Changes for page Westwood Dambal Neg

Last modified by Administrator on 2017/08/29 03:41

From version < 35.1 >
edited by Amogh Dambal
on 2017/01/07 15:45
To version < 46.1 >
edited by Amogh Dambal
on 2017/01/07 15:46
< >
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[2]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,19 +1,0 @@
1 -Municipal budgets are on the brink in the status-quo.
2 -LILP 16. The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy is an independent, nonpartisan organization whose mission is to help solve global economic, social, and environmental challenges to improve the quality of life through creative approaches to the use, taxation, and stewardship of land. As a private operating foundation whose origins date to 1946, the Lincoln Institute seeks to inform public dialogue and decisions about land policy through research, training, and effective communication. By bringing together scholars, practitioners, public officials, policy makers, journalists, and involved citizens, the Lincoln Institute integrates theory and practice and provides a forum for multidisciplinary perspectives on public policy concerning land, both in the United States and internationally. The Lincoln Institute's work is organized in five major areas: Planning and Urban Form, Valuation and Taxation, International and Institute-Wide Initiatives, the People's Republic of China, and Latin America and the Caribbean., 1-15-2016, "Cities on the brink: monitoring municipal fiscal health," LILP, http://www.lincolninst.edu/news/lincoln-house-blog/cities-brink-monitoring-municipal-fiscal-health //RS
3 -
4 -Northeastern University political science professor Benedict S. Jimenez shared the results of an ambitious customized survey of cities on their strategies for dealing with fiscal stress, at Lincoln House just before the holidays. Results show an emphasis on cutting expenditures over revenue-raising approaches – and that most cities say they are on the brink of crisis. Research on fiscal retrenchment at the local government level has been severely hampered by limited data on city finances after the Great Recession of 2007-09, he said. Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs) require a Freedom of Information Act request, and one third of states do not require local governments to file them. Census of Governments and the Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances provide limited information. The Lincoln Institute database Fiscally Standardized Cities allows the comparison of budgets for 112 municipalities. Jimenez thus started his own survey, targeting appointed managers and budget or finance directors in cities with a population of 50,000 or more, and got 268 of the 674 queried cities to respond. The results provide a new window into the state of local public finance, and showed that most cities were relying on piecemeal strategies to stay away from insolvency year after year. The conditions are harsh: 42 reported that spending is growing faster than revenues; 36 reported increasing spending for current benefits; 35 cited dependence on fewer resources; 34 noted the further constraint of tax limits; and 29 were dealing with increased spending on post-employment benefits. In the area of personnel, almost two-thirds of respondents said they were leaving vacant positions unfilled, freezing hiring or salaries, and cutting professional development. Fewer were engaged in layoffs, moving employees part-time, revising union contracts, or reducing salaries for current employees. In services, almost one-third reported deferring capital projects and maintenance projects, rather than eliminating services outright, closing facilities, or cutting key services such as public safety. In striving for efficiency, many cities were asking more state aid or changes in aid formulas, or shifting the responsibility of functions and services to another level of government. More than half reported making better use of technology. On the revenue side, cities are relying on increased user fees – something the Lincoln Institute researchers have also found. Much less common was trying to increase the property tax rate and expand the property tax base, or increase the sales tax. While economic cycles, and the Great Recession in particular, have great impact, cities report long-term structural issues that make fiscal stress the “new normal” for most. Overall, 7 out of 10 cities reported that they are on the precipice of another budget crisis – and don’t expect that feeling to change in the next five years. This lecture was the first in the 2015-2016 series as part of the campaign of the Lincoln Institute to promote municipal fiscal health. The video can be viewed in its entirety here.
5 -
6 -Indemnification tanks municipal budgets and wrecks accountability – turns case, Ferguson proves.
7 -Prall 14. Derek Prall is a professional journalist who has held numerous positions with a variety of print and online publications including the New Jersey Herald. He is a 2008 graduate of Furman University holding bachelor's degrees in both English Literature and Communications Studies., 12-10-2014, "Who pays for police misconduct?," No Publication, http://americancityandcounty.com/law-enforcement/who-pays-police-misconduct //RS
8 -
9 -Cases like those of Michael Brown and Eric Garner have communities abuzz about police misconduct and possible punitive damages, but, when the police are convicted of misconduct, more often than not, it's taxpayers – not the offending officers or agencies – who foot the bill. In a recent paper published in the New York University Law Review, Joanna Schwartz, an assistant law professor at UCLA and expert in police misconduct cases, says that “taxpayers almost always satisfy both compensatory and punitive damages awards entered against their sworn servants.” Meaning: It’s the city’s taxpayers – not the offending officer or the department – that pays when officers are found to be at fault. “My study reveals that police officers are virtually always indemnified: During the study period, governments paid approximately 99.98 percent of the dollars that plaintiffs recovered in lawsuits alleging civil rights violations by law enforcement,” Schwartz wrote. “Law enforcement officers in my study never satisfied a punitive damages award entered against them and almost never contributed anything to settlements or judgments — even when indemnification was prohibited by law or policy, and even when officers were disciplined, terminated or prosecuted for their conduct.” To reach these conclusions, Schwartz looked at misconduct cases in 44 large and 37 small or mid-sized police departments from 2006 to 2011. City Lab reports that together, these departments made up about 20 percent of the nation’s police officers.

 The data showed officers rarely pay out of their own pockets for civil-rights violations. In 9,225 cases from large cities that were settled or judged for the victim, $735 million in damages was awarded, with officers paying .02 percent of that figure - $171,300. In small to mid-sized cities, officers paid no part of the $9.4 million awarded. Schwartz told City Lab there is no reason to expect suits in Ferguson, Mo., or New York City will play out any differently. According to the Associated Press, Eric Garner’s family has filed suit against the city, the NYPD and the six officers involved for $75 million dollars. ThinkProgress reports six protesters in Ferguson are suing for $40 million in the first of many federal lawsuits expected to be filed. It is unclear how Ferguson will handle the financial burden – the figure dwarfs the city’s revenues for the fiscal year, and ThinkProgress reports the city is already budgeting for the fallout. Solutions for the problem are unclear. Schwartz told City Lab municipalities don’t necessarily need to eliminate indemnification, but suggests that holding more officers financially accountable for their actions would be a step in the right direction.
10 -
11 -Cities make police more aggressive, they’re forced to issue more tickets to make up for budget deficits – turns case.
12 -Vibes 14. John Vibes is an author, researcher and investigative journalist who takes a special interest in the counter culture and the drug war. In addition to his writing and activist work he is also the owner of a successful music promotion company. In 2013, he became one of the organizers of the Free Your Mind Conference, which features top caliber speakers and whistle-blowers from all over the world. You can contact him and stay connected to his work at his Facebook page. You can find his 65 chapter Book entitled “Alchemy of the Timeless Renaissance” at bookpatch.com. , 12-15-2014, "Ferguson to Solve Budget Crisis by Ordering Their Police to be More Aggressive," Free Thought Project, http://thefreethoughtproject.com/ferguson-police-ordered-start-writing-tickets-solve-citys-budget-crisis/#D9HXDXvtpXzikWDF.99. //RS
13 -
14 -While controversy about the police killing of teenager Michael Brown has been the primary focus in Ferguson this year, the city’s government is also facing a massive budget crisis, which they are hoping to solve by ordering their police officers to write more tickets. Many residents in Ferguson have already pointed out that once this policy is implemented, it will strain the already high tensions between the community and the police. In a telephone interview with Bloomberg News this week, Ferguson’s finance director, Jeffrey Blume explained that in order for the city’s government to stay above their budget, the police would have to write millions of dollars in tickets for small, non-violent infractions. “There are a number of things going on in 2014 and one is a revenue shortfall that we anticipate making up in 2015. There’s about a million-dollar increase in public-safety fines to make up the difference,” Blume said. Police generated revenue from writing tickets is already the city’s second larges source of revenue after sales taxes, and the money brought in through the police departments is expected to grow with these new guidelines. “They said they weren’t going to go after poor people, so to speak, to fund their budget, but I guess that’s changed,” Tim Fischesser, executive director of the St. Louis Municipal League told Bloomberg. Some state politicians are worried that this could contribute to further unrest so they are seeking to limit how much money the local government can draw from police generated revenue. A number of state senators have filed two bills that would put these types of limits on the local government in Ferguson. “For Ferguson to respond to all of this and say that increasing ticketing was a good idea is outrageous,” one of the bill’s sponsors, Scott Sifton said. According to Sifton, the bills will be voted on sometime after January 7th, and if approved the limits would not go into effect until at least August. Missouri State Treasurer Clint Zweifel, also spoke in opposition of the new policies, saying that a strong focus on revenue generating does not make communities any safer. “Increasing reliance on such fines is the wrong way to go, period. Residents and neighborhoods are safer when police can focus on public safety, not a municipality’s need to protect a revenue stream,” Zweifel said.
15 -
16 -Tickets perpetuate structural inequalities – turns case.
17 -Solon 14. Sarah Solon: Communications Strategist, ACLU, 6-18-2014, "Preying on the Poor: For-Profit Probation Edition," American Civil Liberties Union, https://www.aclu.org/blog/preying-poor-profit-probation-edition //RS
18 -
19 -Welcome to Alabama, the state of the never-ending seat belt ticket. Hali Wood is 17. She's applied to work at several grocery stores in her home town of Columbiana, but none are hiring. A few months back, cops ticketed Hali for not wearing a seat belt. The fine: $41. Hali has paid $41 and then some, but she's still hundreds of dollars in debt. Why? Because the court contracts with JCS, a for-profit probation company that forces Hali to choose between paying their exorbitant fees and going to jail. Here's how the scheme works: Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube.com Borrowing from the payday lender playbook, companies like JCS often sign contracts in cities and counties strapped for cash. For the county, the deal seems like a sweet one: The company will collect outstanding court debts for free and make all their profits from charging probationers fees. But the problem is that many of these people were put on probation because they were too poor to pay their fine in the first place and for them, the additional fees are huge. People find themselves scrambling for money they don't have and forgoing basic necessities to avoid being thrown behind bars for missing a payment. The impact on communities, especially low-income communities of color, is devastating. Sadly, the for-profit probation business is booming. Every year, hundreds of thousands of people are sentenced to probation, often for misdemeanors including unpaid parking tickets. Instead of being able to just pay those fines and move on with their lives, many get sucked into spiraling debt traps they cannot escape. There are hundreds of thousands of people like Hali out there, for whom small court fines have ballooned into hundreds of dollars of debt. The for-profit probation racket isn't benefiting society; it's only benefiting these companies' bottom line. We need to remember two things: 1) If probationers miss a payment and end up behind bars, taxpayers foot the bill for this imprisonment; and 2) Our communities are not better off when we force people in poverty to choose between their liberty and putting food on their table —and needlessly lining the pockets of for-profit probation companies in the process. Counties and courts do not need to contract with these debt collectors on steroids. Publicly run probation exists, and it works while doing much less damage to communities. It's time to urge courts to cut their ties with the for-profit probation industry.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-12-03 21:05:03.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Alexander Chase
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Southlake Carroll RP
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -3
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Westwood Dambal Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -NOVDEC - Indemnification DA
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -UT
Caselist.CitesClass[3]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,29 +1,0 @@
1 -The 1AC’s form of justice is dependent on money, re-entrenching capitalism. The cost of civil suits means only the rich can afford their liberation strategy.
