Jump to content

jairusgrove

Member
  • Content Count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Okay

About jairusgrove

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 02/12/1978

Profile Information

  • School
    Johns Hopkins University
  • Biography
    Grad Students International Relations/Political Theory
    Former Debater UT Austin
    Coach at Harvard University
  1. Added. Also if you have any other suggestions let me know. I just put up the blog and the goal is to create a network of similarly situated thinkers that want to engage politics therefore more connections the better.
  2. There is a new blog for political theory and contemporary politics. I think some of the debate types might be interested. It involves a fair number of folks that we like to cut cards from. William Connolly Michael Shapiro David Campbell etc http://contemporarycondition.blogspot.com/2010/02/introductory-note-from-william-e.html
  3. The two blogs listed bellow will be discussing the arguments being worked on at the UTNIF this Summer and will also have links to articles, topic related movies, books, and some particularly notable cards as the Summer progresses. Come check them out and feel free to join the discussion. Jairus http://blog.utdebatecamp.com/ http://survivors.utdebatecamp.com/
  4. I have and that discussion is going on over in the 'Poverty forum" In terms of what the topic should look like. However my general impression is the Homelessness cases are not the best interpretation of the topic which I think entails change the qualification or apportionment of social services as to increase the entire mass noun "social services for persons living in poverty" no just a particular social service. However I think there is good evidence that says homelessness is at the core of the lit and is the group that is most qualified i.e. meets federal guidelines of what a 'person living in poverty' is but receives the least aid because of the problems of being homeless, transient, no mail box or permanent address, often mentally unstable, in difficult to reach places, etc. I think given the number of homeless the paucity of social services they receive I think rectifying the overall process so that they get aid has a strong case to make for being the only topical case i.e. it is not a substantial increase unless you figure out a way to include the homeless. However this raises an interesting effects question. Do you just have to increase the available social services or actually get the social services delivered. I dont think that topic grammatically gives an answer to this question and given the literature which is actually much more about how to get the service to the people and less about what services to give i think resolving which is better for ground and predictability is very difficult. Jairus
  5. It is not a politics slayer. However, the debate is already occurring in congress (both houses), and Obama has already come out in support of it. The reason it has not passed yet is because there is no wording written yet not because the bill is buried in committee. This means two things first Obama has already taken the blame and republicans are already pissed about it. This means that while you might have very good political capital uniqueness for your impact scenario you do not have internal link evidence or link evidence to the plan. If you do than it only provides a better internal link to winners win. An argument that is particularly true of this president. 1. Because unlike many Presidents he is more popular with the people than with either party in congress. This means that his power is quite literally based on his victories, ability to get what he wants not on what congress (either Republican or Democrats think of him) 2. Because he is popular with the people (both Republicans and Democratic voters) your disad is going to stink before until after the 2010 mid-term elections. People campaigning for re-election after their party was gutted as a result of Presidential coattails do not want to look petty and vindictive against a winner. You can already see this happening with the Sotomayor nomination. The critics are almost entirely new young meaningless republicans or people that are not in congress like Rush etc. Why is this? Because as former Reagan communication director David Gergen said in his editorial a week ago Republican's want to win another election and they cant do that fighting Obama on fights they cant win. Every win Obama gets makes narrows the Republicans perception that can win, making them less likely to try and lose because of the long term political cost to their re-election. So your ptix capital link better be on fire, assume Republicans that are not up for reelection, and assumes that they are Republicans that oppose the census change (not all Republicans do). In addition you better have great cards that explains that political capital comes from somewhere besides victories because the plan is a big victory for Obama and makes him look like he controls the game unlike the few issues Republicans will fight about like the budget and health care. Why because these are fights that are winnable with the public and with some democratic defectors and thus potential political victories.
