Changes for page Westwood Mandavilli Neg
Summary
-
Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)
-
Objects (0 modified, 4 added, 26 removed)
- Caselist.CitesClass[56]
- Caselist.CitesClass[57]
- Caselist.CitesClass[58]
- Caselist.CitesClass[59]
- Caselist.CitesClass[60]
- Caselist.CitesClass[61]
- Caselist.CitesClass[62]
- Caselist.CitesClass[63]
- Caselist.CitesClass[64]
- Caselist.CitesClass[65]
- Caselist.CitesClass[66]
- Caselist.CitesClass[67]
- Caselist.CitesClass[68]
- Caselist.CitesClass[69]
- Caselist.CitesClass[70]
- Caselist.CitesClass[71]
- Caselist.RoundClass[33]
- Caselist.RoundClass[34]
- Caselist.RoundClass[35]
- Caselist.RoundClass[36]
- Caselist.RoundClass[37]
- Caselist.RoundClass[38]
- Caselist.RoundClass[39]
- Caselist.RoundClass[40]
- Caselist.RoundClass[41]
- Caselist.RoundClass[42]
- Caselist.CitesClass[41]
- Caselist.CitesClass[42]
- Caselist.CitesClass[43]
- Caselist.RoundClass[24]
Details
- Page properties
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 - xwiki:XWiki.Admin1 +XWiki.rohithmandavilli@gmailcom
- Caselist.CitesClass[56]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,27 +1,0 @@ 1 -T 2 -Interpretation: On the November/December 2016 topic, debaters must only defend a reduction of qualified immunity. 3 - 4 -Violation: 5 -Standards 6 - 7 -1) Limits 8 - 9 -2) Ground 10 - 11 -Substantive engagement 12 -1. 13 -2. 14 -3. 15 - 16 -Prefer competing interpretations: 17 -1. 18 -2. 19 - 20 -Drop the debater: 21 -1. 22 -2. 23 -3. 24 -RVIs bad 25 -1. 26 -2. 27 -3. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-07 08:16:10.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Kamil Merchant - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -St Thomas Academy Visitation Nick Wier - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -33 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Mandavilli Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0 - T - Effects - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Glenbrooks
- Caselist.CitesClass[57]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,15 +1,0 @@ 1 -Their plan text references the “US” – but what is this US they speak of? Is US, us – i.e. me and you? But I’m certainly against the plan so it’s not…us… 2 -OH! They must be referring to US as in the University School! 3 -Farlex 12. Farlex; Flagship reference products, innovative learning tools; “University School”; The Free Dictionary 4 -University School, commonly referred to as US, is an all-boys K - 12 school with two campus locations in the Greater Cleveland, Ohio, United States area. The Shaker Heights Campus is kindergarten through grade 8, and the Hunting Valley campus is grades 9 through 12. University School is a founding member of the International Boys' Schools Coalition and a member of the Center for the Study of Boys' and Girls' Lives and Cleveland Council of Independent Schools. 5 -Music. The school's most famous performing staple is its Glee Club. The US Glee Club sings multiple times throughout the year in assemblies, concerts, graduation, and also throughout the city of Cleveland, collaborating with ensembles such as Choral Arts: Cleveland, the Cleveland Orchestra Chorus and other surrounding schools. In the past, the choir has toured throughout North America and Europe, performing in various concert halls and churches throughout the world. The US Glee Club sings a variety of music, including traditional men's chorus pieces, and arrangements by contemporary composers. 6 -The University School is the US! Since 1890, the “WE ARE US CAMPAIGN” has been steady and strong! The University School writes: 7 -US. US; Univesity School; “WE ARE US CAMPAIGN”; http://www.us.edu/Page/Support/We-Are-US-Campaign 8 -Since the founding of University School in 1890, the School has produced visionaries in education, finance, law, medicine, communications, athletics, science, and the arts. As important as their achievements, generations of US men have lived by the guiding values of Responsibility, Loyalty, and Consideration. We are US! The Campaign for University School ensures we continue our tradition of transforming lives by equipping young men with an outstanding education that develops the confidence and skills required to make a difference in the world. In order to accomplish this, the Campaign focuses on four bedrock commitments that grew from our strategic plan. Taken together, these initiatives guide us to new heights in the near term and strengthen our foundation for future generations: 9 -Oh wait…they might actually be referring to the “United States” but that’s a meaningless term anyway. 10 -FGF 09. Family Guardian Fellowship; nonprofit religious ministry to protect people from extortion, persecution, and exploitation; “An Investigation Into the Meaning of the Term ‘United States’”; http://famguardian.org/subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/Definitions/freemaninvestigation.htm 11 -Note that the Canal Zone is not a federal State, Territory, or possession of the U.S., but is still being classified as a State! But, then, you must always look at the title, chapter, section, subsection, or, sometimes even sentence, to determine the specific intent. Again, there is no ONE statutory United States. This is incontestable from the dozens and dozens of definitions of the United States in the statutes and codes. And yet one is usually thought weird to contest the underlying theme of the whole IRC namely, that there is only one United States the whole nation. This is fatuous, of course, when you really think about it which almost no one does. Not just because of the Hooven case, above, but because of the numbing the number of variations on the definition of the United States in the IRC. Some say are over 200, which is perhaps too many, but certainly more than one. In this title (12), Banks and Banking, they always seem to use the universally recognized restrictive word means, rather than the IRC s term of choice, includes, that has beguiled, deceived, deluded, hoodwinked, misdirected, and, most of all victimized, basically, the whole country. Such as in 215b(2) Definitions: 12 -This is a reason to vote neg—plan vagueness ensures bad policy—bad for education—it’s a voter—precludes role of the ballot because there’s no way to know the effect that the plan would have in the real world. 90 of policymaking is deciding on implementation. 13 -Elmore 80. Prof. Public Affairs at University of Washington; 1980 PolySci Quarterly 79-80; Pg. 605 14 -The emergence of implementation as a subject for policy analysis coincides closely with the discovery by policy analysts that decisions are not self-executing. Analysis of policy choices matter very little if the mechanism for implementing those choices is poorly understood in answering the question, "What percentage of the work of achieving a desired governmental action is done when the preferred analytic alternative has been identified?" Allison estimated that in the normal case, it was about 10 percent, leaving the remaining 90 percent in the realm of implementation. 15 -Vote negative – it’s impossible to debate an aff that does nothing and it’s not in your jurisdiction to vote for a policy that can never actually exist—hurts education and real-world applicability. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-07 08:16:11.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Kamil Merchant - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -St Thomas Academy Visitation Nick Wier - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -33 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Mandavilli Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Plan Flaw - US - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Glenbrooks
- Caselist.CitesClass[58]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,10 +1,0 @@ 1 -The 1AC focus on identity politics is a spectacle that entices viewers to listen but not act. This creates a ruse of solvency that exacerbates capitalism and turns the case. 2 -Reed 15. Adolph Reed; Black professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, specializing in race and American politics; “Adolph Reed: Identity Politics Is Neoliberalism”; 29 JUNE 2015; http://bennorton.com/adolph-reed-identity-politics-is-neoliberalism/ // YS 11.23.15 **BRACKETS IN ORIGINAL** 3 -Political scientist and race theorist Adolph Reed has long maintained that identity politics is a form of neoliberalism. In a June article, he explains: Identity politics is not an alternative to class politics; it is a class politics, the politics of the left-wing of neoliberalism. It is the expression and active agency of a political order and moral economy in which capitalist market forces are treated as unassailable nature. An integral element of that moral economy is displacement of the critique of the invidious outcomes produced by capitalist class power onto equally naturalized categories of ascriptive identity that sort us into groups supposedly defined by what we essentially are rather than what we do. As I have argued, following Walter Michaels and others, within that moral economy a society in which 1 of the population controlled 90 of the resources could be just, provided that roughly 12 of the 1 were black, 12 were Latino, 50 were women, and whatever the appropriate proportions were LGBT people. It would be tough to imagine a normative ideal that expresses more unambiguously the social position of people who consider themselves candidates for inclusion in, or at least significant staff positions in service to, the ruling class. Reed has been arguing this point for years. In his 2009 essay “The Limits of Anti-Racism,” Reed condemns identity politics for, despite its putative good intentions, disguising objectively right-wing, neoliberal ideology with superficially “progressive” rhetorical window dressing. Reed’s criticisms of “antiracism” can been taken to be criticisms of identity politics more generally (emphasis mine). Antiracism is a favorite concept on the American left these days. Of course, all good sorts want to be against racism, but what does the word mean exactly? The contemporary discourse of “antiracism” and identity politics overall is focused much more on taxonomy than politics. It emphasizes the name by which we should call some strains of inequality—whether they should be broadly recognized as evidence of “racism”— over specifying the mechanisms that produce them or even the steps that can be taken to combat them. And, no, neither “overcoming racism” nor “rejecting whiteness” qualifies as such a step any more than does waiting for the “revolution” or urging God’s heavenly intervention. If organizing a rally against racism seems at present to be a more substantive political act than attending a prayer vigil for world peace, that’s only because contemporary antiracist activists understand themselves to be employing the same tactics and pursuing the same ends as their predecessors in the period of high insurgency in the struggle against racial segregation. 4 -Capitalism perpetuates all other forms of oppression – we control the direction of their impacts. 5 -Bennett 12. Sara Bennett. Socialist Review is a monthly magazine covering current events, theory and history, books and arts reviews from a revolutionary socialist perspective. It is the sister publication of Socialist Worker. , May 2012, "Marxism and oppression," Socialist Review, http://socialistreview.org.uk/369/marxism-and-oppression //RS 6 -Marx recognised that oppression, far from being a natural and thus a permanent feature of human society, is a historical invention. True, the oppression of certain groups of people in society existed before capitalism. For example, Marx's collaborator Engels traced the origins of women's oppression to the formation of the family with the rise of class society. Despite the many changes to the family over the centuries, it persists to this day because it plays a crucial role in the continuation of the system, by bearing the brunt of the cost for caring for present and past generations of workers and the rearing of the next - all at our own expense. So, despite the fact that the majority of women in this country who can work do work, their role in the family means they still accept lower wages and fewer career opportunities. Other forms of oppression have arisen with the emergence of capitalism. So racism was created to justify the slave trade and imperialism and is perpetuated by the need to keep workers divided. Towards the end of the 19th century a new sexual identity, the "homosexual", was invented and portrayed as a threat to society and the maintenance of the family. What is common to all forms of oppression, however, is that they have a material basis and arise from the structures and dynamics of class society. Oppression serves to reinforce the interests of capitalism. But while Marx understood that some forms of oppression existed before capitalism, he also grasped the way the nature of oppression under capitalism was different to what had gone before. Under feudalism or slavery the mass of the population were either slaves, the property of masters, or serfs tied to particular pieces of land and bound to a lord. Such societies were rigidly hierarchical and were based on the idea that everyone had their "rightful place". Notions of freedom for those other than the rulers in society were rare and subordination in society was widely accepted. When new societies emerge so too do new ideas. The bourgeois revolutions that overthrew feudalism and paved the way for capitalism did so under the banner of "liberty, equality and fraternity", as the French Revolution put it. This was a huge step forward for humanity compared to previous societies. Under capitalism production takes the form of creating commodities to be sold in the market. Everything becomes a commodity, including our ability to labour. Workers are no longer tied to individual lords and masters. The new ideas of individual freedom and equality under capitalism reflect this new way of organising production. But in reality freedom for the vast majority of the human race is simply this ability to sell their labour power to one or another capitalist (provided, of course, that there is sufficient demand). Capitalism holds out the promise of liberation, but then denies it to the majority of society. Capitalist production increasingly comes to depend on the mass cooperation of workers, but as capitalism brings workers together so too it divides them from each other. Workers are forced to continually compete against each other - for jobs, overtime, housing, even access to decent healthcare provision. Oppression helps to create and reinforce divisions between workers. For example, the mass media and mainstream government encourage us to see immigrant workers as inferior to native-born workers. While it may be acceptable for immigrants to participate in our workforce when there are plenty of jobs, as soon as jobs become more scarce, immigrants are portrayed as less deserving of work, and therefore a threat. Alienation These divisions are underpinned by the alienation of workers under capitalism from control over their labour. This results in a sense of powerlessness, especially when workers do not fight back collectively. In this situation, some workers may gain a feeling of empowerment by looking down on others and feeling superior. So a white person may look down on a black person or a man on a woman. And it is not just non-oppressed groups who feel superior to oppressed groups - it cuts across oppressed groups too. For example, a "second-generation immigrant" can feel superior to a recently arrived immigrant, or a gay man can feel superior to a disabled person. As a result, some people argue that sections of workers have an interest in sustaining oppression, rather than seeing that all oppression works to allow the continuation of capitalism by providing it with material benefits. So we hear arguments that men benefit from women's oppression, or that all whites benefit from the oppression of black people. While it's true that non-oppressed groups do not suffer in the way that oppressed people may, it is wrong to think they therefore have some interest in the continuation of oppression. For example, the fact that women in full-time work still earn around 15 percent less than their male counterparts does not allow men's wages to increase further - it simply means it's easier for the bosses to keep all wages down. The best solution to this would be for male and female workers to fight together for decent wages for all. This may be easier said than done for a woman at work being sexually harassed by a male colleague, however. After all, she experiences her oppression through his sexist commetns and gestures. But while he may be the immediate culprit, the causes of oppression run much deeper - they are rooted in capitalism. Socialists have to fight all forms of oppression 7 -through the struggle for class unity. Alienation and distorted notions of freedom and equality also mean that people are not necessarily conscious of their oppression and can lead them to actively embrace some of the worst aspects of it. With the emphasis under capitalism on the individual rather than the social whole, we are made to feel that the worst symptoms of our oppression must be through some fault of our own. Here capitalism steps in to sell us the very "solutions" we need. So we have a whole industry of self-help books in the UK which is estimated to have earned publishers some £60?million in the past five years. In a similar vein, the answer to women not feeling "sexy enough" is to attend pole dancing "fitness classes", or undergo cosmetic surgery. There are even skin-lightening techniques for black people. A divisive system Capitalism works quite hard to ensure we keep believing our main enemy is some other group of ordinary people in society rather than the nature of our distorted relationships under capitalist society. The mass media have to continuously pump out horrific anti-immigrant, anti-traveller, anti single mum propaganda. Capitalism maintains its hold by dividing those workers who collectively could overturn it, and ideology plays a significant role. And this means it has to work to undermine the reality of our lives that actually brings us into constant contact and cooperation with all types of people, whether Muslim, gay, disabled and so on. While many non-Marxists fight with us against oppression, there is often disagreement about our emphasis on the working class as the key agent of change. After all, oppression affects all classes, not just the working class. This means some people believe that the oppressed group itself is the key to overcoming its own oppression. At a recent demonstration at Cambridge University over the visit of former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn, one of the chants was "The women united will never be defeated." It's not hard to see why this might seem like common sense to some; after all, every woman can be a victim of sexual assault. But which women are we uniting with? Christine Lagarde, Strauss-Kahn's replacement, is central to the imposition of draconian austerity measures across Europe, driving the living standards of millions of women and men down - something that in turn will increase the pressures on people's lives and place more women at the risk of violence. 8 -Our alternative is to vote negative to refuse to participate in activities which support capitalism. We must hollow out capitalist structures by refusing to invest our energy in reforms and rescue operations 9 -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) 10 -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. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-07 08:16:12.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Kamil Merchant - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -St Thomas Academy Visitation Nick Wier - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -33 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Mandavilli Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - K - Capitalism Identity Politics - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Glenbrooks
- Caselist.CitesClass[59]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,19 +1,0 @@ 1 -I value morality as per the evaluative term “ought” in the resolution, which is defined as “used to express duty or moral obligation”. By Merriam-Webster. 2 -The standard is minimizing oppression 3 -1. Structural violence is based in moral exclusion, which is fundamentally flawed because exclusion is based on arbitrarily perceived difference. 4 -Winter and Leighton 01. Winter, D. D., and Dana C. Leighton." Structural violence." Peace, conflict and violence: Peace psychology for the 21st century (2001): 99-101. 5 -Finally, to recognize the operation of structural violence forces us to ask questions about how and why we tolerate it, questions which often have painful answers for the privileged elite who unconsciously support it. A final question of this section is how and why we allow ourselves to be so oblivious to structural violence. Susan Opotow offers an intriguing set of answers, in her article Social Injustice. She argues that our normal perceptual cognitive processes divide people into in-groups and out-groups. Those outside our group lie outside our scope of justice. Injustice that would be instantaneously confronted if it occurred to someone we love or know is barely noticed if it occurs to strangers or those who are invisible or irrelevant. We do not seem to be able to open our minds and our hearts to everyone, so we draw conceptual lines between those who are in and out of our moral circle. Those who fall outside are morally excluded, and become either invisible, or demeaned in some way so that we do not have to acknowledge the injustice they suffer. Moral exclusion is a human failing, but Opotow argues convincingly that it is an outcome of everyday social cognition. To reduce its nefarious effects, we must be vigilant in noticing and listening to oppressed, invisible, outsiders. Inclusionary thinking can be fostered by relationships, communication, and appreciation of diversity. Like Opotow, all the authors in this section point out that structural violence is not inevitable if we become aware of its operation, and build systematic ways to mitigate its effects. Learning about structural violence may be discouraging, overwhelming, or maddening, but these papers encourage us to step beyond guilt and anger, and begin to think about how to reduce structural violence. All the authors in this section note that the same structures (such as global communication and normal social cognition) which feed structural violence, can also be used to empower citizens to reduce it. In the long run, reducing structural violence by reclaiming neighborhoods, demanding social jus- tice and living wages, providing prenatal care, alleviating sexism, and celebrating local cultures, will be our most surefooted path to building lasting peace. 6 -2. The 1AC doesn’t account for empirical society (i.e. consequences and oppression), and thus fails to guide normative acton. 7 -Farrely 07. Colin Farrelly, 2007, Professor of Political Studies, Queen's University, "Justice in Ideal Theory: A Refutation", Political Studies, 2007. RFK 8 -Political philosophers have recently begun to take seriously methodological questions concerning what a theoretical examination of political ideals (e.g. justice) is supposed to accomplish and how effective theorizing in ideal theory is in securing those aims. Andrew Mason (2004) and G. A. Cohen (2003), for example, believe that the fundamental principles of justice are logically independent of issues of feasibility and questions about human nature. Their position contrasts sharply with political theorists like John Dunn (1990) and Joseph Carens (2000) who believe that normative theorizing must be integrated with an appreciation of the empirical realities of one’s society. Rather than bracket questions of feasibility and human nature, empirically oriented political theorists believe that real, non-ideal considerations (like our historical circumstances, problems of institutional design, etc.) must be taken seriously when deriving normative theories of justice.1 And some justice theorists, most notably John Rawls (1971; 1996), attempt to occupy a middle position that acknowledges some moderate feasibility constraints (e.g. pluralism) but also employs a number of idealizing assumptions (e.g. society is closed, full compliance, etc.) when deriving the principles of justice. The disagreement between those political philosophers who feel inclined to invoke highly abstract hypotheticals when deriving the principles of justice, and those political theorists who take seriously real, non-ideal considerations, is a disagreement over how fact-sensitive a theory of distributive justice ought to be. Mason raises a challenge for the more empirically grounded political theorists when he asks: ‘what reason do we have for thinking that any adequate analysis of an ideal such as justice must be conducted in the light of an investigation of what is feasible?’ (Mason, 2004, p. 255). In this article I hope to provide a compelling response to Mason’s question. I believe there is some conceptual incoherence involved in saying ‘This is what justice involves, but there is no way it could be implemented’ (Mason, 2004, p. 255).This incoherence stems from the fact that a theory of social justice, and the principles of justice it endorses, must function as an adequate guide for our collective action. A theory of social justice that yields impotent or misguided practical prescriptions is a deficient theory of justice. If the collective aspiration to implement the conclusions of a theory would not result in any noticeable increase in the justness of one’s society, then it fails as a normative theory. In this article I argue that theorising about justice at the level of ideal theory is inherently flawed and thus has impoverished liberal egalitarianism. I believe that moderate ideal theorists, such as Rawls and Ronald Dworkin, are actually much closer to the idealizing end of the spectrum and thus their theories are not adequately fact-sensitive to be considered realistically utopian.2 Ideal theorists (falsely) assume that a political philosopher can easily determine (or has privileged access to) what constitutes the ‘best foreseeable conditions’. Furthermore, by assuming full compliance, ideal theorists violate the constraints of a realistic utopia. Determining what is feasible in partially compliant societies that exist in the modern area of rapid globalisation is perhaps one of the major sources of political disagreement in contemporary democratic societies. Rather than side-stepping such disagreement, political philosophers should advance theories of justice that adopt a critically reflective attitude towards their own background empirical assumptions concerning what is realistically possible. The moderate ideal theories of Rawls and Dworkin fail to internalize such a reflective attitude. By illustrating the shortcomings of Rawls and Dworkin I hope to convince political philosophers that they need to take the empirical realities of real societies more seriously. Rather than moving in the direction advocated by Cohen and Mason (i.e. towards a more extreme idealized position) political philosophers should take more seriously non-ideal theory. This will help equip them with a theory of justice that can provide some normative guidance for real, non-ideal societies. More specifically, I argue that liberal egalitarians who function at the level of ideal theory adopt a cost-blind approach to rights and a narrow view of possible human misfortune. The former issue leads liberal egalitarians to give priority to a serially ordered principle of equal basic liberties (Rawls, 1971; 1996) or to treat rights as ‘trumps’ (Dworkin, 1978); and the latter to a stringent prioritarian principle (Rawls’ difference principle) or luck egalitarianism. Taken together, the costblind approach to rights, coupled with the narrow view of human misfortune, mean the liberal egalitarian theories of justice cannot address the issue of tradeoffs that inevitably arises in real non-ideal societies that face the fact of scarcity. This makes liberal egalitarianism an ineffective theory of social justice. Liberal egalitarian theories of justice are theories that typically function at the level of ideal theory. The distinction between ideal and non-ideal theory is not given rigorous classification in the existing literature. As Mason (2004, p. 265) notes, this distinction is employed by Rawls in The Law of Peoples. An account of justice in ideal theory must recognize ‘some moderately strong feasibility constraints which require it to be realistic in the best of foreseeable conditions’ (Mason, 2004, p. 265). Rawls describes ideal theory as being realistically utopian. Political philosophy is realistically utopian ‘when it extends what are ordinarily thought of as limits of practical political possibility’ (Rawls, 1999a, p. 6). This contrasts with non-ideal theory, which is concerned with problems of noncompliance or unfavourable (historical, social or economic) conditions. 9 -3. Discussions of free speech and the constitution mandate a consequentialist approach 10 -Goldberg 15 (Erica Goldberg is a Climenko Fellow and Lecturer on Law for the Harvard Law School and Assistant Professor for the Ohio Northern Law School. “FREE SPEECH CONSEQUENTIALISM,” Columbia Law Review Vol. 116:687. August 17, 2015. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2645869) //WW JA 1/5/16 11 -Even scholars who favor what they deem nonconsequentialist theories of free speech, and who believe, for example, that free speech has inherent value and is a right of autonomous moral agents,16 will in some circumstances balance these values against the harms speech causes. This balancing would occur for so-called nonconsequentialists either in defining what constitutes speech, in determining which categories of speech are protected, or in evaluating whether speech that is protected can nonetheless be prohibited because its harms greatly outweigh its virtues.17 Some scholars would argue that free speech rights are balanced not against harms but against other rights, such as the right to privacy, property, or reputation. However, unless one of the rights at issue is defined absolutely, resolving this conflict would also require consideration of the harms at issue and the value of the speech. Thus, the question becomes not whether free speech consequentialism is appropriate, but how harms caused by speech should be accounted for in First Amendment jurisprudence. The allure of free speech consequentialism is also reflected in the courts. Describing the Supreme Court’s approach to content-based restrictions on speech is superficially simple. Laws that suppress speech on the basis of content are subject to the strictest constitutional scrutiny, which is often outcome determinative.18 Strict scrutiny is a demanding standard.19 But in operation, the doctrine is much more complex—it incorporates considerations of harm in multiple ways. In a variety of cases, different groups of concurring and dissenting Justices have shown willingness to relax the strict scrutiny applied to content-based restrictions in order to account for the harm from depictions of animal cruelty,20 violent video games,21 and lies about military honors.22 The Supreme Court is not even clear on at what point in its First Amendment analysis, or at what level of abstraction, this balancing should be performed, if at all, when free speech doctrine intersects with both criminal and tort law.23 12 -4. Intentions and states of being are non-falsifiable and can only be informed by hypothetical consequences 13 -5. Life is a pre-requisite to agency and freedom – that justifies exceptions to hyper-individualist ethics 14 -6. Experience is epistemic – it is how we empirically ground our existence. Pain is universally bad and pleasure is universally good. 15 -Nagel 86 (Thomas “The View From Nowhere”, 1986) 16 -I shall defend the unsurprising claim that sensory pleasure is good and pain bad, no matter who’s they are. The point of the exercise is to see how the pressures of objectification operate in a simple case. Physical pleasure and pain do not usually depend on activities or desires which themselves raise questions of justification and value. They are just is a sensory experiences in relation to which we are fairly passive, but toward which we feel involuntary desire or aversion. Almost everyone takes the avoidance of his own pain and the promotion of his own pleasure as subjective reasons for action in a fairly simple way; they are not back up by any further reasons. On the other hand if someone pursues pain or avoids pleasure, either it as a means to some end or it is backed up by dark reasons like guilt or sexual masochism. What sort of general value, if any, ought to be assigned to pleasure and pain when we consider these facts from an objective standpoint? What kind of judgment can we reasonably make about these things when we view them in abstraction from who we are? We can begin by asking why there is no plausibility in the zero position, that pleasure and pain have no value of any kind that can be objectively recognized. That would mean that I have no reason to take aspirin for a severe headache, however I may in fact be motivated; and that looking at it from outside, you couldn't even say that someone had a reason not to put his hand on a hot stove, just because of the pain… Without some positive reason to think there is nothing in itself good or bad about having an experience you intensely like or dislike, we can't seriously regard the common impression to the contrary as a collective illusion. Such things are at least good or bad for us, if anything is. What seems to be going on here is that we cannot from an objective standpoint withhold a certain kind of endorsement of the most direct and immediate subjective value judgments we make concerning the contents of our own consciousness. We regard ourselves as too close to those things to be mistaken in our immediate, nonideological evaluative impressions. No objective view we can attain could possibly overrule our subjective authority in such cases. There can be no reason to reject the appearances here. 17 -7. Intent and means-based frameworks reflect privilege and decenter oppressed voices 18 -Utt ’13. Jamie Utt is a writer and a diversity and inclusion consultant and sexual violence prevention educator, “Intent vs. Impact: Why Your Intentions Don’t Really Matter,” July 30, 2013 19 -Imagine for a moment that you’re standing with your friends in a park, enjoying a nice summer day. You don’t know me, but I walk right up to you holding a Frisbee. I wind up – and throw the disc right into your face. Understandably, you are indignant. Through a bloody nose, you use a few choice words to ask me what the hell I thought I was doing. And my response? “Oh, I didn’t mean to hit you! That was never my intent! I was simply trying to throw the Frisbee to my friend over there!” Visibly upset, you demand an apology. But I refuse. Or worse, I offer an apology that sounds like “I’m sorry your face got in the way of my Frisbee! I never intended to hit you.” Sound absurd? Sound infuriating enough to give me a well-deserved Frisbee upside the head? Yeah. So why is this same thing happening all of the time when it comes to the intersection of our identities and oppressions or privileges? Intent v. Impact From Paula Deen to Alec Baldwin to your annoying, bigoted uncle or friend, we hear it over and over again: “I never meant any harm…” “It was never my intent…” “I am not a racist…” “I am not a homophobe…” “I’m not a sexist…” I cannot tell you how often I’ve seen people attempt to deflect criticism about their oppressive language or actions by making the conversation about their intent. At what point does the “intent” conversation stop mattering so that we can step back and look at impact? After all, in the end, what does the intent of our action really matter if our actions have the impact of furthering the marginalization or oppression of those around us? In some ways, this is a simple lesson of relationships. If I say something that hurts my partner, it doesn’t much matter whether I intended the statement to mean something else – because my partner is hurting. I need to listen to how my language hurt my partner. I need to apologize. And then I need to reflect and empathize to the best of my ability so I don’t do it again. But when we’re dealing with the ways in which our identities intersect with those around us – and, in turn, the ways our privileges and our experiences of marginalization and oppression intersect – this lesson becomes something much larger and more profound. This becomes a lesson of justice. What we need to realize is that when it comes to people’s lives and identities, the impact of our actions can be profound and wide-reaching. And that’s far more important than the question of our intent. We need to ask ourselves what might be or might have been the impact of our actions or words. And we need to step back and listen when we are being told that the impact of our actions is out of step with our intents or our perceptions of self. Identity Privilege and Intent For people of identity privilege, this is where listening becomes vitally important, for our privilege can often shield us from understanding the impact of our actions. After all, as a person of privilege, I can never fully understand the ways in which oppressive acts or language impact those around me. What I surely can do is listen with every intent to understand, and I can work to change my behavior. Because what we need to understand is that making the conversation about intent is inherently a privileged action. The reason? It ensures that you and your identity (and intent) stay at the center of any conversation and action while the impact of your action or words on those around you is marginalized. So, if someone ever tells you to “check your privilege,” what they may very well mean is: “Stop centering your experience and identity in the conversation by making this about the intent of your actions instead of their impact.” That is: Not everything is about you. “What They Did” vs. “What They Are” The incredible Ill Doctrine puts it well when he explains the difference between the “What They Did” conversation and the “What They Are” conversation, which you can watch here. In essence, the “intent” conversation is one about “what they are.” Because if someone intended their action to be hurtful and racist/sexist/transphobic/pickyourpoison, then they must inherently be racist/sexist/transphobic/pickyourpoison. On the other hand, the “impact” conversation is one about “what they did.” For you, it takes the person who said or did the hurtful thing out of the center and places the person who was hurt in the center. It ensures that the conversation is about how “what they did” hurts other people and further marginalizes or oppresses people. And it’s important for people to understand the difference. Just because you did something sexist doesn’t mean that you are sexist. Just because you said something racist doesn’t mean that you are racist. When your actions are called into question, it’s important to recognize that that’s all that is being called into question – your actions, not your overall character. Listen. Reflect. Apologize. Do Better. It doesn’t matter whether we, deep down, believe ourselves to be __________-ist or whether we intended our actions to be hurtful or _________-ist. It. Doesn’t. Matter. If the impact of our actions is the furthering of oppression, then that’s all that matters. So we need to listen, reflect, apologize, and work to do better in the future. What does that look like? Well, to start, we can actually apologize. I don’t know about you, but I am sick of hearing the ““I am sorry your face got in the way of my Frisbee! I never intended to hit you” apologies. Whether it’s Paula Deen weeping on TV or Alec Baldwin asking us to simply trust that he’s not a “homophobe,” those are not apologies. That’s why I was incredibly inspired and relieved to see a major organization do it well when Kickstarter apologized and took full responsibility for their role in funding a creepy, rapey seduction guide. They apologized earnestly and accepted the role they played in something really terrible. hey pledged to never allow projects like this one to be funded in the future. And then they donated $25,000 to RAINN. At the interpersonal level, we can take a cue from Kickstarter. When we are told that the impact of our action, inaction, or words is hurtful and furthers oppression, we can start by apologizing without any caveats. From there, we can spend the time to reflect in hopes of gaining at least some understanding (however marginal) of the harmful impact. And we can do our best to move forward by acting more accountably. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-07 16:00:54.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Adam Adames - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westlake Alexander Davis - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -34 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Mandavilli Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - NC - Oppression V2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Churchill
- Caselist.CitesClass[60]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,9 +1,0 @@ 1 -Endowments are high now but dropping rapidly - protests are alienating alumni donors, who are of older generations 2 -Hartocollis 8/4 (Anemona Hartocollis. Anemona Hartocollis is a metro reporter who began covering courts for The New York Times in October 2005. On the courts beat, she has written front-page stories about the trial of accused Gambino crime family leader John Gotti, which ended in a hung jury, and the trial of 18 "grannies" acquitted of disorderly conduct during a demonstration against the war in Iraq. From 2002 until 2005, Ms. Hartocollis wrote the “Coping” column in the Sunday City section, a weekly column about life in New York City. From 1997 until 2002, she covered education for the Times, writing about policy issues like whether parents in Greenwich Village should be allowed to pay for a public-school teacher out of their own pockets and the pros and cons of testing school children. Before coming to the Times, Ms. Hartocollis had been a reporter and feature writer for The New York Daily News, New York Newsday, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Detroit News, The Staten Island Advance and Flatbush Life, a weekly paper in Brooklyn. She has freelanced for Martha Stewart Living and LIFE magazines. Ms. Hartocollis was born on November 3, 1955 in Lausanne, Switzerland. She received her bachelor’s degree in comparative literature from Harvard University in 1977. She has won the Newswomen’s Club of New York Front Page Award (twice); the New York State AP Writing Contest, first place for continuing coverage of education (1996), first place features (1992) and third place features (1995); the Society of Silurians investigative reporting award and the Deadline Club of New York award, among others. Ms. Hartocollis is the author of “Seven Days of Possibilities: One Teacher, 24 Kids, and the Music that Changed Their Lives Forever,” (Public Affairs, 2004) a book about a young music teacher in the Bronx, which began as a series of stories in the Times. “College Students Protest, Alumni’s Fondness Fades And Checks Shrink”. 08-04-2016. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/us/college-protests-alumni-donations.html?_r=1) //TruLe 3 -Scott MacConnell cherishes the memory of his years at Amherst College, where he discovered his future métier as a theatrical designer. But protests on campus over cultural and racial sensitivities last year soured his feelings. Now Mr. MacConnell, who graduated in 1960, is expressing his discontent through his wallet. In June, he cut the college out of his will. “As an alumnus of the college, I feel that I have been lied to, patronized and basically dismissed as an old, white bigot who is insensitive to the needs and feelings of the current college community,” Mr. MacConnell, 77, wrote in a letter to the college’s alumni fund in December, when he first warned that he was reducing his support to the college to a token $5. A backlash from alumni is an unexpected aftershock of the campus disruptions of the last academic year. Although fund-raisers are still gauging the extent of the effect on philanthropy, some colleges — particularly small, elite liberal arts institutions — have reported a decline in donations, accompanied by a laundry list of complaints. Alumni from a range of generations say they are baffled by today’s college culture. Among their laments: Students are too wrapped up in racial and identity politics. They are allowed to take too many frivolous courses. They have repudiated the heroes and traditions of the past by judging them by today’s standards rather than in the context of their times. Fraternities are being unfairly maligned, and men are being demonized by sexual assault investigations. And university administrations have been too meek in addressing protesters whose messages have seemed to fly in the face of free speech. Scott C. Johnston, who graduated from Yale in 1982, said he was on campus last fall when activists tried to shut down a free speech conference, “because apparently they missed irony class that day.” He recalled the Yale student who was videotaped screaming at a professor, Nicholas Christakis, that he had failed “to create a place of comfort and home” for students in his capacity as the head of a residential college. A rally at New Haven Superior Court demanding justice for Corey Menafee, an African-American dining hall worker at Yale’s Calhoun College who was charged with breaking a window pane that depicted black slaves carrying cotton. CreditPeter Hvizdak/New Haven Register, via Associated Press “I don’t think anything has damaged Yale’s brand quite like that,” said Mr. Johnston, a founder of an internet start-up and a former hedge fund manager. “This is not your daddy’s liberalism.” “The worst part,” he continued, “is that campus administrators are wilting before the activists like flowers.” Yale College’s alumni fund was flat between this year and last, according to Karen Peart, a university spokeswoman. Among about 35 small, selective liberal arts colleges belonging to the fund-raising organization Staff, or Sharing the Annual Fund Fundamentals, that recently reported their initial annual fund results for the 2016 fiscal year, 29 percent were behind 2015 in dollars, and 64 percent were behind in donors, according to a steering committee member, Scott Kleinheksel of Claremont McKenna College in California. His school, which was also the site of protests, had a decline in donor participation but a rise in giving. At Amherst, the amount of money given by alumni dropped 6.5 percent for the fiscal year that ended June 30, and participation in the alumni fund dropped 1.9 percentage points, to 50.6 percent, the lowest participation rate since 1975, when the college began admitting women, according to the college. The amount raised from big donors decreased significantly. Some of the decline was because of a falloff after two large reunion gifts last year, according to Pete Mackey, a spokesman for Amherst. At Princeton, where protesters unsuccessfully demanded the removal of Woodrow Wilson’s name from university buildings and programs, undergraduate alumni donations dropped 6.6 percent from a record high the year before, and participation dropped 1.9 percentage points, according to the university’s website. A Princeton spokesman, John Cramer, said there was no evidence the drop was connected to campus protests. 4 -Endowments key to education quality and accessibility to marginalized bodies. 5 -ACE 14. The American Council on Education is a U.S. higher education organization established in 1918., 2014, " Understanding College and University Endowments," http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/Understanding-Endowments-White-Paper.pdf //RS 6 -An endowment is an aggregation of assets invested by a college or university to support its educational mission in perpetuity. An institution’s endowment actually comprises hundreds or thousands of individual endowments. An endowment allows donors to transfer their private dollars to public purposes with the assurance that their gifts will serve these purposes for as long as the institution continues to exist. An endowment represents a compact between a donor and an institution. It links past, current, and future generations. It also allows an institution to make commitments far into the future, knowing that resources to meet those commitments will continue to be available. Endowments serve institutions and the public by: • Providing stability. College and university revenues fluctuate over time with changes in enrollment (tuition), donor interest (gifts), and public (largely state and federal) support. Although endowment earnings also vary with changes in financial markets and investment strategies, most institutions follow prudent guidelines (spending rates) to buffer economic fluctuations that are intended to produce a relatively stable stream of income. Since endowment principal is not spent, the interest generated by endowment earnings supports institutional priorities year after year. This kind of stability is especially important for activities that cannot readily be started and stopped, or for which fluctuating levels of support could be costly or debilitating. Endowments frequently support student aid, faculty positions, innovative academic programs, medical research, and libraries. • Leveraging other sources of revenue. In recent years, as the economy has been severely stressed, institutions have dramatically increased their own student aid expenditures, and endowments have enabled institutions to respond more fully to changing demographics and families’ financial need. It is not surprising that the colleges and universities with the largest endowments are also the ones most likely to offer needblind admission (admitting students without regard to financial circumstances and then providing enough financial aid to enable those admitted to attend). An endowment also allows a college or university to provide a higher level of quality or service at a lower price than would otherwise be possible. This has been especially important in recent years, particularly for publicly supported institutions that have experienced significant cuts in state support. Without endowments or other private gifts, institutions would have had to cut back even further on their programs, levy even greater increases in their prices to students, and/or obtain additional public funding to maintain current programs at current prices. 7 -And, diversity outweighs and turns the case – calls into question how we view and assess learning. 8 -Chang 2. Chang, Mitchell J. "Perservation or Transformation: Where's the Real Educational Discourse on Diversity?." The Review of Higher Education 25.2 (2002): 125-140. 9 -Historically, postsecondary institutions did not willingly embrace, let¶ alone collectively defend, diversity-related efforts. It took heavy-handed¶ intervention by the federal government to open wider the doors of higher¶ education to students of color. This change and subsequent institutional¶ alterations now considered under the rubric of diversity varied in the ease¶ with which different campuses implemented them; but it is fair to say that¶ much ongoing administrative resistance (Altbach, 1991; Olivas, 1993; Trent,¶ 1991a) and prolonged acrimonious debate (Levine, 1996) characterized the¶ typical campus dealing with diversity issues. Institutional conflicts typically¶ occurred because, as Hurtado (1996) observed, “These diversity issues¶ often required fundamental changes in premises and practices at many levels”¶ (p. 27), which, according to Chan (1989), threatened the very structure¶ of power both within and outside the university.¶ Because the diversity agenda and its related efforts seek to effect change¶ at almost all levels of higher education, it has been described as a “transformative¶ enterprise” (Nakanishi and Leong, 1978; Wei, 1993). In this view, diversity¶ initiatives are not simply innocuous extensions of preexisting¶ institutional interests but are instead efforts that challenge and seek to¶ transform traditional institutional practices and arrangements toward making¶ education more equitable, diverse, and inclusive, as well as more open¶ to alternative perspectives (Hirabayashi, 1997). Perhaps because the transformative¶ aims associated with diversity tend to challenge existing arrangements,¶ colleges and universities have not done all that they must do to¶ maximize the educational benefits associated with diversity (Allen, 1992;¶ Chang, 1999b). Hurtado (1996) held that “both resistance and change are¶ inevitable parts of the major transformation that is under way in the mission¶ of postsecondary institutions—a mission that includes diversity as a¶ key component” (p. 29). Therefore, she maintained, some tension and conflict¶ are likely at the level of deep institutional change in the history of individual¶ campus diversity efforts. In an educational setting, however, tension¶ and conflict are not necessarily problematic for learning (Gurin, 1999), unless¶ they prevent campuses from successfully implementing a multifaceted¶ approach to diversity.¶ Given that the transformative aims often clash with deep-seated institutional¶ assumptions and values, the educational benefits associated with diversity¶ emerge, more often than not, out of institutional transformation¶ and not out of preexisting ways of operating and behaving. In other words,¶ educational benefits for students emanate from changes that challenge prevailing¶ educational sensibilities and that enhance educational participation. Accordingly, retired Harvard professor Charles Willie pointed out in an interview¶ that the educational significance of diversity is best observed when¶ viewed as “the foundation for institutional change and self-correction” (qtd.¶ in Buchbinder, 1998) and not as an uncritical manifestation of preexisting¶ institutional values and ideals. As such, diversity calls into question not only¶ how learning is viewed and what is valued, but also how learning should be¶ assessed. In the next section, I will discuss further how the diversity agenda¶ seeks to transform higher education’s understanding of and impact on learning. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-07 16:00:55.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Adam Adames - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westlake Alexander Davis - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -34 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Mandavilli Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - DA - Endowments - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Churchill
- Caselist.CitesClass[61]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,30 +1,0 @@ 1 -Interpretation: The aff cannot specify a single type of constitutionally protected speech that their advocacy does not restrict. 2 -Defined in the white house.gov 3 -https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/constitution 4 -The Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the United States. Learn more about our founding document. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." — Preamble to the Constitution The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. Empowered with the sovereign authority of the people by the framers and the consent of the legislatures of the states, it is the source of all government powers, and also provides important limitations on the government that protect the fundamental rights of United States citizens. 5 - 6 -Violation – they specify _____. 7 -Limits—you overlimit by restricting the debate to one issue. There are thousands of ways you could protect free speech – justifies affs that protect one specific person’s speech – kills meaningful clash, the neg can’t prep every possible way to protect free speech – all debates come down to bad generics. 8 - 9 -TVA – read plan as advantage to whole rez aff. 10 - 11 -D Voter 12 -Substantive engagement 13 -1. Only reason we debate is for argument interaction, thus comes first. 14 -2. You can get education from school 15 -3. If debate were about being fair, we’d just flip a coin because that’d be the fairest scenario, but no one does that means fairness isn’t a voter. 16 - 17 -Competing Interpretations 18 -1. Reasonability causes a race to the bottom because debaters keep being barely reasonable 19 -2. No briteline to reasonability 20 - 21 -Drop the debater: 22 -1. time skew puts me at a disadvantage on substance 23 -2. Sets a precedent that debaters can’t run unfair arguments, 24 -3. Dropping them and their advocacy are functionally the same. 25 - 26 -No RVI’s 27 -1. Real world applicability- Winning defense on theory just means that they are being fair, that’s not a reason to vote them up- In the real world proving you are meeting a necessary rule will not give you reward. 28 -2. RVIs discourage checking abuse because debaters will be afraid to lose on theory 29 -3. RVIs center the debate on theory instead of substance because it’s the only place the round can be decided. substance clash is important—it’s the only education unique to debate and outweighs on time frame; we only get two months to talk about the topic. 30 -4. Debaters running abusive positions will always be prepared for theory because they know what’s coming. Their opponents, however, must divide their pre-round prep between many possible shells. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-03 23:57:38.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -William Ponder - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Logan Reed - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -35 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Mandavilli Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - T - Any - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Colleyville
- Caselist.CitesClass[62]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,5 +1,0 @@ 1 -Interpretation: Debaters with access to internet that run pre-typed pre-fiat K impacts must disclose all parts of their position on an internet-based public forum an hour before the round and leave it up. 2 -Violation: they run a K with a pre-fiat impact without disclosing it 3 -Standards: 4 -1. My interp promotes higher quality clash: 5 -2. Assume widespread knowledge - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-03 23:57:39.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -William Ponder - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Logan Reed - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -35 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Mandavilli Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - Theory - Performance must be disclosed - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Colleyville