2 -Higdon 10. Woodrow L. Higdon – Investigative Photo Journalist, March 2010, "PUBLIC-CORRUPTION-COVER-UP-THRU-CIVIL-LITIAGTION-ABUSE," No Publication, http://www.gtinewsphoto.com/PUBLIC-CORRUPTION-COVER-UP-THRU-CIVIL-LITIAGTION.html //RS
3 -
4 -The so called "Civil and Criminal Justice Systems" in the United States, are systems controlled by money, and the access that money buys. In general, the more money you have, the more "Justice" you can buy. Good attorneys cost a lot more, than bad attorneys. District Attorneys and public agencies, have unlimited public tax dollar finances, which provide unlimited legal resources, for both criminal and civil cases. In the case of District Attorneys, it also provides almost unlimited power, to manipulate and obstruct criminal and civil law, and the lives of the people involved. This is why a corrupt public agency, or District Attorney's office, like the San Diego District Attorneys office, is so dangerous to the public welfare. It is also how many law enforcement agencies cover up public corruption, by obstructing the filing and investigation of citizen criminal complaints. This is done while knowing about citizens limitations in the civil legal system. Criminal investigations are blocked and citizens are pushed to hire a civil attorney, with the knowledge that very few can afford the cost of civil litigation. The few citizens that can afford to file a civil litigation, will quickly find that public agencies, and their employees, also have extensive protections from civil litigation, built into the legal system. These public entity civil litigation immunities were originally intended to protect the public agency for the financial benefit of the citizens. However, as time passed the public entities found the immunities could be used to protect tax dollar resources for the use of the public unions. Public agencies and DA's are well aware of these financial and legal advantages when they push citizens to drop criminal complaints, go away, and hire an attorney. It is also why "Civil Litigation", is one of the most effective public corruption cover up tools available to public agencies.
5 -
6 -The 1AC’s belief in reforming the police is flawed – they ignore that capitalism is the foundation of police violence.
7 -Mitrani 14. Sam Mitrani Is An Associate Professor Of History At The College Of Dupage. He Earned His Phd From The University Of Illinois At Chicago In 2009 and His Book The Rise Of The Chicago Police Department: Class And Conflict, 1850-1894 Is Available From The University Of Illinois Press., 12-29-2014, "Stop Kidding Yourself: The Police Were Created to Control Working Class and Poor People," LAWCHA, http://lawcha.org/wordpress/2014/12/29/stop-kidding-police-created-control-working-class-poor-people/ //RS
8 -
9 -In most of the liberal discussions of the recent police killings of unarmed black men, there is an underlying assumption that the police are supposed to protect and serve the population. That is, after all, what they were created to do. If only the normal, decent relations between the police and the community could be re-established, this problem could be resolved. Poor people in general are more likely to be the victims of crime than anyone else, this reasoning goes, and in that way, they are in more need than anyone else of police protection. Maybe there are a few bad apples, but if only the police weren’t so racist, or didn’t carry out policies like stop-and-frisk, or weren’t so afraid of black people, or shot fewer unarmed men, they could function as a useful service that we all need. This liberal way of viewing the problem rests on a misunderstanding of the origins of the police and what they were created to do. The police were not created to protect and serve the population. They were not created to stop crime, at least not as most people understand it. And they were certainly not created to promote justice. They were created to protect the new form of wage-labor capitalism that emerged in the mid- to late-19th century from the threat posed by that system’s offspring, the working class. This is a blunt way of stating a nuanced truth, but sometimes nuance just serves to obfuscate. Before the 19th century, there were no police forces that we would recognize as such anywhere in the world. In the Northern United States, there was a system of elected constables and sheriffs, much more responsible to the population in a very direct way than the police are today. In the South, the closest thing to a police force was the slave patrols. Then, as Northern cities grew and filled with mostly immigrant wage workers who were physically and socially separated from the ruling class, the wealthy elite who ran the various municipal governments hired hundreds and then thousands of armed men to impose order on the new working class neighborhoods. Class conflict roiled late-19th century American cities like Chicago, which experienced major strikes and riots in 1867, 1877, 1886, and 1894. In each of these upheavals, the police attacked strikers with extreme violence, even if in 1877 and 1894 the U.S. Army played a bigger role in ultimately repressing the working class. In the aftermath of these movements, the police increasingly presented themselves as a thin blue line protecting civilization (by which they meant bourgeois civilization) from the disorder of the working class. This ideology of order that developed in the late 19th century echoes down to today—except that today, poor black and Latino people are the main threat, rather than immigrant workers. Of course, the ruling class did not get everything it wanted, and had to yield on many points to the immigrant workers it sought to control. This is why, for instance, municipal governments backed away from trying to stop Sunday drinking, and why they hired so many immigrant police officers, especially the Irish. But despite these concessions, businessmen organized themselves to make sure the police were increasingly isolated from democratic control, and established their own hierarchies, systems of governance, and rules of behavior. The police increasingly set themselves off from the population by donning uniforms; establishing their own rules for hiring, promotion and firing; working to build a unique esprit des corps and identifying themselves with order. And despite complaints about corruption and inefficiency, they gained more and more support from the ruling class, to the extent that in Chicago, for instance, businessmen donated money to buy the police rifles, artillery, Gatling guns, buildings, and money to establish a police pension out of their own pockets. There was a never a time when the big city police neutrally enforced “the law,” or came anywhere close to that ideal. (For that matter, the law itself has never been neutral.) In the North, they mostly arrested people for the vaguely defined “crimes” of disorderly conduct and vagrancy throughout the nineteenth century. This meant that the police could arrest anyone they saw as a threat to “order.” In the post-bellum South, they enforced white supremacy and largely arrested black people on trumped-up charges in order to feed them into convict labor systems. The violence the police carried out and their moral separation from those they patrolled were not the consequences of the brutality of individual officers, but were the consequences of careful policies designed to mold the police into a force that could use violence to deal with the social problems that accompanied the development of a wage-labor economy. For instance, in the short, sharp depression of the mid-1880s, Chicago was filled with prostitutes who worked the streets. Many policemen recognized that these prostitutes were generally impoverished women seeking a way to survive, and initially tolerated their behavior. But the police hierarchy insisted that the patrolmen do their duty whatever their feelings, and arrest these women, impose fines, and drive them off the streets and into brothels, where they could be ignored by some members of the elite and controlled by others. Similarly, in 1885, when Chicago began to experience a wave of strikes, some policemen sympathized with strikers. But once the police hierarchy and the mayor decided to break the strikes, policemen who refused to comply were fired. In these and a thousand similar ways, the police were molded into a force that would impose order on working class and poor people, whatever the individual feelings of the officers involved. Though some patrolmen tried to be kind and others were openly brutal, police violence in the 1880s was not a case of a few bad apples—and neither is it today. Much has changed since the creation of the police—most importantly the influx of black people into the Northern cities, the mid-twentieth century black movement, and the creation of the current system of mass incarceration in part as a response to that movement. But these changes did not lead to a fundamental shift in policing. They led to new policies designed to preserve fundamental continuities. The police were created to use violence to reconcile electoral democracy with industrial capitalism. Today, they are just one part of the “criminal justice” system which continues to play the same role. Their basic job is to enforce order among those with the most reason to resent the system—who in our society today are disproportionately poor black people. A democratic police system is imaginable—one in which police are elected by and accountable to the people they patrol. But that is not what we have. And it’s not what the current system of policing was created to be. If there is one positive lesson from the history of policing’s origins, it is that when workers organized, refused to submit or cooperate and caused problems for the city governments, they could back the police off from the most galling of their activities. Murdering individual police officers, as happened in in Chicago on May 3, 1886 and more recently in New York on December 20, 2014, only reinforced those calling for harsh repression—a reaction we are beginning to see already. But resistance on a mass scale could force the police to hesitate. This happened in Chicago during the early 1880s, when the police pulled back from breaking strikes, hired immigrant officers, and tried to re-establish some credibility among the working class after their role in brutally crushing the 1877 upheaval. The police might be backed off again if the reaction against the killings of Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice and countless others continues. If they are, it will be a victory for those mobilizing today, and will save lives—though as long as this system that requires police violence to control a big share of its population survives, any change in police policy will be aimed at keeping the poor in line more effectively. We shouldn’t expect the police to be something they’re not. We ought to know that origins matter, and the police were created by the ruling class to control working class and poor people, not help them. They’ve continued to play that role ever since.
10 -
11 -Capitalism propagates the need for surveillance – turns case.