  6. P.S. Thank you by the way this is a really helpful discussion. Jairus
  7. Effects is an abuse argument because it is a. unpredictable b. destroys limits. To start with here is my intep. To be a topical case you have to effect the apportionment i.e. increase all social services for persons living in poverty. Even more limiting you must increase all social services for all persons living in poverty. First in term predictability: the affirmative is not unpredictable because it is the core of the literature regarding the shortcoming of social services. Second Predictability A. Grammar: Think of it this way, if it is true that many people 'living in poverty' as defined by the federal income guidelines are not receiving services not because the amount of services available or because they do not qualify for aid but because they do not receive the aid than increasing the amount to already identified is not substantial (not more than 50 percent) unless you pass a ridiculous threshold in terms of the numerical increase. Thus increasing the number of people 'living in poverty' to receive social services is the direct effect of the plan it just achieves this by increasing the number of people in poverty receiving social services rather than increasing the amount of social service being given. The resolution, grammatically says "increase social services for persons living in poverty" "Social services" is a mass noun and increase has not qualifier that makes the resolution, grammatically speaking, does not take a position on whether what is required is expanding the number of people "living in poverty" that receive existing social services or whether you have to increase the amount of social services available i.e. the standard quantitative definition. I agree with you that the initial common sense would be the latter. You initial reaction seems right at the onset. However your interp. of the topic presupposes that all 'people living in poverty' are already receiving social services. However many, a 'substantial amount' I would say, are not receiving social services or are not even receiving the amount legally guaranteed as a result of not being counted or in some case not even existing i.e. people that are homeless or off the map. So if there is a subset of 'persons living in poverty' that are receiving substantially less or no social services already being offered than my interpretation is grammatically predictable because it substantially increases social services for persons living in poverty. It is also the case that because welfare and other services are not first come first serve but have to be provided equally when someone new is added to the roster states and the federal government are legal required to provide them with assistance which does increase 1. the number of person living in poverty receiving social services and 2. Increases the total amount of social services being given. The proof of this interpretation is a recent Maryland Supreme Court case. Two years ago the Maryland legislature excluded impoverished immigrant children from the state child health insurance program that guaranteed health insurance for all children that could not afford it. The Maryland supreme court said that violate the Equal protection clause and that once offered it (insurance for children living poverty) had to be provided for all impoverished children. This meant that the state legislature had to increase the amount of funding for the program to cover an additional 1 million kids. This is a topical affirmative because it substantially increased the amount of social services provided (financially there was a budget increase) and 2nd it increased the number of persons living in poverty that received social services. Your position would under the interpretation given that this case is not topical because it also improved the strength of the equal protection clause creating x-topical advantages. But like the census which is the means (the only means by the way) for apportioning social services the direct effect of this case was to make a determination on the question of 'increasing social services for persons living in poverty'. Now limits. There are only two cases that meet this interpretation that you must both increase the numerical amount of social services offered and increase the number of person living in poverty that receive it. The census case and a case that changes the income equation for the federal poverty guidelines. That is a pretty limiting interpretation and most importantly it prevents subsets affirmatives which do explodes the topic like cases that pick one particular social service such as grief counseling or literacy and increase the budget enough to be a substantial increase for the total amount of social services. There are thousands of social services you can do that with which is must less limit and much less predictable than cases that change the process for the whole mass noun (the collectivity) of "social services for persons living in poverty. Now the deal breaker. Ground. Ground is the most important standard because it determines the actual neg toolkit that is available against the aff. Obviously predictability conditions or is an important issue for ground but I think I am winning the predictability debate. So lets talk about ground assuming people after this is written at camp and discussed on Cross-x.com can adequately predict this case. The census case and change the federal guidelines case as well as a few other systemic overhaul cases are great for ground. 1. They link to strong generics because they both increase the number of people receiving aid and increase the total bill the government has to pay. This is best for politics links, economy and budget trade off arguments. 2. It limits out bad agent counterplan debates such as states as a pic i.e. do the plan through the states but does not eliminate state cp's that devolve the authority to the states and have a robust solvency debate about who is better at social services federal programs or 50 individually tailored but different state programs. There is lots of solvency debate about this and is great ground. 3. The ground is more consistent because while individual social service programs change all of the time and often without congressional action thus destroying uniqueness ground and specific link ground systemic changes in the apportionment of social services do not happen often and require predictable actors such as the court or congress. Thereby preserving uniqueness ground and making link research realistic but preventing crappy executive rule making counterplans or obscure agency counterplans. This also unlike your interpretation limits out obscure agencies and executive rule making as acceptable affirmative agents. As the negative I would much rather live without these counterplans than have a topic where I have to write neg arguments and case hits against ever agency that can change a social service. Kritik ground is better too. Including more and new people links much more to kritiks that small changes to a particular social service that already exists. Lastly effects is inevitable because no case can on its face increase social services for persons living in poverty under your interpretation because you cannot force people to accept social services the only thing you can do is make more social service available either by increasing the raw amount social services or increasing the number of people who can receive them or increasing the number of people who take advantage of them (this would be the most effectual). The census case meets the first two but not the last one.
