Jump to content

jmc_va

Member
  • Content Count

    645
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jmc_va

  1. jmc_va

    Queer Fem K

    Exactly. Edelman talks about the queer as the representation of a process in the same way he talks about the child as a symbol for a process. And while I agree there's no obvious path from this topic to an exclusively-QT Aff, there's a huge case to be made (excuse the pun) for Lacanian political theory this year. I mean, the whole ego malformation in the mirror stage leading to otherization / threat construction / exclusion clearly overlaps with the topic area. Edelman starts in the same place and any solvency mechanism that addresses one (over-identification, maybe) probably addresses both. I think a Lacanian QT advantage is super workable within that case framework, whether Edelman or bædan. I find Edelman easier to deploy because there's no anarchic baggage to deal with. But, if used properly, either would allow you to preemptively take out impact-based decision calculus. While the rest of case (the geopolitical ego formation stuff) would allow you to preempt "real world" link stories.
  2. jmc_va

    Queer Fem K

    bædan is amazing, but maybe not the best entry point. edelman is a super easy and enjoyable read and gives you a good understanding of mirror stage ego malformation.
  3. jmc_va

    Queer Fem K

    I'm not a super huge fan of Butler. I suggest you read "No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive" by Lee Edelman. Lacanian queer theory is a lot harder to answer back than nth wave feminism. Edelman's futurity stuff kills almost all DA / solvency warrant ground, so it can be an excellent tool, Aff or Neg, if run correctly. Shoot me a DM if you have questions.
  4. jmc_va