- Caselist.CitesClass[63]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,11 +1,0 @@ 1 -Academia is a fatal project the 1AC is—an re-scripting of the very terms of contestation such that nothing is left but the continued propagation of social death 2 -Occupied UC Berkeley ‘9 (“The Necrosocial – Civic Life, Social Death, and the University of California,” November 2009, Craccum Magazine – University of Auckland Student Magazine. Iss. 4, 2012. http://craccum.ausa.auckland.ac.nz/?p=286) m leap 3 -Yes, very much a cemetery. Only here there are no dirges, no prayers, only the repeated testing of our threshold for anxiety, humiliation, and debt. The classroom just like the workplace just like the university just like the state just like the economy manages our social death, translating what we once knew from high school, from work, from our family life into academic parlance, into acceptable forms of social conflict. Who knew that behind so much civic life (electoral campaigns, student body representatives, bureaucratic administrators, public relations officials, Peace and Conflict Studies, ad nauseam) was so much social death? What postures we maintain to claim representation, what limits we assume, what desires we dismiss? And in this moment of crisis they ask us to twist ourselves in a way that they can hear. Petitions to Sacramento, phone calls to Congressmen—even the chancellor patronizingly congratulates our September 24th student strike, shaping the meaning and the force of the movement as a movement against the policies of Sacramento. He expands his institutional authority to encompass the movement. When students begin to hold libraries over night, beginning to take our first baby step as an autonomous movement he reins us in by serendipitously announcing library money. He manages movement, he kills movement by funneling it into the electoral process. He manages our social death. He looks forward to these battles on his terrain, to eulogize a proposition, to win this or that—he and his look forward to exhausting us. He and his look forward to a reproduction of the logic of representative governance, the release valve of the university plunges us into an abyss where ideas are wisps of ether—that is, meaning is ripped from action. Let’s talk about the fight endlessly, but always only in their managed form: to perpetually deliberate, the endless fleshing-out-of—when we push the boundaries of this form they are quick to reconfigure themselves to contain us: the chancellor’s congratulations, the reopening of the libraries, the managed general assembly—there is no fight against the administration here, only its own extension. Each day passes in this way, the administration on the look out to shape student discourse—it happens without pause, we don’t notice nor do we care to. It becomes banal, thoughtless. So much so that we see we are accumulating days: one semester, two, how close to being this or that, how far? This accumulation is our shared history. This accumulation—every once in a while interrupted, violated by a riot, a wild protest, unforgettable fucking, the overwhelming joy of love, life shattering heartbreak—is a muted, but desirous life. A dead but restless and desirous life. The university steals and homogenizes our time yes, our bank accounts also, but it also steals and homogenizes meaning. As much as capital is invested in building a killing apparatus abroad, an incarceration apparatus in California, it is equally invested here in an apparatus for managing social death. Social death is, of course, simply the power source, the generator, of civic life with its talk of reform, responsibility, unity. A ‘life,’ then, which serves merely as the public relations mechanism for death: its garrulous slogans of freedom and democracy designed to obscure the shit and decay in which our feet are planted. Yes, the university is a graveyard, but it is also a factory: a factory of meaning which produces civic life and at the same time produces social death. A factory which produces the illusion that meaning and reality can be separated; which everywhere reproduces the empty reactionary behavior of students based on the values of life (identity), liberty (electoral politics), and happiness (private property). Everywhere the same whimsical ideas of the future. Everywhere democracy. Everywhere discourse to shape our desires and distress in a way acceptable to the electoral state, discourse designed to make our very moments here together into a set of legible and fruitless demands. Totally managed death. A machine for administering death, for the proliferation of technologies of death. As elsewhere, things rule. Dead objects rule. In this sense, it matters little what face one puts on the university—whether Yudof or some other lackey. These are merely the personifications of the rule of the dead, the pools of investments, the buildings, the flows of materials into and out of the physical space of the university—each one the product of some exploitation—which seek to absorb more of our work, more tuition, more energy. The university is a machine which wants to grow, to accumulate, to expand, to absorb more and more of the living into its peculiar and perverse machinery: high-tech research centers, new stadiums and office complexes. And at this critical juncture the only way it can continue to grow is by more intense exploitation, higher tuition, austerity measures for the departments that fail to pass the test of ‘relevancy.’ But the ‘irrelevant’ departments also have their place. With their ‘pure’ motives of knowledge for its own sake, they perpetuate the blind inertia of meaning ostensibly detached from its social context. As the university cultivates its cozy relationship with capital, war and power, these discourses and research programs play their own role, co-opting and containing radical potential. And so we attend lecture after lecture about how ‘discourse’ produces ‘subjects,’ ignoring the most obvious fact that we ourselves are produced by this discourse about discourse which leaves us believing that it is only words which matter, words about words which matter. The university gladly permits the precautionary lectures on biopower; on the production of race and gender; on the reification and the fetishization of commodities. A taste of the poison serves well to inoculate us against any confrontational radicalism. And all the while power weaves the invisible nets which contain and neutralize all thought and action, that bind revolution inside books, lecture halls. There is no need to speak truth to power when power already speaks the truth. The university is a graveyard– así es. The graveyard of liberal good intentions, of meritocracy, opportunity, equality, democracy. Here the tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living. We graft our flesh, our labor, our debt to the skeletons of this or that social cliché. In seminars and lectures and essays, we pay tribute to the university’s ghosts, the ghosts of all those it has excluded—the immiserated, the incarcerated, the just-plain-fucked. They are summoned forth and banished by a few well-meaning phrases and research programs, given their book titles, their citations. This is our gothic—we are so morbidly aware, we are so practiced at stomaching horror that the horror is thoughtless. In this graveyard our actions will never touch, will never become the conduits of a movement, if we remain permanently barricaded within prescribed identity categories—our force will be dependent on the limited spaces of recognition built between us. Here we are at odds with one another socially, each of us: students, faculty, staff, homebums, activists, police, chancellors, administrators, bureaucrats, investors, politicians, faculty/ staff/ homebums/ activists/ police/ chancellors/ administrators/ bureaucrats/ investors/ politicians-to-be. That is, we are students, or students of color, or queer students of color, or faculty, or Philosophy Faculty, or Gender and Women Studies faculty, or we are custodians, or we are shift leaders—each with our own office, place, time, and given meaning. We form teams, clubs, fraternities, majors, departments, schools, unions, ideologies, identities, and subcultures—and thankfully each group gets its own designated burial plot. Who doesn’t participate in this graveyard? In the university we prostrate ourselves before a value of separation, which in reality translates to a value of domination. We spend money and energy trying to convince ourselves we’re brighter than everyone else. Somehow, we think, we possess some trait that means we deserve more than everyone else. We have measured ourselves and we have measured others. It should never feel terrible ordering others around, right? It should never feel terrible to diagnose people as an expert, manage them as a bureaucrat, test them as a professor, extract value from their capital as a businessman. It should feel good, gratifying, completing. It is our private wet dream for the future; everywhere, in everyone this same dream of domination. After all, we are intelligent, studious, young. We worked hard to be here, we deserve this. We are convinced, owned, broken. We know their values better than they do: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. This triumvirate of sacred values are ours of course, and in this moment of practiced theater—the fight between the university and its own students—we have used their words on their stages: Save public education! When those values are violated by the very institutions which are created to protect them, the veneer fades, the tired set collapses: and we call it injustice, we get indignant. We demand justice from them, for them to adhere to their values. What many have learned again and again is that these institutions don’t care for those values, not at all, not for all. And we are only beginning to understand that those values are not even our own. The values create popular images and ideals (healthcare, democracy, equality, happiness, individuality, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, public education) while they mean in practice the selling of commodified identities, the state’s monopoly on violence, the expansion of markets and capital accumulation, the rule of property, the rule of exclusions based on race, gender, class, and domination and humiliation in general. They sell the practice through the image. We’re taught we’ll live the images once we accept the practice. In this crisis the Chancellors and Presidents, the Regents and the British Petroleums, the politicians and the managers, they all intend to be true to their values and capitalize on the university economically and socially—which is to say, nothing has changed, it is only an escalation, a provocation. Their most recent attempt to reorganize wealth and capital is called a crisis so that we are more willing to accept their new terms as well as what was always dead in the university, to see just how dead we are willing to play, how non-existent, how compliant, how desirous. Every institution has of course our best interest in mind, so much so that we’re willing to pay, to enter debt contracts, to strike a submissive pose in the classroom, in the lab, in the seminar, in the dorm, and eventually or simultaneously in the workplace to pay back those debts. Each bulging institutional value longing to become more than its sentiment through us, each of our empty gestures of feigned-anxiety to appear under pressure, or of cool-ambivalence to appear accustomed to horror, every moment of student life, is the management of our consent to social death. Social death is our banal acceptance of an institution’s meaning for our own lack of meaning. It’s the positions we thoughtlessly enact. It’s the particular nature of being owned. Social rupture is the initial divorce between the owners and the owned. A social movement is a function of war. War contains the ability to create a new frame, to build a new tension for the agents at play, new dynamics in the battles both for the meaning and the material. When we move without a return to their tired meaning, to their tired configurations of the material, we are engaging in war. It is November 2009. For an end to the values of social death we need ruptures and self-propelled, unmanaged movements of wild bodies. We need, we desire occupations. We are an antagonistic dead. 4 -The aff is curriculum – the 1AC’s strategy is premised upon utilizing knowledge as a telos which runs parallel to settler colonialism – they mystify the structuring foundation for the modern university: the walling off of indigenous bodies from civil society 5 -Tuck and Gaztambide-Fernandez ’13. (Eve Tuck – professor of educational foundations and coordinator of Native American Studies at the State University of New York at New Paltz, and RUBÉN A. GAZTAMBIDE-FERNÁNDEZ, “Curriculum, Replacement, and Settler Futurity,” Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2013, p. 72-89) 6 -Natty Bumppo, not savage, and no longer European, is positioned to claim “native status,” symbolically taking the place of “the last of the mohicans” and of all the other vanishing tribes. The figure of the frontiers man who is one with nature saturates the U.S. cultural imaginary, from the Adirondack backwoodsman and the Order of the Arrow of the Boy Scouts of America (Alonso Recarte, 2010), to Kevin Costner’s Dances with Wolves and the most recent expression of the White settler-becoming-Indian, Johnny Depp’s characterization of Tonto. Natty Bumppo also resurfaces within the contentions over colonization and race that mar the politics of progressive fields such as curriculum studies. Here, the future of the settler is ensured by the absorption of any and all critiques that pose a challenge to white supremacy, and the replacement of anyone who dares to speak against ongoing colonization. This article does the simultaneously blunt and delicate work of exhuming the ways in which curriculum and its history in the United States has invested in settler colonialism, and the permanence of the settler-colonial nation state. In particular, we will describe the settler colonial curricular project of replacement, which aims to vanish Indigenous peoples and replace them with settlers, who see themselves as the rightful claimants to land, and indeed, as indigenous. To do this, we employ the story of Natty Bumppo, as an extended allegory to understand the ways in which the field of curriculum has continued to absorb, silence, and replace the non-white other, perpetuating white supremacy and settlerhood. As we discuss in this article, even as multiple responses have evolved to counter how curriculum continues to enforce colonization and racism, these responses become refracted and adjusted to be absorbed by the whitestream, like the knowledge gained by Natty Bumppo, only to turn to the source and accuse them of savagery, today through a rhetorical move against identity politics. White curriculum scholars re-occupy the “spaces” opened by responses to racism and colonization in the curriculum, such as multiculturalism and critical race theory, absorbing the knowledge, but once again displacing the bodies out to the margins. Thus, we will discuss how various interventions have tried to dislodge the aims of replacement, including multiculturalism, critical race theory, and browning, but have been sidelined and reappropriated in ways that reinscribe settler colonialism and settler futurity. 7 - 8 -The affirmative breathes life into a system of empty meaning and academic regurgitation- We must exhaust the 1ac through a parasitic act which dooms the system to crumble under its own weight – otherwise, logics of incorporation ensures the recuperation of juridical domination 9 -Berardi 11 10 -Franco Berardi, Professor of Social History of Communication at the Accademia di Belle Arti of Milan, After the Future, pg. 104-108 11 -Time is in the mind. The essential limit to growth is the mental impossibility to enhance time (Cybertime) beyond a certain level. I think that we are here touching upon a crucial point. The process of re-composition, of conscious and collective subjectivation, finds here a new – paradoxical – way. Modern radical thought has always seen the process of subjectivation as an energetic process: mobilization, social desire and political activism, expression, participation have been the modes of conscious collective subjectivation in the age of the revolutions. But in our age energy is running out, and desire which has given soul to modern social dynamics is absorbed in the black hole of virtualization and financial games, as Jean Baudrillard (1993a) argues in his book Symbolic Exchange and Death, first published in 1976. In this book Baudrillard analyzes the hyper-realistic stage of capitalism, and the instauration of the logic of simulation.¶ Reality itself founders in hyperrealism, the meticulous reduplication of the real, preferably through another, reproductive medium, such as photography. From medium to medium, the real is volatilized, becoming an allegory of death. But it is also, in a sense, reinforced through its own destruction. It becomes reality for its own sake, the fetishism of the lost object: no longer the object of representation, but the ecstasy of denial and of its own ritual extermination: the hyperreal. ...¶ The reality principle corresponds to a certain stage of the law of value. Today the whole system is swamped by indeterminacy, and every reality is absorbed by the hyperreality of the code and simulation. The principle of simulation governs us now, rather that the outdated reality principle. We feed on those forms whose finalities have disappeared. No more ideology, only simulacra. We must therefore reconstruct the entire genealogy of the law of value and its simulacra in order to grasp the hegemony and the enchantment of the current system. A structural revolution of value. This genealogy must cover political economy, where it will appear as a second-order simulacrum, just like all those that stake everything on the real: the real of production, the real of signification, whether conscious or unconscious. Capital no longer belongs to the order of political economy: it operates with political economy as its simulated model. The entire apparatus of the commodity law of value is absorbed and recycled in the larger apparatus of the structural law of value, this becoming part of the third order of simulacra. Political economy is thus assured a second life, an eternity, within the confines of an apparatus in which it has lost all its strict determinacy, but maintains an effective presence as a system of reference for simulation. (Baudrillard 1993a: 2)¶ Simulation is the new plane of consistency of capitalist growth: financial speculation, for instance, has displaced the process of exploitation from the sphere of material production to the sphere of expectations, desire, and immaterial labor. The simulation process (Cyberspace) is proliferating without limits, irradiating signs that go everywhere in the attention market. The brain is the market, in semiocapitalist hyper-reality. And the brain is not limitless, the brain cannot expand and accelerate indefinitely. The process of collective subjectivation (i.e. social recomposition) implies the development of a common language-affection which is essentially happening in the temporal dimension. The semiocapitalist acceleration of time has destroyed the social possibility of sensitive elaboration of the semio-flow. The proliferation of simulacra in the info-sphere has saturated the space of attention and imagination. Advertising and stimulated hyper-expression (“just do it”), have submitted the energies of the social psyche to permanent mobilization. Exhaustion follows, and exhaustion is the only way of escape:¶ Nothing, not even the system, can avoid the symbolic obligation, and it is in this trap that the only chance of a catastrophe for capital remains. The system turns on itself, as a scorpion does when encircled by the challenge of death. For it is summoned to answer, if it is not to lose face, to what can only be death. The system must itself commit suicide in response to the multiplied challenge of death and suicide. So hostages are taken. On the symbolic or sacrificial plane, from which every moral consideration of the innocence of the victims is ruled out the hostage is the substitute, the alter-ego of the terrorist, the hostage’s death for the terrorist. Hostage and terrorist may thereafter become confused in the same sacrificial act. (Baudrillard 1993a: 37)¶ In these impressive pages Baudrillard outlines the end of the modern dialectics of revolution against power, of the labor movement against capitalist domination, and predicts the advent of a new form of action which will be marked by the sacrificial gift of death (and self-annihilation). After the destruction of the World Trade Center in the most important terrorist act ever, Baudrillard wrote a short text titled The Spirit of Terrorism where he goes back to his own predictions and recognizes the emergence of a catastrophic age. When the code becomes the enemy the only strategy can be catastrophic:¶ all the counterphobic ravings about exorcizing evil: it is because it is there, everywhere, like an obscure object of desire. Without this deep-seated complicity, the event would not have had the resonance it has, and in their symbolic strategy the terrorists doubtless know that they can count on this unavowable complicity. (Baudrillard 2003: 6)¶ This goes much further than hatred for the dominant global power by the disinherited and the exploited, those who fell on the wrong side of global order. This malignant desire is in the very heart of those who share this order’s benefits. An allergy to all definitive order, to all definitive power is happily universal, and the two towers of the World Trade Center embodied perfectly, in their very double-ness (literally twin-ness), this definitive order:¶ No need, then, for a death drive or a destructive instinct, or even for perverse, unintended effects. Very logically – inexorably – the increase in the power heightens the will to destroy it. And it was party to its own destruction. When the two towers collapsed, you had the impression that they were responding to the suicide of the suicide-planes with their own suicides. It has been said that “Even God cannot declare war on Himself.” Well, He can. The West, in position of God (divine omnipotence and absolute moral legitimacy), has become suicidal, and declared war on itself. (Baudrillard 2003: 6-7)¶ In Baudrillard’s catastrophic vision I see a new way of thinking subjectivity: a reversal of the energetic subjectivation that animates the revolutionary theories of the 20th century, and the opening of an implosive theory of subversion, based on depression and exhaustion.¶ In the activist view exhaustion is seen as the inability of the social body to escape the vicious destiny that capitalism has prepared: deactivation of the social energies that once upon a time animated democracy and political struggle. But exhaustion could also become the beginning of a slow movement towards a “wu wei” civilization, based on the withdrawal, and frugal expectations of life and consumption. Radicalism could abandon the mode of activism, and adopt the mode of passivity. A radical passivity would definitely threaten the ethos of relentless productivity that neoliberal politics has imposed.¶ The mother of all the bubbles, the work bubble, would finally deflate. We have been working too much during the last three or four centuries, and outrageously too much during the last thirty years. The current depression could be the beginning of a massive abandonment of competition, consumerist drive, and of dependence on work. Actually, if we think of the geopolitical struggle of the first decade – the struggle between Western domination and jihadist Islam – we recognize that the most powerful weapon has been suicide. 9/11 is the most impressive act of this suicidal war, but thousands of people have killed themselves in order to destroy American military hegemony. And they won, forcing the western world into the bunker of paranoid security, and defeating the hyper-technological armies of the West both in Iraq, and in Afghanistan.¶ The suicidal implosion has not been confined to the Islamists. Suicide has became a form of political action everywhere. Against neoliberal politics, Indian farmers have killed themselves. Against exploitation hundreds of workers and employees have killed themselves in the French factories of Peugeot, and in the offices of France Telecom. In Italy, when the 2009 recession destroyed one million jobs, many workers, haunted by the fear of unemployment, climbed on the roofs of the factories, threatening to kill themselves. Is it possible to divert this implosive trend from the direction of death, murder, and suicide, towards a new kind of autonomy, social creativity and of life? I think that it is possible only if we start from exhaustion, if we emphasize the creative side of withdrawal. The exchange between life and money could be deserted, and exhaustion could give way to a huge wave of withdrawal from the sphere of economic exchange. A new refrain could emerge in that moment, and wipe out the law of economic growth. The self-organization of the general intellect could abandon the law of accumulation and growth, and start a new concatenation, where collective intelligence is only subjected to the common good. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-03 23:57:40.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -William Ponder - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Logan Reed - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -35 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Mandavilli Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - K - University - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Colleyville
- Caselist.CitesClass[64]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,9 +1,0 @@ 1 -In the status quo, the alt-right isn’t being given the chance to speak due to students and administrators shutting down engagements. 2 -Burley 16. Burley, Shane Contributor, Waging Nonviolence “How the Alt Right is trying to create a ‘safe space’ for racism on college campuses.” Waging Nonviolence. October 2016. http://wagingnonviolence.org/feature/alt-right-safe-space-racism-college-campuses/ //AD 3 -While the Alt Right is fighting for a platform, many on college campuses are taking the example of groups like the One People’s Project and are rallying community pressure to disallow Alt Right speakers regular access to collegiate forums. At DePaul University, Alt Right commentator and Gays for Trump founder Milo Yiannopoulos was brought by the College Republicans. Ahead of this, a petition began circulating, largely stemming out of the Black Student Union work, to push DePaul to do more about hate speech on campus. Protesters disrupted the event by getting on stage and preventing him from speaking, functionally ending it. The college later canceled Yiannopoulos’s second scheduled speech, citing his provocative rhetoric as the reason. Protesters later attempted to disrupt a debate-watching party where Trump student supporters had congregated to root for their candidate. 4 -The alt-right exploits the idea of free speech to develop a platform. 5 -Burley 2. Burley, Shane Contributor, Waging Nonviolence “How the Alt Right is trying to create a ‘safe space’ for racism on college campuses.” Waging Nonviolence. October 2016. http://wagingnonviolence.org/feature/alt-right-safe-space-racism-college-campuses/ //AD 6 -A murmur began in May around Berkeley and the surrounding Bay Area as posters appeared overnight on the sides of buildings and wrapped on poles. Adorned with images of statues of antiquity, these classical images of European men depicted as gods were intended to light a spark of memory in the mostly white faces that passed by them. With lines like “Let’s become great again” printed on them, the posters were blatant in their calls for European “pride,” clearly connecting romanticized European empires of the past to the populism of Donald Trump today. The posters were put up by Identity Europa, one of the lesser-known organizations amid that esoteric constellation of reactionary groups and figures known as the “Alt Right.” They were part of a campaign around the country enticing college-age white people to join a new kind of white nationalist movement. While similar posters emerged elsewhere on the West Coast and Midwest, in central California they pointed toward a public event — one directed specifically toward the tradition of free speech at the University of California at Berkeley. Shortly after the posters went up, a brief announcement came from Alt Right leader Richard Spencer and his think-tank, the National Policy Institute. They, along with Identity Europa and other white nationalist organizations, were planning to hold an “Alt Right Safe Space” in Berkeley’s Sproul Plaza on May 6. The “safe space” is a play on words for the Alt Right, using the phrase that many leftist-oriented facilities use for a code of conduct that bans oppressive or bigoted behavior. Instead, they intended to make a “safe space” for white racism, the public declaration of which has become unwelcome in most any space. The plan was to show up and publicly proselytize on the problems of multiculturalism and the need for “white identity.” Identity Europa founder Nathan Damigo joined Spencer, along with Johnny Monoxide, a podcaster and blogger from the white nationalist blog The Right Stuff, which has become popular in Internet racialist circles (racialist being a term they use, since racist carries a negative connotation) for its internal lingo and open use of racial slurs. Alt Right media outlet Red Ice Creations teamed up with Monoxide to livestream the event, bringing the white nationalist crowd together with their international audience of conspiracy theorists, anti-vaccine activists and alternative religion proponents. While live streaming to their crowd, they came ready to argue. “This guy’s anti-dialogical! He’s anti-white,” yelled Damigo when challenged on the racialist content of his talking points. Race and identity For decades, both the institutional and radical left in the United States has relied on campus activism as a key part of its organizing base. From the antiwar movement of the 1960s to the development of feminist and queer politics to the growing youth labor and Black Lives Matter movement, colleges have been a center for political encounters and mobilizations. The radicalization of students has often leaned to the left because the left’s challenges to systems of power seem like a perfect fit for people expanding their understanding of the world. Amid major shifts in U.S. politics, a space has opened for revolutionary right-wing politics that have not traditionally been accessible to those outside of the most extreme ranks of the white nationalist movement. Today, the Alt Right is repackaging many of the ideas normally associated with neo-Nazis and KKK members into a new, more middle-class culture by using the strategies and language traditionally associated with the left. This means a heavy focus on argumentation and academic legitimacy, as well as targeting campus locations (and millennials) for recruitment. Until Hillary Clinton’s August 21 speech, most people had never heard of the Alt Right. However, it is a movement that has been growing for almost a decade in backroom conferences and racially-charged blogs. It is a kind of cultural fascism, one birthed out of the post-war fascist movements of Europe and given character by a culture of Twitter trolls and populist American anger. Yet, when it appears on campus, the Alt Right’s recruiting is hardly different from the Klan’s attempts to openly recruit members by leaving bags of leaflets and candy at people’s doorsteps. While the Alt Right Safe Space was put together as a joint effort with several nationalist organizations, Identity Europa emphasizes focusing on the youth most of all. The name and branding of Identity Europa are new, but the organizati on was started years ago as the National Youth Front. Nathan Damigo was an Iraq war veteran going to school at the University of California at Stanislaus when he took over the organization, shifting its ideological orientation from “civic nationalism” to “race realism,” the notion that whites have higher average IQ’s and a smaller propensity for crime than blacks. While Damigo notes that they have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy when it comes to gay members, he said that bi-racial and transgendered people would be turned away. For Damigo and others who trade in white nationalist talking points like “race realism,” the differences between races are significant. “Ethnic and racial or religzous diversity can actually wreak havoc on a social system, and cause tons of problems,” Damigo said. “I do believe that there are differences between human populations … The distribution of genes that affect behavior and intelligence are already known to not be equally distributed between all populations.” Identity Europa then represents a sort of “fraternal organization” where “European-descended” people can meet and network, working their way towards a kind of campus activism that challenges discourse and educational plans embedded with multiculturalism and egalitarianism. Such organizations have a long history on the right, stretching back to the 19th century fencing clubs and fraternities that popularized the pan-German ideas of Georg Schönerer — an immediate influence on Nazism. As organizers, however, Identity Europa do not follow the standard playbook for campus activism, which usually involves breaking broad political ideas into organized demands with reachable goals. Instead, they simply want to cultivate a subculture whose constituents will intervene in public discourse, thereby seeding their well-rehearsed about racial inequality, white sovereignty and the return to heteronormative social roles. While Damigo brags about the growth of Identity Europa, it likely does not have membership beyond a few dozen people on campuses around the country at this point. However, there are reports of Identity Europa posters appearing at different places around the country almost weekly. Outreach to millennials Through its brand of social interruption, Identity Europa intends to foment a revolutionary right-wing culture — precisely the goal shared by Richard Spencer and his National Policy Institute. Spencer has been in right-wing politics for years, first joining as an assistant editor at the American Conservative after an article he published on the Duke Lacrosse sexual assault scandal made him a minor star. He later went to the controversial Taki’s Magazine, known for giving a voice to the shrinking paleoconservative movement and staffing dissident voices from the right who are regularly accused of racism. As he further cemented himself in this “dissident right” world, he developed the term “Alternative Right” to indicate the different strands that he saw uniting against multiculturalism, equality and American democracy. It was in this climate that Spencer founded the webszite Alternative Right, giving voice to a growing white nationalist movement that built on fascist intellectual traditions in Western Europe and challenged the right-wing connection to the American conservative movement. He eventually went on to take over the white nationalist think-tank, the National Policy Institute, or NPI, originally founded by William Regnery, using money inherited from the conservative publishing house, Regnery Publishing. The organization was meant to center on Samuel Francis, a former columnist with the Washington Times who was let go as he shifted further into white nationalism and associated with racialist organizations like American Renaissance and the Council of Conservative Citizens. Spencer took over the organization after Francis’s death, molding it into the intellectual core of the growing Alt Right movement. Spencer’s goal has always been the creation of a “meta-political” movement rather than one founded on contemporary politizal wedge issues. He hopes to draw together ideas like “white identitarianism” — a term used to brand the movement as being about European heritage — and the eugenics-invoking “human biodiversity.” Both are terms fostered by the so-called “European New Right” and its leading ideologues. What immediately distinguished Spencer’s role in the white nationalist movement from the older generation was his explicit focus on millennial outreach. For instance, his expensive zNPI conferences are dramatically discounted for those under 30, and his new Radix Journal is marketed directly to an Internet culture of disaffected and angry white youths. He was an early proponent of podcasts as a main voice of the movement, a move that has given the Alt Right its conversational tone and made its ideas more accessible. With Damigo, Spencer developed the Alt Right Safe Space idea to exploit the projection of free speech on college campuses, despite the movement’s general rejection of human rights. “I think it’s symbolic as a way of saying, ‘we’re here,’” Spencer explained. 