From urtyrant Wed Sep 1 10:00:18 2004 From: urtyrant (urtyrant at juno.com) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 15:00:18 GMT Subject: [eDebate] DoF Position Announcement: Ohio University Message-ID: <20040901.080051.11674.668999@webmail02.lax.untd.com> The School of Communication Studies at Ohio University is seeking an experienced, dedicated, and collegial individual to serve as the John A. Cassese Director of Forensics. The Cassese Director of Forensics will administer a program with a nationally competitive budget, a history of national success, and a tradition of hosting regional and national competitions. In addition, the Cassese Director of Forensics will recruit and supervise several graduate students who will assist in the coaching of undergraduate students, and s/he will be responsible for coordinating the distribution of several forensics scholarships. This is a renewable contract position. The Cassese Director of Forensics will teach three classes per year in addition to directing the forensics program. The courses taught will vary with school needs and applicant qualifications. The Cassese Director of Forensics will also serve on school committees and participate in faculty governance issues along with tenure-track faculty. The School of Communication Studies takes a broad perspective on what a nationally competitive forensics program would entail; thus, applications from candidates interested in individual events and/or debate are welcome. Qualifications: Master?s degree, coaching and teaching experience required; PhD desired. Salary commensurate with experience and qualifications. Interested individuals should submit the following information: 1. curriculum vitae 2. a vision for the program that includes: a. type of forensic activities that the director would implement on and off campus b. rationale for such activities c. plan for implementing such activities d. philosophy of forensics instruction e. desired travel schedule for the students (and coaching staff) 3. teaching effectiveness portfolio 4. three letters of recommendation The School of Communication Studies is housed in Ohio University?s nationally recognized College of Communication. The school offers BSC and PhD degrees in newly revised programs with approximately 400 undergraduate majors and 50 graduate students. Please visit our website to learn more about our undergraduate and graduate programs (http://www.coms.ohiou.edu ). Chartered in 1804, Ohio University is the oldest university in the Northwest Territory. Enrollment at the Athens campus is approximately 21,000 students with over 7500 additional students on five regional campuses. First year undergraduate students average at the 75th percentile nationally in GPA, class rank, and standardized test scores. OU enrolls students from all 50 states and 97 countries. Our School?s PhD program is strongly international. To learn more about Ohio University please see http://www.ohio.edu. Deadline for applications is December 1. Please submit application materials to: Professor Roger Aden (aden at ohio.edu), Director of Forensics Search Committee Chair, School of Communication Studies, Lasher Hall, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701-2979. Ohio University is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. Applications from women, minorities, veterans, and persons with disabilities are especially encouraged. ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! From ruth_beerwoman Wed Sep 1 08:31:05 2004 From: ruth_beerwoman (ruth beerman) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 08:31:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] fair trade/sweatfree campaign internship opportunities Message-ID: <20040901133105.2E8BE86AEA@ws7-1.us4.outblaze.com> In case anyone is interested, here are some internship opportunities in California, for fair trade and sweatfree campaigns... Global Exchange is now accepting internship applications for all of Our programs! Both the Fair Trade and Sweatshop-Free Campaigns internships are listed below. To apply and learn about all available internships, please visit www.globalexchange.org/getInvolved/volunteer.html. All internships are in San Francisco. Anyone in any location, however, can get involved with these nationwide campaigns. We accept internship applications on a rolling basis. If you'd like an application sent to you by mail, please send your address to interns at globalexchange.org or call 415-255-7296 x239. Note that both Fair Trade and Sweatshop-Free interns must be motivated, self-starters and be able to work independently, often without supervision. FAIR TRADE INTERNSHIP Global Exchange's Fair Trade Campaign works to increase the demand for Fair Trade products, specifically coffee and chocolate. We work with student, faith-based, labor, teacher and community groups across the nation