jshepard

Anyone have a copy? Any camp will do and the more the merrier. grazie

My vote goes to the latin american topic. Plenty of interesting affs available, not to mention exclusionary PICs etc. If not that the military topic. Terror Talk for the win. Kato for the win.

I am the walrus, Dude. I am the Walrus.

qfa. I"m not worried about t anyway.

I can type out a full at if you want but I have papers to grade. 1 we meet, see above 2 c/def, see above on to your standards off limits, we're not talking about any sort of base etc. territories are both in the us under jurisdiction and GEOGRAPHICALLY as well. yes, geographically. reservations and urban centers are located IN THE STATES. off grounds, horseshit. ther are PLENTY of da's that you could try to link. econ? pick your link. we're spending money aren't we? politics? we're using the usfg too. the list of cp's and k's you could run are fucking endless. look at your camp files. there's indians neg. stop bitching. you've got arguments you can run (ground is the stupidest shit you could say, ever) off predictability, see limits off f.i., you don't know what the framers were thinking when they created the resolution. doesn't matter anyway since we meet. potential abuse is not a voter. rvi for time suck, rvi for laziness.

Indian country is in the US both by law and (obviously) geographically. Indian country is in the U.S. William Bradford, Chiricahua Apache. Assistant Professor of Law, Indiana University, 2002-2003, American Indian Law Review More than half of the U.S. land mass was purchased at an average price of pennies per acre, while another 300 million acres were taken without compensation and another 700 million acres are claimed by the United States although it has taken no action to extinguish Indian title. See Russel Lawrence Barsh, Indian Land Claims Policy in the United States, 58 N.D. L. REV. 7, 8-9 (1982). Moreover, all of "Indian Country", a legal term-of-art meaning essentially lands within the territorial limits of an Indian reservation, is now either trust land owned by the United States or non-trust land permanently Indian-occupied but subject to Congressional plenary power to restrict alienation and use. See 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (2000) (defining "Indian Country"); see also Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Gov't, 522 U.S. 234, 243-44 (1998) (noting that to qualify as "Indian Country" subject to federal jurisdiction, the trust doctrine, and limited immunity from State jurisdiction, Congress must explicitly designate lands in question, by treaty or statute, either a "reservation," "dependent Indian community," or Indian allotment). In sum, the United States owns superior title to all land within its borders, and efforts to reacquire Indian land are vigorously opposed by all levels of government. See Rebecca Tsosie, Negotiating Economic Survival: The Consent Principle and Tribal-State Compacts Under the Indian Gaming Act, 29 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 25, 80 (1997) [hereinafter Tsosie, Negotiating]. From the Indian viewpoint, non-Indians not only shamelessly "gorge themselves on the spoils of old wars" but remain unrepentant, as evinced by ongoing land seizures. Atkinson, supra note 54, at 381. Indian country is in the U.S. US Code, 7-1-2008, § 1151. Indian country defined Except as otherwise provided in sections 1154 and 1156 of this title [18 USCS §§ 1154 and 1156], the term "Indian country", as used in this chapter [18 USCS §§ 1151 et seq.], means (a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation, ( all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and © all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.

The act empirically has helped increase Indian health and is a better frame of reference for what the plan actually does and is *far* more specific than a short list of mandates. The act isn't that vague if you actually *read it*. No more vague than any 1AC. http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/comp2/F094-437.html Far from it. Plenty of Act is key evidence and you avoid the extra t violations through the "discretionary funding" clause of the plan. Specifications on where/to whom the money goes. See the above conversation about how without limitations, the plan increases services to Indians in *and* out of poverty. <see link> The act funds services such as IHS with the intent of increasing the health of Indians as they have the lowest quality of health care of any group in the US. The IHS only receives half the funding it needs AP, Mary Clare Jalonick, 6-15-2009“Little money to treat American Indians: Horror stories abound at underfunded clinics,” Austin American Statesman, http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/nation/2009/06/15/0615indianhealth.html On some reservations, the oft-quoted refrain is "don't get sick after June." That's when federal dollars run out each year for the Indian Health Service, which serves almost 2 million American Indians in 35 states. It's a sick joke, and a sad one because it is sometimes true. Officials say they have about half of what they need to operate, and patients know they must be dying or about to lose a limb to get serious care. The U.S. has an obligation, based on a 1787 agreement between tribes and the government, to provide American Indians with free health care on reservations. The wealthiest tribes can supplement the federal budget. But poor tribes, often those on the remotest reservations, far from city hospitals, are stuck with grossly substandard care. The agency itself acknowledges that it is a "rationed health care system." When it comes to health and disease among American Indians, the statistics are staggering. They have an infant death rate that is 40 percent higher than the rate for whites. They are twice as likely to die from diabetes, 60 percent more likely to have a stroke, 30 percent more likely to have high blood pressure and 20 percent more likely to have heart disease. Officials at the Indian Health Service say they are doing their best with the money they have — about 54 cents on the dollar of what they need. On the Standing Rock Reservation in North Dakota, residents shared stories of substandard care. A clinic failed to diagnose Victor Brave Thunder with congestive heart failure, giving him Tylenol and cough syrup. The 54-year-old died in April, awaiting a heart transplant. "You can talk to anyone on the reservation, and they all have a story," says Tracey Castaway, whose sister, Marcella Buckley, said she was $40,000 in debt because of stomach cancer treatment.

I'm cutting this for one of my teams. I'm thinking about using a plan text similar to that of the GDI version: Thoughts? Edit: Plan text might be shortened to Just for time's sake and because I'm cutting advantages from various affs and personal research and will be trying different advantage modules.

1) What does eligibility requirements have to do with anything? 2) Extra-T is not a voter. 3) The vast majority of Natives are below the poverty line (ins card), especially those living on the reservation which is the primary focus of IHS.

What does everyone think about the IHS (Indian Health Services) Aff?

I remember when Oklahoma really owned SW. And when the SW forum was actually quite active..

All good advice, especially from Sharma. Just go into everything ready to learn and without trying to build conceptions of how debate goes or what debate is just from your first few rounds. And learn to work with your partner. Try not to take too much control of the round and tool him or her out and likewise don't let your partner/coach(es) make your speeches for you.