    K AFF - How to answer PICS

    You could preempt / answer exclusion PICs with geopolitical ego formation. Some cards that might help... The counterplan is an attempt by the negatives to secure their perceived position in the psychopolitical world order. They refuse any encounter with the real, choosing instead to embrace its utopian reflection, real politick. Toal 93 (Gerard Toal, Professor of Geography, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, PROBLEMATIZING GEOPOLITICS: SURVEY STATESMANSHIP AND STRATEGY, December 1, 1993, lexis) Thirdly, though it may be problematic to speak of Cartesian perspectivism making different geopolitical strategies of sight-site-citing possible, it is nevertheless worth problematizing how the geopolitical gaze is gendered. That the disembodied, distancing and de-eroticizing cold eye of Cartesian perspectivism is masculinist is well established, though hardly uncontroversial. That we can begin to understand geopolitical sightings as cases of pornographic voyeurism - an obscene will to see everything - is an intriguing possibility. To designate the looking found in geopolitical practices as voyeuristic not only subverts the objectivist perception pretensions of such practices but places them within the domain of subjective pleasure and desire. Geopolitical visions are mediated by fantasy, desire and denial; envisioning becomes the means by which homo geopoliticus ostensibly secures his subjectivity as a tough, anti-sentimental, hardheaded realist. Geopolitics operates as ego-politics. (Interestingly, some elements of the US press suggested that the geopolitics of Nixon-Kissinger is a misspelling of ego-politics.) Investigating ego-formation in geopoliticians through acts of recognition, specularization (construction of mirror-images) and voyeurism is also something that needs further investigation. Ego-formation, as Freud and Lacan have suggested, is a projectionism, a graphing of psychic-imaginary maps of meaning. If we read geopolitics as ego-politics in a Lacanian sense, then we are dealing with the orders of the imaginary and the symbolic not the real. In other words, we are dealing with the systematic refusal of the real. A critical geopolitics ought to engage with feminist psychoanalytical discourses much more so than it has done for there is much to be learnt about how geopolitics and gender work together. Specular ego-formation is inherently unstable. The ever present gap between the real and the imaginary is closed by alienation and otherization of the external, fueling narcissistic aggression. Stavrakakis 99 (Yannis Stavrakakis, Fellow, University of Essex, LACAN AND THE POLITICAL: THINKING THE POLITICS, 1999, 118) What is most important here is that in the mirror stage, the first jubilant moment is anticipating its own failure. Any imaginary unity based on the mirror stage is founded on an irreducible gap: ‘the human being has a special relation with his own image - a relation of gap, of alienating tension.’ Unity in the imaginary is a result of captivation, of a power relation between the infant and its image. But this captivation, the anticipation of synthesis, can never eliminate the real uncoordination of the body of the infant; it can never erase the external and alienating character of its own foundation. This ambiguity is never resolved. One important consequence of this is that narcissism starts appearing in a different light, as constituting the basis of aggressive tension: the imaginary is clearly the prime source of aggressivity in human affairs. What characterizes every narcissistic relation is its deep ‘ambiguity.’ The ambiguity of the imaginary is primarily due to the need to identify with something external, other, different, in order to acquire the basis of a self-unified identity. The implication is that the ‘reflecting specular image’ in imaginary relations, ‘always contains within itself an element of difference’: what is supposed to be ‘ours’ is itself a source of ‘alienation’. In that sense, ‘every purely imaginary equilibrium or balance with the other is always marked by a fundamental instability.’ This alienating dimension of the ego, the constitutive dependence of every imaginary identity on the alienating exteriority of a never fully internalized mirror image, subverts the whole idea of a stable reconciled subjectivity based on the conception of the autonomous ego. It is not surprising then that when Lacan discusses the idea of the autonomous ego in the ‘Freudian Thing’ it is enough for him to say ‘It is autonomous! That’s a good one!’ Threat construction is an inevitable and lethal consequence of utopian projectionism. In the arena of geopolitics, the terminal implication of narcissistic aggression is genocide. Stavrakakis 99 (Yannis Stavrakakis, Fellow, University of Essex, LACAN AND THE POLITICAL: THINKING THE POLITICS, 1999, 100) What I will try to do in this chapter is, first of all, to demonstrate the deeply problematic nature of utopian politics. Simply put, my argument will be that every utopian fantasy construction needs a ‘scapegoat’ in order to constitute itself - the Nazi utopian fantasy and the production of the ‘Jew’ is a good example, especially as pointed out in Zizek’s analysis. Every utopian fantasy produces its reverse and calls for its elimination. Put another way, the beatific side of fantasy is coupled in utopian constructions with a horrific side, a paranoid need for a stigmatized scapegoat. The naivety - and also the danger - of utopian structures is revealed when the realization of this fantasy is attempted. It is then that we are brought close to the frightening kernel of the real: stigmatization is followed by extermination. This is not an accident. It is inscribed in the structure of utopian constructions; it seems to be the way all fantasy constructions work. If in almost all utopian visions, violence and antagonism are eliminated, if utopia is based on the expulsion and repression of violence (this is its beatific side) this is only because it owes its own creation to violence; it is sustained and fed by violence (this is its horrific side). This repressed moment of violence resurfaces, as Mann points out, in the difference inscribed in the name utopia itself. What we shall argue is that it also resurfaces in the production of the figure of an enemy. To use a phrase enunciated by the utopianist Fourier, what is ‘driven out through the door comes back through the window’ (is this not a ‘precursor’ of Lacan’s dictum that ‘what is foreclosed in the symbolic reappears in the real’?). The work of Norman Cohn and other historians permits the articulation of a genealogy of this Manichean, equivalential way of understanding the world, from the great witch-hunt up to modern anti-Semitism, and Lacanian theory can provide valuable insights into any attempt to understand the logic behind this utopian operation - here the approach to fantasy developed in Chapter 2 will further demonstrate its potential in analyzing our political experience. In fact, from the time of his unpublished seminar on The Formations of the Unconscious, Lacan identified the utopian dream of a perfectly functioning society as a highly problematic area. Plan identifies with the Other and abandons the ego-formation of real politick, disrupting social fantasy and opening discursive space for de-alienation. Recognizing the universality of the lack strips signifiers of their meaning. Stavrakakis 99 (Yannis Stavrakakis, Fellow, University of Essex, LACAN AND THE POLITICAL: THINKING THE POLITICS, 1999, 133) By saying ‘We are all Jews!’, ‘We all live in Chernobyl!’ or ‘We are all boat people!’ - all paradigms used by Zizek in Looking Awry - we elevate the symptom, the excluded truth of the social field (which has been stigmatized as an alien particularity) to the place of the universal - to the point of our common identification which was, up to now, sustained by its exclusion or elimination. The same happens when we say ‘We are all gypsies!’ - the central slogan in a recent anti-racist protest in Athens - or when it is argued that we will be in a stronger position to fight anti-Semitism only when the Holocaust is recognized as a true part of all and not only of Jewish history, this localization silencing its significance; only when ‘on finding out what happened, everyone, and not just the Jews, thinks: “it could have been me - the victim that is.”’ What is promoted here is an attitude consistent with identifying with the symptom of the social and traversing social fantasy. It is only by accepting such an impossible representation, by making this declaration of impossibility that it is possible to ‘represent’ the impossible or rather to identify with the impossibility of its representation. Identification with the symptom is thus related to the traversing of fantasy. Going through fantasy entails the realization of the lack or inconsistency in the Other which is masked by fantasy, the separation between objet petit a and the Other, a separation which is not only ethically sound but also ‘liberating’ for our political imagination: It is precisely this lack in the Other which enables the subject to achieve a kind of ‘de-alienation’ called by Lacan separation [in the sense that it is realized] that the Other itself ‘hasn’t got it’, hasn’t got the final answer. This lack in the Other gives the subject - so to speak - a breathing space, it enables him to avoid the total alienation in the signifier not by filling out his lack but by allowing him to identify himself, his own lack, with the lack in the Other.
  5. jmc_va