to target specific corporations, such as M&M/Mars. Without a full time Fair Trade campaigner in the Fall, the intern must already be knowledgeable of Fair Trade (See Requirements below). Intern will: * Provide support for United Students for Fair Trade; * Continue to pressure M&M/Mars through grassroots action and working with teachers and schoolchildren; * Maintain corporate coffee campaigns, ie Starbucks and Procter & Gamble; * Keep website updated, send out listserv updates; * Answer inquiries from general public via email; * Send out necessary materials to campus and community campaigns. Requirements to apply: * Must be knowledgeable of Fair Trade certification and commodities (especially coffee and chocolate); * Have already worked in the Fair Trade movement, whether on a campus/community campaign or on corporate accountability campaign; * Must be able to work independently (S/he will be working with very little supervision and basically running the campaign her/himself); * Can communicate well on the phone and via email and is comfortable with a Mac Microsoft Office. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SWEATFREE COMMUNITIES CAMPAIGN INTERNSHIP Global Exchange is launching a Sweatshop-Free Communities campaign to pass legislation on in both cities and schools requiring that both school and city government purchase only sweatfree/ union-made garments and other products. We support current campaigns nationally, spark new campaigns on the West coast and work closely on the Bay Area campaign. The intern(s) must be able to work independently because the campaigner will be traveling often. Intern will assist Sweatfree Communities Organizer in: * Researching various city councils and targeted companies; * Outreach for regional speaking tours for Chie Abad, former sweatshop worker for GAP; * Attend community meetings to recruit and sign up individuals and groups for Sweatfree campaign; * Building grassroots support nationally for sweatfree legislation, via media and outreach calls; * Answer inquiries from general public via email; * Send out necessary materials to campus and community campaigns; * Maintain campaign website and update materials. Intern will learn: * How to organize a local campaign to promote alternatives to sweatshops; * The process of passing sweatfree legislation and working with elected officials; * To recruit and build coalitions through an anti-oppression lens; * How to work with grassroots activists, unions, faith-based groups and students of all ages; * Work with the media. -- FYI: Global Exchange is a non-profit research, education, and action center working for political, economic, environmental, and social justice on a global scale. We work to increase international awareness among the U.S. public emphasizing struggles for peace, justice, and equality while building meaningful international partnerships. (www.globalexchangestore.org) -- _______________________________________________ Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10 From jwpatt00 Wed Sep 1 09:42:30 2004 From: jwpatt00 (JW Patterson) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 10:42:30 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] HENRY CLAY ENTRIES -- UPDATE 1 (77 Teams) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Following is the latest count on the Henry Clay Entries. If you have entered and your entry does not appear below, please resend. UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY HENRY CLAY DEBATES October 9, 10, & 11 2004 (Saturday, Sunday, Monday) *Indicates eligibility for the Pre-season Novice National Championships SPECIAL AIR ARRANGEMENTS We have made special airline arrangements with Delta Airlines for the Kentucky Tournament. We are using Delta because it has almost as many flights in and out of Lexington each day as all other airlines combined. Details follow: Delta is offering a 5% discount off Delta's published round trip fares. By purchasing your ticket 60 or more days prior to your departure date, you can receive an additional 5% bonus discount. A 10% discount will be offered on Delta's domestic system for travel to the meeting based on the publishes unrestricted round-trip coach (Y06) rates. No advanced reservations or ticketing is required, but if you purchase your ticket 60 days or more prior to your departure date, you can receive and additional 5% bonus discount. No discounts apply on Delta Express flights. To take advantage of Delta's services call or have your travel agent call 1-800-241-6760 between 7:30am and 11:00 pm EST weekdays and between 8:30am and 11:00pm EST weekends. YOU MUST REFER TO FILE NUMBER: 199994A. KENTUCKY ENTRIES: CALIFORNIA (BERKLEY), UNIVERSITY OF 1. Stacey Nathan and Criag Wickersham 2. Gaurav Reddy and Reid Shannon 3. Mike Burshteyn and Josh Garen* 4. Nick Lin and Daniel Richards JUDGES 1. Greg Achten 2. Dave Arnett