7 -The alt right spreads white supremacy, turns case 8 -Harkinson 16. Josh Harkinson, 12-06-16, "A white nationalist leader now aims to get recruits "while they are young" on college campuses," Mother Jones, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/12/richard-spencer-alt-right-college-activism //AD 9 -How much support is there for the loose-knit coalition of white nationalists and other far-right extremists known as the "alt-right"? Despite a spike in media coverage for the movement in the wake of Donald Trump's victory, a recent conference hosted by white nationalist Richard Spencer, who coined the term "alt-right," drew only about 275 attendees in Washington, DC. And after a video from the event went viral, showing audience members giving Nazi salutes to Spencer's cry of "hail Trump," the movement faced a fierce backlash. Although Trump named alt-right hero Stephen Bannon as his chief White House strategist, the president-elect went on to disavow the alt-right—in general terms, at least—in an interview with the New York Times. The movement gained momentum online in 2016 but is no longer just about social media, says Spencer; he sees a need to prove that the alt-right can attract supporters in the real world. And he says the best place to do that is on college campuses, starting with a speech he plans to deliver on Tuesday on the campus of Texas AandM University. "People in college are at this point in their lives where they are actually open to alternative perspectives, for better and for worse," Spencer says. "I think you do need to get them while they are young. I think rewiring the neurons of someone over 50 is effectively impossible." In May, Spencer and other white nationalists set up a "safe space" on the University of California-Berkeley's Sproul Plaza to discuss "how race affects people of European heritage." Recruiting on college campuses has long been a goal for "academic racists" such as Jared Taylor and Peter Brimelow, a white nationalist whom Spencer helped bring to Duke University for an event in 2007, when Spencer was a student there. In May, Spencer and other white nationalists set up a "safe space" on the University of California-Berkeley's Sproul Plaza to discuss "how race affects people of European heritage." He claims that he will be giving two more speeches about the alt-right at universities in California. "The left just owns academia through and through," Spencer says, "so I think it is important to go to the belly of the beast and not let them own it." In recent months, Breitbart News pundit Milo Yiannopoulos' "Dangerous Faggot Tour" drew crowds at college campuses around the country. Several colleges canceled scheduled talks by Yiannopoulos because of "security concerns." Yiannopoulos does not label himself "alt-right" but has characterized the movement as a legitimate response to political correctness. He often describes white males as victims of "reverse discrimination" and speaks euphemistically of defending "Western values." A talk that he gave on the alt-right at the University of Houston in September drew cheers and a chant invoking the name of the alt-right mascot Pepe the Frog. "That was a revelation for me," Spencer said about Yiannopoulos' talk. "What we are doing is known to people, it's edgy and dangerous, it's cool and hip. It's that thing our parents don't want us to do. So that was definitely a huge inspiration." University campuses historically have incubated a range of social movements, from Marxism to multiculturalism on the left to right-wing movements such as neoliberalism and fascism, including Nazism in Germany (and in the United States). More recently, several groups sympathetic to the alt-right have cropped up on some college campuses: Identity Evropa Identity Evropa describes itself as "a generation of awakened Europeans who have discovered we are part of the great peoples, history, and civilization that flowed from the European continent" and who "oppose those who would defame our history and rich cultural heritage." Founded in February by 30-year-old ex-Marine Nathan Damigo, a junior social science major at California State University-Stanislaus, the group has been active on several California campuses. Its supporters have plastered campuses and downtown areas with posters featuring slogans such as "Let's Become Great Again" and "Serve Your People" superimposed over images or European Renaissance art. Most college professors who teach classes about race and identity "haven't done their homework," says Damigo, who, like Spencer, promotes pseudoscientific theories about cognitive differences between the races. Most of his members, he says, are recent college graduates who discovered racialist ideas on their own and now aim to "mentor" younger students while "waging a culture war" on the ivory tower: "We want to have a constant presence there," he says. "We want to normalize our ideas and get to the point where we can push faculty into incorporating this literature into the lectures and into the educational program." In November, Damigo and more than two dozen Identity Evropa members attended Spencer's conference. Identity Evropa had a strong showing yesterday at the NPI event yesterday. 26 members in total attended. pic.twitter.com/LY8lDoAFY3 — IDENTITY EVROPA (@IdentityEvropa) November 20, 2016 Traditionalist Youth Network As a student at Maryland's Towson University in 2012, Matthew Heimbach founded a "white student union." The group conducted night patrols to look for "black predators," according to Vice, and brought "race realist" Jared Taylor to speak on campus. Another white student union was formed in 2013 by Georgia State University student Patrick Sharp, an active member of the neo-Nazi website Stormfront. The "white student union" model has been promoted by alt-right media outlets; since then, more than 30 white student union pages have popped up on Facebook, though many are believed to be hoaxes. After graduating in 2013, Heimbach and his father-in-law founded the Traditionalist Youth Network, a white nationalist group cloaking itself in "traditionalism" that has allied with neo-Nazi and neo-Confederate groups, according to research from the Southern Poverty Law Center. In June, members of the TYN's affiliated Traditionalist Worker Party joined the group Golden Gate Skinheads for a demonstration in Sacramento that turned violent, sending five people to the hospital with stab wounds. Like other figures affiliated with the alt-right, Heimbach idolizes Russian President Vladimir Putin. "Russia is our biggest inspiration," he recently told the New York Times. "I see President Putin as the leader of the free world." Students for Trump Though the campus group Students for Trump ostensibly focused on electing and supporting Trump, at least one chapter has openly embraced white nationalist rhetoric and causes. The Facebook page of the group's Portland State University chapter posted an infographic called "What Does White Genocide Look Like," "White Lives Matter" memes, and a quote from former Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith about how "colonialism is a wonderful thing." In a counterprotest to a student union demonstration against arming campus police, Students for Trump held up signs reading "Thug Lives Don't Matter." PSU Students who spoke out against Students for Trump were reportedly targeted online by anonymous accounts with racist slurs and death threats, according to ThinkProgress. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-04 14:26:59.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Marilyn Myrick - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Churchill Brennan Young - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -36 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Mandavilli Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - DA - White Nationalism - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Colleyville
- Caselist.CitesClass[65]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,12 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any increase in free speech is seen as harassment – the DOJ cuts public college funding. 2 -FIRE 16. Foundatiion for Individual Rights in Education, 4-25-2016, "Department of Justice: Title IX Requires Violating First Amendment," Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, https://www.thefire.org/department-of-justice-title-ix-requires-violating-first-amendment///AD 3 -The Department of Justice now interprets Title IX to require colleges and universities to violate the First Amendment. In an April 22 findings letter concluding its investigation into the University of New Mexico’s policies and practices regarding sex discrimination, the Department of Justice (DOJ) found the university improperly defined sexual harassment. DOJ flatly declared that “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature”—including “verbal conduct”—is sexual harassment “regardless of whether it causes a hostile environment or is quid pro quo.” To comply with Title IX, DOJ states that a college or university “carries the responsibility to investigate” all speech of a sexual nature that someone subjectively finds unwelcome, even if that speech is protected by the First Amendment or an institution’s promises of free speech. “The Department of Justice has put universities in an impossible position: violate the Constitution or risk losing federal funding,” said Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) President and CEO Greg Lukianoff. “The federal government’s push for a national speech code is at odds with decades of legal precedent. University presidents must find the courage to stand up to this federal overreach.” The shockingly broad conception of sexual harassment mandated by DOJ all but guarantees that colleges and universities nationwide will subject students and faculty to months-long investigations—or worse—for protected speech. In recent years, unjust “sexual harassment” investigations into protected student and faculty speech have generated national headlines and widespread concern. Examples include: Northwestern University Professor Laura Kipnis was investigated for months for writing a newspaper article questioning “sexual paranoia” on campus and how Title IX investigations are conducted. Syracuse University law student Len Audaer was investigated for harassment for comedic articles he posted on a satirical law school blog patterned after The Onion. A female student at the University of Oregon was investigated and charged with harassment and four other charges for jokingly yelling “I hit it first” out a window at a couple. The Sun Star, a student newspaper at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, was investigated for nearly a year for an April Fools’ Day issue of the newspaper and for reporting on hateful messages posted to an anonymous “UAF Confessions” Facebook page. And just two weeks ago, a police officer at the University of Delaware ordered students to censor a “free speech ball”—put up as part of a demonstration in favor of free speech—because it had the word “penis” and an accompanying drawing on it, claiming that it could violate the university’s sexual misconduct policy. DOJ’s rationale would not just legitimize all of the above investigations—it would require campuses to either conduct such investigations routinely or face potential federal sanctions. This latest findings letter doubles down on the unconstitutional and controversial “blueprint” definition of sexual harassment jointly issued by DOJ and the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights in a May 2013 findings letter to the University of Montana. FIRE and other civil liberties advocates at the time warned that the controversial language threatens the free speech and academic freedom rights of students and faculty members. “Requiring colleges to investigate and record ‘unwelcome’ speech about sex or gender in an effort to end sexual harassment or assault on campus is no more constitutional than would be a government effort to investigate and record all ‘unpatriotic’ speech in order to root out treason,” said Robert Shibley, FIRE’s executive director. “Students, faculty, and administrators must not give in to this kind of campus totalitarianism—and FIRE is here to fight alongside them.” In January, FIRE sponsored a lawsuit filed against Louisiana State University (LSU) that challenges the unconstitutional definition of sexual harassment being promulgated by the Departments of Education and Justice in this and in previous letters. Teresa Buchanan, a tenured associate professor of early childhood education in LSU’s acclaimed teacher certification program, was fired for “sexual harassment” under an LSU policy that tracks the federal government’s broad definition. Buchanan’s lawsuit challenges the policy’s constitutionality and its application to her. FIRE is a nonpartisan, nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, freedom of expression, academic freedom, due process, and freedom of conscience at our nation’s colleges and universities. FIRE’s efforts to preserve liberty on campuses across America can be viewed at thefire.org. 4 -State funding is already down – federal funding key to maintain universities. 5 -Mitchell et al 16. Mitchell, MichaelMichael Mitchell is a Senior Policy Analyst with the Center’s State Fiscal Policy division. Prior to joining the Center, Mitchell worked as a State Policy Fellow for the Washington State Budget and Policy Center, where he conducted research on state taxes and borrowing, the effects of budget cuts on communities of color, and the impacts of the recession on young adults. Mitchell holds a B.A. in Economics and Political Science from the University of Connecticut and an MPA from the Maxwell School at Syracuse University , Michael LeachmanMichael Leachman is Director of State Fiscal Research with the State Fiscal Policy division of the Center, which analyzes state tax and budget policy decisions and promotes sustainable policies that take into account the needs of families of all income levels. Since joining the Center in 2009, Leachman has researched a range of state fiscal policy issues including the impact of federal aid, the debt states owe in their Unemployment Insurance trust funds, and the wisdom of state spending limits. Prior to joining the Center, he was a policy analyst for nine years at the Oregon Center for Public Policy (OCPP), a member of the State Priorities Partnership. His work at OCPP included research on corporate income taxes, reserve funds, spending limits, the Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps, and TANF. Earlier in his career, Leachman worked as a community organizer in Chicago and, during graduate school, conducted a range of research projects in collaboration with community organizations. Leachman holds a Ph.D. in sociology from Loyola University Chicago, and Kathleen MastersonKathleen Masterson joined the Center as a Research Assistant for the State Fiscal Project in April 2015. Prior to joining SFP, she interned at the Center with the Food Assistance team, primarily tracking the implementation of the community eligibility provision. Masterson has also interned with the Arms Control Association and spent a year teaching English in China. She holds a MPIA from the University of Pittsburgh, and a B.A. in History and Political Science from The College of William and Mary. "Funding Down, Tuition Up." Funding Down, Tuition Up. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 15 Aug. 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016. http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/funding-down-tuition-up//AD 6 -As tuition soared after the recession, federal financial aid also increased. The Federal Pell Grant Program ― the nation’s primary source of student grant aid ― increased the amount of aid it distributed by just over 80 percent between the 2007-08 and 2014-15 school years. This substantial boost has enabled the program not only to reach more students ― 2.7 million more students received Pell support last year than in 2008 ― but also to provide the average recipient with more support. The average grant rose by 21 percent — to $3,673 from $3,028.44 The increase in federal financial aid has helped many students and families cover recent tuition hikes. The College Board calculates that the annual value of grant aid and higher education tax benefits for students at four-year public colleges nationally has risen by an average of $1,410 in real terms since the 2007-08 school year, offsetting about 61 percent of the average $2,320 tuition increase. For community colleges, increases in student aid have more than made up the difference, leading to a drop in net tuition for the average student.45 Since the sticker-price increases have varied so much from state to state while federal grant and tax-credit amounts are uniform across the country, students in states with large tuition increases ¾ such as Arizona, Georgia, and Louisiana ¾ likely still experienced substantial increases in their net tuition and fees, while the net cost for students in states with smaller tuition increases may have fallen. Financial aid provided by states, however — which was far less than federal aid even before the recession — has fallen on average. In the 2007-2008 school year, state grant dollars equaled $740 per student. By 2014, the latest year for which full data is available, that number had fallen to $710, a drop of roughly 4 percent.46 7 -Loss of funding kills quality of education and excludes marginalized bodies – turns case 8 -Mitchell et al 2. Mitchell, MichaelMichael Mitchell is a Senior Policy Analyst with the Center’s State Fiscal Policy division. Prior to joining the Center, Mitchell worked as a State Policy Fellow for the Washington State Budget and Policy Center, where he conducted research on state taxes and borrowing, the effects of budget cuts on communities of color, and the impacts of the recession on young adults. Mitchell holds a B.A. in Economics and Political Science from the University of Connecticut and an MPA from the Maxwell School at Syracuse University , Michael LeachmanMichael Leachman is Director of State Fiscal Research with the State Fiscal Policy division of the Center, which analyzes state tax and budget policy decisions and promotes sustainable policies that take into account the needs of families of all income levels. Since joining the Center in 2009, Leachman has researched a range of state fiscal policy issues including the impact of federal aid, the debt states owe in their Unemployment Insurance trust funds, and the wisdom of state spending limits. Prior to joining the Center, he was a policy analyst for nine years at the Oregon Center for Public Policy (OCPP), a member of the State Priorities Partnership. His work at OCPP included research on corporate income taxes, reserve funds, spending limits, the Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps, and TANF. Earlier in his career, Leachman worked as a community organizer in Chicago and, during graduate school, conducted a range of research projects in collaboration with community organizations. Leachman holds a Ph.D. in sociology from Loyola University Chicago, and Kathleen MastersonKathleen Masterson joined the Center as a Research Assistant for the State Fiscal Project in April 2015. Prior to joining SFP, she interned at the Center with the Food Assistance team, primarily tracking the implementation of the community eligibility provision. Masterson has also interned with the Arms Control Association and spent a year teaching English in China. She holds a MPIA from the University of Pittsburgh, and a B.A. in History and Political Science from The College of William and Mary. "Funding Down, Tuition Up." Funding Down, Tuition Up. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 15 Aug. 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016. http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/funding-down-tuition-up//AD 9 -Years of cuts in state funding for public colleges and universities have driven up tuition and harmed students’ educational experiences by forcing faculty reductions, fewer course offerings, and campus closings. These choices have made college less affordable and less accessible for students who need degrees to succeed in today’s economy. YEARS OF CUTS HAVE MADE COLLEGE LESS AFFORDABLE AND LESS ACCESSIBLE FOR STUDENTS.Though some states have begun to restore some of the deep cuts in financial support for public two- and four-year colleges since the recession hit, their support remains far below previous levels. In total, after adjusting for inflation, funding for public two- and four-year colleges is nearly $10 billion below what it was just prior to the recession. As states have slashed higher education funding, the price of attending public colleges has risen significantly faster than the growth in median income. For the average student, increases in federal student aid and the availability of tax credits have not kept up, jeopardizing the ability of many to afford the college education that is key to their long-term financial success. States that renew their commitment to a high-quality, affordable system of public higher education by increasing the revenue these schools receive will help build a stronger middle class and develop the entrepreneurs and skilled workers that are needed in the new century. Of the states that have finalized their higher education budgets for the current school year, after adjusting for inflation:2 Forty-six states — all except Montana, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming — are spending less per student in the 2015-16 school year than they did before the recession.3 States cut funding deeply after the recession hit. The average state is spending $1,598, or 18 percent, less per student than before the recession. Per-student funding in nine states — Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina — is down by more than 30 percent since the start of the recession. In 12 states, per-student funding fell over the last year. Of these, four states — Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, and Vermont — have cut per-student higher education funding for the last two consecutive years. In the last year, 38 states increased funding per student. Per-student funding rose $199, or 2.8 percent, nationally. Deep state funding cuts have had major consequences for public colleges and universities. States (and to a lesser extent localities) provide roughly 54 percent of the costs of teaching and instruction at these schools.4 Schools have made up the difference with tuition increases, cuts to educational or other services, or both. Since the recession took hold, higher education institutions have: Increased tuition. Public colleges and universities across the country have increased tuition to compensate for declining state funding and rising costs. Annual published tuition at four-year public colleges has risen by $2,333, or 33 percent, since the 2007-08 school year.5 In Arizona, published tuition at four-year schools is up nearly 90 percent, while in six other states — Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, and Louisiana — published tuition is up more than 60 percent. These sharp tuition increases have accelerated longer-term trends of college becoming less affordable and costs shifting from states to students. Over the last 20 years, the price of attending a four-year public college or university has grown significantly faster than the median income.6 Although federal student aid and tax credits have risen, on average they have fallen short of covering the tuition increases. Tuition increases have compensated for only part of the revenue loss resulting from state funding cuts. Over the past several years, public colleges and universities have cut faculty positions, eliminated course offerings, closed campuses, and reduced student services, among other cuts. A large and growing share of future jobs will require college-educated workers.7 Sufficient public investment in higher education to keep quality high and tuition affordable, and to provide financial aid to students who need it most, would help states develop the skilled and diverse workforce they will need to compete for these jobs. Sufficient public investment can only occur, however, if policymakers make sound tax and budget decisions. State revenues have improved significantly since the depths of the recession but are still only modestly above pre-recession levels.8 To make college more affordable and increase access to higher education, many states need to supplement that revenue growth with new revenue to fully make up for years of severe cuts. But just as the opportunity to invest is emerging, lawmakers in a number of states are jeopardizing it by entertaining tax cuts that in many cases would give the biggest breaks to the wealthiest taxpayers. In recent years, states such as Wisconsin, Louisiana, and Arizona have enacted large-scale tax cuts that limit resources available for higher education. And in Illinois and Pennsylvania ongoing attempts to find necessary resources after large tax cuts threaten current and future higher education funding. 10 -Universities compensate for budget cuts by recruiting wealthier students which excludes marginalized students, turns case. 11 -Webley 12. Kayla Webley, Kayla Webley is a Staff Writer at TIME., 1-25-2012, "Students Bear the Burden of State Higher Ed Cuts," TIME, http://business.time.com/2012/01/25/students-bear-the-burden-of-state-higher-ed-cuts/ //AD 12 -Over the past year, state funding for higher education has declined by nearly 8. In real terms, that amounts to $6 billion less being funneled into the nation’s public colleges and universities at a time when the demand for the degrees they provide is at an all-time high. According to the annual Grapevine report from the Center for the Study of Education Policy at Illinois State University, 41 states reduced funding as a result of the slow economic recovery and the end of federal stimulus funds. Of those, 29 states allocated less money in the 2011-12 school year than they did in the pre-recession 2006-07 school year. And further, 14 states reduced funds by more than 10. In the most extreme case, New Hampshire reduced public funding for its colleges and universities by 41; at the other end of the spectrum, North Carolina decreased funding by only 1, and nine states managed to increase total state spending for higher ed. (MORE: Which Cities Spend the Most on Snack Foods?) As state money declines, universities are left with no choice but to put more of the financial burden on students — the same students who are already taking on more debt than ever recorded. “There’s an awful lot of substitution of student money for state money,” said Dennis Jones, president of the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. “The first reaction is always to increase tuition.” At the same time, also as a result of the cuts, schools are curtailing need-based financial aid programs. “Students are being hit with a double whammy — higher cost and less help,” Jones added. But not only are students footing more of the bill, they are getting less bang for their buck. In order to compensate for the lack of funds, universities have made a host of significant changes — and almost none of them are good for students. To start, universities have been forced to scale back the number of enrollment slots they can offer in the first place and recruit more out-of-state (and thus higher-tuition paying) students to up their bottom lines. Here’s one way this scenario could play out: Since elite schools are the ones that most effectively recruit out-of-state students, we’ll start with Student A, a California resident, who is qualified to attend the University of California, Berkeley, but is shut out because out-of-state students have snapped up a larger portion of the enrollment slots than in years past. So, instead of Berkeley, Student A enrolls in a more mid-level state school, like UC Davis. As a result, Student B, who in the past would have been a shoo-in at Davis, is denied admission, and instead opts to attend a community college. Consequently, Student C, whose only option is community college, is shut out of higher education altogether. Those students who are lucky enough to get in often have a hard time finding space in the classes they need as universities slash classes and programs. “We’re seeing dramatic cases of students being enrolled in schools and then finding they can’t get into the courses they need to graduate,” said Paul Lingenfelter, president of the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association, the group that works with Grapevine to issue the report. “If you can’t provide seats in the classroom because you don’t have the money to hire faculty, that’s a denial of access for students.” (MORE: Students Bear the Burden of State Higher Ed Cuts) If they’re lucky enough to get into the classes they want, students are more likely to be taught by adjunct faculty instead of full-time professors. The potential negative for students in this scenario is that adjunct faculty, who may be good teachers, don’t shoulder the responsibility of advising and mentoring students. “It’s not unusual for adjuncts to come in, teach a class and be gone,” Jones said. “In California they call them freeway fliers because they may teach at several schools in order to make a living themselves.” According to Jones, the students most likely to have adjunct faculty are freshmen, meaning many students begin their college careers without seeing faculty who are permanent fixtures at the university. Of course, there are other ways to compensate for a lack of funds that don’t have a direct negative impact on students — including consolidating campuses, cutting programs with low-enrollment, scaling back administrative costs, being more energy efficient, etc. — but four years into the recession, most of the easy cuts have already been made, leaving raising tuition as the last option standing. But that’s not to say it’s a good option. “You have to worry most about the students who aren’t there that should be,” Lingenfelter said. “It’s very clear as cost has risen and aid has been stretched, that there are so many students who should be in higher education today that are not because they can’t afford to be.” - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-20 01:49:29.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Megan Nubel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Milpitas Amandeep Dosanjh - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -37 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Mandavilli Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - DA - Title IX - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Berkeley