    K's

    If you're going to go hard policy, you MUST win the framework debate. 16 extinction scenarios get you nothing if the only thing the judge considers are in round implications. Know your judge. A judge who leans policy isn't going to need nearly as much convincing on this. A judge who leans kritikal (like me) already thinks DAs (and DA stacking) are ridiculous. You want to put as much ink on the framework flow as possible to get us to a place where we'll consider "real world" implications. Cater your arguments to your judge.
  6. jmc_va

    What's up in Virginia?

    I coached Kempsville High School in Virginia Beach, Virginia, for a goodly while in the '90s and then again from 2006 to 2011 (I think? It may have been 2005 to 2010). I was feeling more than a few pangs of debate nostalgia today and was wondering what's up in the Tidewater Debate League and the rest of Virginia. My job doesn't allow me enough time off to travel the circuit like I used to, and I don't think I could ever be happy as a local-tournaments-only coach, but if a program in Virginia needs help with briefs or theory, I might be able to help. I lean HEAVILY towards the kritikal end of the spectrum. So, you know, fair warning.
  7. jmc_va

    What's up in Virginia?

    That's sad to hear about Virginia Beach and the Tidewater area, but not unexpected. There were very few active policy programs there when I was coaching. Congratulations on winning states. Did you have any specific questions about kritikal theory or specific arguments you needed help with? My cup of tea leans towards the Lacan / Baudrillard / Badiou / Foucault end of the spectrum, but kritikal theory is kritikal theory, regardless of the individual arg.
  8. Debaters and Coaches, The Kempsville High School Debate Team cordially invites you to participate in the resurrection of the Beach Invitational Tournament (last held in 1994) on Friday, November 12th, and Saturday, November 13th, 2010. We’ll be offering six rounds of Open and Novice competition in Policy and Lincoln-Douglas debate, with breaks to Quarterfinals. The BIT always prided itself on being different, and we plan to continue that tradition. Dress and even business casual clothing is forbidden. This is the Beach Invitational, so we want to see you in shorts, t-shirts, and flip-flops. Hawaiian shirts, the louder the better, are strongly encouraged. Several creative (and unexpected) awards will be presented. We can’t guarantee that you’ll have the best time you’ve ever had at a tournament, but we’ll do everything we can to make the experience enjoyable. Please note that due to room constraints, we’ll need to put a cap on the number of entries in each event and debaters will be accepted on a first come, first serve basis. Free housing for debaters is available, but extremely limited, so housing requests should be made as soon as possible. Registration should be emailed to khsdebate@cox.net no later than Tuesday, November 9th, 2010, and, due to entry caps, early registration is strongly encouraged. We look forward to seeing you in November, Alexandra Gabriel Tournament Director Sandra Kilpatrick Team Captain John M. Cowan Director of Debate Events Open Policy Debate Novice Policy Debate (limited to debaters in their first year of involvement in this event) Open Lincoln-Douglas Debate Novice Lincoln-Douglas Debate (limited to debaters in their first year of involvement in this event) Fees $50.00 per Policy Debate Team $25.00 per Lincoln-Douglas Debater $25.00 school entry fee $75.00 hired judge fee All fees are final as of Wednesday, November 10th, 2010, at 6:00PM. Checks should be made payable to “Kempsville High School” and can be submitted in person at final registration on Friday, November 12th, or mailed in advance to the address on the first page of this invitation. Judging Requirements One qualified judge is required for every two Policy Debate Teams or four Lincoln-Douglas Debaters registered. Experienced 3rd- or 4th-year debaters are eligible to judge in the Novice divisions. All judges are obligated to judge one round past their team’s elimination from competition. We strongly encourage all Policy judges to post their paradigms at http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com. A small pool of Policy judges will be available for hire. Hotels While there is no official tournament hotel, there are several hotels located conveniently close to Kempsville High School, and, since you’ll be visiting the city in its tourism “off season”, rates will be reasonable. Days Inn Virginia Beach Expressway 4600 Bonney Road Virginia Beach, VA 23462 (757) 473-9745 http://www.daysinn.com/DaysInn/control/Booking/property_info?propertyId=09613&as_srp=SP2&cid=carat_search-Days_Inn Holiday Inn Executive Center 5655 Greenwich Road Virginia Beach, VA 23462 (877) 863-4780 http://www.ichotelsgroup.com/h/d/hi/1/en/hotel/orfgr Red Roof Inn 196 Ballard Court Virginia Beach, VA 23462 (757) 490-0225 The Westin Virginia Beach Town Center 4535 Commerce Street Virginia Beach, VA 23462 (757) 557-0550 http://www.starwoodhotels.com/westin/property/overview/index.html?propertyID=1568 The Virginia Beach Oceanfront is only about 12 miles from Kempsville High School. If you feel having a balcony overlooking the Atlantic Ocean would be worth a slightly longer drive to and from the tournament, there are literally dozens of hotels to choose from. Comfort Inn Oceanfront 2015 Atlantic Ave Virginia Beach, VA 23451-3344 (757) 425-8200 Econo Lodge Oceanfront 2109 Atlantic Ave Virginia Beach, VA 23451-3346 (757) 428-2403 http://www.econolodgeoceanfront.com/ Hilton Virginia Beach Oceanfront 3001 Atlantic Avenue Virginia Beach, VA 23451 (757) 213-3000 http://www1.hilton.com/en_US/hi/hotel/ORFVHHF-Hilton-Virginia-Beach-Oceanfront-Virginia/index.do Pairing The first two rounds will be paired randomly, with all additional rounds paired high-low, within brackets. Schedule Friday, November 12th, 2010 2:30PM - 3:30PM Registration 4:00PM Round One 5:45PM Round Two 7:30PM Dinner Break 8:30PM Round Three Saturday, November 13th, 2010 7:30AM Breakfast Available 8:00AM Round Four 10:00AM Round Five 12:00PM Lunch Break 1:00PM Round Six 3:00PM Quarterfinals 5:00PM Awards Ceremony 6:00PM Semifinals 8:00PM Finals
  9. jmc_va