CASE WESTERN UNIVERSITY 1. Nick Dorsey & Nick Denissen 2. Mike Riddick & Saptarshi Basu JUDGES 1. Jason Habig EMORY UNIVERSITY 1. TBA 2. TBA 3. TBA 4. TBA 5. TBA 6. TBA 7. TBA 8. TBA 9. TBA 10. TBA 11. TBA 12. TBA JUDGES 1. TBA GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 1. Brian Linder and Brett Wallace JUDGES 1. Heather Barnes GEORGIA, UNIVERSITY OF 1. Brent Culpepper and Hays Watson 2. TBA 3. TBA 4. TBA 5. TBA JUDGES 1. Ed Panetta 2. Robbie Quinn 3. Wally Eastwood GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY 1. Lori Blair & Sarah Crachiolo 2. Matt King & Chris Pozzi JUDGES 1. Joe Bellon GONZAGA UNIVERSITY 1. Colin Hahn and Charlie Hutchison JUDGES 1. Eric Slusher IOWA, UNIVERSITY OF 1. Todd Lantz and Michael Krantz 2. Brian Severson and Jordan Pomeranz 3. TBA 4. TBA JUDGES 1. David Hinstman 2. Scott Varda 3. TBA 4. TBA KANSAS, UNIVERSITY OF 1. Jordan Tinsley and Todd Jordan 2. Matt Cormack and Lindy Simonsen 3. Nate Johnson and Andrew Jennings JUDGES 1. Tom O'Toole 2. Phil Samuels 3. Scott Harris LOUISVILLE, UNIVERSITY OF 1. Ebony Floyd and Jennifer Harris 2. TBA 3. TBA 4. TBA JUDGES 1. Daryl Burch 2. Richard Boada MARY WASHINGTON UNIVERISTY 1. Clint Woods and Joseph Packer 2. TBA 3. TBA JUDGES 1. Tim O'Donnell 2. TBA MACALESTER COLLEGE 1. Travis Cram and Desiree Weber JUDGES 1. David Helwich MERCER UNIVERSITY 1. Andrew Lewis and Sarah Wright JUDGES 1. Kevin Cummings MIAMI UNIVERSITY 1. Michael Maffie and Sarah Spring JUDGES 1. Beth Voss (2 Rounds) 2. Steve Mancuso (2 Rounds) MICHIGAN, UNIVERSITY OF 1. TBA 2. TBA 3. TBA 4. TBA JUDGES 1. Josh Hoe 2. Aaron Kall NORTH TEXAS, UNIVERSITY OF 1. TBA 2. TBA 3. TBA JUDGES 1. TBA 2. TBA 3. TBA PITTSBURG, UNIVERSITY OF 1. Paul Johnson & Jane Munksgaard 2. TBA JUDGES 1. TBA REDLANDS UNIVERSITY 1. TBA 2. TBA JUDGES 1. TBA REGIS UNIVERSITY 1. Brian Schrader & John Rief JUDGES 1. John Foy SAMFORD UNIVERSITY 1. TBA 2. TBA 3. TBA JUDGES 1. TBA 2. TBA SOUTHERN ILLINOIS, UNIVERSITY OF 1. Paul Bellinger and Justin Hingtgen JUDGES 1. Todd Graham SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF 1. TBA 2. TBA 3. TBA JUDGES 1. TBA TEXAS, UNIVERSITY OF AT AUSTIN 1. Claire McKinney and Chris Thiele 2. Sarah Heaton and Brian Peterson 3. Mariesa Herrmann and Jonathan Lewis 4. Alex More and TBA JUDGES 1. David Breshears 2. Jairus Grove WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY 1. Brad Hall and Jamie Carroll 2. Elizabeth Gedmark and James Morrill 3. Adam Abelkop and David Leung 4. Naomi Dale and Chris Sedelmyer 5. Jack Parker and John Patten JUDGES 1. Ross Smith 2. J.P. Lacy 3. R.J. Green 4. TBA 5. TBA WHITMAN, UNIVERSITY OF 1. Beth Schueler and Eric Suni 2. Ben Meiches and Jeff Buntin JUDGES 1. Joe Carver (half) 2. Thad Blanc (half) WYOMING, UNIVERSITY OF 1. Chris Crowe and Brian DeLong 2. Seth Ellsworth and Aaron Lyttle 3. Will Jensen and Josh Schmerge JUDGES 1. Matt Stannard 2. Eric Forslund 3. Andy Ellis Sincerely, JW Patterson ------ End of Forwarded Message -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040901/8d2207cc/attachment.html From privethedge Wed Sep 1 10:11:48 2004 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 08:11:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Viet Cong Endorses Kerry Message-ID: <20040901151148.68663.qmail@web50901.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, Did anyone catch this article on the wire yesterday? http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apelection_story.asp?category=1131&slug=Kerry%20Viet%20Cong%20River The part of it I found interesting was: "Former Viet Cong soldier Duong Hoang Sinh...." "And while Kerry may be worried about veterans' support in America, Sinh said he would vote any day for his former enemy over President Bush. In the veteran's opinion, Kerry's experience along these rivers fighting Viet Cong might keep him from sending other young Americans to invade countries. "He knew the suffering and how much misery it brought to the people of Vietnam - he knew the cruelty of war," Sinh said. "So, I don't think he would go to war again if he's elected." THere we have it. Possibly the first Presidential candidate in American history endorsed by the enemy. While Sinh's observations are his own, and he is entitled to his opinion, I find this a bit like Jurgen Stroop endorsing David Ben Gurion to be President of Israel, or, perhaps more like Bobby Sands endorsing Margaret Thatcher for PM. What an odd world politics makes. Duane ');document.writeln('');document.writeln(' Printer-friendly version');document.writeln(' E-mail this story');document.writeln(' Get e-mail news updates');document.writeln(' Subscribe to the P-I');document.writeln('');//--> "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040901/92160eec/attachment.htm From alfred.snider Wed Sep 1 10:45:09 2004 From: alfred.snider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 11:45:09 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] WDI evidence CD and new file Message-ID: A new renewables file has surfaced. I will email a pdf of it to anyone who attended who asks for it. The evidence CD, including four hours of topic lectures, is available for any coach who had a student attend WDI. Just send me a mailing address and I will burn one and send it to you. Just to repeat, the WDI evidence and lecture CD is not available for sale. Tuna -- --------------------------- Alfred C. Snider, AKA Tuna Edwin W. Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont 475 Main, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA World Debate Institute; World Debate Organization 802-238-8345 mobile; 802-656-0097 office; 802-656-4275 fax http://alfred.snider.name website From mbauer2 Wed Sep 1 11:32:10 2004 From: mbauer2 (Bauer, Michael H.) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 11:32:10 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Argument and debate instructors Message-ID: <315E0B4ADBE84B4EA2D1FAE687E84110246008@EMAIL10.bsu.edu> I am putting together a panel for Central States Comm Association (Kansas City). I would like a roundtable discussion of people who are teaching the course for the 1st or 2nd time to discuss issues such as text selection, course content, class exercises, etc. Please respond to me if you will be able to attend the conference and would like to part of this panel. Thank You, Mike Bauer Ball State University From berchnorto Wed Sep 1 12:20:40 2004 From: berchnorto (NEIL BERCH) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 13:20:40 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Viet Cong Endorses Kerry Message-ID: Duane--I don't think you're portraying this article fully. I think the views on the war of those who were in it may also help to explain why, for example, Colin Powell has been less hawkish than Dick Cheney or Paul Wolfowitz.--Neil --Neil Berch West Virginia University >From: Duane Hyland >To: edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: [eDebate] Viet Cong Endorses Kerry >Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 08:11:48 -0700 (PDT) > >Hi, Did anyone catch this article on the wire yesterday? > >http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apelection_story.asp?category=1131&slug=Kerry%20Viet%20Cong%20River > >The part of it I found interesting was: > >"Former Viet Cong soldier Duong Hoang Sinh...." > > > >"And while Kerry may be worried about veterans' support in America, Sinh >said he would vote any day for his former enemy over President Bush. In the >veteran's opinion, Kerry's experience along these rivers fighting Viet Cong >might keep him from sending other young Americans to invade countries. > >"He knew the suffering and how much misery it brought to the people of >Vietnam - he knew the cruelty of war," Sinh said. "So, I don't think he >would go to war again if he's elected." > >THere we have it. Possibly the first Presidential candidate in American >history endorsed by the enemy. While Sinh's observations are his own, and >he is entitled to his opinion, I find this a bit like Jurgen Stroop >endorsing David Ben Gurion to be President of Israel, or, perhaps more like >Bobby Sands endorsing Margaret Thatcher for PM. > >What an odd world politics makes. > >Duane > >');document.writeln('');document.writeln(' >Printer-friendly version');document.writeln(' >E-mail this story');document.writeln(' >Get e-mail news updates');document.writeln(' >Subscribe to the P-I');document.writeln('');//--> > > > > >"You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" > >"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of >the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that >person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the >opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error >for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the >clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its >collision with error." John S. Mill > > > > > > > > > >--------------------------------- >Do you Yahoo!? >Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. From privethedge Wed Sep 1 12:41:34 2004 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 10:41:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Viet Cong Endorses Kerry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040901174134.25538.qmail@web50907.