- Caselist.CitesClass[66]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,11 +1,0 @@ 1 -The right the housing would push the US economy into collapse- two links. 2 -1. Housing rights movements hurt business growth 3 -Alexander 15 Lisa T. Alexander (Professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School). “Occupying the Constitutional Right to Housing.” Nebraska Law Review. 2015. HW. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2821andcontext=nlr SM 4 -Housing rights protestors in San Francisco blocked a Google employee bus transporting employees to the company’s headquarters in suburban Mountain View.3 The protestors opposed Google’s use of over 200 public San Francisco bus stops for its private employee shuttle buses without paying fines for its illegal use of public infrastructure.4 The protestors demanded that the city fine Google $1 billion dollars,5 and dedicate the proceeds to affordable housing initiatives, eviction defenses,6 and measures to prevent the conversion of affordable rental units to market-rate condos.7 Similar protests also took place in other cities.8 The protestors’ main grievance was the increasingly inequitable distributions of local housing and property entitlements in San Francisco and Seattle spurred, in part, by technology companies’ growth in the region.9 5 -2. The right to housing in Ireland caused the first recession in decades. 6 -O’Sullivan, Trinity College in Dublin, 2008: 7 -Sustainable Solutions to Homelessness: The Irish Case. Eoin O’Sullivan, School of Social Work and Social Policy, Trinity College, Dublin, Dublin 2. Republic of Ireland. SM 8 -In the last year, some difficulties have emerged in relation to the funding of the care needs of homeless individuals. As noted earlier, a crucial element in the strategic development of services was that local authorities would have responsibility for the provision of accommodation, with health authorities having responsibility for the provision of care. The establishment of Health Service Executive (HSE) in 200518, while rational in theory, has generated considerable implementation difficulties and overspend; in the case of homeless services, some new services have experienced delays in opening because of the reluctance of the HSE to fund the care element. In addition, strains on the public finances generated largely but not exclusively by the decline in the property market, have resulted in Ireland entering recession for the first time in nearly a quarter of a century. Demands for greater efficiencies in public services are now articulated daily as a response to the reduction in tax revenues and homeless service providers will not be immune to these new realities. 9 -Intensifying economic recession will push us over the brink toward apocalypse—crime, suicide, and mass devastation is inevitable; this turns/outweighs all AC impacts 10 -The Sunday Times, 2/1/09 (Judith Duffy, “Scotland’s health boss sees apocalypse now,” 2009, Lexis) 11 -SCOTLAND'S most senior public health official has warned that "humanity is on a path towards unprecedented catastrophe" and the Scottish economy is sinking at a faster rate than at any time since the Great Depression.In an apocalyptic report to the Scottish government, Dr Laurence Gruer, NHS Health Scotland's director of public health science, warned that the recession is likely to have a devastating effect on social cohesion and health.He predicts a rise in levels of property crime, fraud, racism, drug abuse, child abuse, domestic violence, obesity, depression and suicide. Coupled with environmental factors such as the depletion of natural resources, he claims the downturn could have dire consequences for the population."This upheaval can be expected to create changes in socioeconomic conditions in Scotland of a magnitude not seen since the early 1980s ... the causes of the recession are unprecedented and the rapidity and severity of their onset are only matched by the Great Depression of 1929."Humanity is on a path towards catastrophe on an unprecedented scale but which has already been tasted by the devastated residents of coastal Bangladesh, Myanmar and Louisiana, by the idle fishermen of the shrinking Aral Sea and the respiratory casualties of numerous air polluted cities."Gruer blames the "have-itall" mindset of western consumerist societies and its impact on the environment and people in developing countries."The risk of depression and the possibility of suicide may increase when unemployment is combined with financial problems such as losing one's home or relationship breakdown," says his report."With many more people struggling to make ends meet, some may be tempted into property crime, fraud or drug dealing ... there may also be possible increases in wife and child abuse and neglect ... the potential for increased racism and other forms of discrimination and harassment against immigrants due to perceived competition for jobs should be anticipated and responded to." The report has been criticised by politicians, who warn that Gruer's language could cause unnecessary anxiety."In the circumstances, prophesying doom and gloom is not a constructive way forward, neither does it help people cope with the current problems," said Mary Scanlon, health spokeswoman for the Scottish Conservatives.."It is for the public authorities to give the best advice and support, rather than adding to anxiety and depression."Richard Simpson, Labour's public health spokesman, said: "Something so full of doom and gloom at a time of uncertainty creates a sense of despair that is unnecessary and inappropriate. Dr Gruer should stick to his specific remit on public health."Simpson added that the current economic crisis could not be compared to the Great Depression because of the vast improvements in the nation's health and the global response to the credit crunch.The Great Depression, the most severe economic slump in modern history, was triggered by the Wall Street crash.Gruer believes that the socioeconomic changes caused by the current crisis would be as significant as those brought in by Margaret Thatcher's government in the 1980s.He adds that the falling value of sterling could also lead to elderly people, who had planned to spend their retirement living abroad, returning to Scotland, adding to the burden on health and social services. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-09 18:03:11.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -John Sims - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Northland Christian Margaret Purcell - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -38 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Mandavilli Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -MARAPR - DA - Econ - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -TFA State
- Caselist.CitesClass[67]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,15 +1,0 @@ 1 -We are on the brink but clean energy rise proves we can meet the 2 degree Celsius threshold. 2 -Canadell et. al. 2/16 (Dr. Josep (Pep) Canadell, Glen Peters, Corinne Le Quéré, Dr. Josep (Pep) Canadell is an EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GLOBAL CARBON PROJECT AND CSIRO RESEARCH SCIENTIST for the GLOBAL CARBON PROJECT, Glen Peters is a senior researcher for CICERO. Le Quéré is also another contributor for CICERO. "We can still keep global warming below 2℃ – but the hard work is about to start", No Publication, 2-16-2017, page numbers here, http://www.cicero.uio.no/no/posts/klima/we-can-still-keep-global-warming-below-2-but-the-hard-work-is-about-to-start)//DM Accessed 3-8-2017 3 -Last year we found that the growth in global fossil fuel emissions have stalled over the past three years. But does this mean we are on track to keep global warming below 2℃, as agreed under the 2015 Paris Agreement? In our study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change today, we looked at how global and national energy sectors are progressing towards global climate targets. We found that we can still keep global warming below 2℃ largely thanks to increasing use of clean energy, a global decline in coal use, improvements in energy efficiency, and a consequent stalling of emissions from fossil fuels over the past three years. Nations need to accelerate deployment of existing technologies to lock in and build on the gains of the last three years. More challenging, is the needed investment to develop new technologies and behaviours necessary to get to net-zero global emissions by mid-century. World moving away from fossil fuels We looked at several key measures, including carbon emissions from fossil fuels, the carbon intensity of the energy system (how much carbon is produced for each unit of energy) and the amount of carbon emitted to produce one dollar of wealth. ...we can still keep global warming below 2℃ largely thanks to increasing use of clean energy, a global decline in coal use, improvements in energy efficiency, and aconsequent stalling of emissions from fossil fuels over the past three years. The world share of energy from fossil fuels is starting to decline. There has been no growth in coal consumption and strong growth in energy from wind, biomass, solar and hydro power. The emerging trend is therefore towards lower carbon emissions from energy production. Energy efficiency has also improved globally in recent years, reversing the trends of the 2000s. These improvements are reducing the amount of carbon emissions to produce new wealth. From all these changes, global fossil fuel emissions have not grown over the past three years. Remarkably, this has occurred while the global economy has continued to grow. As the global economy grows, it is using less energy to produce each unit of wealth as economies become more efficient and shift towards services. These promising results show that, globally, we are broadly in the right starting position to keep warming below 2℃. But modelling suggests that stringent climate policy will only slightly accelerate this historical trend of improvements in energy intensity. And to keep warming below 2℃ will require deep and sustained reductions in the carbon intensity of how energy is produced. 4 -Home construction is on the decline 5 -Slowey 3/2 (Kim Slowey, writer who has been active in the construction industry for the last 25 years and is licensed as a certified general contractor in Florida. She received her BA in Mass Communications/Journalism from the University of South Florida and has experience in both commercial and residential construction, 3-2-2017, "Weak productivity crippling global construction industry growth," Construction Dive, http://www.constructiondive.com/news/weak-productivity-crippling-global-construction-industry-growth/437249/) //AD 6 -Not only has the U.S. construction industry failed to keep pace with the U.S. compounded annual business productivity growth rate of 1.76, but it has lost ground since 1995 with a yearly productivity decline of 1.04, according to a recent McKinsey Global Institute report. In its report, "Reinventing Construction Through a Productivity Revolution," McKinsey said the global construction industry, which has a 1 productivity growth rate compared to the world's 2.8, has been slow to adopt the new technology and management techniques that could increase its value by $1.6 trillion. McKinsey noted that unless the industry takes significant steps to modernize, it will not be able to meet the demands of an aggressive infrastructure program or be able to address the shortage of housing in the U.S. 7 -Housing construction explodes emissions – UK empirically proves 8 -Monahan and Powell 11. Monahan, J., , Powell, J.C. , “The significance of embodied carbon and energy in house construction”. Energy and Buildings 43: 179-188. DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.09. 005, Science for Environmental Policy, European Comission DG, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/38si9_en.pdf) //AD 9 -As almost a quarter of all global CO2 emissions are attributed to energy use in buildings, reducing the energy demand and carbon emissions linked to buildings is an important goal for government climate policy. However, the energy used, and associated carbon emissions, when a house is built is often overlooked and mainly comes from the extraction, processing, manufacture, transportation and use of materials for construction. This energy and carbon is thus considered to be hidden or ‘embodied’ in the house. The researchers assessed the energy used and carbon emitted in the construction of a novel low-energy house in the UK using a life cycle method. The house was a threebedroom semi-detached house made with a factory-built, foam insulated, timber frame and assembled in modules at the building site, where it was clad with larch planks. It was compared with two similar buildings constructed using more traditional methods: a timberframed house with brick cladding and a house built with traditional masonry techniques (block internal walls, insulated cavity walls and brick cladding). The assessment, based on data from an inventory of all the materials and fossil fuels used during construction, revealed that the low-energy house required a total of 519GJ (gigajoules) of primary energy to build (5.7 GJ/m2 ), embodying 35 tonnes of CO2 (405 kilograms of CO2 per square metre). 82 of the energy was used in preparing the materials (over a third of this from concrete) and the rest was used to transport materials, remove waste and for onsite energy requirements. The brick-clad house embodied over 30 more carbon and energy, owing to the increase in minerals associated with the cladding (sand, brick and cement) and increases in transport and construction costs. The masonry house embodied 51 more carbon and 35 more energy compared to the timber framed, larch-clad house. Most energy and carbon savings in the low-energy house came from the use of wood as an alternative to cement, bricks and steel; larch cladding produces an energy saving of 24 compared to bricks. Less structural support is also needed, further reducing the need for energy rich materials, such as steel and concrete. The offsite, factory manufacturing of the timber fames also reduced energy costs. Addressing the alternative methods of construction outlined in this study could be a valuable contribution to national carbon reduction efforts. Further energy savings from construction include reducing onsite waste production, which accounts 14 of total embodied carbon, and reducing the amount of cement used, by replacing with ground granulated blast furnace slag, fly ash or other lower carbon alternatives. 10 -Meeting two degree Celsius change is key to stopping climate change catastrophe 11 -Mastroianni 15 (I'm currently working as a Science/Technology reporter and editor for CBSNews.com. I previously covered Science and Technology for FoxNews.com. Before moving to New York, I spent a year as a Reporter, Editor, and Designer at The Berkshire Eagle and served as the Press Agent and Assistant to the Artistic Director at Berkshire Actors Theatre. I graduated with honors from Brown University in 2011, and earned a Master of Arts degree from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism in May 2014. "Why 2 degrees are so important to the climate." CBS. 11-30-2015. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-un-climate-talks-why-2-degrees-are-so-important/)//roman 12 -As the United Nations conference on climate change gets underway Monday in Paris, one temperature that will be on everyone's minds is 2 degrees Celsius (or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). Although it might not sound like a big number, climatologists predict that if the planet warms a total of 2 degrees more than its average temperature before the Industrial Revolution ~-~- when humans started burning fossil fuels ~-~- the results could be catastrophic. What could happen? Think events like greater sea level rise submerging the coasts, more pervasive droughts and wildfires, and plant and animal extinctions across the board. Scientists say this amount of temperature increase could leave us with a significantly different Earth. And unless something changes, we're heading in that direction: U.N. and U.K. climate analysts recently concluded that the Earth has already warmed by 1 degree Celsius, with 2015 the hottest year ever recorded. Yale economist William Nordhaus first defined the 2-degree benchmark in a 1977 paper, "Economic Growth and Climate: The Carbon Dioxide Problem." Since then, the figure has stood as a rallying cry for those advocating for cutting back on carbon emissions. For others, 2 degrees is still too high ~-~- to allow the Earth to warm even that much would be dire for life on the planet. "Those who study the possible impacts of warming think that there is a threshold before we can start to get much more changed in the world ~-~- like the flooding of low-lying countries, and things like that," said Eric Larson, a senior scientist at Climate Central, a nonprofit news organization that provides analysis and information on climate science. "Science has established for quite a while that we need to respect a threshold of 2 degrees, that being the limit of the temperature increase that we can afford from a human, economic and infrastructure point of view," the top U.N. official on climate change, Christiana Figueres, told CBS News in an interview earlier this fall. Beyond that, "we would be moving into exceedingly dangerous zones of abrupt interruptions to our economy, to our livelihood, to our infrastructure that frankly we wouldn't even know how to deal with." 13 -Global warming definitively causes extinction 14 -Sharp and Kennedy 14 – (Associate Professor Robert (Bob) A. Sharp is the UAE National Defense College Associate Dean for Academic Programs and College Quality Assurance Advisor. He previously served as Assistant Professor of Strategic Security Studies at the College of International Security Affairs (CISA) in the U.S. National Defense University (NDU), Washington D.C. and then as Associate Professor at the Near East South Asia (NESA) Center for Strategic Studies, collocated with NDU. Most recently at NESA, he focused on security sector reform in Yemen and Lebanon, and also supported regional security engagement events into Afghanistan, Turkey, Egypt, Palestine and Qatar; Edward Kennedy is a renewable energy and climate change specialist who has worked for the World Bank and the Spanish Electric Utility ENDESA on carbon policy and markets; 8/22/14, “Climate Change and Implications for National Security,” International Policy Digest, http://intpolicydigest.org/2014/08/22/climate-change-implications-national-security/) //AD 15 -Our planet is 4.5 billion years old. If that whole time was to be reflected on a single one-year calendar then the dinosaurs died off sometime late in the afternoon of December 27th and modern humans emerged 200,000 years ago, or at around lunchtime on December 28th. Therefore, human life on earth is very recent. Sometime on December 28th humans made the first fires – wood fires – neutral in the carbon balance. Now reflect on those most recent 200,000 years again on a single one-year calendar and you might be surprised to learn that the industrial revolution began only a few hours ago during the middle of the afternoon on December 31st, 250 years ago, coinciding with the discovery of underground carbon fuels. Over the 250 years carbon fuels have enabled tremendous technological advances including a population growth from about 800 million then to 7.5 billion today and the consequent demand to extract even more carbon. This has occurred during a handful of generations, which is hardly noticeable on our imaginary one-year calendar. The release of this carbon – however – is changing our climate at such a rapid rate that it threatens our survival and presence on earth. It defies imagination that so much damage has been done in such a relatively short time. The implications of climate change is the single most significant threat to life on earth and, put simply, we are not doing enough to rectify the damage. This relatively very recent ability to change our climate is an inconvenient truth; the science is sound. We know of the complex set of interrelated national and global security risks that are a result of global warming and the velocity at which climate change is occurring. We worry it may already be too late. Climate change writ large has informed few, interested some, confused many, and polarized politics. It has already led to an increase in natural disasters including but not limited to droughts, storms, floods, fires etc. The year 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record according to an American Meteorological Society (AMS) report. Research suggests that climate change is already affecting human displacement; reportedly 36 million people were displaced in 2008 alone because of sudden natural disasters. Figures for 2010 and 2011 paint a grimmer picture of people displaced because of rising sea levels, heat and storms. Climate change affects all natural systems. It impacts temperature and consequently it affects water and weather patterns. It contributes to desertification, deforestation and acidification of the oceans. Changes in weather patterns may mean droughts in one area and floods in another. Counter-intuitively, perhaps, sea levels rise but perennial river water supplies are reduced because glaciers are retreating. As glaciers and polar ice caps melt, there is an albedo effect, which is a double whammy of less temperature regulation because of less surface area of ice present. This means that less absorption occurs and also there is less reflection of the sun’s light. A potentially critical wild card could be runaway climate change due to the release of methane from melting tundra. Worldwide permafrost soils contain about 1,700 Giga Tons of carbon, which is about four times more than all the carbon released through human activity thus far. The planet has already adapted itself to dramatic climate change including a wide range of distinct geologic periods and multiple extinctions, and at a pace that it can be managed. It is human intervention that has accelerated the pace dramatically: An increased surface temperature, coupled with more severe weather and changes in water distribution will create uneven threats to our agricultural systems and will foster and support the spread of insect borne diseases like Malaria, Dengue and the West Nile virus. Rising sea levels will increasingly threaten our coastal population and infrastructure centers and with more than 3.5 billion people – half the planet – depending on the ocean for their primary source of food, ocean acidification may dangerously undercut critical natural food systems which would result in reduced rations. Climate change also carries significant inertia. Even if emissions were completely halted today, temperature increases would continue for some time. Thus the impact is not only to the environment, water, coastal homes, agriculture and fisheries as mentioned, but also would lead to conflict and thus impact national security. Resource wars are inevitable as countries respond, adapt and compete for the shrinking set of those available resources. These wars have arguably already started and will continue in the future because climate change will force countries to act for national survival; the so-called Climate Wars. As early as 2003 Greenpeace alluded to a report which it claimed was commissioned by the Pentagon titled: An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for U.S. National Security. It painted a picture of a world in turmoil because global warming had accelerated. The scenario outlined was both abrupt and alarming. The report offered recommendations but backed away from declaring climate change an immediate problem, concluding that it would actually be more incremental and measured; as such it would be an irritant, not a shock for national security systems. In 2006 the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) – Institute of Public Research – convened a board of 11 senior retired generals and admirals to assess National Security and the Threat to Climate Change. Their initial report was published in April 2007 and made no mention of the potential acceleration of climate change. The team found that climate change was a serious threat to national security and that it was: “most likely to happen in regions of the world that are already fertile ground for extremism.” The team made recommendations from their analysis of regional impacts which suggested the following. Europe would experience some fracturing because of border migration. Africa would need more stability and humanitarian operations provided by the United States. The Middle East would experience a “loss of food and water security (which) will increase pressure to emigrate across borders.” Asia would suffer from “threats to water and the spread of infectious disease. ” In 2009 the CIA opened a Center on Climate Change and National Security to coordinate across the intelligence community and to focus policy. In May 2014, CNA again convened a Military Advisory Board but this time to assess National Security and the Accelerating Risk of Climate Change. The report concludes that climate change is no longer a future threat but occurring right now and the authors appeal to the security community, the entire government and the American people to not only build resilience against projected climate change impacts but to form agreements to stabilize climate change and also to integrate climate change across all strategy and planning. The calm of the 2007 report is replaced by a tone of anxiety concerning the future coupled with calls for public discourse and debate because “time and tide wait for no man.” The report notes a key distinction between resilience (mitigating the impact of climate change) and agreements (ways to stabilize climate change) and states that: Actions by the United States and the international community have been insufficient to adapt to the challenges associated with projected climate change. Strengthening resilience to climate impacts already locked into the system is critical, but this will reduce long-term risk only if improvements in resilience are accompanied by actionable agreements on ways to stabilize climate change. The 9/11 Report framed the terrorist attacks as less of a failure of intelligence than a failure of imagination. Greenpeace’s 2003 account of the Pentagon’s alleged report describes a coming climate Armageddon which to readers was unimaginable and hence the report was not really taken seriously. It described: A world thrown into turmoil by drought, floods, typhoons. Whole countries rendered uninhabitable. The capital of the Netherlands submerged. The borders of the U.S. and Australia patrolled by armies firing into waves of starving boat people desperate to find a new home. Fishing boats armed with cannon to drive off competitors. Demands for access to water and farmland backed up with nuclear weapons. The CNA and Greenpeace/Pentagon reports are both mirrored by similar analysis by the World Bank which highlighted not only the physical manifestations of climate change, but also the significant human impacts that threaten to unravel decades of economic development, which will ultimately foster conflict. Climate change is the quintessential “Tragedy of the Commons,” where the cumulative impact of many individual actions (carbon emission in this case) is not seen as linked to the marginal gains available to each individual action and not seen as cause and effect. It is simultaneously huge, yet amorphous and nearly invisible from day to day. It is occurring very fast in geologic time terms, but in human time it is (was) slow and incremental. Among environmental problems, it is uniquely global. With our planet and culture figuratively and literally honeycombed with a reliance on fossil fuels, we face systemic challenges in changing the reliance across multiple layers of consumption, investment patterns, and political decisions; it will be hard to fix! - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-09 18:03:13.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -John Sims - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Northland Christian Margaret Purcell - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -38 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Mandavilli Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -MARAPR - DA - Warming - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -TFA State