    Tidewater 2007

    How are things shaping up for this season in Tidewater?
  10. Debaters and Coaches, Kempsville High School in Virginia Beach, VA, is pleased to announce the resurrection of the Beach Invitational Tournament (last held in 1994) on Friday, November 13th, and Saturday, November 14th, 2009. We’ll be offering five rounds of Open and Novice competition in Policy and Lincoln-Douglas debate, with breaks to Quarterfinals. The BIT always prided itself on being different, and we plan to continue that tradition. Dress and even business casual clothing is forbidden. This is the Beach Invitational, so we want to see you in shorts, t-shirts, and flip-flops. Hawaiian shirts, the louder the better, are encouraged. Several creative (and unexpected) awards will be presented, Dead Pigeon included. We can’t guarantee that you’ll have the best time you’ve ever had at a tournament, but we’ll do everything we can to make the experience enjoyable. Please note that due to room constraints, we’ll need to put a cap on the number of entries in each event and debaters will be accepted on a first come, first serve basis. Full details will be released in the next few weeks, but anyone who wants to jump to the front of the line can express their interest by sending us an email: khsdebate@cox.net. We look forward to seeing you in November, KHS Debate
  11. jmc_va

    Beach Invitational Tournament

    Debaters and Coaches, Kempsville High School in Virginia Beach, VA, is pleased to announce the resurrection of the Beach Invitational Tournament (last held in 1994) on Friday, November 13th, and Saturday, November 14th, 2009. We’ll be offering five rounds of Open and Novice competition in Policy and Lincoln-Douglas debate, with breaks to Quarterfinals. The BIT always prided itself on being different, and we plan to continue that tradition. Dress and even business casual clothing is forbidden. This is the Beach Invitational, so we want to see you in shorts, t-shirts, and flip-flops. Hawaiian shirts, the louder the better, are encouraged. Several creative (and unexpected) awards will be presented, Dead Pigeon included. We can’t guarantee that you’ll have the best time you’ve ever had at a tournament, but we’ll do everything we can to make the experience enjoyable. Please note that due to room constraints, we’ll need to put a cap on the number of entries in each event and debaters will be accepted on a first come, first serve basis. Full details will be released in the next few weeks, but anyone who wants to jump to the front of the line can express their interest by sending us an email: khsdebate@cox.net. We look forward to seeing you in November, KHS Debate
  12. jmc_va

