). But at the same time she wants her status as exception to be legally sanctioned, symbolically recognized, properly glorified. She wants to be, like the sovereign, both inside and outside the law. She wants her uniqueness to be recognized as a special social role, and the moment art does this, it is done for. The very break it has introduced is reduced to just another social function; the break becomes the institution of the break, its place is circumscribed, and as an exception it can fit very well into the rule—that is, into the rule of law. As an artist who wants veneration and recognition she will be forgotten, relegated to the gallery of memory, that is, of oblivion. Her voice, which opens a crack in the seamless continuity of the law, is betrayed and destroyed by the very status of art, which reinserts it and closes the gap. At best it can be a tiny recess: “Piping is our people’s daily speech, only many a one pipes his whole life long and does not know it, where here piping is set free from the fetters of daily life and it sets us free too for a little while" (p. 370). Just for a little while, but by setting us free, it only helps us to bear the rest all the better. The miniature size of the mouse is enough to open the gap, but once it is instituted and recognized, its importance shrinks to the size of the mouse, despite its delusions of grandeur. It is the voice tied to the mast, and the oarsmen, although they may hear it in the flash of a brief recess, will continue to be deaf Thus we do not end up with Kafka's version of Ulysses but are stuck with Ulysses tout court—or, rather, with the Adorno and Horkheimer version. Josephine's sublime voice will finally be den Miiusen gepfiffen, as the German expression has it (and this German phrase may well be at the origin of the whole story), that is, piped to the mice, piped in vain to someone who cannot understand or appreciate it—not because of some mass obtuseness, but because of the nature of art itself We could say: the art is her mousetrap. So the second strategy fails, it is ruined by its own success, and the transcendence that art promised turned out to be of such a nature that it could easily fit in as one part of the division of labor; the disruptive power of the gap turned out to accommodate the continuity all too well.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-16 08:29:10.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Daniel Park
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harker AM
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +11
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Polytechnic Liu Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +K-Dolar
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard Westlake
Caselist.RoundClass[11]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +15,16,17,18,19,20,21
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-16 08:29:04.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Daniel Park
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harker AM
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,3 @@
1 +1ac-war on terror
2 +1nc-7 off
3 +1nr-machiavellian ir endowments da
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard Westlake

Schools

Aberdeen Central (SD)
Acton-Boxborough (MA)
Albany (CA)
Albuquerque Academy (NM)
Alief Taylor (TX)