- Caselist.CitesClass[68]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,36 +1,0 @@ 1 -Interpretation: The affirmative must specify with an explicit advocacy text in the 1AC the specific mechanisms or actions they defend in order to implement the Right to Housing. This can include, for example, whether they build houses, offer subsidies, utilize eminent domain, spending changes, etc. 2 - 3 -Violation: They only defend the Right to Housing in the abstract i.e. they define the principles behind it but never specify the mechanisms by which they effect it. 4 - 5 -Standards: 6 -1. Ground – housing as a goal is a good thing, neg ground concerns implementation and the specifics of the plan. Eg. Large quantity of home building releases emissions, is built on undesirable land. Key to topic education and fairness because it’s necessary to engage with the aff. Specifically true on this topic – there’s so many different interpretations of RTH in the topic lit that neg can never know what links absent a specific advocacy in the 1AC. 7 -Vagueness makes it impossible to contest 1AC solvency 8 -Culhane and Byrne 11 (Dennis P. Culhane and Thomas Byrne. Dr. Culhane’s primary area of research is homelessness and assisted housing policy. His research has contributed to efforts to address the housing and support needs of people experiencing housing emergencies and long-term homelessness. Dr. Culhane’s recent research includes studies of vulnerable youth and young adults, including those transitioning from foster care, juvenile justice, and residential treatment services. Dr. Culhane is the Director of Research for the National Center on Homelessness among Veterans at the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Culhane co-directs the Intelligence for Social Policy initiative (ISP), a MacArthur-funded project to promote the development of integrated database systems by states and localities for policy analysis and systems reform. Tom Byrne, PhD received his doctoral degree in social welfare in 2012 and previously served a Research Assistant Professor at the School of Social Policy and Practice. His research focuses on homelessness, supported housing policy, and the use of integrated administrative data systems for policy research. During his time as a doctoral student, Dr. Byrne was also a co-author on a study funded by the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation that examined the young adult outcomes of youth exiting dependent and delinquent care in Los Angeles County. That study was one of the first to provide information about the adult trajectories of “crossover youth,” who have a history of involvement in both the foster care and juvenile justice systems, and Dr. Byrne is collaborating on several follow up studies. In addition, Dr. Byrne was an Investigator at the National Center on Homelessness Among Veterans. His work at the Center included several studies assessing the prevalence and risk of homelessness among veterans and the determinants of health services utilization among homeless veterans. As part of his work at the Center, he also collaborated on the first ever veteran supplement to the Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress. Dr. Byrne’s current research focus is on the aging and mortality among both veterans and non-veterans experiencing homelessness. He is also engaged in a line of research that builds on his dissertation work, which examined community level predictors of variation in the rates of chronic homelessness across a large set of American communities. “The Right to Housing: An Effective Means for Addressing Homelessness?”. 2011. University of Pennsylvania. https://works.bepress.com/dennis_culhane/109/) //TruLe 9 -Yet, while there is clearly a strong housing rights framework in European nations, it re- mains difficult to enforce the right to housing as a viable strategy for addressing homelessness. This is due in no small part to the fact that the documents and constitutional articles upon which the right to housing rests do not compel states to follow narrowly articulated criteria in order to uphold or guarantee a right to housing, and certainly do not provide homeless individuals with the possibility of obtaining housing by exercising a legally enforceable right to housing. Instead, in terms of adhering to the right to housing, countries are only bound to make progress towards addressing homelessness on a larger scale. However, given the inherent ambiguity of such a requirement, it is quite difficult to monitor progress and consequently, to determine whether states truly respect housing rights and are meeting their obligations to promote a right to housing. In other words, it is difficult to assess whether the existence of a “programmatic” right to housing in European countries has any impact on the problem of homelessness in the aggregate. In most countries it is clear that, at the individual level, the existence of such a right does not provide much recourse to individuals experiencing homelessness. There are, however, two important exceptions to this latter point, and the experiences in these countries provide some insight as to what results when countries move to adopt a legally enforceable right to housing. 10 - 11 -2. Shift – specific disads read can be shifted out of in 1AR, moots 1NC time. Holding the aff to a plan text is preferable. 12 -3. Policy education – they make debate stale, every aff becomes generic whole rez, we incentivize a litany of different affs with layered solvency which is better because detailed and specific education is the only relevant form of portable education – kills advocacy skills. 13 - 14 -TVA: just read your affirmative with a mechanism – solves all your offense 15 - 16 -D Voter 17 -Substantive engagement 18 -1. Only reason we debate is for argument interaction, thus comes first. 19 -2. Controls the internal link to their offense – if we cant contest it, they cant prove the aff is correct. 20 -3. Education non – uq: can get it from school 21 -4. Fairness not a voter: if it was we’d flip a coin every round b/c that’d be the fairest scenario but nobody does 22 - 23 -Prefer competing interpretations: 24 -1. Reasonability causes a race to the bottom because debaters keep being barely reasonable 25 -2. No briteline to reasonability 26 - 27 -Drop the debater: 28 -1. time skew puts me at a disadvantage on substance 29 -2. Sets a precedent that debaters can’t run unfair arguments 30 -3. Dropping them and their advocacy are functionally the same. 31 - 32 -No RVI’s: 33 -1. Real world applicability- Winning defense on theory just means that they are being fair, that’s not a reason to vote them up- In the real world proving you are meeting a necessary rule will not give you reward. 34 -2. RVIs discourage checking abuse because debaters will be afraid to lose on theory 35 -3. RVIs center the debate on theory instead of substance because it’s the only place the round can be decided. substance clash is important—it’s the only education unique to debate and outweighs on time frame; we only get two months to talk about the topic. 36 -4. Debaters running abusive positions will always be prepared for theory because they know what’s coming. Their opponents, however, must divide their pre-round prep between many possible shells. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-09 18:03:15.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -John Sims - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Northland Christian Margaret Purcell - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -38 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Mandavilli Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -MARAPR - Theory - Must Specify Mechanism - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -TFA State
- Caselist.CitesClass[69]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,22 +1,0 @@ 1 -The role of the ballot is to endorse the debater who best undermines hegemonic and oppressive norms, because as a judge and intellectual you have a unique ability to separate truth from its praxis of power: Foucault, 1980 2 -(Michel Foucault French Philosopher, Criticized Everything, Extremely Influential, Taught at the Sorbonne “Power and Knowledge.” 1980. Print.) 3 -It seems to me that what must now be taken into account in the intellectual is not the ‘bearer of universal values.’ Rather, it’s the person occupying a specific position – but whose specificity is linked, in a society like ours, to the general functioning of an apparatus of truth. In other words, the intellectual has a three-fold specificity: that of his class position (whether as petty-bourgeois in the service of capitalism or ‘organic’ intellectual of the proletariat); that of his conditions of life and work, linked to his condition as an intellectual (his field of research, his place in a laboratory, and political and economy demands to which he submits of against which he rebels, in the university, the hospital, etc.); lastly, the specificity of the politics of truths in our societies. And it’s with this last factor that his position can take on a general significance and that his local, specific struggle can have effects and implications which are not simply professional or sectorial. The intellectual can operate and struggle at the general level of that regime of truth which is so essential to the structure and functioning of our society. There is a battle ‘for truth,’ or at least ‘around truth’ – it being understood as once again that by truth I do not mean ‘the ensemble of truths which are to be discovered and accepted,’ but rather ‘the ensemble of rules according to which the true and false are separated and specific effects of from power attached to the true’, it being understood also that it’s not a matter of a battle ‘on behalf’ of the truth, but of a battle about the status of truth and the economic and political role it plays. It is necessary to think of the political problems of intellectuals not in terms of ‘science’ and ‘ideology’, but in terms of ‘truth’ and ‘power’. And thus the question of the professionalization of intellectuals and the division between intellectual and manual labour can be envisaged in a new way. All this must seem very confused and uncertain. Uncertain indeed, and what I am saying here is above all to be taken as a hypothesis. In order for it to be a little less confused, however, I would like to put forward a few ‘propositions’ – not firm assertions, but simply suggestions to be further tested and explained. ‘Truth’ is to be understood as a system of ordered procedures for the production, regulation, distribution, circulation and operation of statements. ’Truth’ is linked in a circular relation with system of powers which produces and sustain it, and to effects of power which it induces and which extend it. A regime of truth. This regime is not merely ideological or superstructural; it was a condition of the formation and development of capitalism. And it’s this same regime which, is subject to certain modifications, operates in the socialists countries (I leave open here the question of China, about which I know little). The essential political problem for the intellectual is not to criticize the ideological contents supposedly linked to science, or to ensure that his own scientific practice is accompanied by a correct ideology, but that of ascertaining the possibility of constitution a new politics of truth.The problem is not changing people’s consciousness’s – or what’s in their heads – but the political, economic, institutional regime of the production of truth. It’s not a matter of emancipating truth from every system of power (which would be a chimera, for truth is already power) but of detaching the power of truth from the forms of hegemony, social economic and cultural, within which it operates at the present time. 4 -And, role of the ballot arguments precede theoretical objections since my role of the ballot claims dictate what you have the authority to vote on. 5 -Prefer 6 -1. If they don’t win the K they aren’t allowing for freedom of movement nor dignity because biopolitical control prevent these. This means they aren’t affirming, because they are definitional qualities of the right to housing 7 -UN Human Rights Commission, is a United Nations agency that works to promote and protect the rights that are guaranteed under international law “The Right to Adequate Housing Fact Sheet 21 Rev 1,” Office of the UN High Commisioner for Human Rights, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FS21_rev_1_Housing_en.pdf NR 8 -The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has underlined that the right to adequate housing should not be interpreted narrowly. Rather, it should be seen as the right to live somewhere in security, peace and dignity. The characteristics of the right to adequate housing are clarified mainly in the Committee’s general comments No. 4 (1991) on the right to adequate housing and No. 7 (1997) on forced evictions. The right to adequate housing contains freedoms. These freedoms It includes: Protection against forced evictions and the arbitrary destruction and demolition of one’s home; The right to be free from arbitrary interference with one’s home, privacy and family; and The right to choose one’s residence, to determine where to live and to freedom of movement. The right to adequate housing contains entitlements. These entitlements include: Security of tenure; Housing, land and property restitution; Equal and non-discriminatory access to adequate housing; Participation in housing-related decision-making at the national and community levels. 9 -2. If knowledge production is flawed, any arguments coming of the AC are based on problematic ideology and thus aren’t valid 10 -3. I contend the biopolitical control is the root cause meaning the AC cant solve for anything until the K goes away 11 -The delegation of rights is motivated by and reinforces a power hierarchy established by the state at the biological level: Rabinow and Rose, 2003 12 -(Paul Rabinow. Department of Anthropology, University of California at Berkeley. Nikolas Rose. Department of Sociology, London School of Economics and Political Science. Thoughts on the Concept of Biopower Today, pg. 2. 12/10/2003. http://www.lse.ac.uk/sociology/pdf/RabinowandRose-BiopowerToday03.pdf)//JA 13 -Foucault promised to flesh out his sweeping generalizations in one of the six proposed volumes of the history of sexuality whose titles appear on the book’s back jacket. That promise was not fulfilled, although he devoted a number of his 1976 Lectures to this theme. But he did propose a rather simple and now familiar bipolar diagram of power over life. In this diagram, one pole of biopower focuses on an anatamo-politics of the human body, seeking to maximize its forces and integrate it into efficient systems. The second pole is one of regulatory controls, a biopolitics of the population, focusing on the species body, the body imbued with the mechanisms of life: birth, morbidity, mortality, longevity. He claims that this bipolar technology, which begins to be set up in the seventeenth century, seeks to invest life through and through (1976: 139). And, by the nineteenth century, he argues, these two poles were conjoined within a series of great technologies of power of which sexuality was only one. In so establishing themselves, new kinds of political struggle could emerge, in which life as a political object was turned back against the controls exercised over it, in the name of claims to a right to life, to one’s body, to health, to the satisfaction of one’s needs (1976: 145). 14 -The right to housing is situated within the context of biopolitical control 15 -Zeiderman 13 (Austin Zeiderman, Anthropologist and Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography and Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, “Living dangerously: biopolitics and urban citizenship in Bogotá, Colombia.”, American Ethnologist, 2013, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/48524/1/Zeiderman_Living_dangerously_2013.pdf) //AD 16 -Having shown how cities become the stage for the reconfigurations of citizenship, anthropologists are attuned to situations in which residents make demands on state agencies according to their rights as members of an urban community. Situations like these are widespread throughout Latin America. My ethnographic material makes sense, however, only once we acknowledge other frames of social inclusion and political recog- nition. For, as Chatterjee argues, urban populations in most of the world “are only tenu- ously, and even then ambiguously and contextually, rights-bearing citizens in the sense imagined by the constitution” (2004:38).3 They are not “outside the reach of the state or even excluded from the domain of politics,” he clarifies, but as “populations within the territorial jurisdiction of the state, they have to be both looked after and controlled by various governmental agencies” (Chatterjee 2004:38). It is often their classification as targets of governmental intervention, Chatterjee shows, that brings the urban poor “into a certain political relationship with the state” (2004:38). Thus, he directs our atten- tion to “political society,” or the “site of negotiation and contestation opened up by the activities of governmental agencies aimed at population groups” (Chatterjee 2004:74). Although the dichotomy between “civil” and “political” society may be reductive (Holston 2011b), it nevertheless forces us to ask why citizens with rights appeal as population groups to governmental agencies for recognition, inclusion, and protection. Following a liberal democratic paradigm, which is not the approach favored here, we could see Liliana’s petition as prefiguring an expansion of rights to the urban poor and a progres- sion toward equal citizenship. We might acknowledge that most settlers on the urban periphery are not rights-bearing citizens in the fullest, most substantive sense but then mistake her case for an example of the process by which members of this population struggle to be recognized as such. Once we shift our gaze to the politics of the gov- erned, however, and examine the terrain of engagement on which claims are made, we recognize that the politics of rights is subordinated to a politics of life. Indeed, the reset- tlement program does not set out to provide “decent housing” to everyone but, rather, to those living in “zones of high risk.” And, while this constitutional right is shared formally by all citizens, it is dependent on the degree to which their lives are in danger. The right to housing is thus a privilege bestowed on members of a collectivity whose en- titlements are grounded not only in shared membership within a political community but also in their common condition of vulnerability. It is within this biopolitical domain that the poor in Bogotá must define and execute their citizenship claims. 17 -Stripping to bare life is inevitable – wars are waged in the name of global populations, making wholesale slaughter necessary to sustain the state, root cause: the state fabricates its own security environment 18 -Duffield, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Lancaster, 2004 (Mark, Carry on Killing: Global Governance, Humanitarianism and Terror) 19 -Bio-politics emerged with modernity to form the basis of state power. It is concerned with validating, supporting and promoting the life of the nation (Foucault 1998). For the purposes of this paper, bio-politics is the regulation of life at the aggregate level of population. Bio-politics exists in the governmental technologies that both discover and act upon the varied biological, demographic, health, social and economic factors and mechanisms that constitute life as aggregated species-life. Global governance, however, is a specific form of bio-power. It is a power over the life of populations conceived as existing globally rather than nationally or territorially. More specifically, it is a power over populations experienced as territorial or local illustrations of a particular global species-type. This is how we know, for example, ‘refugees’, ‘economic migrants’, ‘internally displaced’ the ‘chronically poor’, and so on. In relation to global governance, those technologies and strategies that constitute ‘development’ are an essential expression of international bio-power. Bio-politics, however, contains an intrinsic and fateful duality. As well as fostering and promoting life it also has the power to “…disallow it to the point of death” (Ibid: 138 orig. emph.). In making this bio-political distinction, racism plays a formative role (Foucault 2003; Stoler 1995)¬FQUOTE "" . This not only includes its nineteenth and early twentieth century biological forms, it also involves its contemporary cultural, value and civilisational re-inscriptions (Duffield 1984). Race and its modern codings underpin the division between valid and invalid life and legitimates the measures deemed necessary to secure the former against the later. In this sense, bio-politics is intrinsically connected with the security populations, including global ones. This duality moreover underlies the paradox of bio-politics: as states have assumed responsibility for maintaining and developing life, wars have become increasingly more encompassing, devastating and genocidal for the populations concerned. The awesome power to unleash limitless death presents itself as a cynical counterpart, …of a power that exerts a positive influence on life, that endeavours to administer, optimize, and multiply it, subjecting it to all precise controls and comprehensive regulations. Wars are no longer waged in the name of a sovereign who must be defended; they are waged on behalf of the existence of everyone; entire populations are mobilised for the purpose of wholesale slaughter in the name of life necessity: massacres have become vital (Ibid: 136). As the managers of species-life, since the end of the nineteenth century states have been able to wage total wars that have pitched entire populations against each other in cataclysmic struggles to the death. What is at stake in modern war is the existence of society itself. Genocide consequently emerges as a strategy “…because power is situated and exercised at the level of life, the species, the race, and the large-scale phenomena of population” (Ibid: 137). Although the ending of the Cold War raised hopes of a ‘peace dividend’, the diagrammatic form of bio-power was to be re-inscribed in the ‘new wars’ of the 1990s and confirmed with the declaration of war on terrorism. This re-inscription has taken in its stride the shift in the locus of threat from the Soviet Union, one of the world’s largest and most centralized war economy, to its very opposite, that is, the new security cartography of failed states, shadow economies and terrorist networks. However, as the Guardian columnist quoted above has grasped, despite this radical re-ordering the bio-political principle of state power has remained the same: in order to carry on living one has to carry on killing (Ibid). As well as departing from a realist conception of power, the idea of global governance as a design of bio-power also breaks with the conventional view of what global governance is. That is, as an essentially benign undertaking involving state and non-state actors in a collective pursuit of global security, an open and inclusive economic system, effective legal and political instutions, global welfare and development, and a shared commitment to conflict resolution (Biscop 2004). From this perspective, security threats are usually seen as emerging independently of global governance and, indeed, despite its best intentions. It becomes an ethico-political response to pre-existing or externally motivated threats. Global governance as a design of bio-power, however, rather than responding ‘out of the blue’ to external threats, directly fabricates its own security environment. In distinguishing between valid and invalid global life, it creates its own ‘other’ – with all its specific deviancies, singular threats and instances of mal-development – to which it then responds and tries to change. Consequently, it also shapes the terrain over which the bio-political logic of living through killing must operate. It is in relation to this constitutive function of global governance that the place of sovereignty within it can now be examined. 20 -The rejection of biopolitical discourses sets the stage for fundamentally transforming the dynamics of utopianism regarding social organization 21 -Brent Pickett, Associate professor of Political Science at Chaldron State College, On the Use and Abuse of Foucault For Politics, 2005 (pp. 40-41) 22 -The ultimate goal of these various tactics and techniques, such as genealogy or learning from those most affected by power, is the incitement of local struggles against the modern power system. These actions must be led by those most subject to their constraints. Students must fight a "revolutionary battle" against schools; prison inmates should revolt and thereby be integrated into the larger political struggles.41 Only those directly involved in the battle can determine the methods used. Three institutions are most important to Foucault in this period. The revolt against these institutions must simultaneously involve concrete agitation and ideological critique. First, schools are important primarily because they transmit a conservative ideology masked as knowledge. Second, psychiatry is important precisely because it extends beyond the asylum into schools, prisons, and medicine: in short, "all the psychiatric components of everyday life which form something like a third order of repression and policing."42 Finally, and probably most importantly to Foucault, there is the judicial system since it relies upon the fundamental moral distinction of guilt/innocence. This allows "the most frenzied manifestation of power imaginable" to masquerade as "the serene domination of Good over Evil, of order over disorder."43 The judiciary actually blocks direct action through the construction of an allegedly neutral structure that stops real struggle in the here and now and instead arbitrates in the realm of the ideal. Moreover, the judicial system performs a number of functions which prevent revolution, such as controlling the most volatile people who might spearhead a revolt and introducing internal divisions within the masses so that one group will see the other as "dangerous" or "trash." For these reasons it is vital that the judiciary be attacked. Foucault gives examples of the "thousands of possibilities" for "anti-judicial guerilla operations," including escaping from the police and heckling in the courts.44 Ultimately, Foucault calls for "the radical elimination of the judicial apparatus."45 Yet agitation cannot be limited to prisons, schools, and asylums; it must extend into factories and streets. This raises an essential point. Totalizing theory is rejected, but Foucault does support total revolution. If theory is to be local and discontinuous, how is revolutionary action to gain its larger coherence? "The generality of the struggle specifically derives from the system of power itself, from all the forms in which power is exercised and applied."46 The diffuse yet unitary nature of power allows for these various agitations across society to finally achieve coherence, thereby eliminating the need for imagining a new system. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-10 14:20:41.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Aisha Bawany - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -James Bouie Tate Weston - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -39 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Mandavilli Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -MARAPR - K - Biopower - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -TFA State
