Jump to content

cluce

Member
  • Content Count

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

22 Good

About cluce

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 03/21/1980

Profile Information

  • Name
    Crystal
  • School
    FMHS
  • Occupation
    several
  1. Congrats to GW and all the other Mountain Region teams that broke.
  2. It has already been stated but thought I would re-state with a slight change. Instead of a consult NATO, have a NATO CP. NATO is in many of these places so you could have more troop decrease but without the Politics DA's etc.
  3. Yes it was Rocky Mountain North. From what I heard a MoCo and a FoCo team made it.
  4. Does anyone have results from this weekend?
  5. Colorado Grande: Fruita Monument Petch and Haney Central of Grand Junction Humphreys and Haynie Tied 1st alt: Fruita Monument Bently and Lewis and Lewis Palmer
  6. cluce

    Colorado Grande

    First, Colorado Grande got two qualifiers because of the number of degrees it received last year. Second, there were 3 Fruita Teams, 2 Lewis and Palmer Teams, 1 Central team and I don't know where the other team was from. Aspen was originally registered to have 2 teams as well. If we did not have the two qualifiers in everything then just one team would have qualified.
  7. cluce

    Colorado Grande

    Colorado Grande had their national qualifiers this weekend: Central of Grand Junction and Fruita Monument qualified to nationals.
  8. cluce

    State Qualifiers

    In the mountain region: Moffat A Moffat B Moffat C Moffat D G.J. Central A Fruita A I will post names later.
  9. There are a couple of major issues with the plan text, it says "increase benefits." The resolution specifically states social services, last time I checked benefits aren't a social service. Additionally, the part that states "returing military personal," has some problems. Where are they returning from? Are they talking about Iraq and Afghanistan or those who decide to rejoing the military? Either way they are returing military personal. Beyond that, you can argue Heg bad, the aff will be prepared for this but it is a starting ground and they may spend too much time there. I would say there are some issues with Status Quo arguments. The military already provides money for education (the reason why many go into the military), and many military already have housing, specifically if they were deployed from a specific base. As for food, they can buy food on bases tax free and it is a lot cheaper than anything they can get off of base. You can also run Queer Theory K, because DADT has not been reversed. Also, War Theory K as well. I think you could also write a trade-off DA or politics DA that would fit nicely with this case.
  10. You can prove whether someone had HIV but it is hard to prove that they knew they had HIV, there is a difference. The only way to do that is to go deep in their medical records and then you are looking for a conversation of some sort. I'm not denying the fact that you are a douchebag for not telling your partner, but there is no law against being a douchebag; if there were then a lot more people would be in prison. The problem is that the State can't be there in your bedroom or while you are shooting up. We know how HIV is transmitted and the precautions around ensuring your safety. If you choose to not use a condom or a clean needle then you are taking your life in your own hands. The State cannot force any of these actions. Disclosure can help slow the spread of the disease but it is not a guarantee. When you choose to participate in risky activity then you need to view everyone as having HIV. First, how long do we wait to see if they die, how long do we wait to see the result? There are people who have been living with the disease for almost 30 years. Do we hold someone in jail for 30+ years waiting to see if the person they infected happened to die of an HIV related illness? I'm sorry but I find that idea horrible. Second, just because you have HIV does not mean you will die. That was the idea of my original post. HIV causes opportunistic diseases (similar to your blood loss analogy), but those can be halted and percautions can be taken. Medications have helped in this area. I think at a maximum you could go for abuse or manslaughter but not murder. There are several articles on the web that state HIV is now considered a chronic illness The following is a list of some of the articles. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a714009717~tab=citations http://heapol.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/czm023v1 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6821/is_4_7/ai_n31879416/ http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102242759.html http://chronic-illness-treatments.suite101.com/article.cfm/combination_therapy_for_hivaids I think the jury is still out as to whether it should ultimately be viewed as a chronic illness but as people live longer with the disease and more medications are being created, the trend is to view HIV as a chronic disease. How does one determine if HIV cut someone's life short? Look at previous comments of how long people are living with the disease. Additionally, people with HIV are now dieing of other diseases. Some questions for you: 1) Should we charge the original HIV infector with murder because their victim decides to not take medication and dies? 2) What should we do with the original HIV infector if their vicitim commits suicide" Their life was cut short. 3) What should we do when the vicitim lies and says they weren't told about someone's status but in fact were, how do we prove it? 4) What do we do now that there is possibly the first documented account of someone being "cured" of the disease? These are all questions which make it hard to try someone for not telling their status. As an interesting side note, Poz magazine, just came out with an article discussing these issues. One last thought, does an HIV infected indivdual have a moral obligation to tell someone they are infected, yes! However, we can't always police morals, that is why it is important to protect yourself.
  11. I think the first think to understand, is the situations in which it could be considered manslaughter. One such case was tried in Colorado where a person with HIV, who knew they had it, gave the disease to his girlfriend and she passed it on to their yet to be born baby. The individual got child abuse for the case. Additionally, in Colorado, it is only an increase in sentences for prostitutes and sexual criminals who know they have the disease. The problem in any state is proving that the person had HIV when they commited the "crime." The prosecution will have to find proof, meaning getting warrrants to prove their case which can be hard to get medical records. Should a person with HIV disclose? Absolutely! Can the State force a person? No. The issue more than anything is privacy. Unless the State is willing to track down every person with HIV and force them to tell both sex and drug partners, the law does little, so the state would have to invaid an individual's privacy to do so? I don't think the state should or can enforce the law. They can't be charged with murder because they didn't kill the person. There are individuals that have been living with the disease for over 30 years now. Additionally, with medications and proper care the disease is starting to be listed as a chronic illness similar to diabetes. As for the comment that it depends on your economic status, not so much anymore with the creation of the Ryan White Act. However, states are having a difficulty with funding so this may be the new norm. The State should focus on 1) educating people on how you can get the disease (I know several people who think that you can get it through spit), 2) create programs that will decrease the spread (NEPs, condoms, etc.) 3) not normalize the disease but normalize the people who are living with it, this would allow people a better chance to disclose if people didn't think that they were sub-human. Sorry for the long remarks. This is an issue that is near and dear to my heart because I work with people who have HIV.
  12. cluce