American Heritage Boca Delray (FL)
American Heritage Plantation (FL)
Anderson (TX)
Annie Wright (WA)
Apple Valley (MN)
Appleton East (WI)
Arbor View (NV)
Arcadia (CA)
Archbishop Mitty (CA)
Ardrey Kell (NC)
Ashland (OR)
Athens (TX)
Bainbridge (WA)
Bakersfield (CA)
Barbers Hill (TX)
Barrington (IL)
BASIS Mesa (AZ)
BASIS Scottsdale (AZ)
BASIS Silicon (CA)
Beckman (CA)
Bellarmine (CA)
Benjamin Franklin (LA)
Benjamin N Cardozo (NY)
Bentonville (AR)
Bergen County (NJ)
Bettendorf (IA)
Bingham (UT)
Blue Valley Southwest (KS)
Brentwood (CA)
Brentwood Middle (CA)
Bridgewater-Raritan (NJ)
Bronx Science (NY)
Brophy College Prep (AZ)
Brown (KY)
Byram Hills (NY)
Byron Nelson (TX)
Cabot (AR)
Calhoun Homeschool (TX)
Cambridge Rindge (MA)
Canyon Crest (CA)
Canyon Springs (NV)
Cape Fear Academy (NC)
Carmel Valley Independent (CA)
Carpe Diem (NJ)
Cedar Park (TX)
Cedar Ridge (TX)
Centennial (ID)
Centennial (TX)
Center For Talented Youth (MD)
Cerritos (CA)
Chaminade (CA)
Chandler (AZ)
Chandler Prep (AZ)
Chaparral (AZ)
Charles E Smith (MD)
Cherokee (OK)
Christ Episcopal (LA)
Christopher Columbus (FL)
Cinco Ranch (TX)
Citrus Valley (CA)
Claremont (CA)
Clark (NV)
Clark (TX)
Clear Brook (TX)
Clements (TX)
Clovis North (CA)
College Prep (CA)
Collegiate (NY)
Colleyville Heritage (TX)
Concord Carlisle (MA)
Concordia Lutheran (TX)
Connally (TX)
Coral Glades (FL)
Coral Science (NV)
Coral Springs (FL)
Coppell (TX)
Copper Hills (UT)
Corona Del Sol (AZ)
Crandall (TX)
Crossroads (CA)
Cupertino (CA)
Cy-Fair (TX)
Cypress Bay (FL)
Cypress Falls (TX)
Cypress Lakes (TX)
Cypress Ridge (TX)
Cypress Springs (TX)
Cypress Woods (TX)
Dallastown (PA)
Davis (CA)
Delbarton (NJ)
Derby (KS)
Des Moines Roosevelt (IA)
Desert Vista (AZ)
Diamond Bar (CA)
Dobson (AZ)
Dougherty Valley (CA)
Dowling Catholic (IA)
Dripping Springs (TX)
Dulles (TX)
duPont Manual (KY)
Dwyer (FL)
Eagle (ID)
Eastside Catholic (WA)
Edgemont (NY)
Edina (MN)
Edmond North (OK)
Edmond Santa Fe (OK)
El Cerrito (CA)
Elkins (TX)
Enloe (NC)
Episcopal (TX)
Evanston (IL)
Evergreen Valley (CA)
Ferris (TX)
Flintridge Sacred Heart (CA)
Flower Mound (TX)
Fordham Prep (NY)
Fort Lauderdale (FL)
Fort Walton Beach (FL)
Freehold Township (NJ)
Fremont (NE)
Frontier (MO)
Gabrielino (CA)
Garland (TX)
George Ranch (TX)
Georgetown Day (DC)
Gig Harbor (WA)
Gilmour (OH)
Glenbrook South (IL)
Gonzaga Prep (WA)
Grand Junction (CO)
Grapevine (TX)
Green Valley (NV)
Greenhill (TX)
Guyer (TX)
Hamilton (AZ)
Hamilton (MT)
Harker (CA)
Harmony (TX)
Harrison (NY)
Harvard Westlake (CA)
Hawken (OH)
Head Royce (CA)
Hebron (TX)
Heights (MD)
Hendrick Hudson (NY)
Henry Grady (GA)
Highland (UT)
Highland (ID)
Hockaday (TX)
Holy Cross (LA)
Homewood Flossmoor (IL)
Hopkins (MN)
Houston Homeschool (TX)
Hunter College (NY)
Hutchinson (KS)
Immaculate Heart (CA)
Independent (All)
Interlake (WA)
Isidore Newman (LA)
Jack C Hays (TX)
James Bowie (TX)
Jefferson City (MO)
Jersey Village (TX)
John Marshall (CA)
Juan Diego (UT)
Jupiter (FL)
Kapaun Mount Carmel (KS)
Kamiak (WA)
Katy Taylor (TX)
Keller (TX)
Kempner (TX)
Kent Denver (CO)
King (FL)
Kingwood (TX)
Kinkaid (TX)
Klein (TX)
Klein Oak (TX)
Kudos College (CA)
La Canada (CA)
La Costa Canyon (CA)
La Jolla (CA)
La Reina (CA)
Lafayette (MO)
Lake Highland (FL)
Lake Travis (TX)
Lakeville North (MN)
Lakeville South (MN)
Lamar (TX)
LAMP (AL)
Law Magnet (TX)
Langham Creek (TX)
Lansing (KS)