- Caselist.CitesClass[70]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,12 +1,0 @@ 1 -The aff’s guarantee of housing increases subsidies by billions – there’s no way to fulfill the right to housing without massive spending 2 -Clark 16, Patrick Clark (news, political analysis, commentary) 7-26-2016, "Why It’s So Hard to Build Affordable Housing: It’s Not Affordable," Bloomberg, 3 -A real estate developer wanted to increase affordable housing in Denver, trying to make fiscal sense out of a plan to build rental apartments for people making only 30 percent of the area's median income—the kind of housing America desperately needs. He discovered that, no matter what lever he moved or compromise he made, he was going to need some money from the government to make it work. Then he was going to need some more. Almost one in four U.S. renters spends more on housing than they can afford, according to a report in June from Harvard University‘s Joint Center for Housing Studies—and the problem gets worse at the lower end of the income spectrum. About 10 million renter households earn 30 percent or less of the area median income, accounting for a quarter of the renter population. The U.S. would need to add more than 7 million cheap apartments to meet demand from such extremely low-income renters, according to a recent report from the National Low Income Housing Coalition. “If we want to prioritize closing the gap for low-income households, we’re going to need more funding from public subsidy,” said Erika Poethig, director of urban policy initiatives at the Urban Institute, which published an online simulator Tuesday for the purpose of illustrating the challenges to building new affordable housing. Our Denver developer above is fictional, but he's an illustration of what that simulator churns out: No matter how you slice it, creating the affordable housing needed today probably requires government help. With the interactive tool, users can play developer, toggling their costs and expected revenues in an attempt to make a project "pencil out," a real estate euphemism for profitable, adjusting everything from rent levels and vacancy rates to debt service coverage, administrative expenses, and construction costs. The data underlying the project comes from a handful of recent affordable housing developments in Denver, a fast-growing city in the middle of an apartment-building boom that has increased costs for developers of market-rate and rent-regulated buildings alike. Building for such poor renters is never an easy task, and in the case of our Denver developer, the job was complicated by the his desire to build near a light rail stop to carry his residents into the center city. That meant choosing a small site and limiting the number of units to 50, making it hard to count on winning federal tax credits to help fund the deal. He could raise rents so the average tenant is spending half their income on rent, but that would defeat the central purpose of the project. He could try to slash outlays for concrete and steel—but there’s only so far you can pare costs without running afoul of building codes or endangering tenants. Instead, he was forced to hunt for a development site farther from the city center, but also further away from people who needed the housing, not to mention their jobs. Playing with the simulator, you quickly learn that there are only a few levers that truly affect a developer’s ability to finance a project. Taking a smaller fee or negotiating a more favorable loan can help at the margins; so can making the project so appealing to residents that no one ever moves out. To really reduce costs or raise revenue, though, there are just these options: Spend less on land, materials, and labor, or bring in more money by raising rents or finding new public financing. But land, materials, and labor can only be cut so much (construction costs are effectively fixed by labor and commodities markets), and raising rents removes the "affordable" from affordable housing. That leaves subsidies, the biggest of which is the low-income housing tax credit, which Congress funded to the tune of $7 billion last year. Even so, that program is more useful to developers building for higher wage-earners, said Linda McMahon, chief executive of The Real Estate Council, a trade group for Dallas-area real estate companies. "Below 50 percent of area median income, you're talking about people who can only afford $500 or so in rent, and you really need another layer of subsidy to pay your commercial mortgage," she said. The most important business stories of the day. Bottom of Form Developers seeking to build for poorer renters sometimes start with low-income housing tax credits, then apply for additional funding from state or local governments. Poethig also pointed to a new law that would let developers tap rental vouchers to fund new projects, as well as mechanisms by which local governments give builders publicly-owned land or development rights in exchange for a promise to build affordable units. There's also another way to create housing for the poorest renters, which is to build housing for higher wage-earners, freeing up older, lesser-quality units through a process called filtering. "It's not always politically attractive, because you're talking about housing that has deteriorated a bit," said Reihan Salam, policy fellow at the National Review Institute. "That's basically how housing markets have always worked." 4 -RTH laws cause a direct budget trade-off. 5 -Sange 11. Alexandra Sange, "House Passes New Rules For The 112th Congress." National association of community health centers. January 18, 2011. Web. February 07, 2017//SM 6 -As a part of the transition to the new Congress, the House of Representatives recently voted on new rules for the 112th Congress. The resolution, H.Res. 5, which passed on a party line vote (240-191) after a day of debate, will modify the rules of the House in some key ways. You can read a section-by-section analysis of all of the changes from the Rules Committee, but below are some notable changes to the operations of the House of Representatives: Constitutional Authority Requirement. Every bill that is introduced in the 112th Congress must now be accompanied by a statement that cites the section or sections of the Constitution that give Congress the power to enact the bill. Bills sent over from the Senate must also be accompanied by a statement of Constitutional authority. Changing Pay-go to Cut-go. The new rules replace the previous ‘pay-as-you-go’ or PAYGO requirement with a ‘cut-as-you-go’ or cut-go requirement. Cut-go prohibits the House from considering any bill that produces a net increase in mandatory spending within the 1-year, 5-year and 10-year budget windows, as opposed to PAYGO’s ten-year window. If a bill increases mandatory spending by any amount, the bill must cut the budget somewhere by that same amount. Under PAYGO, spending cuts could serve as offsets to spending increases, however, revenue increases could also serve as offsets. Under he ‘cut-go’ rule increases in revenue cannot be used to offset increases in mandatory spending. 7 -Congress will cut social security, healthcare insurance, education, and other soft areas first – turns case. 8 -Marans 16. Daniel Marans, Politics and Economic Policy Reporter for Huffington Post, “Top House Republican Unveils Plan to Gut Social Security”, 12-06-2016//SM 9 -President-elect Donald Trump distinguished himself on the campaign trail as the rare Republican candidate promising not to cut Social Security and Medicare. But Republicans in Congress have other plans for the two popular social insurance programs ― and they are wasting no time rolling them out. Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Social Security, released a plan Thursday to reform Social Security that would drastically reduce benefits. The bill would make the program less of a universal earned benefit and more of a means-tested safety net that aims only to provide basic support to the poorest retirees and disabled workers. In order to close Social Security’s long-term funding gap, Johnson would make Social Security’s benefit formula less generous for all but the lowest earners, rapidly raise the retirement age and reduce the annual cost-of-living adjustment, among other changes designed to save money. Johnson also proposes changes that would cost the program money, like an increased minimum benefit for the poorest retirees ― provided they have a long history of covered employment ― and the elimination of income taxes on Social Security. Under Johnson’s plan, a middle-class 65-year-old claiming benefits in 2030 ― one with average annual earnings of about $49,000 over 30 years of covered employment ― would experience a 17 percent benefit cut relative to what the program currently promises them, according to the Social Security Administration’s chief actuary. A 65-year-old with the same earnings history claiming benefits in 2050 would experience a 28 percent benefit cut compared to current law. “For years I’ve talked about the need to fix Social Security so that our children and grandchildren can count on it to be there for them just like it’s there for today’s seniors and individuals with disabilities,” Johnson said in a statement introducing the bill. “My commonsense plan is the start of a fact-based conversation about how we do just that. I urge my colleagues to also put pen to paper and offer their ideas about how they would save Social Security for generations to come.” Due to the retirement of the Baby Boomer generation, Social Security faces financial strain in the coming years. If Congress fails to act to either reduce the program’s obligations or increase its revenue by 2034, a 21 percent across-the-board benefit cut will automatically take effect. Conservatives like Johnson favor closing this funding gap by reducing benefits. Many progressives would rather address it entirely through revenue increases, such as lifting the cap on earnings subject to Social Security taxes. President Barack Obama and the vast majority of congressional Democrats have recently even coalesced behind expanding benefits to address the inadequacy of Americans’ other sources of retirement income. Linda Benesch, a spokeswoman for Social Security Works, a progressive organization supporting benefits expansion, noted that for many workers, Johnson’s plan would cut benefits more than if Congress did nothing and allowed the automatic cuts to take effect. Benesch dismissed the increase in benefits for the poorest earners, which she said would be insignificant relative to the large cuts for middle-class earners and tax cuts for wealthy retirees. “A minimum benefit increase is a staple of a lot of Republican plans to cut benefits because they want the veneer of increasing benefits,” she said. “But that’s just a stalking horse for what this plan would do over time, which is to turn it into a poverty-level benefit and not an earned benefit.” That would in turn risk reducing popular support for Social Security, which enjoys widespread backing thanks to its status as a universal wage replacement program, Benesch argued. Protecting Medicaid, Benesch said, “is going to be a lot harder precisely because it is a benefit targeted to poorer folks rather than a universal benefit.” Even Third Way, a more business-friendly Democratic think tank often at odds with Social Security Works over the former’s support for other plans that cut benefits, largely panned Johnson’s bill. “Chairman Johnson deserves credit for putting out a plan,” David Brown, deputy director of Third Way’s economic program, said in an e-mail. “But this is the Bernie Sanders plan of the right. It is a partisan, ideological plan that reaches solvency entirely through benefit reductions, and harms retirement security as a result.” House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who has built a career on ambitious proposals to scale back social insurance programs, has repeatedly said he plans to prioritize overhauling Medicare. Although Trump hasn’t weighed in on the matter since the election and Senate Republicans have signaled their wariness at the prospect, Congressional Democrats are already expressing their excitement at the idea of a fight over the popular seniors’ health insurance program. In an interview on CBS’ “60 Minutes” this past Sunday, however, Ryan indicated he had no comparable plans to reform Social Security. But Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), the incoming ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, seized on Johnson’s plan as a sign that Ryan has already changed his mind. “As Congressional Republicans prepare to dismantle Medicare and Medicaid, it now appears that Social Security has been added to the Republicans’ chopping block,” Neal said in a statement Friday. “America’s seniors will be alarmed to hear that the top Republican on this important Subcommittee quietly put forward a plan to drastically cut Social Security benefits for millions of seniors.” “Democrats will fight any effort to undercut Social Security, just as we will fight any plan to replace Medicare with a voucher,” he added. 10 -Social security mitigates all forms of oppression – DA outweighs on magnitude. 11 -Romig 16. Kathleen Romig, 10-25-2016, "Social Security Keeps 22 Million Americans Out of Poverty: A State-By-State Analysis," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, http://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/social-security-keeps-22-million-americans-out-of-poverty-a-state-by-state //RS 12 -Social Security benefits play a vital role in reducing poverty in every state. Without Social Security, 22.1 million more Americans would be poor, according to the latest available Census data. Although most of those whom Social Security keeps out of poverty are elderly, nearly a third are under age 65, including 1.1 million children. (See Table 1.) Social Security is particularly important for elderly women and minority families, who have fewer retirement resources outside of Social Security. Depending on their design, reductions in Social Security benefits could significantly increase poverty, particularly among the elderly Most people aged 65 and older receive the majority of their income from Social Security.2 Without Social Security benefits, 40.5 percent of elderly Americans would have incomes below the official poverty line, all else being equal; with Social Security benefits, only 8.8 percent do. (See Figure 1.) These benefits lift 15.1 million elderly Americans above the poverty line. Social Security is important for children and their families as well as for the elderly. About 6.5 million children under age 18 (9 percent of all U.S. children) lived in families that received income from Social Security in 2015, according to Census data. This figure includes children who received their own benefits as dependents of retired, disabled, or deceased workers, as well as those who lived with parents or relatives who received Social Security. In all, Social Security lifts 1.1 million children out of poverty. Social Security records show that 3.1 million children under age 18 qualified for Social Security payments themselves in December 2015. (See Appendix Table 2.) Of these, 1.2 million were the survivor of a deceased worker. Another 1.6 million received payments because their parent had a severe disability. And 331,000 children under 18 received payments because their parent or guardian was retired.3 Social Security is especially important for elderly women and minority families. Women tend to earn less than men, take more time out of the paid workforce, accumulate less savings, and receive smaller pensions. Women also live longer than men, on average, so many outlive their spouses and savings, leaving them increasingly impoverished as they age. Social Security brings 8.8 million elderly women out of poverty, as Table 2 shows. African Americans and Latinos have lower-than-average lifetime earnings, as well as fewer opportunities to save for retirement and earn pensions. Without Social Security, the poverty rate among elderly Latinos would approach 50 percent, and the poverty rate among elderly African Americans would exceed 50 percent. Social Security reduces elderly poverty dramatically in every state in the nation, as Figure 2 and Appendix Table 1 show.4 Without Social Security, the poverty rate for those aged 65 and over would meet or exceed 40 percent in more than half the states; with Social Security, it is less than 10 percent in two-thirds of states. Social Security lifts more than 1 million elderly people out of poverty in California, Florida, and Texas, and over half a million in Illinois, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-10 22:15:24.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Josh Aguilar - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Dulles Dan Huynh - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -40 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -6 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Mandavilli Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -MARAPR - DA - Trade Offs - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -TFA State
- Caselist.CitesClass[71]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,26 +1,0 @@ 1 -Blackness is ontological - The Middle Passage has branded the black body as non-being, laying the foundation upon which civil society was built. Chattel changed his name to Jim Crow then to Mike Brown but they both die under the same grammar of suffering that originates from this fundamental antagonism. The role of the ballot is to minimize anti-black violence. 2 -Wilderson ‘08 He is one of two Americans to hold elected office in the African National Co ngress and is a former insurgent in the ANC’s armed wing, He is a full professor of Drama and African American studies at the University of California, Irvine. He received his BA in government and philosophy from Dartmouth College, his Masters in Fine Arts from Columbia University and his PhD in Rhetoric and Film Studies from the University of California, Berkeley. (Frank B. III “Chapter One: The Ruse of Analogy” Red, White, and Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms,) 2008 //roman 3 -Two tensions are at work here. One operates under the labor of ethical dilemmas~-~- “simple enough one has only not to be a nigger.” This, I submit, is the essence of being for the White and non-Black position: ontology scaled down to a global common denominator. The other Tension is found in the impossibility of ethical dilemmas for the Black: “I am,” Fanon writes, “a slave not of an idea others have of me but of my own appearance.” Being can thus be thought of, in the first ontological instance, as non-niggerness; and slavery then as niggerness. The visual field, “my own appearance,” is the cut, the mechanism that elaborates the division between the non-niggerness and slavery, the difference between the living and the dead. Whereas Humans exist on some plane of being and thus can become existentially present through some struggle for/of/through recognition, Blacks cannot attain the plane of recognition (West 82). Spillers, Fanon, and Hartman maintain that the Violence that has positioned and repetitively re-positions the Black as a void of historical movement is without analog in the suffering dynamics of the ontologically alive. The violence that turns the African into a thing is without analog because it does not simply oppress the Black through tactile and empirical technologies of oppression, like the “little family quarrels” which for Fanon exemplify the Jewish Holocaust. Rather, the gratuitous violence of the Black’s first ontological instance, the Middle Passage, “wiped out his/her metaphysics…his customs and sources on which they are based” (BSWM 110). Jews went into Auschwitz and came out as Jews. Africans went into the ships and came out as Blacks. The former is a Human holocaust; the latter is a Human and a metaphysical holocaust. That is why it makes little sense to attempt analogy: the Jews have the Dead (the Muselmenn) among them; the Dead have the Blacks among them. This violence which turns a body into flesh, ripped apart literally and imaginatively, destroys the possibility of ontology because it positions the Black within an infinite and indeterminately horrifying and open vulnerability, an object made available (which is to say fungible) for any subject. As such, “The black has no ontological resistance in the eyes of the white man” (110) or, more precisely, in the eyes of Humanity. 4 - 5 -The conversation for free speech on college campuses is structured around white fragility and white supremacy. Free speech is just a flinch away from the horrors of anti-blackness that seeks to give a voice to white supremacy. Empirically proven – they cant explain who fights the racists and how they do so. 6 -Carpenter 16 7 -“Free speech, Black lives and white fragility” Bennett Carpenter, Grad student studying free speech, Duke Chronicle, January 19th 2016, http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2016/01/free-speech-black-lives-and-white-fragility) 8 -As I write my first column, I am thinking a lot about speech. I am thinking about how an urgent and overdue conversation about racism—on our campus and across our country—has been derailed by a diversionary and duplicitous obsession with the First Amendment. I am thinking about how quickly the conversation has shifted from white supremacy to white fragility—and how this shift is itself an expression of white supremacy. White fragility refers to a range of defensive behaviors through which white people (or more accurately, people who believe they are white) deflect conversations about race and racism in order to protect themselves from race-based stress. Because white people tend to live in environments where whiteness is both dominant and invisible, they grow accustomed to racial comfort, as a result of which even a small amount of racial stress becomes intolerable. This helps explain why talking about white supremacy can feel more painful to white people than white supremacy itself, why the ostensible "stifling" of debate can feel more pressing than the literal strangulation of Eric Garner and how "free speech" seems more important than Black lives. Needless to say, it requires an astounding degree of narcissism, ignorance and— yes—fragility to scan headlines detailing the daily, state-sanctioned slaughter of people of color and somehow conclude that speech is the real problem. White fragility weighs the minimal discomfort of being confronted with painful realities about race and racism against the literal death of Black and brown bodies and decides that the latter matter less than white discomfort. Which is how we end up here, talking about speech on campus and reading a dozen iterations of the same editorial in which students describe—with utterly unintentional irony—how being called out by anti-racist activists makes them feel upset and hurts their feelings. This leaves those of us committed to abolishing white supremacy in a double bind. To engage with this debate is to fall for a diversionary tactic in which we again center the conversation on white feelings. To refuse to engage grants the latter a monopoly on the airways, drowning out more vital issues in an ocean of white noise. Still, in the interests of the open, honest debate the free speechers ostensibly advocate, let me try to address the constitutional and philosophical principles at play here. The first point to make is that, despite the hand-wringing, I have yet to see a single example of student activists violating the First Amendment. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how they could do so, given that the latter proscribes government abridgment of speech while student activists are private citizens. Many seem to confuse "free speech" with some banal notion of civility, forgetting that the very freedoms they invoke to defend racist drivel permit anti-racists to respond—whether by calling someone out or calling for their resignation. This would seem to set up a nice equivalence between racists and anti-racists—both exercising free-speech freedoms, which must be equally and indiscriminately defended. What this ignores, however, is the centuries-long history of racialized oppression to which hate speech contributes. Hate speech is thus both violent and an incitement to further violence. The courts already prohibit walking into a crowded theater and shouting "fire." How is this any different from walking into a white supremacist society and shouting racial slurs? It has become almost a truism that there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Historically speaking, this is inaccurate. As M. Alison Kibler details in her "Censoring Racial Ridicule," the U.S. has a long history of regulating forms of speech that expose racialized groups to "contempt, derision or obloquy." Indeed, as recently as 1952, the Supreme Court upheld an Illinois law applying the standards of libel (another free-speech exception) to hate speech. It is only in recent years that the courts have, as the National Center for Human Rights Education puts it, "privileged white racists to express themselves at the expense of the safety of African-Americans and other people of color." Key to this new interpretation is a firm separation between speech and action, a legal variant on the old childhood adage: "sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you." The problem—as anyone who has been the victim of hate speech can tell you—is that this simply isn't true. Words hurt as much as actions; indeed, words are actions. Within the context of white supremacy, any distinction between a defaced poster, a racist pamphlet and legal or extralegal murder can be only of degree. At the same time—and here I'll throw a bone to the civil libertarians—I'm unconvinced that hate speech legislation can resolve this. Not because hate speech isn't violent, but because the state is. As others have noted, we often view the state like some strange sort of Jekyll and Hyde—as if the very government quite literally built on white supremacy could somehow save us from its effects. I've sometimes noticed the same double vision among campus activists, who both call out Duke (quite rightly) for institutional racism yet also call on the administration to fix it. So where does that leave us? With the painful yet empowering realization that no one will save us but ourselves. Rather than relying on the state to censure hate speech, anti-racists can assume that task—calling out and shouting down every expression of white supremacy as we work to build a genuinely free society. In the meantime, we can construct safe spaces for ourselves where hatred is barred at the door. In other words, the exact work that campus activists are already doing. Cowardly racists and homophobes who deface posters or vandalize dormitories are not heroic defenders of free speech. The true heroes are those who have spoken out against injustice, time and again, in the face of both material and psychological retaliation. Everything else is just white noise 9 - 10 -Under this system the vocality of the slave is one of pupethood, fulfilling civil society’s desire for legitimized violence against black bodies. Black speech always equals asking for it in a society defined by anti-blackness. 11 -Brady 12 Nicholas. “Louder Than the Dark: Toward an Acoustics of Suffering”, http://www.thefeministwire.com/2012/10/louder-than-the-dark-towards-an-acoustics-of-suffering/. Edited for Ableist Language//roman 12 -If Anna Brown’s suffering is inaudible, the second half of the video speaks to how her voice and pain are criminalized. When the police arrive, they surround Anna and then drag her out of the wheelchair, handcuff her, and leave her on the hospital floor. She is given two different charges: Her protests for better service are charged as “trespassing” and her inability to walk due to her injury is charged as “resisting arrest.” When she is in the police car, the camera in the vehicle has a microphone. When they arrive at the prison, Anna continues to tell them she can’t walk and that she needs to be in a hospital. The police officers ignore her statements and instead oscillate between asking her “are you going to get out” and threatening her; “you have two seconds to swing your legs out…” Each This implies that she can move her legs and she is choosing not to. As Saidiya Hartman writes in Scenes of Subjection, “the slave was recognized as a reasoning subject who possessed intent and rationality solely in the context of criminal liability.” Her suffering remains inaudible, but her voice can only be heard by the police as challenging the law, resisting arrest, disrespecting their authority; her voice can only be heard as a legitimizing force for their violence. As they drag her out of the car, she screams out in pain before the door is shut and her voice becomes muffled.¶ They carried Anna Brown to the cell and laid her body on the ground as if she were already a corpse; they even refused her the dignity of lying on the bed. As they stepped around her body and closed the cell door, the only sign she was still alive were her wordless screams. Her screams pierce through my speakers, haunting my mind but they seem to have no effect on the prison workers. She was clearly not the first screaming body they had carried into a cell, for they did not even take time to stop their chatter. There is no passion, intimacy, or perverse enjoyment, just a multicultural group of men doing their job. Anna’s death is not the “primal scene” that the beating of Aunt Hester (Frederick Douglass’s Aunt) was. These two black women’s screams are connected by the paradigm of anti-blackness, yet their screams terrify for different reasons. The beating of Aunt Hester is a spectacular example of the “blood-stained gate” of the slave’s subjection. While the circulation of the Anna Brown video has given me pause, her death is more an example of the “mundane and quotidian” terror that Hartman focuses on in her text. Brown’s death was a (non)event, concealed from the world by the walls of the prison cell. Without this video, only those on the inside would have heard her screams. Anna Brown didn’t simply pass away, she was killed, but who did it? Douglass’s Aunt Hester was beaten by Captain Anthony, a man who wanted her and was jealous of her relationship to another slave. Anna Brown was murdered by a disparate set of (non)events where her body shuttled between a hospital and a prison, doctors and nurses, police officers and prison officials. There is no one person who killed her; instead, a structure of violence murdered her. No intimacy, just cold efficiency. Her scream was less of a sorrow song than the sharp pitch of nu-bluez: an impossible scream to be heard from the depths of incarceration and incapacity. 13 - 14 -Vertigo is the ontological impact of blackness in a white society. Black people built America but are continually displaced in it. This is why white women clutch their purses when they see black men, why the prison industrial complex has dedicated its sustainment to the imprisonment of black people, why black people are continuously stigmatized for being black. 15 -Wilderson 11 (Frank, Associate Professor, African American Studies Dept., UC Irvine, “The Vengeance of Vertigo: Aphasia and Abjection in the Political Trials of Black Insurgents”, InTensions, Vol 5, http://www.yorku.ca/intent/issue5/articles/frankbwildersoniii.php#footxvii, ) 16 - 17 -2 With only small arms and crude explosives at their disposal, with little of nothing in the way of logistical support,iii with no liberated zone to claim or reclaim, and with no more than a vague knowledge that there were a few hundred other insurgents scattered throughout the U.S. operating in largely uncoordinated and decentralized units,iv the BLA launched 66 operationsv against the largest police state in the world. Vertigo must have seized them each time they clashed with agents of a nuclear-weapons regime with three million troops in uniform, a regime that could put 150,000 new police on the streets in any given year, and whose ordinary White citizens frequently deputize themselves in the name of law and order. Subjective vertigo, no doubt: a dizzying sense that one is moving or spinning in an otherwise stationary world, a vertigo brought on by a clash of grossly asymmetrical forces. There are suitable analogies, for this kind of vertigo must have also seized Native Americans who launched the AIM’s occupation of Wounded Knee, and FALN insurgents who battled the FBI. 3 Subjective vertigo is vertigo of the event. But the sensation that one is not simply spinning in an otherwise stable environment, that one’s environment is perpetually unhinged stems from a relationship to violence that cannot be analogized. This is called objective vertigo, a life constituted by disorientation rather than a life interrupted by disorientation. This is structural as opposed to performative violence. Black subjectivity is a crossroads where vertigoes meet, the intersection of performative and structural violence. 4 Elsewhere I have argued that the Black is a sentient being though not a Human being. The Black’s and the Human’s disparate relationship to violence is at the heart of this failure of incorporation and analogy. The Human suffers contingent violence, violence that kicks in when s/he resists (or is perceived to resist) the disciplinary discourse of capital and/or Oedipus. But Black peoples’ subsumption by violence is a paradigmatic necessity, not just a performative contingency. To be constituted by and disciplined by violence, to be gripped simultaneously by subjective and objective vertigo, is indicative of a political ontology which is radically different from the political ontology of a sentient being who is constituted by discourse and disciplined by violence when s/he breaks with the ruling discursive codes.vi When we begin to assess revolutionary armed struggle in this comparative context, we find that Human revolutionaries (workers, women, gays and lesbians, post-colonial subjects) suffer subjective vertigo when they meet the state’s disciplinary violence with the revolutionary violence of the subaltern; but they are spared objective vertigo. This is because the most disorienting aspects of their lives are induced by the struggles that arise from intra-Human conflicts over competing conceptual frameworks and disputed cognitive maps, such as the American Indian Movement’s demand for the return of Turtle Island vs. the U.S.’s desire to maintain territorial integrity, or the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional’s (FALN) demand for Puerto Rican independence vs. the U.S.’s desire to maintain Puerto Rico as a territory. But for the Black, as for the slave, there are no cognitive maps, no conceptual frameworks of suffering and dispossession which are analogic with the myriad maps and frameworks which explain the dispossession of Human subalterns. 