    natives aff

    Just a side note, question to the whole t argument. If it is true that Native "reservations" are not part of the US then why is it that Natives can vote? Additionally, just because a state has no control over the specific reservation does not really exclude reservations from being part of the US. 1) States do not have control over military bases on US lands (I am not talking about those on forgein soil). 2) Also, States do not have control over Federal Parks, once again part of the US. 3) In the Supreme Court Case Georgia vs. Cherokee (could be wrong about the exact court case), the ruling states that only the Federal Government can have power over the "Indians," and state laws do not apply, not that reservations are not part of US. All federal laws and the Constitution still apply to the Natives. This specific ruling is why Natives can have casinos (not part of the decision). 4) Just because it is something that the States don't have control over doesn't mean that it isn't part of the US, see previous Federal Park and Military bases arguments but additionally Federal agencies, the state has no control over. 5) If you are going to make this argument then you are also going to have to make some sort of argument that the US government includes the 50 states. Really, this whole push on T is just a complaint that you can't run a States CP. 6) Would you run T on a military case similar to this one if it was run in front of you because all the arguments that you made should apply. As an additional T argument, if someone is running Indian Health Services, then it is a we meet, because IHS does operate outside of "reservations," and is thus part of the states as you stated. IHS has services in Phoenix and other larger cities and the last time I checked Phoenix is part of US, at least for now.
  13. cluce

    natives aff

    Why do you think that?
  14. cluce

    natives aff

    I think one of the issues with extra-T, the way Kratos is presenting it is mixing of burdens. You are stating not all Native Americans are below the poverty line and some Natives, who happen to be above the poverty line will seek services. You are asking the judge to look at potentially the solvency or harms to justify your T violation. At the point that Native Americans are among the most impoverished "group" of people in the United States, the services they are seeking are primarily used by those who are impoverished (those who aren't impoverished usually seek other healthcare means), and you are trying to increase the services for them, I'm not sure that the T argument holds ground. IHS is mandated to give services to all "recognized" Natives in America on reservations and in urban settings. However, as stated before, if you have money why would you use a run down system, that doesn't have half of the services that other health care providers have. Additionally, to your previous argument you state that the IHS plan would be helping those that are above the impoverished line, several plans, that would be considered by most to not be Extra-Topical, ultimately are helping others. Such as the immigrant health care plan, would also be helping people who use the same health care system but are living above the health care system. Additionally, I think what you are talking about would be a simple fix in the plan text to state that the increase of IHS services are to be used for those at or below the poverty line. Hope that all makes since.
  15. cluce

    Needle exchange aff

    Ok, so I can help with the case again. Things got crazy for awhile, teams competing at State Quals, State and Nat Quals. Let me know what you need.
×
×
  • Create New...