12 -Foster 14. (John Bellamy, prof of sociology @ univ of Oregon, Robert W.**, prof @ univ of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, July-August 2014, “Surveillance Capitalism: Monopoly-Finance Capital, the Military-Industrial Complex, and the Digital Age”, http://monthlyreview.org/2014/07/01/surveillance-capitalism/, aps)
13 -
14 -Financialization—or the long-term growth of speculation on financial assets relative to GDP—meant the intrusion of finance into all aspects of life, requiring new extensions of surveillance and information control as forms of financial risk management. As the economy became more financialized, it became increasingly vulnerable to financial meltdowns, increasing risk perceptions on the part of investors and the perceived need for risk management, encryption of data, and security.¶ Today the fears of cyberwar aimed at financial institutions, the entire financial system, and the military system, is at the top of national security concerns. McConnell, who had left his job at Booz Allen to become director of national intelligence in 2007 under George W. Bush, informed the president that, “If the 9/11 perpetrators had focused on a single U.S. bank through cyberattack, and it had been successful, it would have had an order of magnitude greater impact on the U.S. economy than the physical attack.” Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, agreed. Bush was so alarmed that within a short time the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (2008) was in place, which greatly expanded the NSA’s authority to carry out surveillance on the Internet domestically, leading to the construction of its $1.5 billion data center in Utah.53 Leon Panetta, U.S. defense secretary under Obama, warned that a cyberattack on the U.S. financial system might be the “next Pearl Harbor.” In July 2011 Barack Obama signed an executive order declaring that the infiltration of financial markets by transnational criminal organizations constituted a national emergency. Symantec, a cybersecurity firm, estimated in 2010 that three-quarters of “phishing” attacks designed to get people to give up financial data were not aimed at individuals but were directed at the financial sector.54¶ In addition to hackers breaking into databases, large scale attacks on entire security systems are feared. The sudden drop in the stock market on May 6, 2010, attributed to high speed algorithmic trading, was thought to prefigure a new possible form of cyberwar aimed at dragging reeling markets down further using short-selling, options, and swaps—a kind of “force multiplier” in military-speak. Hackers using malicious codes to crash or jam whole networks can mobilize Botnets or robotic networks of hundreds of thousands of machines. According to Mortimer Zuckerman, chairman and editor-in-chief of U.S. News and World Report, writing in the Wall Street Journal, digitalized systems are extraordinarily vulnerable to attack: “the average offensive malware has about 175 lines of code, which can attack defense software using between 5 million and 10 million lines of code.” The U.S./Israeli-developed “Stutnex” worm aimed at Iran, which reportedly infiltrated the computers controlling Iranian nuclear centrifuge facilities, is seen as an indication of the scale and precision with which cyberattacks can now demobilize whole systems.55¶ The Internet and Monopoly Capital¶ ARPANET was connected only to those universities and their computer science departments that had Department of Defense funding and security clearances. With the success of the system, computer science departments at universities and private industry were all eager to be connected to the network. This resulted in the creation by the National Science Foundation of the Computer Science Research Network (CSNET), which consisted of ARPANET, a Telenet system, and PhoneNet for email. Soon other, private internets were created. In 1985 the National Science Foundation constructed five supercomputers across the country to be the backbone of a larger NSFNET, which brought universities in general and private corporations into what had merged into a much wider Internet with a common protocol, resulting in a massive growth of users who could access it through personal computers, via Internet Service Providers.¶ ARPANET ceased operations in 1989. In the early 1990s the World Wide Web was developed, leading to an astronomical increase in users, and the rapid commercialization of the Internet. Three key developments followed: (1) In 1995 NSFNET was privatized, and NSFNET itself decommissioned, with the backbone of the system being controlled by private Internet Service Providers;56 (2) the Telecommunications Act of 1996 introduced a massive deregulation of telecommunications and media, setting the stage for further concentration and cenoentralization of capital in these industries;57 (3) the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, promoted by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers under the Clinton administration, deregulated the financial sector in an attempt to feed the financial bubble that was developing.58 These three elements coalesced into one of the biggest merger waves in history, known as the dot-com or New Economy bubble. The ongoing concentration of capital was thus given a huge boost in the technology and finance sectors, leading to ever greater levels of monopoly power.¶ The dot-com bubble burst in 2000. But by that time a virtual Internet cartel had emerged, despite all the rhetoric of “friction-free capitalism” by Bill Gates and others.59 By the end of the decade the Internet had come to play a central role in capital accumulation, and the firms that ruled the Internet were almost all “monopolies,” by the way economists use the term. This did not mean that these firms sold 100 percent of an industry’s output, but rather that they sold a sufficient amount to control the price of the product and how much competition they would have. (Even John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil monopoly at its peak controlled just over 80 percent of the market.) By 2014, three of the four largest U.S. corporations in market valuation—Apple, Microsoft, and Google—were Internet monopolies. Twelve of the thirty most valuable U.S. corporations were media giants and/or Internet monopolies, including Verizon, Amazon, Disney, Comcast, Intel, Facebook, Qualcomm, and Oracle. These firms used network effects, technical standards, patent law, and good old-fashioned barriers-to-entry to lock in their market power, and they used their monopoly gushers to broaden their digital empires. With this economic power comes immense political power, such that these firms face no threat from regulators in Washington. To the contrary, the U.S. government is little short of a private army for the Internet giants as they pursue their global ambitions.60¶ The major means of wealth generation on the Internet and through proprietary platforms such as apps is the surveillance of the population, allowing for a handful of firms to reap the lion’s share of the gains from the enormous sales effort in the U.S. economy. The digitalization of surveillance has radically changed the nature of advertising. The old system of advertisers purchasing ad space or time in media with the hope of getting the media user to notice the advertisement while she sought out news or entertainment is becoming passé. Advertisers no longer need to subsidize journalism or media content production to reach their target audiences. Instead, they can pinpoint their desired audience to a person and locate them wherever they are online (and often where they are in physical space) due to ubiquitous surveillance. The premise of the system is that there is no effective privacy. The consequences are that the commercial system of media content production, especially journalism, is in collapse, with nothing in the wings to replace it.¶ These monopolistic corporate entities readily cooperate with the repressive arm of the state in the form of its military, intelligence, and police functions. The result is to enhance enormously the secret national security state, relative to the government as a whole. Edward Snowden’s revelations of the NSA’s Prism program, together with other leaks, have shown a pattern of a tight interweaving of the military with giant computer-Internet corporations, creating what has been called a “military-digital complex.”61 Indeed, Beatrice Edwards, the executive director of the Government Accountability Project, argues that what has emerged is a “government-corporate surveillance complex.”62¶ This extends beyond the vast private contractor network to “secret collaboration” with the main Internet and telecom companies.63 Notable examples of partly cooperative, partly legally coerced sharing of data include:¶ A 2009 report by the NSA’s inspector general leaked by Snowden stated that the NSA has built collaborative relationships with over “100 companies.”64¶ Microsoft provided the NSA with pre-encryption “back door” access to its popular Outlook.com email portal, to its Skype Internet phone calls and chat (with its 663 million global users), and to SkyDrive, Microsoft’s cloud storage system (which has 250 million users). The Snowden files show that Microsoft actively collaborated with the NSA. Glenn Greenwald writes: “Microsoft spent ‘many months’ working to provide the government easy access to that the SkyDrive data.” The same was the case for Skype, while in the case of Outlook.com it took only a few months for the Microsoft and the NSA working together to ensure the NSA’s complete access.65¶ The NSA paid $10 million to the computer security company RSA to promote a back door to encryption products. The NSA devised a flawed formula for generating random numbers for encryption with RSA inserting it into its software tool Bsafe, which had been designed to enhance security in personal computers and other digital products.66¶ ATandT voluntarily sold metadata on phone calls to the CIA for over $10 million a year in connection with the latter’s counterterrorism investigations.67¶ Verizon (and likely ATandT and Sprint as well) provided the NSA with metadata on all calls in its (their) systems, both within the United States and between the United States and other countries. Such metadata has been supplied to the NSA under both the Bush and Obama administrations.68¶ Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, and Facebook turned over the data from tens of thousands of their accounts on individuals every six months to the NSA and other intelligence agencies, with a rapid rise in the number of accounts turned over to the secret government.69¶ In 2012 DARPA Director Regina Dugan left her position to join Google. During her period as director, DARPA had been at the forefront of drone research, presenting the first prototype demonstrations in the early 1990s. However, the outgrowth of this in the deployment of General Atomic Aeronautical System’s Predator drones in warfare did not occur until the late 1990s in the Kosovo War, with Clark as the Supreme Allied Commander. The first use of such drones for global, extra-territorial assassination, outside a field of war—now a staple of Obama’s “anti-terrorism” strategy—took place in 2002.70 In the opening years of this century DARPA extended its research to developing drones that could be used for mobile wi-fi capabilities. Dugan’s switch to Google in the private sector—at a time when she was under governmental investigation for giving hefty DARPA contracts to RedX, a bomb-detection corporation that she had co-founded and partly owned—was connected to Google’s interest in developing high-altitude drones with wi-fi delivering capabilities. In 2014 Google announced that it was buying Titan Aerospace, a U.S.-based start-up company for building drones which cruise at the very edge of the atmosphere. Facebook meanwhile bought the UK corporation, Ascenta, which specializes in making high-altitude solar drones. Such drones would allow the spread of the Internet to new areas. The goal was to capitalize on a new military technology and create larger global Internet monopolies, while expanding the military-digital complex.71¶ By 2005–2007 broad estimates suggested that U.S. marketing expenditures (defined fairly narrowly) were running at about $1 trillion a year; real (both acknowledged and unacknowledged) military expenditures at about $1 trillion annually; and FIRE (finance, insurance, and real estate) expenditures at approximately $2.5 trillion.72 In the digital age, these three sectors of the political economy, each of which arose parasitically on the production base of the economy, were increasingly connected in a web of technology and data sharing. As the most advanced technologies (usually military developed) went private, many of those involved in the warfare economy, such as DARPA’s Dugan, were in a position to exploit the knowledge and connections that they had accumulated by shifting to the private sector, crossing fairly easily from one system of security and surveillance to another.¶ A kind of linguistic convergence mirrored the centralized structure of monopoly-finance capital in the age of digital surveillance with “securitization” increasingly standing simultaneously for a world dominated by: (1) financial derivatives trading, (2) a network of public and private surveillance, (3) the militarization of security-control systems, and (4) the removal of judicial processes from effective civilian control.
15 -
16 -Capitalism and slavery produced anti-blackness, not the reverse. A shift in economic conditions made African slavery more cost-effective than white indentured servitude, producing the Atlantic slave trade. Only our approach can decipher the way violence functions.