5 The structural, or paradigmatic, violence that subsumes Black insurgents’ cognitive maps and conceptual frameworks, subsumes my scholarly efforts as well. As a Black scholar, I am tasked with making sense of this violence without being overwhelmed and disoriented by it. In other words, the writing must somehow be indexical of that which exceeds narration, while being ever mindful of the incomprehension the writing would foster, the failure, that is, of interpretation were the indices to actually escape the narrative. The stakes of this dilemma are almost as high for the Black scholar facing his/her reader as they are for the Black insurgent facing the police and the courts. For the scholarly act of embracing members of the Black Liberation Army as beings worthy of empathic critique is terrifying. One’s writing proceeds with fits and starts which have little to do with the problems of building the thesis or finding the methodology to make the case. As I write, I am more aware of the rage and anger of my reader-ideal (an angry mob as readers) than I am of my own interventions and strategies for assembling my argument. Vertigo seizes me with a rash of condemnations that emanate from within me and swirl around me. I am speaking to me but not through me, yet there seems to be no other way to speak. I am speaking through the voice and gaze of a mob of, let’s just say it, White Americans; and my efforts to marshal a mob of Black people, to conjure the Black Liberation Army smack of compensatory gestures. It is not that the BLA doesn’t come to my aid, that they don’t push back, but neither I nor my insurgent allies can make the case that we are worthy of our suffering and justified in our actions and not terrorists and apologists for terror who should be locked away forever. How can we be worthy of our suffering without being worthy of ourselves? I press on, even though the vertigo that seizes me is so overwhelming that its precise nature—subjective, stemming from within me, or objective, catalyzed by my context, the raging throng—cannot be determined. I have no reference points apart from the mob that gives no quarter. If I write “freedom fighter,” from within my ear they scream “terrorist”! If I say “prisoner of war,” they chant “cop killer”! Their denunciations are sustained only by assertion, but they ring truer than my painstaking exegesis. No firewall protects me from them; no liberated psychic zone offers me sanctuary. I want to stop and turn myself in. 18 -Turns case 19 -1. Ontological damnation is the root cause of your impacts – students are taught they are worthless to society and are scared to speak. 20 -2. Outweighs on severity – all revolutionary politics in terms of the aff is just an example of subjective vertigo – objective vertigo is when you don’t have a strategy to fight the state. 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 -Our alternative is to enter a constant interrogation of the black positionality to render civil society incoherent 25 -Wilderson, ’10 2010, Frank B. Wilderson is an Associate Professor of African-American Studies at UC Irvine and has a Ph.D. from UC Berkeley, “Red, White and Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms,” 26 -STRANGE AS it might seem, this book project began in South Africa. During the last years of apartheid I worked for revolutionary change in both an underground and above-ground capacity, for the Charterist Movement in general and the ANC in particular. During this period, I began to see how essential an unflinching paradigmatic analysis is to a movement dedicated to the complete overthrow of an existing order. The neoliberal compromises that the radical elements of the Chartist Movement made with the moderate elements were due, in large part, to our inability or unwillingness to hold the moderates' feet to the fire of a political agenda predicated on an unflinching paradigmatic analysis. Instead, we allowed our energies and points of attention to be displaced by and onto pragmatic considerations. Simply put, we abdicated the power to pose the question—and the power to pose the question is the greatest power of all. Elsewhere, I have written about this unfortunate turn of events (Incognegro: A Memoir of Exile and Apartheid), so I'll not rehearse the details here. Suffice it to say, this book germinated in the many political and academic discussions and debates that I was fortunate enough to be a part of at a historic moment and in a place where the word revolution was spoken in earnest, free of qualifiers and irony. For their past and ongoing ideas and interventions, I extend solidarity and appreciation to comrades Amanda Alexander, Franco Barchiesi, Teresa Barnes, Patrick Bond, Ashwin Desai, Nigel Gibson, Steven Greenberg, Allan Horowitz, Bushy Kelebonye (deceased), Tefu Kelebonye, Ulrike Kistner, Kamogelo Lekubu, Andile Mngxitama, Prishani Naidoo, John Shai, and S'bu Zulu. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-30 12:07:31.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Becca Traber - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Strake Jesuit Richard Cook - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -42 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Mandavilli Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - K - Wilderson - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -TOC
- Caselist.RoundClass[33]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -56,57,58 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-07 08:16:07.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Kamil Merchant - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -St Thomas Academy Visitation Nick Wier - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,16 +1,0 @@ 1 -1AC - Ableism AFF (Pass the ADA to limit) 2 -1NC - 3 -FX T 4 -Plan Flaw 5 -Cap K 6 -Case 7 -1AR - 8 -NIBS bad 9 -all 10 -2NR - 11 -NIBS Bad 12 -FX T 13 -Cap K 14 -Case 15 -2AR - 16 -NIBS Bad - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Glenbrooks
- Caselist.RoundClass[34]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -59,60 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-07 16:00:51.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Adam Adames - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westlake Alexander Davis - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,7 +1,0 @@ 1 -1AC - Kant 2 -1NC - Oppression NC 3 -Endowments DA 4 -Case 5 -1AR - ALL 6 -2NR - ALL 7 -2AR - ALL - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Churchill
- Caselist.RoundClass[35]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -61,62,63 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-03 23:57:36.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -William Ponder - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Logan Reed - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,11 +1,0 @@ 1 -1AC - Performance CEDA 2 -1NC - 3 -ANY T 4 -Performance must be disclosed 5 -University K 6 -Case 7 -1AR - ALL 8 -2NR - 9 -K 10 -Case 11 -2AR - ALL - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Colleyville
- Caselist.RoundClass[36]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -64 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-04 14:26:55.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Marilyn Myrick - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Churchill Brennan Young - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,10 +1,0 @@ 1 -1AC - Biopower 2 -1NC - 3 -CAP 4 -White nationalism 5 -Case 6 -1AR - ALL 7 -2NR - 8 -DA 9 -Case 10 -2AR - ALL - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Colleyville
- Caselist.RoundClass[37]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -65 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-20 01:49:27.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Megan Nubel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Milpitas Amandeep Dosanjh - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,8 +1,0 @@ 1 -1AC - Race AC 2 -1NC - 3 -Disclosure theory 4 -Title IX DA 5 -Dropouts DA 6 -1AR - ALL 7 -2NR - ALL 8 -2AR - ALL - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Berkeley
- Caselist.RoundClass[38]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -66,67,68 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-09 18:03:08.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -John Sims - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Northland Christian Margaret Purcell - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,9 +1,0 @@ 1 -1AC - Whole res with Ilaw and poverty 2 -1NC - 3 -MechSpech theory 4 -Econ DA 5 -Warming DA 6 -Case 7 -1AR - ALL 8 -2NR - ALL 9 -2AR - Theory - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -TFA State
- Caselist.RoundClass[39]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -69 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-10 14:20:38.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Aisha Bawany - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -James Bouie Tate Weston - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,10 +1,0 @@ 1 -1AC - Navajo 2 -1NC - 3 -Biopower K 4 -Suffering Reps K 5 -Case 6 -1AR - ALL 7 -2NR - 8 -Suffering Reps K 9 -Case 10 -2AR - Case - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -TFA State
- Caselist.RoundClass[40]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -70 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-10 22:15:19.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Josh Aguilar - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Dulles Dan Huynh - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -6 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,11 +1,0 @@ 1 -1AC - iLaw with spikes 2 -1NC - 3 -Trade offs DA 4 -Disclosure Theory 5 -1AR - 6 -New Off - RVIs must be bidirectional 7 -Disclosure Theory 8 -2NR - 9 -Disclosure Theory 10 -New Off 11 -2AR - Same - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -TFA State
- Caselist.RoundClass[41]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-30 12:06:27.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Becca Traber - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Strake Jesuit Richard Cook - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,5 +1,0 @@ 1 -1AC - Kant 2 -1NC - Wilderson 3 -1AR - ALL 4 -2NR - ALL 5 -2AR - ALL - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -TOC
- Caselist.RoundClass[42]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -71 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-30 12:07:29.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Becca Traber - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Strake Jesuit Richard Cook - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,7 +1,0 @@ 1 -1AC - Kant 2 -1NC - 3 -Wilderson 4 -Case 5 -1AR - ALL 6 -2NR - ALL 7 -2AR - ALL - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -TOC
- Caselist.CitesClass[41]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,27 @@ 1 +T 2 +Interpretation: On the November/December 2016 topic, debaters must only defend a reduction of qualified immunity. 3 + 4 +Violation: 5 +Standards 6 + 7 +1) Limits 8 + 9 +2) Ground 10 + 11 +Substantive engagement 12 +1. 13 +2. 14 +3. 15 + 16 +Prefer competing interpretations: 17 +1. 18 +2. 19 + 20 +Drop the debater: 21 +1. 22 +2. 23 +3. 24 +RVIs bad 25 +1. 26 +2. 27 +3. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-11-22 06:45:33.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Kamil Merchant - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +St Thomas Academy Visitation Nick Wier - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +24 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Westwood Mandavilli Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +0 - T - Effects - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Glenbrooks
- Caselist.CitesClass[42]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,15 @@ 1 +Their plan text references the “US” – but what is this US they speak of? Is US, us – i.e. me and you? But I’m certainly against the plan so it’s not…us… 2 +OH! They must be referring to US as in the University School! 3 +Farlex 12. Farlex; Flagship reference products, innovative learning tools; “University School”; The Free Dictionary 4 +University School, commonly referred to as US, is an all-boys K - 12 school with two campus locations in the Greater Cleveland, Ohio, United States area. The Shaker Heights Campus is kindergarten through grade 8, and the Hunting Valley campus is grades 9 through 12. University School is a founding member of the International Boys' Schools Coalition and a member of the Center for the Study of Boys' and Girls' Lives and Cleveland Council of Independent Schools. 5 +Music. The school's most famous performing staple is its Glee Club. The US Glee Club sings multiple times throughout the year in assemblies, concerts, graduation, and also throughout the city of Cleveland, collaborating with ensembles such as Choral Arts: Cleveland, the Cleveland Orchestra Chorus and other surrounding schools. In the past, the choir has toured throughout North America and Europe, performing in various concert halls and churches throughout the world. The US Glee Club sings a variety of music, including traditional men's chorus pieces, and arrangements by contemporary composers. 6 +The University School is the US! Since 1890, the “WE ARE US CAMPAIGN” has been steady and strong! The University School writes: 7 +US. US; Univesity School; “WE ARE US CAMPAIGN”; http://www.us.edu/Page/Support/We-Are-US-Campaign 8 +Since the founding of University School in 1890, the School has produced visionaries in education, finance, law, medicine, communications, athletics, science, and the arts. As important as their achievements, generations of US men have lived by the guiding values of Responsibility, Loyalty, and Consideration. We are US! The Campaign for University School ensures we continue our tradition of transforming lives by equipping young men with an outstanding education that develops the confidence and skills required to make a difference in the world. In order to accomplish this, the Campaign focuses on four bedrock commitments that grew from our strategic plan. Taken together, these initiatives guide us to new heights in the near term and strengthen our foundation for future generations: 9 +Oh wait…they might actually be referring to the “United States” but that’s a meaningless term anyway. 10 +FGF 09. Family Guardian Fellowship; nonprofit religious ministry to protect people from extortion, persecution, and exploitation; “An Investigation Into the Meaning of the Term ‘United States’”; http://famguardian.org/subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/Definitions/freemaninvestigation.htm 11 +Note that the Canal Zone is not a federal State, Territory, or possession of the U.S., but is still being classified as a State! But, then, you must always look at the title, chapter, section, subsection, or, sometimes even sentence, to determine the specific intent. Again, there is no ONE statutory United States. This is incontestable from the dozens and dozens of definitions of the United States in the statutes and codes. And yet one is usually thought weird to contest the underlying theme of the whole IRC namely, that there is only one United States the whole nation. This is fatuous, of course, when you really think about it which almost no one does. Not just because of the Hooven case, above, but because of the numbing the number of variations on the definition of the United States in the IRC. Some say are over 200, which is perhaps too many, but certainly more than one. In this title (12), Banks and Banking, they always seem to use the universally recognized restrictive word means, rather than the IRC s term of choice, includes, that has beguiled, deceived, deluded, hoodwinked, misdirected, and, most of all victimized, basically, the whole country. Such as in 215b(2) Definitions: 12 +This is a reason to vote neg—plan vagueness ensures bad policy—bad for education—it’s a voter—precludes role of the ballot because there’s no way to know the effect that the plan would have in the real world. 90 of policymaking is deciding on implementation. 13 +Elmore 80. Prof. Public Affairs at University of Washington; 1980 PolySci Quarterly 79-80; Pg. 605 14 +The emergence of implementation as a subject for policy analysis coincides closely with the discovery by policy analysts that decisions are not self-executing. Analysis of policy choices matter very little if the mechanism for implementing those choices is poorly understood in answering the question, "What percentage of the work of achieving a desired governmental action is done when the preferred analytic alternative has been identified?" Allison estimated that in the normal case, it was about 10 percent, leaving the remaining 90 percent in the realm of implementation. 15 +Vote negative – it’s impossible to debate an aff that does nothing and it’s not in your jurisdiction to vote for a policy that can never actually exist—hurts education and real-world applicability. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-11-22 06:45:33.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Kamil Merchant - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +St Thomas Academy Visitation Nick Wier - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +24 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Westwood Mandavilli Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Plan Flaw - US - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Glenbrooks
- Caselist.CitesClass[43]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,10 @@ 1 +The 1AC focus on identity politics is a spectacle that entices viewers to listen but not act. This creates a ruse of solvency that exacerbates capitalism and turns the case. 2 +Reed 15. Adolph Reed; Black professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, specializing in race and American politics; “Adolph Reed: Identity Politics Is Neoliberalism”; 29 JUNE 2015; http://bennorton.com/adolph-reed-identity-politics-is-neoliberalism/ // YS 11.23.15 **BRACKETS IN ORIGINAL** 3 +Political scientist and race theorist Adolph Reed has long maintained that identity politics is a form of neoliberalism. In a June article, he explains: Identity politics is not an alternative to class politics; it is a class politics, the politics of the left-wing of neoliberalism. It is the expression and active agency of a political order and moral economy in which capitalist market forces are treated as unassailable nature. An integral element of that moral economy is displacement of the critique of the invidious outcomes produced by capitalist class power onto equally naturalized categories of ascriptive identity that sort us into groups supposedly defined by what we essentially are rather than what we do. As I have argued, following Walter Michaels and others, within that moral economy a society in which 1 of the population controlled 90 of the resources could be just, provided that roughly 12 of the 1 were black, 12 were Latino, 50 were women, and whatever the appropriate proportions were LGBT people. It would be tough to imagine a normative ideal that expresses more unambiguously the social position of people who consider themselves candidates for inclusion in, or at least significant staff positions in service to, the ruling class. Reed has been arguing this point for years. In his 2009 essay “The Limits of Anti-Racism,” Reed condemns identity politics for, despite its putative good intentions, disguising objectively right-wing, neoliberal ideology with superficially “progressive” rhetorical window dressing. Reed’s criticisms of “antiracism” can been taken to be criticisms of identity politics more generally (emphasis mine). Antiracism is a favorite concept on the American left these days. Of course, all good sorts want to be against racism, but what does the word mean exactly? The contemporary discourse of “antiracism” and identity politics overall is focused much more on taxonomy than politics. It emphasizes the name by which we should call some strains of inequality—whether they should be broadly recognized as evidence of “racism”— over specifying the mechanisms that produce them or even the steps that can be taken to combat them. And, no, neither “overcoming racism” nor “rejecting whiteness” qualifies as such a step any more than does waiting for the “revolution” or urging God’s heavenly intervention. If organizing a rally against racism seems at present to be a more substantive political act than attending a prayer vigil for world peace, that’s only because contemporary antiracist activists understand themselves to be employing the same tactics and pursuing the same ends as their predecessors in the period of high insurgency in the struggle against racial segregation. 4 +Capitalism perpetuates all other forms of oppression – we control the direction of their impacts. 5 +Bennett 12. Sara Bennett. Socialist Review is a monthly magazine covering current events, theory and history, books and arts reviews from a revolutionary socialist perspective. It is the sister publication of Socialist Worker. , May 2012, "Marxism and oppression," Socialist Review, http://socialistreview.org.uk/369/marxism-and-oppression //RS 6 +Marx recognised that oppression, far from being a natural and thus a permanent feature of human society, is a historical invention. True, the oppression of certain groups of people in society existed before capitalism. For example, Marx's collaborator Engels traced the origins of women's oppression to the formation of the family with the rise of class society. Despite the many changes to the family over the centuries, it persists to this day because it plays a crucial role in the continuation of the system, by bearing the brunt of the cost for caring for present and past generations of workers and the rearing of the next - all at our own expense. So, despite the fact that the majority of women in this country who can work do work, their role in the family means they still accept lower wages and fewer career opportunities. Other forms of oppression have arisen with the emergence of capitalism. So racism was created to justify the slave trade and imperialism and is perpetuated by the need to keep workers divided. Towards the end of the 19th century a new sexual identity, the "homosexual", was invented and portrayed as a threat to society and the maintenance of the family. What is common to all forms of oppression, however, is that they have a material basis and arise from the structures and dynamics of class society. Oppression serves to reinforce the interests of capitalism. But while Marx understood that some forms of oppression existed before capitalism, he also grasped the way the nature of oppression under capitalism was different to what had gone before. Under feudalism or slavery the mass of the population were either slaves, the property of masters, or serfs tied to particular pieces of land and bound to a lord. Such societies were rigidly hierarchical and were based on the idea that everyone had their "rightful place". Notions of freedom for those other than the rulers in society were rare and subordination in society was widely accepted. When new societies emerge so too do new ideas. The bourgeois revolutions that overthrew feudalism and paved the way for capitalism did so under the banner of "liberty, equality and fraternity", as the French Revolution put it. This was a huge step forward for humanity compared to previous societies. Under capitalism production takes the form of creating commodities to be sold in the market. Everything becomes a commodity, including our ability to labour. Workers are no longer tied to individual lords and masters. The new ideas of individual freedom and equality under capitalism reflect this new way of organising production. But in reality freedom for the vast majority of the human race is simply this ability to sell their labour power to one or another capitalist (provided, of course, that there is sufficient demand). Capitalism holds out the promise of liberation, but then denies it to the majority of society. Capitalist production increasingly comes to depend on the mass cooperation of workers, but as capitalism brings workers together so too it divides them from each other. Workers are forced to continually compete against each other - for jobs, overtime, housing, even access to decent healthcare provision. Oppression helps to create and reinforce divisions between workers. For example, the mass media and mainstream government encourage us to see immigrant workers as inferior to native-born workers. While it may be acceptable for immigrants to participate in our workforce when there are plenty of jobs, as soon as jobs become more scarce, immigrants are portrayed as less deserving of work, and therefore a threat. Alienation These divisions are underpinned by the alienation of workers under capitalism from control over their labour. This results in a sense of powerlessness, especially when workers do not fight back collectively. In this situation, some workers may gain a feeling of empowerment by looking down on others and feeling superior. So a white person may look down on a black person or a man on a woman. And it is not just non-oppressed groups who feel superior to oppressed groups - it cuts across oppressed groups too. For example, a "second-generation immigrant" can feel superior to a recently arrived immigrant, or a gay man can feel superior to a disabled person. As a result, some people argue that sections of workers have an interest in sustaining oppression, rather than seeing that all oppression works to allow the continuation of capitalism by providing it with material benefits. So we hear arguments that men benefit from women's oppression, or that all whites benefit from the oppression of black people. While it's true that non-oppressed groups do not suffer in the way that oppressed people may, it is wrong to think they therefore have some interest in the continuation of oppression. For example, the fact that women in full-time work still earn around 15 percent less than their male counterparts does not allow men's wages to increase further - it simply means it's easier for the bosses to keep all wages down. The best solution to this would be for male and female workers to fight together for decent wages for all. This may be easier said than done for a woman at work being sexually harassed by a male colleague, however. After all, she experiences her oppression through his sexist commetns and gestures. But while he may be the immediate culprit, the causes of oppression run much deeper - they are rooted in capitalism. Socialists have to fight all forms of oppression 7 +through the struggle for class unity. Alienation and distorted notions of freedom and equality also mean that people are not necessarily conscious of their oppression and can lead them to actively embrace some of the worst aspects of it. With the emphasis under capitalism on the individual rather than the social whole, we are made to feel that the worst symptoms of our oppression must be through some fault of our own. Here capitalism steps in to sell us the very "solutions" we need. So we have a whole industry of self-help books in the UK which is estimated to have earned publishers some £60?million in the past five years. In a similar vein, the answer to women not feeling "sexy enough" is to attend pole dancing "fitness classes", or undergo cosmetic surgery. There are even skin-lightening techniques for black people. A divisive system Capitalism works quite hard to ensure we keep believing our main enemy is some other group of ordinary people in society rather than the nature of our distorted relationships under capitalist society. The mass media have to continuously pump out horrific anti-immigrant, anti-traveller, anti single mum propaganda. Capitalism maintains its hold by dividing those workers who collectively could overturn it, and ideology plays a significant role. And this means it has to work to undermine the reality of our lives that actually brings us into constant contact and cooperation with all types of people, whether Muslim, gay, disabled and so on. While many non-Marxists fight with us against oppression, there is often disagreement about our emphasis on the working class as the key agent of change. After all, oppression affects all classes, not just the working class. This means some people believe that the oppressed group itself is the key to overcoming its own oppression. At a recent demonstration at Cambridge University over the visit of former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn, one of the chants was "The women united will never be defeated." It's not hard to see why this might seem like common sense to some; after all, every woman can be a victim of sexual assault. But which women are we uniting with? Christine Lagarde, Strauss-Kahn's replacement, is central to the imposition of draconian austerity measures across Europe, driving the living standards of millions of women and men down - something that in turn will increase the pressures on people's lives and place more women at the risk of violence. 8 +Our alternative is to vote negative to refuse to participate in activities which support capitalism. We must hollow out capitalist structures by refusing to invest our energy in reforms and rescue operations 9 +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) 10 +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. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-11-22 06:45:34.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Kamil Merchant - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +St Thomas Academy Visitation Nick Wier - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +24 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Westwood Mandavilli Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - K - Capitalism - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Glenbrooks
- Caselist.RoundClass[24]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +41,42,43 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-11-22 06:45:31.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Kamil Merchant - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +St Thomas Academy Visitation Nick Wier - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,16 @@ 1 +1AC - Ableism AFF (Pass the ADA to limit) 2 +1NC - 3 +FX T 4 +Plan Flaw 5 +Cap K 6 +Case 7 +1AR - 8 +NIBS bad 9 +all 10 +2NR - 11 +NIBS Bad 12 +FX T 13 +Cap K 14 +Case 15 +2AR - 16 +NIBS Bad - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Glenbrooks