Jump to content

JamieSaker

Member
  • Content Count

    101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

JamieSaker last won the day on March 8 2011

JamieSaker had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

62 Excellent

About JamieSaker

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 07/10/1967

Profile Information

  • Name
    Jamie Saker
  • School
    Fremont Mills (Iowa)
  • Biography
    Debate Coach, Fremont-Mills Community School District
  • Location
    Tabor Iowa
  • Interests
    policy debate, poststructuralism, posthumanism, sea kayaking, horses, decentering
  • Occupation
    Risk Management Exec, Debate Coach
  1. As some are running arguments from Jeremy Fernando's The Suicide Bomber, and Her Gift of Death, I wanted to share Jeremy's perspective on the debate community and its engagement of his work. As a European Graduate School colleague of Jeremy's, we were looking at utilizing his arguments and also understood others had as well. If you have read the work, you should understand that there are substantial onto-epistemological and ethical problems with 1) attempting to use the material in a utilitarian construct (e.g. to win a debate round, or to firm up/make a "Resolved" argument), and 2) seeking to attain a certainty of a position, given his explicatoin of the Suicide Bomber is one of unknowability. I wrote to Jeremy about these questions and he provided the following reply on Friday January 17, 2014: "hey Jamie, It's always really good to hear from you my friend, and i do hope that your trip to Oklahoma will be a smooth, safe, one. mmm perhaps you might just let them know -- or, as i tend to put it, whisper echoes of -- the notion of responding, as thinking as the attempt to respond to and with, people, thoughts, and a text. After all, the reminder of the suicide bomber -- even as much as it is a difficult, extremely violent, terroristic, one -- is that of the unknown, the unknowable that haunts what we do, what we say. It is one thing to have humour, jokes, the witz to open new registers, to shake the foundations, the illegitimate abgrund, of authority; it is a completely different thing to attempt to pull the wool over to assert one's power over another. A disingenuous 'use' -- and perhaps one can stress using, utilising, reading as utility -- is the very gesture of terror (the effacing of another, the other), that the text itself is attempting to work against, to avoid. Thank you for the opportunity to respond dear Jamie: it is very much appreciated. Sending you and yours my warmest thoughts, jeremy"
  2. And so... when are "local circuit" folks getting their seasons kicked off?
  3. A little update relevant to the NE/IA circuit... this year, I'm coaching LD and also helping with critical argumentation for Westside, working under the ever wonderful Dana Christensen. I'm also continuing work with two novice LDers at Fremont-Mills and will hope to get them to 2 or so local tournaments (tournament directors will be advised of my school conflicts on judging). Lily Saker is debating policy for Westside. She's attending Westside as a freshman. Last but not least, I completely revamped my paradigm after having been unable to edit it all last year and realized there were substantial updates and an overhaul necessary to reflect where I'm at. I'll be hopefully judging a bit more and possibly seeing more policy rounds; I'm doing more work with NDT/CEDA on specific argument development for a couple of teams and keeping in regular contact with a few more, so you might want to glance at this if there's a chance you might want to pref or avoid me like the plague in LD and CX. Don't pref me unless you'll benefit from my increasingly specific perspective as both of us will be much happier with a good match. http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Saker%2C+James+%28Jamie%29
  4. Thought I'd get a thread started as its that time.