  8. The current 'reactive' social services, assistance that maintains subsistence rather than attack root causes of poverty, will only be changed if there is a significant increase in visibility. Otherwise what you increase is more of the status quo. You cannot fiat Political Will and money because we will not what to do with it or where to give it without the plan. Fiscal discipline is non-unique but we have quite literally a shortage of money and we are having trouble generating more of it via the treasury department i.e. selling debt to other countries, which means the only other means for 'making money' is printing more of it. Here is where I control the uniqueness. While investor confidence is low as a result of the amount of money printed for the bail out we have not crossed the threshold of actual rapid inflation. When that happens everything goes to hell. That has not happened yet your blanket approach results in it. However you are correct what we have here is a debate. No aff is perfect but these are potentially winning arguments if debated well. Also you still havent answered the Prison-Industrial-Complex advantage. P-I-C crushes competitiveness and is Racist, and causes civil wars and terrorism in developing countries. On the last point trust me on the more votes for democrats. Lots of cards. Also just demographics. Cities vote for democrats. Look at the last 4 presidential maps. All cities, all the time for democrats. Then look at the number of states in the last 4 elections (including the last one) that would have gone democratic if there was a 5 percent increase in urban population. Its ugly. This matters for congressional seats at both the state and national level.
  9. CP to just increase social services is not effective for two reasons: 1. CP doesnt solve the visibility claim that people in the United States drastically underestimate the number of poor people. Changing this visibility key to political will and investment to end poverty. 2. CP doesnt solve politics or the economy. A. Drastically increasing welfare is overwhelming less popular than changing the census. This counterplans links a lot more to politics. B. There is not an infinite amount of money. We are broke and printing money as it is. Therefore dumping resources where they are not needed rather than targeting the areas with the most poverty (the location of which we do not know because of the faulty census) is the only way to end poverty with crushing the U.S. economy.
  10. 1. As someone who registered voters and worked for the last presidential campaign in urban and isolated rural areas voting turn out is about resources. If you have a small population on the books you have fewer precincts and fewer resources to so that voting is even possible. 2. You are wrong the apportioning of districts are determined by the census not on the basis of who votes. You are just wrong. In fact if you want to read the census code up for debate and the districting question at issue I direct you to: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/us/politics/16census.html 3. People voted in urban areas at rates in the last election that were dramatically higher than they ever have been. 4. People vote more when they feel included the crux of the affirmative is no representation it is receiving social services. Everything from literacy support to fire trucks are determined by the census. I take your point that the affirmative may not solve as well if people dont vote but it still stops communities invested in the Prison-industrial-complex from having a disproportionate vote as well as drastically increases the resources urban neighborhoods have at their disposal for redevelopment.
  11. For starters I am no fan of Arendt I just think she had a point which I think is made all of the more topical by your question regarding communities of homeless. While it is absolutely true that there are homeless communities, even extensive national and transnational homeless networks, homeless settlements or living spaces particularly those on public property or on abandoned private property are not given the same rights under the law. For instance if you live under a bridge the police do not have to obtain a warrant to search or destroy your property. This is not true in all jurisdictions but it is true in most. So the point of the affirmatives is to think about ways that one could have a less property-centric notion of the home and still allow people to be nomadic or live outdoors. Shelters and homes are simply not possible for many people. Some people just can stand the idea of being cooped up others cant deal with the constraints of living in institutions. However people that need to live in otherwise than normative arrangements (either temporally or spatially) should still be able to participate politically and receive social services. The fact that you do not have an address should not keep you out of school or deprive you of food or health care. As for Palestinians that are not poor, that seems somewhat irrelevant to the point of the affirmative or the topic. Yes it is true an affirmative could not remedy all forms of homelessness world wide. That being said the notions of belonging and land that allow settlements and those with the legal recourse to property rights to displace others is in part a result of a certain understanding of place that is challenged by an affirmative that recognizes presence and investment in a space rather than ownership of a space as the grounds for making a political claim. The original interpretation of squatters rights in Amsterdam before the recent changes makes a lot of sense to me. If a space has been abandoned long enough for you to live in it and make improvements for more than 6 months it is now a place for which you cannot be removed. It is not 'your' place in the possessive, individualistic sense presumed by capitalist notion of property rights. Instead you have a claim to be there and not be removed. Before enclosure most claims to land were based on use and presence. This is not a perfect system but it seems substantially more just than the status quo.
  12. I am hoping that Ranciere's notion of politics as disagreement, a demand for social justice that becomes legible and therefore makes visible or audible the fundamental mis-count of politics can be a kind of framework for evaluating the affirmative. 1. It is a kind of litmus test against counter-plans, disads, and case arguments regarding the degree that they sustain the entirety of the current order by arguing that current count, the status quo of politics if you will, is sufficient. 2. I think Ranciere's argument is a way to talk out race and poverty without the reductionism of most forms of class analysis. Exclusion can be multidimensional since the question of politics is recognition vis-a-vis the political rather than the origin or cause of ones claim. I would love any feedback you have.