    JMU HS Invitational

    unfortunately, yes... same weekend.
  13. jmc_va

    Camp Backfiles

    works fine in chrome, too.
  14. jmc_va

    Camp Backfiles

    right click and select "save link as" and they should download for you.
  15. the richmond diocese of the cfl (the rest of the state) runs a 5 tournament, 1 qualifier season, i believe, and the tidewater debate league has a 5 tournament season.
  16. in the jurassic period of the mid-90s, there was no classic/contemp split in virginia debate... there was just switch-side and four-person policy. it was all fast, national circuit-style debate. teams that wanted to be competitive adapted. solid debaters can get faster and succeed or, as several teams do on the circuit, deploy strategies that don't require speed to be successful. people with a natural ability to speak quickly but no argumentative skills aren't going to be successful, regardless. speaking persuasively is a great skill to have and i think the inclusion of public forum is good idea for that reason. but, again, if public forum is the event for audience-friendly persuasion, what's the purpose of classic? to the vhsl (not me), the inclusion of one obviates the need for the other. there's a good idea lurking here, one that's already been mentioned and is clearly already in the vhsl's head. in the olden days, the four-person event (where one two-person team debated only on the affirmative and the other two-person team debated only on the negative) was seen as a gateway to the "harder" switch-side debate. you would see a team win the affirmative or negative trophy one year come back the next to win the switch-side title. what's wrong with telling the vhsl that contemp debate is hard and that we need the slower event to help get kids ready for it? make contemp open to all grade levels and classic open to freshman, sophomores, and juniors. it's possible that with such a structure, participation in classic would remain strong and participation in contemp would grow stronger as successful kids aged into it. and no, i'm not disparaging the accomplishments of any debaters who have competed in the classic event in the past. i'm thinking like a bureaucrat trying to justify the existence of all three events.
  17. Thanks, Jeff, for actually seeing what I was saying. For those who did not, a recap: I am happy that Classic is evolving to become faster, more evidence-based, and accepting of theory arguments. This, I think, is inevitable with a judge pool of college debaters. I think the VHSL's notion that there needs to be any "audience-friendly" form of debate is the problem. My point is that as long as that notion exists, VHSL is going to find a way to meet it. If Classic is becoming less "accessible", in their minds, it should be replaced with a form of debate that meets the original goals of the Classic-Contemp split. I don't want Classic to be replaced by Public Forum. But I think it inevitably will be unless the "audience-friendly" notion expires or the Classic event is repurposed in the minds of the VHSL as something other than debate for a lay audience (which is clearly the way they view it and the reason they are upset by it becoming more like Contemp). I think asking the VHSL to keep both events because it would provide more opportunity for kids to compete isn't going to do the trick when all Regional slots aren't currently being filled in Contemp OR Classic. And saying Public Forum isn't policy debate, making the switch unfair to policy debaters and killing the growth of policy programs, isn't going to have much of an impact on people who's mindset is "debate's debate". If we want a world where Public Forum and Classic exist side-by-side, we need to think like the VHSL and give them a reason why both are needed. If Contemp is the stuff that college programs do and Public Forum is the accessible, audience-friendly option, what is Classic?
  18. I'm really not sure what all the hubbub is about. This was expected. From the perspective of the VHSL, the classic division was created to offer an option where speed was never an option and rounds would not be decided on arguments like "conditionality bad". The rules say that no more than five issues can be brought up by the Negatives and that persuasiveness matters more than evidence or theory. As everyone should know, I think these rules are just this side of evil and have never been a fan of the classic-contemp split. I've been happy to see classic evolve. It's gotten faster and, as Duane said, state finals came down to a theory argument last year. While I fully endorse these developments, I can see why the VHSL feels classic is no longer classic and are looking for an event that better meets the original intent. From the non-VHSL perspective, this decision would bring Virginia back in sync with the national circuit, where there's policy and public forum, not contemp and classic. Do I think there's a risk that the inclusion of public forum will kill policy debate in Virginia altogether? Sure... and that scares me silly. Please don't think I'm dancing for joy that classic might be going away. I'm definitely not a fan, but I see the danger inherent in this decision. Still, as long as the mindset persists that there has to be an "accessible, easy to grasp, audience-friendly" debate event, the inclusion of public forum is pretty much inevitable and, considering the original intent of the classic-contemp split, the addition of public forum seems to subsume the "need" for classic.
  19. jmc_va

    NCFL 2009 Policy Debate elim results

    Congrats to Hannah and Andre from TJ! Woot! And the other TJ kids... who I don't know.
  20. jmc_va

    Mid-atlantic debate help

    Duane... I know you're not anti-debate and I'm sorry if my message came across as suggesting that. With three decades of non-employee coaching going on pretty successfully at KHS, I didn't want anyone willing to make the effort somewhere else not to try because they thought the VHSL bureaucracy wouldn't allow it. You know I have issues with some VHSL policies, but this is one area where the VHSL has my full support: students shouldn't be kept from taking part in an activity just because none of the teachers in their school are interested in coaching it, not if there's someone in the community who's willing to step in. It could be your AD is unfamiliar with the allowed exceptions because he or she has never been in a situation where there was no in house coach available and someone from outside the school volunteered. Or it could be your principal or superintendent has an issue with allowing it. I didn't mean to suggest that you personally were intentionally discouraging people from coaching, but rather wanted to make sure everyone knew that the VHSL, with the exceptions policy, encourages non-teachers to step in when no one in house is available to coach.
  21. jmc_va

    Mid-atlantic debate help

    Kempsville hasn't had a teacher as head coach since before I was a member of the team. John Skiffington, Brad Lennox, me, Brian Crabtree, Domenic Battistella, whoever took over after Domenic and let the program fold, and me again... none of us have been teachers, just people who love the activity and are willing to coach. That's almost 30 years worth of waivers the VHSL has given, so it's not exactly a difficult process. The rule doesn't require justification, just the principal's and superintendent's approval: "(4) Persons approved by the Executive Director upon written certification from the principal and division superintendent. Approval shall be contingent upon written notification from the school principal that the non-faculty coach will be apprised of all VHSL eligibility requirements for participants and any League policies pertaining to his/her sport prior to assuming duties." Former debaters who would like to give back to the activity should definitely not be discouraged from approaching a school in their area about coaching. College students, especially, should be strongly encouraged since their participation requires even less paperwork: "(1) Students in training at institutions of higher learning."
  22. jmc_va