  5. Virilio's dromology is particularly compelling; reject the advancement of the accelerationism toward the speed of light via the telesphere, slow speed, regain contact with material. (Amish alt? ) I'd expect that'd be rather straight forward and broad criticism. There's another approach through Virilio that has potential; consider the observation he makes from Stop:Eject! on how sedentary peoples are being forced into movement (and often with the insertion of inspection gates to filter them, throw them into detention camps, etc.) while the same technological advances are making mobile people sedentary (fiber optics, virtual private networks, telework/telecommuting, smartphones, and the whole technology apparatus that allows one to be represented virtually with a global presence, while not moving). More intriguing to me is the whole region of topology and architecture. The tradition of radical aestheticism lends itself to criticism of transportation's epistemologies, from Situationists to Viennese Actionism, Fluxus and other art-connected movements. Transportation infrastructure is not neutral; consider its underpinnings in conceptions of property rights, for instance, and how its architectures encourage/discourage flows. In rural Iowa, the state (like others) has erected bypasses around small towns, helping people in a hurry get to their destination faster. Sidney Iowa had a bypass for U.S. Highway 2 a couple of years ago so that distance drivers weren't subjected to the half-dozen stop signs and 25 MPH limits going through the county courthouse area in the center of town. Residents didn't have to suffer all the semi truck traffic either. But its killing commerce and sickening the community. Nobody driving distance decides to go into Sidney, which is now out of their way, for gas, snacks and meals. They just stay on the highway and stop at a larger metropolitan area where there's a big corporate brand name sign - WalMart, McDonalds, BP. Rail transportation reterritorialized the United States, with railroads being granted land, plotting out towns every ten miles or so, and selling property to immigrants and city folk - no neutrality at all in the construction of a railroad. California's suffering the consequence of water transportation decline; efforts to protect wildlife have shut off water supplies to numerous farming communities in what is otherwise a desert without irrigation. Water transportation in general is potentially huge; Nebraska has had recurring battles regarding the aquifer and surface water, with litigation initiated by downstream states demanding Nebraska not hold water back. Some of this is certainly non-critical on the aff but can certainly quickly get there on the neg. I really hope to see topology/architecture debates on the topic.
  6. A couple I'd suggest that weren't mentioned above include: Situationism: particularly dérive but also détournament. The former combined with the latter seem to provide a critical counterplan approach (e.g. applying dérive to the affirmative's constructions with the net benefit of détournament). Pataphysical Engineering I may have a lecture on the former along with "deep dive" work across an extensive library of Situationist works (primary and secondary); there's an interesting Cap debate lurking in there through Asger Jorn's critique of Marx as well and the K might have a good amount of edge against critical affirmatives, as well as policymakers. jamie
  7. Thought I'd share a behind-the-scenes video from European Graduate School, right before Michael Hardt's (of the Empire K - Hardt & Negri) lecture on Love. Michael says hi to the debate community in the video. There was a much, much deeper discussion on the problems with kritik as a productive mechanism for change that occurred the day prior. It was recorded and I'll be doing transcription on it, and will also be writing a journal article on it as it is applied to debate. For those who encountered the fragment of Avital Ronell's Test Drive and linkage thru Nietzsche's Gay Science, there's a significant resonance and as such, it was quite interesting to see Hardt, with his pronounced critical background, also coming to this conclusion toward a path of the experiment.
  8. By the way, I've opened another thread for those interested in the thought of the European Graduate School theorists (e.g. Virilio, Agamben, Critchley, De Landa, Hardt, Negri, etc.) related to the space topic. A couple of us visited with Paul Virilio in La Rochelle France three weeks ago and learned of his accelerating work on trajectivity (very meaningful to technology, space and how we conceptualize identity and the individual, as well as relate to the other). I'll be studying with Critchley and Hardt in June and Agamben, Zizek and others will be teaching and lecturing at the August session. I promised David that I'd blog from there and thought it'd be an interesting place opportunity to relay questions from the policy debate community to those theorists, when available. Check out the thread here: http://www.cross-x.com/topic/50620-2011-european-graduate-school-camp/ and if you have a particular living* EGS theorist you're interested in, weigh in and share your thoughts on debating their thought. If the opportunity presents itself, I'll try to represent a few questions forward to those theorists and transcribe the answers back on cross-x. The list of EGS theorists is here: http://www.egs.edu/faculty/faculty-overview/ jamie * Per the living, I'm reading Simon Critchley's The Book of Dead Philosophers and have to confess to everything from LMAOIAPM (laughing my ass off in awkward public moments) to getting pretty choked up at how intense some of the thought is.