17 -Selfa 2010 Lance, Lance Selfa is a frequent contributor to the International Socialist Review, and writes a column on U.S. politics in Socialist Worker newspaper. “The Roots of Racism.” http://socialistworker.org/2010/10/21/the-roots-of-racism//MM
18 -
19 -Although it is a commonplace for academics and opponents of socialism to claim that Karl Marx ignored racism, Marx in fact described the processes that created modern racism. His explanation of the rise of capitalism placed the African slave trade, the European extermination of indigenous people in the Americas and colonialism at its heart. In Capital, Marx writes: The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the indigenous population of the continent, the beginnings of the conquest and plunder of India, and the conversion of Africa into a preserve for the commercial hunting of black skins are all things that characterize the dawn of the era of capitalist production. Marx connected his explanation of the role of the slave trade in the rise of capitalism to the social relations that produced racism against Africans. In Wage Labor and Capital, written 12 years before the American Civil War, he explains: What is a Negro slave? A man of the black race. The one explanation is as good as the other. A Negro is a Negro. He only becomes a slave in certain relations. A cotton spinning jenny is a machine for spinning cotton. It only becomes capital in certain relations. Torn away from these conditions, it is as little capital as gold by itself is money, or as sugar is the price of sugar. In this passage, Marx shows no prejudice to Blacks ("a man of the black race," "a Negro is a Negro"), but he mocks society's equation of "Black" and "slave" ("one explanation is as good as another"). He shows how the economic and social relations of emerging capitalism thrust Blacks into slavery ("he only becomes a slave in certain relations"), which produce the dominant ideology that equates being African with being a slave. These fragments of Marx's writing give us a good start in understanding the Marxist explanation of the origins of racism. As the Trinidadian historian of slavery Eric Williams put it: "Slavery was not born of racism: rather, racism was the consequence of slavery." And, one should add, the consequence of modern slavery at the dawn of capitalism. While slavery existed as an economic system for thousands of years before the conquest of America, racism as we understand it today did not exist. From time immemorial? The classical empires of Greece and Rome were based on slave labor. But ancient slavery was not viewed in racial terms. Slaves were most often captives in wars or conquered peoples. If we understand white people as originating in what is today Europe, then most slaves in ancient Greece and Rome were white. Roman law made slaves the property of their owners, while maintaining a "formal lack of interest in the slave's ethnic or racial provenance," wrote Robin Blackburn in The Making of New World Slavery. Over the years, slave manumission produced a mixed population of slave and free in Roman-ruled areas, in which all came to be seen as "Romans." The Greeks drew a sharper line between Greeks and "barbarians," those subject to slavery. Again, this was not viewed in racial or ethnic terms, as the socialist historian of the Haitian Revolution, C.L.R. James, explained: Historically, it is pretty well proved now that the ancient Greeks and Romans knew nothing about race. They had another standard~-~-civilized and barbarian~-~-and you could have white skin and be a barbarian, and you could be black and civilized. More importantly, encounters in the ancient world between the Mediterranean world and Black Africans did not produce an upsurge of racism against Africans. In Before Color Prejudice, Howard University classics professor Frank Snowden documented innumerable accounts of interaction between the Greco-Roman and Egyptian civilizations and the Kush, Nubian, and Ethiopian kingdoms of Africa. He found substantial evidence of integration of Black Africans in the occupational hierarchies of the ancient Mediterranean empires and Black-white intermarriage. Black and mixed race gods appeared in Mediterranean art, and at least one Roman emperor, Septimius Severus, was an African. Between the 10th and 16th centuries, the chief source of slaves in Western Europe was Eastern Europe. In fact, the word "slave" comes from the word "Slav," the people of Eastern Europe. This outline doesn't mean to suggest a "pre-capitalist" Golden Age of racial tolerance, least of all in the slave societies of antiquity. Empires viewed themselves as centers of the universe and looked on foreigners as inferiors. Ancient Greece and Rome fought wars of conquest against peoples they presumed to be less advanced. Religious scholars interpreted the Hebrew Bible's "curse of Ham" from the story of Noah to condemn Africans to slavery. Cultural and religious associations of the color white with light and angels and the color black with darkness and evil persisted. But none of these cultural or ideological factors explain the rise of New World slavery or the "modern" notions of racism that developed from it. The African slave trade The slave trade lasted for a little more than 400 years, from the mid-1400s, when the Portuguese made their first voyages down the African coast, to the abolition of slavery in Brazil in 1888. Slave traders took as many as 12 million Africans by force to work on the plantations in South America, the Caribbean and North America. About 13 percent of slaves (1.5 million) died during the Middle Passage~-~-the trip by boat from Africa to the New World. The African slave trade~-~-involving African slave merchants, European slavers and New World planters in the traffic in human cargo~-~-represented the greatest forced population transfer ever. The charge that Africans "sold their own people" into slavery has become a standard canard against "politically correct" history that condemns the European role in the African slave trade. The first encounters of the Spanish and Portuguese, and later the English, with African kingdoms revolved around trade in goods. Only after the Europeans established New World plantations requiring huge labor gangs did the slave trade begin. African kings and chiefs did indeed sell into slavery captives in wars or members of other communities. Sometimes, they concluded alliances with Europeans to support them in wars, with captives from their enemies being handed over to the Europeans as booty. The demands of the plantation economies pushed "demand" for slaves. Supply did not create its own demand. In any event, it remains unseemly to attempt to absolve the European slavers by reference to their African partners in crime. As historian Basil Davidson rightly argues about African chiefs' complicity in the slave trade: "In this, they were no less 'moral' than the Europeans who had instigated the trade and bought the captives." Onboard, Africans were restricted in their movements so that they wouldn't combine to mutiny on the ship. In many slave ships, slaves were chained down, stacked like firewood with less than a foot between them. On the plantations, slaves were subjected to a regimen of 18-hour workdays. All members of slave families were set to work. Since the New World tobacco and sugar plantations operated nearly like factories, men, women and children were assigned tasks, from the fields to the processing mills. Slaves were denied any rights. Throughout the colonies in the Caribbean to North America, laws were passed establishing a variety of common practices: Slaves were forbidden to carry weapons, they could marry only with the owner's permission, and their families could be broken up. They were forbidden to own property. Masters allowed slaves to cultivate vegetables and chickens, so the master wouldn't have to attend to their food needs. But they were forbidden even to sell for profit the products of their own gardens. Some colonies encouraged religious instruction among slaves, but all of them made clear that a slave's conversion to Christianity didn't change their status as slaves. Other colonies discouraged religious instruction, especially when it became clear to the planters that church meetings were one of the chief ways that slaves planned conspiracies and revolts. It goes without saying that slaves had no political or civil rights, with no right to an education, to serve on juries, to vote or to run for public office. The planters instituted barbaric regimes of repression to prevent any slave revolts. Slave catchers using tracker dogs would hunt down any slaves who tried to escape the plantation. The penalties for any form of slave resistance were extreme and deadly. One description of the penalties slaves faced in Barbados reports that rebellious slaves would be punished by "nailing them down on the ground with crooked sticks on every Limb, and then applying the Fire by degrees from Feet and Hands, burning them gradually up to the Head, whereby their pains are extravagant." Barbados planters could claim a reimbursement from the government of 25 pounds per slave executed. The African slave trade helped to shape a wide variety of societies from modern Argentina to Canada. These differed in their use of slaves, the harshness of the regime imposed on slaves, and the degree of mixing of the races that custom and law permitted. But none of these became as virulently racist~-~-insisting on racial separation and a strict color bar~-~-as the English North American colonies that became the United States. Unfree labor in the North American colonies Notwithstanding the horrible conditions that African slaves endured, it is important to underscore that when European powers began carving up the New World between them, African slaves were not part of their calculations. When we think of slavery today, we think of it primarily from the point of view of its relationship to racism. But planters in the 17th and 18th centuries looked at it primarily as a means to produce profits. Slavery was a method of organizing labor to produce sugar, tobacco and cotton. It was not, first and foremost, a system for producing white supremacy. How did slavery in the U.S. (and the rest of the New World) become the breeding ground for racism? For much of the first century of colonization in what became the United States, the majority of slaves and other "unfree laborers" were white. The term "unfree" draws the distinction between slavery and servitude and "free wage labor" that is the norm in capitalism. One of the historic gains of capitalism for workers is that workers are "free" to sell their ability to labor to whatever employer will give them the best deal. Of course, this kind of freedom is limited at best. Unless they are independently wealthy, workers aren't free to decide not to work. They're free to work or starve. Once they do work, they can quit one employer and go to work for another. But the hallmark of systems like slavery and indentured servitude was that slaves or servants were "bound over" to a particular employer for a period of time, or for life in the case of slaves. The decision to work for another master wasn't the slave's or the servant's. It was the master's, who could sell slaves for money or other commodities like livestock, lumber or machinery. The North American colonies started predominantly as private business enterprises in the early 1600s. Unlike the Spanish, whose conquests of Mexico and Peru in the 1500s produced fabulous gold and silver riches for Spain, settlers in places like the colonies that became Maryland, Rhode Island, and Virginia made money through agriculture. In addition to sheer survival, the settlers' chief aim was to obtain a labor force that could produce the large amounts of indigo, tobacco, sugar and other crops that would be sold back to England. From 1607, when Jamestown was founded in Virginia to about 1685, the primary source of agricultural labor in English North America came from white indentured servants. The colonists first attempted to press the indigenous population into labor. But the Indians refused to be become servants to the English. Indians resisted being forced to work, and they escaped into the surrounding area, which, after all, they knew far better than the English. One after another, the English colonies turned to a policy of driving out the Indians. The colonists then turned to white servants. Indentured servants were predominantly young white men~-~-usually English or Irish~-~-who were required to work for a planter master for some fixed term of four to seven years. The servants received room and board on the plantation but no pay. And they could not quit and work for another planter. They had to serve their term, after which they might be able to acquire some land and to start a farm for themselves. They became servants in several ways. Some were prisoners, convicted of petty crimes in Britain, or convicted of being troublemakers in Britain's first colony, Ireland. Many were kidnapped off the streets of Liverpool or Manchester, and put on ships to the New World. Some voluntarily became servants, hoping to start farms after they fulfilled their obligations to their masters. For most of the 1600s, the planters tried to get by with a predominantly white, but multiracial workforce. But as the 17th century wore on, colonial leaders became increasingly frustrated with white servant labor. For one thing, they faced the problem of constantly having to recruit labor as servants' terms expired. Second, after servants finished their contracts and decided to set up their farms, they could become competitors to their former masters. And finally, the planters didn't like the servants' "insolence." The mid-1600s were a time of revolution in England, when ideas of individual freedom were challenging the old hierarchies based on royalty. The colonial planters tended to be royalists, but their servants tended to assert their "rights as Englishmen" to better food, clothing and time off. Most laborers in the colonies supported the servants. As the century progressed, the costs of servant labor increased. Planters started to petition the colonial boards and assemblies to allow the large-scale importation of African slaves. Black slaves worked on plantations in small numbers throughout the 1600s. But until the end of the 1600s, it cost planters more to buy slaves than to buy white servants. Blacks lived in the colonies in a variety of statuses~-~-some were free, some were slaves, some were servants. The law in Virginia didn't establish the condition of lifetime, perpetual slavery or even recognize African servants as a group different from white servants until 1661. Blacks could serve on juries, own property and exercise other rights. Northampton County, Virginia, recognized interracial marriages and, in one case, assigned a free Black couple to act as foster parents for an abandoned white child. There were even a few examples of Black freemen who owned white servants. Free Blacks in North Carolina had voting rights. In the 1600s, the Chesapeake society of eastern Virginia had a multiracial character, according to historian Betty Wood: There is persuasive evidence dating from the 1620s through the 1680s that there were those of European descent in the Chesapeake who were prepared to identify and cooperate with people of African descent. These affinities were forged in the world of plantation work. On many plantations, Europeans and West Africans labored side by side in the tobacco fields, performing exactly the same types and amounts of work; they lived and ate together in shared housing; they socialized together; and sometimes they slept together. The planters' economic calculations played a part in the colonies' decision to move toward full-scale slave labor. By the end of the 17th century, the price of white indentured servants outstripped the price of African slaves. A planter could buy an African slave for life for the same price that he could purchase a white servant for 10 years. As Eric Williams explained: Here, then, is the origin of Negro slavery. The reason was economic, not racial; it had to do not with the color of the laborer, but the cheapness of the labor. The planter would have gone to the moon, if necessary, for labor. Africa was nearer than the moon, nearer too than the more populous countries of India and China. But their turn would soon come. Planters' fear of a multiracial uprising also pushed them towards racial slavery. Because a rigid racial division of labor didn't exist in the 17th century colonies, many conspiracies involving Black slaves and white indentured servants were hatched and foiled. We know about them today because of court proceedings that punished the runaways after their capture. As historians T.H. Breen and Stephen Innes point out, "These cases reveal only extreme actions, desperate attempts to escape, but for every group of runaways who came before the courts, there were doubtless many more poor whites and blacks who cooperated in smaller, less daring ways on the plantation." The largest of these conspiracies developed into Bacon's Rebellion, an uprising that threw terror into the hearts of the Virginia Tidewater planters in 1676. Several hundred farmers, servants and slaves initiated a protest to press the colonial government to seize Indian land for distribution. The conflict spilled over into demands for tax relief and resentment of the Jamestown establishment. Planter Nathaniel Bacon helped organize an army of whites and Blacks that sacked Jamestown and forced the governor to flee. The rebel army held out for eight months before the Crown managed to defeat and disarm it. Bacon's Rebellion was a turning point. After it ended, the Tidewater planters moved in two directions: first, they offered concessions to the white freemen, lifting taxes and extending to them the vote; and second, they moved to full-scale racial slavery. Fifteen years earlier, the Burgesses had recognized the condition of slavery for life and placed Africans in a different category as white servants. But the law had little practical effect. "Until slavery became systematic, there was no need for a systematic slave code. And slavery could