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, No..I really think I am Neil. The guy was former Viet Cong, he supports Kerry. The reasoning in the article for why he does is apparent to the reader - and I can see why he does feel the way he does - but in the end you have a member of the Viet Cong endorsing John Kerry for President of the United States. While the Jurgen Stroop reference might be a reach, I think the Bobby Sands reference is quite apt. Like I said - I'm not judging the guy, and I think Kerry served honorably in Vietnam (even if I feel that SBVFT - or SBV Stretching the Truth - gets to tell their side of things), but you gotta admit - since you are an expert in elections and such - that if I had said six months ago that the Viet Cong would endorse Kerry, you'd have laughed. Who next? General Giap? Personally, I wish they would leave the entanglement in a war on the Asia land mass alone, and talk about things like jobs, oil and prescription drugs. "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040901/62b03ea9/attachment.html From mphall Wed Sep 1 13:03:58 2004 From: mphall (Hall, Michael P.) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 14:03:58 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Liberty Invitation Message-ID: <5F542458E47E8B42BF52A0071168D4BA013C9EB3@grumpy.University.liberty.edu> Below is the invite for the Liberty University Debate Tournament, Nov 5-7, 2004. You can also find a copy of the invite and enter the tournament at debateresults.com. We look forward to seeing many of you in Lynchburg this November. Michael Hall ________________________________________________________________ September 1, 2004 Dear Colleague, We are pleased to invite you to participate in the eighteenth annual Liberty University Intercollegiate Debate Tournament on November 5-7, 2004. Our goal is to host a competently managed tournament with all three divisions of debate. This year's tournament will feature six preliminary rounds and an appropriate number of elimination rounds of debate in three divisions. Tournament entries must be received by November 2, 2004. Entries after that date are subject to campus room availability. Please note that hotel reservations must be made by October 29, 2004 to guarantee the special rate. We hope you will plan to enter teams in all three divisions. This year we will use the Brushke tournament entry system (see attached information). We are also continuing our tournament banquet. Dr. Jerry Falwell, Chancellor of Liberty University, is expected to be our speaker and will allow time for questions. In past years this has been one of the highlights of the tournament. To provide greater financial accountability our entry fee structure will be the same as last year. Fees will be $30.00 per participant (debater, judge or coach). Observers may attend for $40.00 per person. We hope that this will enable you to bring more teams or to begin participating in our tournament. Additionally, programs with little or no budget may submit a request for their fees to be lowered or waived for the tournament. Our objective is to allow for increased participation from all schools. Our tournament hotel will continue to provide breakfast free to all tournament participants staying at the Ramada Inn. Additionally, we provide lunch on Saturday, a banquet Saturday night and extensive snacks in our hospitality room. This means low food costs for your team. November is a beautiful time to be in Central Virginia. We are pleased to be offering a tournament that is sanctioned by the ADA-CEDA-NDT. We hope that teams from all of the debating communities will participate at our tournament. We look forward to having you participate in this year's tournament. If you have any questions, please call (434) 582-2080. Hope to see you at Liberty University. Sincerely, Brett O'Donnell Michael Hall Heather Hall John Ross Director of Debate Ass't Director Ass't Debate Coach Ass't Debate Coach Attachments Liberty University Debate Tournament November 5-7, 2004 Liberty University, Lynchburg, Virginia Format: The debate topic for the tournament will be the national policy topic, Resolved: that the United States federal government should establish an energy policy requiring a substantial reduction in the total non-governmental consumption of fossil fuels in the United States. Time limits for speeches are 9-3-6 with ten minutes of preparation time. There will be six preliminary rounds. Rounds one and two will be pre-set. Rounds three through six will be power matched. Three divisions of debate will be offered: novice, junior varsity, and varsity. We will use random judging for the first two rounds and then an appropriate number of strikes will be honored for rounds 3-6. An appropriate number of elimination rounds will be offered in accordance with the ADA rules and based on the size of the tournament. Entries: Enter as many teams as you like in each of the three divisions. If entries exceed room availability, latecomers may be restricted to two teams per school per division of debate. Eligibility for participation in the division is governed by the ADA rules. 