    Mid-atlantic debate help

    mary, we're talking about how to spread the activity to schools that don't participate in it, not how to recruit members in schools that do (a valid issue, true, but not the one at the heart of the matter). in my area, unless i coach at multiple schools (which i'm pretty sure is against some rule somewhere), my options are limited. if someone completely inexperienced were willing to take it on and start a program, i would do everything i could to help them (mr. baumann at cox can attest to that). i think i'll send emails to the activity coordinators of all the schools in the area that lack debate programs and make that offer official. but, even if all 12 beach schools developed active debate programs, it wouldn't do much to solve this issue... we're still just one district in one region of the state and the geographic lopsidedness would remain. it would rock if members of the ur, jmu, and mary washington debate teams made similar offers to schools in their area and / or took on some coaching duties themselves. the involvement of college folks could also help move the focus of virginia debate from classic to contemp and bring virginia more in sync with the national circuit. yes, i purposely left out gmu... it's located in an active district / region. if we want debate in virginia to start growing again, its up to those of us who love the activity to make it happen... because the vhsl isn't going to. duane, i'm pretty sure that means you need to start coaching again.
  23. jmc_va

    Tidewater 2007

    the turnout was pretty good this year. A and AA fielded 9 teams in contemp (more than the norm, i believe) and AAA fielded 6 teams. not counting the richmond area, aren't most AAA schools located in the two regions we're talking about? i'm pretty sure if those two regions were given more slots to fill, they could do so. there was a proposal a while back that if a region didn't use all of its slots in an event, they would be filled by alternates pulled up from other regions / districts. that made sense to me, but i guess i was in the minority. i'm not sure what coaches in active districts / regions can do to grow the activity in schools halfway across the state. the better question is: what's the vhsl doing to promote the activity? and the answer is: not much.
  24. jmc_va

    Tidewater 2007

    Adding to Andre's post... AAA Contemporary: They only gave awards for the top three teams and speakers, but since the original post asked about all the TDL teams, I'm including those results as well. 1st Place: Kempsville PR (Adora Parker and Samuel Ross) 5-0 2nd Place: Thomas Jefferson CK (Hannah Clark and Andre Kessler) 3-2 3rd Place: Cox BP (Oliver Brass and Andrew Peterson) 2-3 4th Place: Princess Anne VW (Matt Veland and Katherine Williams) 2-3 1st Speaker: Oliver Brass (Cox) Woot! Oliver rocks! 2nd Speaker: Adora Parker (Kempsville) Woot! Perfect ranks! 3rd Speaker: Hannah Clark (Thomas Jefferson) Woot! We heart Hannah! 4th Speaker: Matt Veland (Princess Anne) Woot! Go Matt! AAA Classic: In prelims... Princess Anne AL (Katlyn Alley and Alex Lichtenstein) 6-0, 1st seed Princess Anne CH (Julie Coursen and Helen He) 3-3, did not advance Western Branch HS (Jordan Hairr and Ketelynn Squicciarini) 3-3, did not advance Semifinals: Princess Anne AL d. Oakton KT on a 2-1 Semifinals: Thomas Jefferson KW d. West Potomac FW on a 3-0 Finals: Princess Anne AL d. Thomas Jefferson KW on a 2-1 1st speaker: Julie Coursen (Princess Anne) 2nd speaker: Hussein Fahema (West Potomac) 3rd speaker: Alexandra Kralick (Oakton) 4th speaker: Katlyn Alley (Princess Anne) AAA Lincoln-Douglas: The L-D results weren't in my packet, but Mark Harris from First Colonial took first place. That's three years in a row for him!
  25. jmc_va

    Tidewater 2007

    states is april 24th and 25th, at liberty. eastern region will be sending... in contemp: cox, princess anne, and kempsville in classic: 2 princess anne teams and western branch
×