not become systematic so long as an African slave for life cost twice as much as an English servant for a five-year term," wrote historian Barbara Jeanne Fields. Both of those circumstances changed in the immediate aftermath of Bacon's Rebellion. In the entire 17th century, the planters imported about 20,000 African slaves. The majority of them were brought to North American colonies in the 24 years after Bacon's Rebellion. In 1664, the Maryland legislature passed a law determining who would be considered slaves on the basis of the condition of their father~-~-whether their father was slave or free. It soon became clear, however, that establishing paternity was difficult, but that establishing who was a person's mother was definite. So the planters changed the law to establish slave status on the basis of the mother's condition. Now white slaveholders who fathered children by slave women would be guaranteed their offspring as slaves. And the law included penalties for "free" women who slept with slaves. But what's most interesting about this law is that it doesn't really speak in racial terms. It attempts to preserve the property rights of slaveholders and establish barriers between slave and free which were to become hardened into racial divisions over the next few years. Taking the Maryland law as an example, Fields made this important point: Historians can actually observe colonial Americans in the act of preparing the ground for race without foreknowledge of what would later arise on the foundation they were laying. The purpose of the experiment is clear: to prevent the erosion of slaveowners' property rights that would result if the offspring of free white women impregnated by slave men were entitled to freedom. The language of the preamble to the law makes clear that the point was not yet race. Race does not explain the law. Rather, the law shows society in the act of inventing race. After establishing that African slaves would cultivate major cash crops of the North American colonies, the planters then moved to establish the institutions and ideas that would uphold white supremacy. Most unfree labor became Black labor. Laws and ideas intended to underscore the subhuman status of Black people~-~-in a word, the ideology of racism and white supremacy~-~-emerged full-blown over the next generation. "All men are created equal" Within a few decades, the ideology of white supremacy was fully developed. Some of the greatest minds of the day~-~-such as Scottish philosopher David Hume and Thomas Jefferson, the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence~-~-wrote treatises alleging Black inferiority. The ideology of white supremacy based on the natural inferiority of Blacks, even allegations that Blacks were subhuman, strengthened throughout the 18th century. This was the way that the leading intellectual figures of the time reconciled the ideals of the 1776 American Revolution with slavery. The American Revolution of 1776 and later the French Revolution of 1789 popularized the ideas of liberty and the rights of all human beings. The Declaration of Independence asserts that "all men are created equal" and possess certain "unalienable rights"~-~-rights that can't be taken away~-~-of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." As the first major bourgeois revolution, the American Revolution sought to establish the rights of the new capitalist class against the old feudal monarchy. It started with the resentment of the American merchant class that wanted to break free from British restrictions on its trade. But its challenge to British tyranny also gave expression to a whole range of ideas that expanded the concept of "liberty" from being just about trade to include ideas of human rights, democracy, and civil liberties. It legitimized an assault on slavery as an offense to liberty. Some of the leading American revolutionaries, such as Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin, endorsed abolition. Slaves and free Blacks also pointed to the ideals of the revolution to call for abolishing slavery. But because the revolution aimed to establish the rule of capital in America, and because a lot of capitalists and planters made a lot of money from slavery, the revolution compromised with slavery. The Declaration initially contained a condemnation of King George for allowing the slave trade, but Jefferson dropped it following protests from representatives from Georgia and the Carolinas. How could the founding fathers of the U.S.~-~-most of whom owned slaves themselves~-~-reconcile the ideals of liberty for which they were fighting with the existence of a system that represented the exact negation of liberty? The ideology of white supremacy fit the bill. We know today that "all men" didn't include women, Indians or most whites. But to rule Black slaves out of the blessings of liberty, the leading head-fixers of the time argued that Blacks weren't really "men," they were a lower order of being. Jefferson's Notes from Virginia, meant to be a scientific catalogue of the flora and fauna of Virginia, uses arguments that anticipate the "scientific racism" of the 1800s and 1900s. With few exceptions, no major institution~-~-such as the universities, the churches or the newspapers of the time~-~-raised criticisms of white supremacy or of slavery. In fact, they helped pioneer religious and academic justifications for slavery and Black inferiority. As C.L.R. James put it, "The conception of dividing people by race begins with the slave trade. This thing was so shocking, so opposed to all the conceptions of society which religion and philosophers had, that the only justification by which humanity could face it was to divide people into races and decide that the Africans were an inferior race." White supremacy wasn't only used to justify slavery. It was also used to keep in line the two-thirds of Southern whites who weren't slaveholders. Unlike the French colony of St. Domingue or the British colony of Barbados, where Blacks vastly outnumbered whites, Blacks were a minority in the slave South. A tiny minority of slave-holding whites, who controlled the governments and economies of the Deep South states, ruled over a population that was roughly two-thirds white farmers and workers and one-third Black slaves. The slaveholders' ideology of racism and white supremacy helped to divide the working population, tying poor whites to the slaveholders. Slavery afforded poor white farmers what Fields called a "social space" whereby they preserved an illusory "independence" based on debt and subsistence farming, while the rich planters continued to dominate Southern politics and society. "A caste system as well as a form of labor," historian James M. McPherson wrote, "slavery elevated all whites to the ruling caste and thereby reduced the potential for class conflict." The great abolitionist Frederick Douglass understood this dynamic: The hostility between the whites and blacks of the South is easily explained. It has its root and sap in the relation of slavery, and was incited on both sides by the cunning of the slave masters. Those masters secured their ascendancy over both the poor whites and the Blacks by putting enmity between them. They divided both to conquer each. Slaveholders denounced emancipation as tending to put the white working man on an equality with Blacks, and by this means, they succeed in drawing off the minds of the poor whites from the real fact, that by the rich slave-master, they are already regarded as but a single remove from equality with the slave. Slavery and capitalism Slavery in the colonies helped produce a boom in the 18th century economy that provided the launching pad for the industrial revolution in Europe. From the start, colonial slavery and capitalism were linked. While it is not correct to say that slavery created capitalism, it is correct to say that slavery provided one of the chief sources for the initial accumulations of wealth that helped to propel capitalism forward in Europe and North America. The clearest example of the connection between plantation slavery and the rise of industrial capitalism was the connection between the cotton South, Britain and, to a lesser extent, the Northern industrial states. Here, we can see the direct link between slavery in the U.S. and the development of the most advanced capitalist production methods in the world. Cotton textiles accounted for 75 percent of British industrial employment in 1840, and, at its height, three-fourths of that cotton came from the slave plantations of the Deep South. And Northern ships and ports transported the cotton. To meet the boom in the 1840s and 1850s, the planters became even more vicious. On the one hand, they tried to expand slavery into the West and Central America. The fight over the extension of slavery into the territories eventually precipitated the Civil War in 1861. On the other hand, they drove slaves harder~-~-selling more cotton to buy more slaves just to keep up. On the eve of the Civil War, the South was petitioning to lift the ban on the importation of slaves that had existed officially since 1808. Karl Marx clearly understood the connection between plantation slavery in the cotton South and the development of capitalism in England. He wrote in Capital: While the cotton industry introduced child-slavery into England, in the United States, it gave the impulse for the transformation of the more or less patriarchal slavery into a system of commercial exploitation. In fact, the veiled slavery of the wage-laborers in Europe needed the unqualified slavery of the New World as its pedestal. Capital comes dripping from head to toe, from every pore, with blood and dirt. The close connection between slavery and capitalism, and thus, between racism and capitalism, gives the lie to those who insist that slavery would have just died out. In fact, the South was more dependent on slavery right before the Civil War than it was 50 or 100 years earlier. Slavery lasted as long as it did because it was profitable. And it was profitable to the richest and most "well-bred" people in the world. The Civil War abolished slavery and struck a great blow against racism. But racism itself wasn't abolished. On the contrary, just as racism was created to justify colonial slavery, racism as an ideology was refashioned. It now no longer justified the enslavement of Blacks, but it justified second-class status for Blacks as wage laborers and sharecroppers. Racist ideology was also refashioned to justify imperialist conquest at the turn of the last century. As a handful of competing world powers vied to carve up the globe into colonial preserves for cheap raw materials and labor, racism served as a convenient justification. The vast majority of the world's people were now portrayed as inferior races, incapable of determining their own future. Slavery disappeared, but racism remained as a means to justify the domination of millions of people by the U.S., various European powers, and later by Japan. Because racism is woven right into the fabric of capitalism, new forms of racism arose with changes in capitalism. As the U.S. economy expanded and underpinned U.S. imperial expansion, imperialist racism~-~-which asserted that the U.S. had a right to dominate other peoples, such as Mexicans and Filipinos~-~-developed. As the U.S. economy grew and sucked in millions of immigrant laborers, anti-immigrant racism developed. But these are both different forms of the same ideology~-~-of white supremacy and division of the world into "superior" and "inferior" races~-~-that had their origins in slavery. Racism and capitalism have been intertwined since the beginning of capitalism. You can't have capitalism without racism. Therefore, the final triumph over racism will only come when we abolish racism's chief source~-~-capitalism~-~-and build a new socialist society.
20 -
21 -Our alternative is to vote negative to refuse to participate in activities that support capitalism – key to hollowing out capitalist structures.
22 -Herod 4. Herod, Columbia University Graduate and Political Activist, 2004 (James, Getting Free, http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/GetFre/06.htm, JC)
23 -
24 -It is time to try to describe, at first abstractly and later concretely, a strategy for destroying capitalism. This strategy, at its most basic, calls for pulling time, energy, and resources out of capitalist civilization and putting them into building a new civilization. The image then is one of emptying out capitalist structures, hollowing them out, by draining wealth, power, and meaning out of them until there is nothing left but shells. This is definitely an aggressive strategy. It requires great militancy, and constitutes an attack on the existing order. The strategy clearly recognizes that capitalism is the enemy and must be destroyed, but it is not a frontal attack aimed at overthrowing the system, but an inside attack aimed at gutting it, while simultaneously replacing it with something better, something we want. Thus capitalist structures (corporations, governments, banks, schools, etc.) are not seized so much as simply abandoned. Capitalist relations are not fought so much as they are simply rejected. We stop participating in activities that support (finance, condone) the capitalist world and start participating in activities that build a new world while simultaneously undermining the old. We create a new pattern of social relations alongside capitalist relations and then we continually build and strengthen our new pattern while doing every thing we can to weaken capitalist relations. In this way our new democratic, non-hierarchical, non-commodified relations can eventually overwhelm the capitalist relations and force them out of existence. This is how it has to be done. This is a plausible, realistic strategy. To think that we could create a whole new world of decent social arrangements overnight, in the midst of a crisis, during a so-called revolution, or during the collapse of capitalism, is foolhardy. Our new social world must grow within the old, and in opposition to it, until it is strong enough to dismantle and abolish capitalist relations. Such a revolution will never happen automatically, blindly, determinably, because of the inexorable, materialist laws of history. It will happen, and only happen, because we want it to, and because we know what we’re doing and know how we want to live, and know what obstacles have to be overcome before we can live that way, and know how to distinguish between our social patterns and theirs. But we must not think that the capitalist world can simply be ignored, in a live and let live attitude, while we try to build new lives elsewhere. (There is no elsewhere.) There is at least one thing, wage-slavery, that we can’t simply stop participating in (but even here there are ways we can chip away at it). Capitalism must be explicitly refused and replaced by something else. This constitutes War, but it is not a war in the traditional sense of armies and tanks, but a war fought on a daily basis, on the level of everyday life, by millions of people. It is a war nevertheless because the accumulators of capital will use coercion, brutality, and murder, as they have always done in the past, to try to block any rejection of the system. They have always had to force compliance; they will not hesitate to continue doing so. Nevertheless, there are many concrete ways that individuals, groups, and neighborhoods can gut capitalism, which I will enumerate shortly. We must always keep in mind how we became slaves; then we can see more clearly how we can cease being slaves. We were forced into wage-slavery because the ruling class slowly, systematically, and brutally destroyed our ability to live autonomously. By driving us off the land, changing the property laws, destroying community rights, destroying our tools, imposing taxes, destroying our local markets, and so forth, we were forced onto the labor market in order to survive, our only remaining option being to sell, for a wage, our ability to work. It’s quite clear then how we can overthrow slavery. We must reverse this process. We must begin to reacquire the ability to live without working for a wage or buying the products made by wage-slaves (that is, we must get free from the labor market and the way of living based on it), and embed ourselves instead in cooperative labor and cooperatively produced goods. Another clarification is needed. This strategy does not call for reforming capitalism, for changing capitalism into something else. It calls for replacing capitalism, totally, with a new civilization. This is an important distinction, because capitalism has proved impervious to reforms, as a system. We can sometimes in some places win certain concessions from it (usually only temporary ones) and win some (usually short-lived) improvements in our lives as its victims, but we cannot reform it piecemeal, as a system.¶ Thus our strategy of gutting and eventually destroying capitalism requires at a minimum a totalizing image, an awareness that we are attacking an entire way of life and replacing it with another, and not merely reforming one way of life into something else. Many people may not be accustomed to thinking about entire systems and social orders, but everyone knows what a lifestyle is, or a way of life, and that is the way we should approach it. The thing is this: in order for capitalism to be destroyed millions and millions of people must be dissatisfied with their way of life. They must want something else and see certain existing things as obstacles to getting what they want. It is not useful to think of this as a new ideology. It is not merely a belief-system that is needed, like a religion, or like Marxism, or Anarchism. Rather it is a new prevailing vision, a dominant desire, an overriding need. What must exist is a pressing desire to live a certain way, and not to live another way. If this pressing desire were a desire to live free, to be autonomous, to live in democratically controlled communities, to participate in the self-regulating activities of a mature people, then capitalism could be destroyed. Otherwise we are doomed to perpetual slavery and possibly even to extinction.