LaSalle College (PA)
Lawrence Free State (KS)
Layton (UT)
Leland (CA)
Leucadia Independent (CA)
Lexington (MA)
Liberty Christian (TX)
Lincoln (OR)
Lincoln (NE)
Lincoln East (NE)
Lindale (TX)
Livingston (NJ)
Logan (UT)
Lone Peak (UT)
Los Altos (CA)
Los Osos (CA)
Lovejoy (TX)
Loyola (CA)
Loyola Blakefield (MA)
Lynbrook (CA)
Maeser Prep (UT)
Mannford (OK)
Marcus (TX)
Marlborough (CA)
McClintock (AZ)
McDowell (PA)
McNeil (TX)
Meadows (NV)
Memorial (TX)
Millard North (NE)
Millard South (NE)
Millard West (NE)
Millburn (NJ)
Milpitas (CA)
Miramonte (CA)
Mission San Jose (CA)
Monsignor Kelly (TX)
Monta Vista (CA)
Montclair Kimberley (NJ)
Montgomery (TX)
Monticello (NY)
Montville Township (NJ)
Morris Hills (NJ)
Mountain Brook (AL)
Mountain Pointe (AZ)
Mountain View (CA)
Mountain View (AZ)
Murphy Middle (TX)
NCSSM (NC)
New Orleans Jesuit (LA)
New Trier (IL)
Newark Science (NJ)
Newburgh Free Academy (NY)
Newport (WA)
North Allegheny (PA)
North Crowley (TX)
North Hollywood (CA)
Northland Christian (TX)
Northwood (CA)
Notre Dame (CA)
Nueva (CA)
Oak Hall (FL)
Oakwood (CA)
Okoboji (IA)
Oxbridge (FL)
Oxford (CA)
Pacific Ridge (CA)
Palm Beach Gardens (FL)
Palo Alto Independent (CA)
Palos Verdes Peninsula (CA)
Park Crossing (AL)
Peak to Peak (CO)
Pembroke Pines (FL)
Pennsbury (PA)
Phillips Academy Andover (MA)
Phoenix Country Day (AZ)
Pine Crest (FL)
Pingry (NJ)
Pittsburgh Central Catholic (PA)
Plano East (TX)
Polytechnic (CA)
Presentation (CA)
Princeton (NJ)
Prosper (TX)
Quarry Lane (CA)
Raisbeck-Aviation (WA)
Rancho Bernardo (CA)
Randolph (NJ)
Reagan (TX)
Richardson (TX)
Ridge (NJ)
Ridge Point (TX)
Riverside (SC)
Robert Vela (TX)
Rosemount (MN)
Roseville (MN)
Round Rock (TX)
Rowland Hall (UT)
Royse City (TX)
Ruston (LA)
Sacred Heart (MA)
Sacred Heart (MS)
Sage Hill (CA)
Sage Ridge (NV)
Salado (TX)
Salpointe Catholic (AZ)
Sammamish (WA)
San Dieguito (CA)
San Marino (CA)
SandHoke (NC)
Santa Monica (CA)
Sarasota (FL)
Saratoga (CA)
Scarsdale (NY)
Servite (CA)
Seven Lakes (TX)
Shawnee Mission East (KS)
Shawnee Mission Northwest (KS)
Shawnee Mission South (KS)
Shawnee Mission West (KS)
Sky View (UT)
Skyline (UT)
Smithson Valley (TX)
Southlake Carroll (TX)
Sprague (OR)
St Agnes (TX)
St Andrews (MS)
St Francis (CA)
St James (AL)
St Johns (TX)
St Louis Park (MN)
St Margarets (CA)
St Marys Hall (TX)
St Thomas (MN)
St Thomas (TX)
Stephen F Austin (TX)
Stoneman Douglas (FL)
Stony Point (TX)
Strake Jesuit (TX)
Stratford (TX)
Stratford Independent (CA)
Stuyvesant (NY)
Success Academy (NY)
Sunnyslope (AZ)
Sunset (OR)
Syosset (NY)
Tahoma (WA)
Talley (AZ)
Texas Academy of Math and Science (TX)
Thomas Jefferson (VA)
Thompkins (TX)
Timber Creek (FL)
Timothy Christian (NJ)
Tom C Clark (TX)
Tompkins (TX)
Torrey Pines (CA)
Travis (TX)
Trinity (KY)
Trinity Prep (FL)
Trinity Valley (TX)
Truman (PA)
Turlock (CA)
Union (OK)
Unionville (PA)
University High (CA)
University School (OH)
University (FL)
Upper Arlington (OH)
Upper Dublin (PA)
Valley (IA)
Valor Christian (CO)
Vashon (WA)
Ventura (CA)
Veritas Prep (AZ)
Vestavia Hills (AL)
Vincentian (PA)
Walla Walla (WA)
Walt Whitman (MD)
Warren (TX)
Wenatchee (WA)
West (UT)
West Ranch (CA)
Westford (MA)
Westlake (TX)
Westview (OR)
Westwood (TX)
Whitefish Bay (WI)
Whitney (CA)
Wilson (DC)
Winston Churchill (TX)
Winter Springs (FL)
Woodlands (TX)
Woodlands College Park (TX)
Wren (SC)
Yucca Valley (CA)