  9. Time for a new thread. Appreciate the amusement of the jurisdicational locale of the thread's origination.
  10. Looks great! Very excited to see the fresh new online face of policy debate.
  11. Just a short announcement to congratulate the winners of the first Fremont-Mills Varsity Policy Invitational. I'm pleased to announced that we had co-champions Sioux Falls Lincoln (SD) and Millard South (NE), a coaches and tournament decision to recognize both teams that won semifinals. I'll have full speaker and tournament quarters-forward details tomorrow. Thank you all for participating - it was wonderful to share our community with our debate family!
  12. Ryan, that's not surprising. You're just channeling your inner Liz Lemon.
  13. Preliminary Team List (22 total teams in the VCX division - School alphabetical order) Fremont NE Ford & Wilson Fremont NE Webb & Thor Fremont NE Voung & Martin Fremont NE Smith & Ledesma Fremont-Mills IA Tab Anderson & Schaaf* Fremont-Mills IA Tab Nissan & Saker* Lincoln High NE Wunder & Johnson Lincoln High NE Findlay & Lee Lincoln High NE Stevens Millard South NE Snelling & Gonzaba Millard South NE Hargan & Casas Millard South NE Christiansen & Anderson Millard South NE Freeman & Barnett Millard West NE Badal & Spady Millard West NE Murray & Schudak Millard West NE Blagg & Zhang Millard West NE Wang and Jiang Sioux Falls Lincoln SD Calhoun & Huckins Sioux Falls Lincoln SD Johnson & Rivard Sioux Falls Lincoln SD Point & Yang Westside NE Bosch & Tombi Westside NE Henry & Kennedy *Tab are not allowed to break and are debating with novice/varsity parings. **Mavericks will be permitted to break. ***Prep time will be 5 minutes (NFL model) ****Prelim round judges criticisms are asked to be limited to no more than 10 minutes. *****Depending on the consensus of coaches, guidance from tab and tournament timeline, we will evaluate breaking to quarters instead of semis (there is a chance our schedule may move quickly given one division of debate only; teams and judges are encouraged to help us break to quarters due to earlier awards.
  14. I'll try to be less wordy in my answer and split the block (since dylan already covered a lot of what i'd want to reply). 1. Not coercion: if you look at my prior post, I'm completely open to strategy - hell, look at the recognition of parasitism. If you wanna roll that way, go for it. But don't contradict yourself or come across as confused when you weep tears of "education and fairness." Honestly, I like a bastard at times. Hell, I hate Zizek's structuralism and yet I love reading and listening to the guy. Read him on Lenin and you're about ready to post up the Stalin posters and go full out. He's consistent. So if a team wants to be "tactical" and reclusive, go for it. But understand all tactics come with a cost, as the wiki-disclosers fully know on their side. 2. Debate norming is coercion (but nonunique): Having pulled the "20 year policy nap" unlike most here, I've seen one hell of a change in norms. New in 2AC/2NC was *standard* when I debated; now norms strongly frown on it, even when there's a good reason for it (counter-K for instance). Hamburger growled at me (rightfully so) at Caucus for being a speaks nazi (yea, I'm no speaks fairy and never will be) but he's right... there are community norms in what we do. Foucault smiles, I guess. That a community would have norming pressures on wiki-good/wiki-bad is expected. That it would exert pressures of those norms and consequences for non-normed behavior is expected. Honestly, I'm all for teams doing what they want to do. I think a few here probably know just how much I really think about my judging every week to make sure I'm doing the best for that happen. But it does seem important to help the non-wiki teams understand the cost of their tactical choice per what appear to be evolving norms. 3. Milo and tortured debaters: Oh, and loved the Milo reference. Yea... how many of us were consequences of that coach 4. Nondisclosure choice:
×
×
  • Create New...