25 -
26 -The role of the ballot is challenging capitalism in educational spaces – it has seeped into educational sites and has corrupted our epistemology, means K is a prior question.
27 -Giroux ’08. (Henry A, Global Network Television Chair in English and Cultural Studies at McMaster University, and Susan S, Associate Professor of English and Cultural Studies at McMaster University, “Education After Neoliberalism”, December 31 2008, http://www.truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/item/81781:education-after-neoliberalism,
28 -
29 -In spite of the crucial connection between various modes of domination and pedagogy, there is little input from progressive social theorists of what it might mean to theorize how education as a form of cultural politics actually constructs particular modes of address, identification, affective investments and social relations that produce consent and complicity with the ethos and practice of neoliberalism. Hence, while the current economic crisis has called into question the economic viability of neoliberal values and policies, it often does so by implying that neoliberal rationality can be explained through an economic optic alone, and consequently gives the relationship of politics, culture and inequality scant analysis. Neoliberal rationality is lived and legitimated in relation to the intertwining of culture, politics and meaning. Any viable challenge to the culture of neoliberalism as well as the current economic crisis it has generated must address not merely the diffuse operations of power throughout civil society and the globe, but also what it means to engage those diverse educational sites producing and legitimating neoliberal common sense, whether they be newspapers, advertising, the Internet, television or more recent spheres developed as part of the new information revolution. In addition, it is crucial to examine what role public intellectuals, think tanks, the media and universities actually play pedagogically in constructing and legitimating neoliberal world views, and how the latter works pedagogically in producing neoliberal subjects and securing consent.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-12-03 21:15:41.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Nikunj Patel
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Winston Churchill BW
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -5
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Westwood Dambal Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -NOVDEC - Cap K
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -UT
Caselist.RoundClass[1]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-12-03 21:05:02.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Alexander Chase
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Southlake Carroll RP
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -3
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,5 +1,0 @@
1 -1ac - stock
2 -1nc - Dem Auth CP Indemn DA case
3 -1ar - all
4 -2nr - all
5 -2ar - all
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -UT
Caselist.RoundClass[2]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -3
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-12-03 21:15:38.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Nikunj Patel
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Winston Churchill BW
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -5
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,5 +1,0 @@
1 -1ac - sousveillance
2 -1nc - cap k case
3 -1ar - all
4 -2nr - all
5 -2ar - all
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -UT
Caselist.RoundClass[8]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +11,12
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -2017-01-07 15:45:40.621
1 +2017-01-07 15:45:40.0
Caselist.CitesClass[11]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,24 @@
1 +Interpretation: The affirmative must defend the general principle that qualified immunity for police offers ought to be limited without specification.
2 +Violation: They only defend a portion of ______.
3 +Standards:
4 +
5 +The plan doesn’t affect police officers to any meaningful degree – that kills neg ground AND explodes limits
6 +Tomasi 12/1 (Adam Tomasi, Dec 1, 2016, “Winning Topicality against Small Affs”, https://championbriefs.com/blog/tomasi_topicality-substantially)
7 +"T-For" Dictionary.com defines "for" as "suiting the purposes or needs of" (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/for). Your argument here is that the affirmative does not limit qualified immunity in a case where it would inhibit the purposes or needs of police officers. This is meant to answer small affirmatives which argue that police departments can super easily adapt to their minute change in the law. That's how they'll say "no link" to every NC and DA. There are two reasons to prefer (and these should be the only two you bother with): limits and ground. Limits— 1 The affirmative explodes the topic—they can limit qualified immunity in any instance where it belongs to cops, even if the limit doesn't meaningfully affect the efficacy of their job. 2 Ground—The key question of the resolution is whether police officers have the right to infringe on constitutional rights in the name of fighting crime. If the plan doesn't make it harder for cops to find potential criminals, then the neg has no good DAs
8 +Two Impacts:
9 +Limits
10 +ground
11 +
12 +Err heavily negative on the limits and ground debate
13 +Tomasi 2 (Adam Tomasi, Dec 1, 2016, “Winning Topicality against Small Affs”, https://championbriefs.com/blog/tomasi_topicality-substantially)
14 +But unfortunately, I don't write your topics (what a shame!). So, you're left with a resolution that asks the affirmative merely to limit qualified immunity, with no qualifier indicating how much of a limit is needed. If the affirmative simply defended the resolution as a general principle, the "how much" question is avoided entirely. The debate is simply a matter of whether, on principle, police officers should be entitled to qualified immunity. However, a lot of teams will pursue affirmative cases which defend a very specific plan. They might argue for limiting qualified immunity in a particular instance, or a set of instances. They might also argue for a particular doctrinal change in how qualified immunity is awarded (which might "limit" qualified immunity by demanding stricter criteria for when it's granted). This kind of specification is perfectly reasonable, but what happens when your opponents realize they can get away with defending the tiniest possible limit? In that situation, your generics (the crime DA, most counterplans and NCs, etc.) probably don't apply. The best you're left with is the politics DA and moral skepticism (which is an interesting strategy, but not that effective). So what do you do? You clearly can't read T-substantial, but that's no reason to lose hope. I recommend crafting three potential T arguments, both of which are effective alternatives— (1) T-for, establishing that the plan isn't truly a limit on qualified immunity for police officers (yeah, I know that sounds weird, but read further) (2) T-limit, establishing that the plan isn't truly a limit on qualified immunity And (3) T-United States, against affirmatives that specify a particular branch of the federal government, or fiat all 50 states acting in unison In cases where the action of the plan is that insignificant, you should read all of these violations in unison. You'll probably have the same story regardless." T-For" Dictionary.com defines "for" as "suiting the purposes or needs of" (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/for). Your argument here is that the affirmative does not limit qualified immunity in a case where it would inhibit the purposes or needs of police officers. This is meant to answer small affirmatives which argue that police departments can super easily adapt to their minute change in the law. That's how they'll say "no link" to every NC and DA. There are two reasons to prefer (and these should be the only two you bother with): limits and ground. Limits—The affirmative explodes the topic—they can limit qualified immunity in any instance where it belongs to cops, even if the limit doesn't meaningfully affect the efficacy of their job. Ground—The key question of the resolution is whether police officers have the right to infringe on constitutional rights in the name of fighting crime. If the plan doesn't make it harder for cops to find potential criminals, then the neg has no good DAs "T-Limit" Dictionary.com defines limit in a legal context as "to fix or assign definitely or specifically." (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/limit) Your argument here is that the affirmative does not constitute a definite curtailment of cops' right to invoke qualified immunity in civil cases. If the affirmative specifies a particular type of police activity, but does not assign a definite condition on when/how qualified immunity can be granted, then they aren't T. Again, the same two reasons: Limits—The affirmative explodes the topic—they allow for lots of plans about countless interactions between cops and civilians without any definite or specific change in how qualified immunity is awarded Ground—Absent a definite or specific change affecting QI, they can "no link" every DA by claiming that the plan's ramifications aren't 100 certain "T-United States" The Legal Information Institute says that "United States refers to the Federal Government of the United States…" ("24 CFR 15.2 - What definitions apply to this part?") This interpretation certainly enables you to beat affirmatives that defend 50 state action, or that all municipalities act in unison. To beat Supreme Court affs, you need to read an additional definition of the United States federal government as all three branches. This means that the affirmative is not topical simply because they defended action by only one of those branches. Limits—The affirmative explodes the topic—they justify tiny affs that affect one police department in one neighborhood—negs can't predict utopian forms of multi-agent fiat or affs that work through one branch and not the others Ground—only federal action provides the most stable and predictable source of negative ground, like the politics DA Concluding thoughts 1. In the 2NR, you need to talk about how ridiculous it is that the resolution lacks a qualifier like "substantial." This is why the judge needs to lean heavily negative on the limits debate—the resolution doesn't have any built-in limit on how significant the plan can be, which gives the aff way too much leeway in choosing their plan—this really makes it hard to be negative, so the judge needs to hold the line 2. When I did high school debate, I didn't like theory or T very much. Nowadays, I think T is pretty fire. That said, I do encourage you to only read these arguments in debates where the plan was either (a) so small you didn't predict it, or (b) designed to make winning your generic NC or DA impossible. In those situations, you have the ethos to be like "this kind of an affirmative is why topicality exists."
15 +
16 +Limit means an entire restriction – vote neg on jurisdiction
17 +San Fellipo 92 (John, “OREGON'S TELEPHONE INFORMATION DELIVERY SERVICE LAW: A CONSUMER PROTECTION STEP TOO FAR” 28 Willamette L. Rev. 455 1991-1992, Hein Online)
18 +131. The author understands "limit" as used in OR. ADMIN. R. 860-21-505(8) (1991) to mean cancel, as opposed to the word "curtail" used in section (7), meaning only a partial restriction.
19 +
20 +Voter
21 +Galloway 07
22 +Drop the debater
23 +
24 +No RVIs
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-07 15:45:42.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Kevin Choi
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Anderson IS
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +8
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Westwood Dambal Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +NOVDEC - T - Plans Bad
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +UT
Caselist.CitesClass[12]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,23 @@
1 +CP text: The United States federal government should subject police officers to ex ante democratic authorization regulation.