  13. As for the Politics/Inherency doublebind. Obama has proposed the change but there is not legislation on the agenda yet. However the proposal was high profile because it result in a Republican cabinet member (the first nominated by the administration) resigning. Therefore political fall out non-unique and inevitable, the bill being written correctly, and passed during the first administration not likely in the status quo. Topicality: The topic does not say adopt or create a social service program it instead says increase social services. Changing the census process so that impoverished people and homeless people legal exist is the only way to do this. Social Services budgets are set and apportioned to districts, counties, or cities on the basis of population. You do not give a town with 2500 people bellow the poverty line the same amount of federal aid as a town with 100,000. However in urban areas and remote rural areas such as those in Appalachia that do not get counted at all or ineffectively many people do not receive social services or they receive insufficient amounts. In order to 'substantially increase' you have to identify the vast number (maybe as many as 30 percent) of people bellow the poverty line that currently do not legal exist. Therefore this is not effects topical. Counting these people increases the social services for people living in poverty. Now the case maybe marginally extratopical because counting them and classifying them as people living in poverty may also improve their political representation. However I would argue that any substantial increase of social services requires determining who the people 'living in poverty' are which currently we are not doing. Also using social workers to help marginalized communities fill out and complete census forms is in and of itself a social service. The same as social workers that develop workfare programs with individual or aid people in filling forms for food stamps, or providing translation services, or brail government documents for the blind are considered social services. Jairus
  14. Overhaul the Census: Inner cities and homeless areas and the people that live in them are unconstitutionally and reprehensibly deprived of social services as well as political representation because of the way the Census is carried out. Basically Republicans have argued that the U.S. Constitution requires a hand count (literally counting each person). The reason for this is that Census counters will not work in ‘dangerous’ neighborhoods and they only focus on addresses. This results in massive undercounting of urban areas and therefore fewer districts and votes are apportioned to those areas. That benefits Republicans who almost only ever win in rural and suburban areas. It also has the effect of making it seem as if there are half as many people in the ghetto and on the streets making it easier to cut welfare budgets and social service programs. The plan would change the census process to use sampling and increase funding for social workers to count homeless and other marginalized communities. This is a great policy case. First, it has already been proposed by Obama so the politics link is non-unique. Also it results in crushing the Republican party. This means that every politics scenario ever that said Republicans are bad (Abortion rights, Population Control Internationally, NMD, Bombing NK, etc) are add-ons to the case. Second, raising the visibility of poverty and how widespread (showing there is twice as much of it) is essential to coping with the endemic nature of poverty. Poverty destroys the sustainability of the U.S. economy not because we have to pay for it. Welfare in fact costs very little even if we actually paid it to everyone who deserved the services. The costs of poverty are in the under-education and utilization of increasing percentages of the U.S. population which destroys U.S. competitiveness. Third, modeling. Brazil, India, France, and many other countries currently model the United States carceral approach rather than an assimilation approach to poverty. While this may not cause war in the United States in places like Brazil, India, and other developing nations it is creating a recipe for catastrophic civil wars as well as providing the ungovernable centers for terrorism and international crime. All of these things lead to nuclear war. Fourth, Prison-Industrial-Complex: We are incarcerating more and more people every year. In addition to the profound racial biases in these sky rocketing rates that are destroying the U.S. economy and threat us with living in a police state. In part this accomplished because people in prisons are counted as part of the rural mostly white communities where the prisons are built not as residents of the neighborhoods where they are taken from. This means that small, white, and mostly well off communities get their own political districts, more representation, and more government resources while those in prisons are denied the vote and deny their home communities of a political voice and vital resources. This results in virtually no democratic control over super-max and other privatized prisons and destroys the communities trying to resist the mass incarceration of black and latino men while increasing the incentive of communities to built and house prisons for financial and political reasons. http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2008/06/07/built-in-racism-persistent-urban-inequality-in-nyc/
  15. Homeless Homes affirmative: The homeless are denied squatters rights as well as claims to dwellings on public lands. This leads to frequent harassment by police officers and the inability of the homeless to form communities and protect themselves from violence. Please consider watching part of this documentary Dark Days that follows a group of homeless that made a settlement in an abandoned subway line in New York City. This affirmative will claim to challenge the notion of public and private, home and homeless that is used to justify systemic racism and violence at both the national and global level. As the blogger subtopia has recently noted the government has used public space both at home and in Iraq to declare war on the most vulnerable. Everything from Traffic barricades to benches that cant be slept on are used to move and eradicate those who cannot make a claim on a space as home. Check out Subtopia for more great articles on homelessness, the city, and war. http://subtopia.blogspot.com/2009/04/about-page-for-now.html
×
×
  • Create New...