2 +This includes:
3 +- Creating a democratically elected board made up of community members to authorize police procedure
4 +- The courts retain authority unless proper authorization is given by the democratic authorization board.
5 +- Rejecting ex-post regulation
6 +Ponomarenko and Friedman 15. ***BRACKETED FOR GRAMMAR***
7 +
8 +The central point is this: It is both unacceptable and unwise for policing to remain aloof from the democratic processes that apply to the rest of agency government. Rather than attempting to regulate policing primarily post hoc through episodic exclusion motions or the occasional action for money damages, policing policies and practices should be governed through transparent democratic processes such as legislative authorization and public rulemaking. Rather than simply declaring various policing methods in or out of bounds after the fact, judicial review ought to be directed at ensuring that policing is based ante on democratically founded rules. The fact that policing has been in the news the last year or more, and that the whiff of reform is in the air, should neither excuse consideration of the central claim here nor confuse what is at stake. As we explain below, policing has long operated without democratic governance, and this is not the first time in history that policing has proven salient. Each time policing breaks into the public consciousness, some new approach or measure is adopted, some adjustment made. Most often the change is either philosophical—policing should be more“professional”or the police should engage in “community policing”—or it involves some form of ex post “oversight,” such as court-ordered monitors, inspectors general, or civilian complaint review boards. What we have not done as a nation is insist that those who police us be treated as the executive officials they are, subject to the same basic requisites of democracy—namely, transparent, publicly accountable, ex ante regulation. We are hardly the first to suggest that policing is in need of exalted democratic authorization. This drum has been beat, periodically, for at least the last fifty years. The authors of The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society—the Presidents’ Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice—did much the same in the 1960s.Noteworthy scholars and judges argued similarly during the 1970s.At that time, a number of academic and professional organizations partnered with law enforcement groups to draft model rules. Today, some scholars have again begun calling for administrative processes, or at least some reasonable facsimile, to govern the police. Much of this scholarship is aimed solely at intelligence gathering, and it too, once again, tends to describe various workarounds to address the accountability deficit. A very few scholars actually suggest some-thing akin to traditional legislative or administrative processes to govern policing, but that scholarship tends to call for change without paying sufficient attention to the reasons why policing has heretofore remained ungoverned, and without addressing the details of how this should happen. Yet, obviously, both are essential. The claim here is that policing agencies may only act pursuant to sufficient democratic authorization. Such authorization can come through specific legislation. It can be the product of administrative notice-and-comment rulemaking, in which public participation is welcomed. Or, given what is unique about policing—not the least of which is the fact that the vast majority of police forces have twenty-five officers or fewer and operate in equally small communities—new means of soliciting democratic engagement may be required. But, in one form or another, democratic authorization is vital. Authorization should be required in any instance in which it is not plausible to infer that age-old, blanket delegations to enforce the criminal law cover current police actions. Courts should superintend the requirement of authorization by engaging in a variety of interpretive techniques, including withholding any sort of deference from policing not so authorized and denying authority to proceed until proper authorization is obtained. Policing should be rationalized, as is the rest of administrative practice, to avoid arbitrary and ill-advised decisions. As is true elsewhere in administrative law, after-the-fact justifications for policing practices that were not adopted pursuant to democratic authorization should not be accepted. The veil of secrecy over policing should be lifted except where operationally essential, because without transparency there is no hope of democratic governance. Although that is our prescription, this Article does much more than simply prescribe. It fills substantial gaps in the extant scholarship by diagnosing why policing has remained under regulated for so longlist documents the costs of this neglect. And, importantly, it explains how—within the framework of constitutional and administrative law—we can motivate change. This comprehensive approach is essential because progress toward democratic policing will not be made until scholars and policymakers come to grips with why prior efforts to accomplish this have come to naught
9 +
10 +Police departments are not subject to any external democratic checks, meaning they can pass completely unjustified rules whenever they want – failure to subject department policy to public rulemaking means judicial policy can never occur.
11 +Ponomarenko and Friedman 2.
12 +
13 +Although legislatures rarely govern police methods, policing also escapes regulation under any sort of administrative or rulemaking model. Policing agencies assuredly do have rules. There are internal policy manuals or General Orders. But even these manuals are often silent on critical aspects of policing. There may be rules to govern the use of force, the storage and disposition of confiscated property, and strip searches of arrestees, but none on informants, drones, consent searches, or other investigative tactics. And critically, even when police have rules in place, these rules are virtually never made pursuant to some sort of democratic process. There is no opportunity for formal public comment—and certainly no requirement that police officials respond to public input on the record and justify the choices they’ve made. Indeed, the rules often are not even available to the public. As a result, there typically is no contemporaneous record to show why police officials thought particular rule was necessary or prudent—or that officials even considered less intrusive alternatives and had good reasons to reject them. Failure to subject police rules to the back-and-forth of public rulemaking not only deprives the public of an opportunity to shape policing policy before it goes into effect, it forestalls any sort of meaningful judicial review. At best, courts ask whether a practice is constitutional. There is no “hard look review” of agency action, and no way of knowing whether the rationale offered for an officer’s actions reflects reasoned department policy or simply the creative efforts of a state’s attorney attempting to justify the decision after the fact. Is these of a SWAT team really necessary to ensure officer safety in effectuating a misdemeanor search warrant or administrative inspection? How likely is it that an arrestee’s confederates might try to “wipe” his cellphone remotely following arrest? These are empirical, fact-bound questions, ones that in the administrative law context would have been answered before the policy at issue went into effect. Instead, courts are forced to take judicial notice of academic studies, rely on the testimony of paid experts, or simply accept what attorneys say in their briefs.
14 +
15 +The 1AC’s reliance on the judiciary kills solvency as most people don’t file suits and the system is structurally skewed against plaintiffs – even if they win, governments indemnify officers and the Supreme Court refuses to implement rulings, means police behavior doesn’t change, their ruse of solvency turns case.
16 +Ponomarenko and Friedman 3.
17 +
18 +The obvious alternative to the problem of biased adjudication in exclusionary rule cases is for victims of police misconduct to bring civil claims for injunctive relief or money damages under § 1983.Thiswould mirror the former common law remedy, and many scholars argue this sort of ex post relief is preferable to the exclusionary rule. In reality, though, suing the government is a costly and time-consuming endeavor, hardly worth it or within the ken of most people. It’s a serious matter to be tossed against a wall and frisked, to have one’s Internet or email data collected in bulk, or to be detained by the roadside while the police wait for a K-9 to appear or officers wrangle consent from a driver. Still, when that happens to most people they try to shrug it off and live their lives. A further problem is that even when there are plaintiffs inclined to bring cases, a host of judicial doctrines limit the efficaciousness of damages actions in regulating police misconduct. Aggregate litigation, which could solve the problem of the individual plaintiff, faces high justiciability barriers. Clapper v. Amnesty International Saddened standing to plaintiffs who sought to challenge NSA data collection under the “702” program, on the ground that they could not say for certain the NSA was collecting or would collect their communications. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons held that Lyons lacked standing to challenge the LAPD’s use of chokeholds—which had previously killed or injured a number of arrestees—because he could not show with sufficient certainty that he would be subjected to the practice in the future. That the NSA had been spying on all of us, and that Lyons had himself already been the victim of a chokehold, only under-scores the extent to which justiciability rules bar legitimate constitutional complaints. Even when individual or aggregate suits are allowed, immunity doctrines preclude relief. They immunize states entirely, make it extremely difficult to sue municipalities, and leave officers individually responsible only for “clearly established” violations. Even when money damages are imposed, most officers are indemnified for virtually anything they do. And studies show that—as theory predicts—governments are content to pay damages awards without requiring policing agencies to alter behavior, let alone even informing them they lost in court. Civil plaintiffs also face staggering problems of proof that leave rights violations remedied. To take one example, police use of racial profiling is widespread, yet under existing equal protection doctrines plaintiffs cannot prevail absent pattern-and-practice evidence specific to each jurisdiction that can only be accumulated at extraordinary cost. It required a laborious social science study in New Jersey and Maryland to prove that state troopers engaged in widespread racial profiling, subjecting minorities to disproportionate numbers of traffic stops and automobile searches. Stop-and-frisk litigation in New York similarly revealed profound racial bias in policing, yet it has taken years and years of litigation to obtain a judgment. Even when petitioners prevail in judicial proceedings—be it exclusionary rule cases or civil actions—the Supreme Court eschews the development of judicial rules that would serve to deter future violations and thus regulate policing. The Court rejects “rigid rules, bright-line tests, and mechanistic inquiries in favor of a more flexible, all-things-considered approach,” one that proceeds case by case looking at the totality of the circumstances. For example, in Florida v. Harris, the Supreme Court reversed the Florida Supreme Court’s attempt to establish standards for determining if a canine is sufficiently well-trained that its alert should provide probable cause to search, insisting that litigants must instead fight it out case by case, sniff by sniff. This, despite the fact that studies show drug dogs are notoriously unreliable, in no small part because of trainers rescuing them. Thus, thousands of people are subjected to unnecessary searches, unsupported by probable cause. The same is true of consent searches, for which the Court has refused to adopt clear rules requiring police to inform suspects that they have the right to refuse consent, or restricting the circumstances in which consent may be sought, leaving police free to conduct thousands of searches annually.
19 +
20 +Democratic authorization enables productive usages of courts.
21 +Ponomarenko and Friedman 4.
22 +
23 +What if, though, instead of saying “aye” or “nay” to specific policing tactics, courts could simply prod governmental actors— including the police themselves—to adopt their own rules regulating policing in a democratically accountable way? If they did this, they would sidestep problems of competence, and likely backlash as well. Courts need not judge the police, at least in the first instance. They need only assure that someone is filling the regulatory void. (It remains the case, of course, that judicial review will be available to evaluate constitutional challenges to rules that are put in place.) 341 Commentators regularly look to courts to be “deliberation- forcing” or “representation-reinforcing,” or to engage in “dialogue” with the political branches—and courts regularly play this role. 342 The ordinary rules of administrative judicial review, forsaken in the criminal justice context, are directed at precisely this end. Doctrines like Chevron are built on a foundation of deference—but unlike in the realm of policing, deference in administrative law is structured. 343 Deference is the norm only when legislatures make explicit choices or clearly delegate authority, or when agencies make decisions pursuant to notice-and-comment rulemaking. 344 Likewise, courts ought to defer to police decisions about enforcement methods only to the extent that those decisions represent considered, fact-based judgments formulated with democratic input. This sort of channeled deference is nothing new. Under governing doctrine, courts defer more to probable cause determinations if officers obtain warrants in advance. 345 Similarly, courts are more likely to extend qualified immunity to police officers when their decisions are the product of a deliberative internal process as opposed to an ad hoc determination made by an officer on the beat. 346 Judges may find it difficult to second-guess society’s policy decisions. But they surely are in the position to know when policing agencies are acting pursuant to democratically accountable law.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-07 15:45:42.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Kevin Choi
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Anderson IS
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +8
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Westwood Dambal Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +NOVDEC - CP - Democratic Authorization
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +UT
Caselist.CitesClass[13]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,19 @@
1 +Municipal budgets are on the brink in the status-quo.
2 +LILP 16. The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy is an independent, nonpartisan organization whose mission is to help solve global economic, social, and environmental challenges to improve the quality of life through creative approaches to the use, taxation, and stewardship of land. As a private operating foundation whose origins date to 1946, the Lincoln Institute seeks to inform public dialogue and decisions about land policy through research, training, and effective communication. By bringing together scholars, practitioners, public officials, policy makers, journalists, and involved citizens, the Lincoln Institute integrates theory and practice and provides a forum for multidisciplinary perspectives on public policy concerning land, both in the United States and internationally. The Lincoln Institute's work is organized in five major areas: Planning and Urban Form, Valuation and Taxation, International and Institute-Wide Initiatives, the People's Republic of China, and Latin America and the Caribbean., 1-15-2016, "Cities on the brink: monitoring municipal fiscal health," LILP, http://www.lincolninst.edu/news/lincoln-house-blog/cities-brink-monitoring-municipal-fiscal-health //RS
3 +
4 +Northeastern University political science professor Benedict S. Jimenez shared the results of an ambitious customized survey of cities on their strategies for dealing with fiscal stress, at Lincoln House just before the holidays. Results show an emphasis on cutting expenditures over revenue-raising approaches – and that most cities say they are on the brink of crisis. Research on fiscal retrenchment at the local government level has been severely hampered by limited data on city finances after the Great Recession of 2007-09, he said. Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs) require a Freedom of Information Act request, and one third of states do not require local governments to file them. Census of Governments and the Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances provide limited information. The Lincoln Institute database Fiscally Standardized Cities allows the comparison of budgets for 112 municipalities. Jimenez thus started his own survey, targeting appointed managers and budget or finance directors in cities with a population of 50,000 or more, and got 268 of the 674 queried cities to respond. The results provide a new window into the state of local public finance, and showed that most cities were relying on piecemeal strategies to stay away from insolvency year after year. The conditions are harsh: 42 reported that spending is growing faster than revenues; 36 reported increasing spending for current benefits; 35 cited dependence on fewer resources; 34 noted the further constraint of tax limits; and 29 were dealing with increased spending on post-employment benefits. In the area of personnel, almost two-thirds of respondents said they were leaving vacant positions unfilled, freezing hiring or salaries, and cutting professional development. Fewer were engaged in layoffs, moving employees part-time, revising union contracts, or reducing salaries for current employees. In services, almost one-third reported deferring capital projects and maintenance projects, rather than eliminating services outright, closing facilities, or cutting key services such as public safety. In striving for efficiency, many cities were asking more state aid or changes in aid formulas, or shifting the responsibility of functions and services to another level of government. More than half reported making better use of technology. On the revenue side, cities are relying on increased user fees – something the Lincoln Institute researchers have also found. Much less common was trying to increase the property tax rate and expand the property tax base, or increase the sales tax. While economic cycles, and the Great Recession in particular, have great impact, cities report long-term structural issues that make fiscal stress the “new normal” for most. Overall, 7 out of 10 cities reported that they are on the precipice of another budget crisis – and don’t expect that feeling to change in the next five years. This lecture was the first in the 2015-2016 series as part of the campaign of the Lincoln Institute to promote municipal fiscal health. The video can be viewed in its entirety here.
5 +
6 +Indemnification tanks municipal budgets and wrecks accountability – turns case, Ferguson proves.
7 +Prall 14. Derek Prall is a professional journalist who has held numerous positions with a variety of print and online publications including the New Jersey Herald. He is a 2008 graduate of Furman University holding bachelor's degrees in both English Literature and Communications Studies., 12-10-2014, "Who pays for police misconduct?," No Publication, http://americancityandcounty.com/law-enforcement/who-pays-police-misconduct //RS
8 +
9 +Cases like those of Michael Brown and Eric Garner have communities abuzz about police misconduct and possible punitive damages, but, when the police are convicted of misconduct, more often than not, it's taxpayers – not the offending officers or agencies – who foot the bill. In a recent paper published in the New York University Law Review, Joanna Schwartz, an assistant law professor at UCLA and expert in police misconduct cases, says that “taxpayers almost always satisfy both compensatory and punitive damages awards entered against their sworn servants.” Meaning: It’s the city’s taxpayers – not the offending officer or the department – that pays when officers are found to be at fault. “My study reveals that police officers are virtually always indemnified: During the study period, governments paid approximately 99.98 percent of the dollars that plaintiffs recovered in lawsuits alleging civil rights violations by law enforcement,” Schwartz wrote. “Law enforcement officers in my study never satisfied a punitive damages award entered against them and almost never contributed anything to settlements or judgments — even when indemnification was prohibited by law or policy, and even when officers were disciplined, terminated or prosecuted for their conduct.” To reach these conclusions, Schwartz looked at misconduct cases in 44 large and 37 small or mid-sized police departments from 2006 to 2011. City Lab reports that together, these departments made up about 20 percent of the nation’s police officers.

 The data showed officers rarely pay out of their own pockets for civil-rights violations. In 9,225 cases from large cities that were settled or judged for the victim, $735 million in damages was awarded, with officers paying .02 percent of that figure - $171,300. In small to mid-sized cities, officers paid no part of the $9.4 million awarded. Schwartz told City Lab there is no reason to expect suits in Ferguson, Mo., or New York City will play out any differently. According to the Associated Press, Eric Garner’s family has filed suit against the city, the NYPD and the six officers involved for $75 million dollars. ThinkProgress reports six protesters in Ferguson are suing for $40 million in the first of many federal lawsuits expected to be filed. It is unclear how Ferguson will handle the financial burden – the figure dwarfs the city’s revenues for the fiscal year, and ThinkProgress reports the city is already budgeting for the fallout. Solutions for the problem are unclear. Schwartz told City Lab municipalities don’t necessarily need to eliminate indemnification, but suggests that holding more officers financially accountable for their actions would be a step in the right direction.
10 +
11 +Cities make police more aggressive, they’re forced to issue more tickets to make up for budget deficits – turns case.
12 +Vibes 14. John Vibes is an author, researcher and investigative journalist who takes a special interest in the counter culture and the drug war. In addition to his writing and activist work he is also the owner of a successful music promotion company. In 2013, he became one of the organizers of the Free Your Mind Conference, which features top caliber speakers and whistle-blowers from all over the world. You can contact him and stay connected to his work at his Facebook page. You can find his 65 chapter Book entitled “Alchemy of the Timeless Renaissance” at bookpatch.com. , 12-15-2014, "Ferguson to Solve Budget Crisis by Ordering Their Police to be More Aggressive," Free Thought Project, http://thefreethoughtproject.com/ferguson-police-ordered-start-writing-tickets-solve-citys-budget-crisis/#D9HXDXvtpXzikWDF.99. //RS
13 +
14 +While controversy about the police killing of teenager Michael Brown has been the primary focus in Ferguson this year, the city’s government is also facing a massive budget crisis, which they are hoping to solve by ordering their police officers to write more tickets. Many residents in Ferguson have already pointed out that once this policy is implemented, it will strain the already high tensions between the community and the police. In a telephone interview with Bloomberg News this week, Ferguson’s finance director, Jeffrey Blume explained that in order for the city’s government to stay above their budget, the police would have to write millions of dollars in tickets for small, non-violent infractions. “There are a number of things going on in 2014 and one is a revenue shortfall that we anticipate making up in 2015. There’s about a million-dollar increase in public-safety fines to make up the difference,” Blume said. Police generated revenue from writing tickets is already the city’s second larges source of revenue after sales taxes, and the money brought in through the police departments is expected to grow with these new guidelines. “They said they weren’t going to go after poor people, so to speak, to fund their budget, but I guess that’s changed,” Tim Fischesser, executive director of the St. Louis Municipal League told Bloomberg. Some state politicians are worried that this could contribute to further unrest so they are seeking to limit how much money the local government can draw from police generated revenue. A number of state senators have filed two bills that would put these types of limits on the local government in Ferguson. “For Ferguson to respond to all of this and say that increasing ticketing was a good idea is outrageous,” one of the bill’s sponsors, Scott Sifton said. According to Sifton, the bills will be voted on sometime after January 7th, and if approved the limits would not go into effect until at least August. Missouri State Treasurer Clint Zweifel, also spoke in opposition of the new policies, saying that a strong focus on revenue generating does not make communities any safer. “Increasing reliance on such fines is the wrong way to go, period. Residents and neighborhoods are safer when police can focus on public safety, not a municipality’s need to protect a revenue stream,” Zweifel said.
15 +
16 +Tickets perpetuate structural inequalities – turns case.
17 +Solon 14. Sarah Solon: Communications Strategist, ACLU, 6-18-2014, "Preying on the Poor: For-Profit Probation Edition," American Civil Liberties Union, https://www.aclu.org/blog/preying-poor-profit-probation-edition //RS
18 +
19 +Welcome to Alabama, the state of the never-ending seat belt ticket. Hali Wood is 17. She's applied to work at several grocery stores in her home town of Columbiana, but none are hiring. A few months back, cops ticketed Hali for not wearing a seat belt. The fine: $41. Hali has paid $41 and then some, but she's still hundreds of dollars in debt. Why? Because the court contracts with JCS, a for-profit probation company that forces Hali to choose between paying their exorbitant fees and going to jail. Here's how the scheme works: Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube.com Borrowing from the payday lender playbook, companies like JCS often sign contracts in cities and counties strapped for cash. For the county, the deal seems like a sweet one: The company will collect outstanding court debts for free and make all their profits from charging probationers fees. But the problem is that many of these people were put on probation because they were too poor to pay their fine in the first place and for them, the additional fees are huge. People find themselves scrambling for money they don't have and forgoing basic necessities to avoid being thrown behind bars for missing a payment. The impact on communities, especially low-income communities of color, is devastating. Sadly, the for-profit probation business is booming. Every year, hundreds of thousands of people are sentenced to probation, often for misdemeanors including unpaid parking tickets. Instead of being able to just pay those fines and move on with their lives, many get sucked into spiraling debt traps they cannot escape. There are hundreds of thousands of people like Hali out there, for whom small court fines have ballooned into hundreds of dollars of debt. The for-profit probation racket isn't benefiting society; it's only benefiting these companies' bottom line. We need to remember two things: 1) If probationers miss a payment and end up behind bars, taxpayers foot the bill for this imprisonment; and 2) Our communities are not better off when we force people in poverty to choose between their liberty and putting food on their table —and needlessly lining the pockets of for-profit probation companies in the process. Counties and courts do not need to contract with these debt collectors on steroids. Publicly run probation exists, and it works while doing much less damage to communities. It's time to urge courts to cut their ties with the for-profit probation industry.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-07 15:46:08.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Alexander Chase
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Southlake Carroll RP
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +9
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +3
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Westwood Dambal Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +NOVDEC - DA - Indemnification
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +UT
Caselist.RoundClass[9]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +13
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-07 15:46:06.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Alexander Chase
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Southlake Carroll RP
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +3
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,5 @@
1 +1ac - stock
2 +1nc - Dem Auth CP Indemn DA case
3 +1ar - all
4 +2nr - all
5 +2ar - all
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +UT
Caselist.RoundClass[10]
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-07 15:46:31.637
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Nikunj Patel
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Winston Churchill BW
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +5
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,5 @@
1 +1ac - sousveillance
2 +1nc - cap k case
3 +1ar - all
4 +2nr - all
5 +2ar - all
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +UT

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)