1. Novice Debate-This division is designed for debaters who are truly in their first year of competitive debate or who have so little previous experience that they are functionally first-year debaters. This division is open to debaters who (a) have no more than a combined total of 50 rounds of Lincoln Douglas and policy debate prior to the current academic year, (b) have competed in the novice division in a previous year but have not advanced into the elimination rounds at two tournaments, or (c) meet the prior qualifications and have not advanced to the final round of two novice, junior varsity, or varsity tournaments (no matter where) in which there were 20 or more teams in the division. 2. Junior Varsity Debate: (1) Open only to students who are competing in their first two academic years of intercollegiate debate beyond the novice level; (2) Progression during the year. Debaters competing in JV must progress to open or varsity debate: (a) if they advance to the final round of three JV, open, or varsity tournaments (no matter where), or (b) if they qualify to attend the National Debate Tournament. 3. Varsity Debate: open to all students. Please enter the tournament by November 2, 2004 using the Brushke Entry System (www.debateresults.com or http://commweb.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/web/index.aspx). After that date e-mail or phone entries directly to Michael Hall (mphall at liberty.edu; 434-582-2080). Entries after this date are subject to campus room availability. Enter early as our room space may be limited by construction. Judging: Each school should provide a qualified judge for each one or two teams entered in the tournament. A judge will be responsible to cover three preliminary rounds and at least one elimination round for each team entered. All judges will be required to judge through the quarter final elimination round or one round after your last team is eliminated whichever occurs later. In the spirit of attempting to improve the judging pool and eliminate "freeloaders" (those that attend the tournament, eat food and generally consume, but are not covered by team or judge fees), all persons attending the tournament who are qualified judges must either judge at least a half of a commitment (3 rounds plus one elim) or pay an observer fee of $40.00. If this means your school will have more than the number of rounds required, we will pay you for the extra judging at $15.00 a round (we don't expect free labor). The school has mandated that the tournament break even this year. We have been losing money on "extra people" attending the tournament. The number of meal tickets handed out will be figured at one judge for every one or two teams. All others are either judges or observers. A limited number of judges will be available for hire at $25 per round ($100.00 per uncovered team). If you need to hire judges, please enter early! Awards: Permanent plaques will be awarded for the top eight teams in each division and for the top ten speakers in each division. Fees: Entry fees are $30 per participant, $40.00 for an observer. Hired judging is $100 per team. Make checks payable to Liberty University Debate. Fees include trophies, lunch on Saturday, our famous hospitality room, and the awards banquet on Saturday for all team participants, coaches, and judges. Extra banquet tickets may be purchased for $20 per person (for persons attending the banquet only, such as parents). Hotel Accommodations: The Ramada Inn (our usual tournament hotel) of Lynchburg is this year's tournament hotel. Ramada Inn is located on Odd Fellows Road off of Interstate 29. They are providing a flat rate of $57 per night for up to four people per room and include a continental breakfast for each member of your team and coaching staff for each day of the tournament (Liberty will not be providing a continental breakfast because of this offer from the hotel) and newly renovated rooms. Call the hotel directly at (434) 847-7500 ext. 362 (Ask to speak to Molly or Michele). Reservations must be made by October 29, 2004. After that date you are on your own and the rate will increase. Please mention you are attending the Liberty University Debate Tournament. If you have trouble making reservations, call me and I will assist you in finding rooms. Entry Deadlines: Hotel: Room reservations must be made by October 29, 2004. The Ramada Inn will release our block of rooms after that date. Tournament: Please enter the tournament by November 2, 2004. Be sure to phone or e-mail late entries or any last minute changes. Teams dropped after November 5 at noon may still be assessed the entry fee. Additionally, judges covering dropped teams after November 6 at noon will still be expected to judge the rounds committed for the dropped team. Please enter the tournament via the Brushke Tournament Entry System at http://commweb.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/web/index.aspx. Direct entries after November 2 or other questions to Michael Hall, Liberty University, Department of Debate, 1971 University Blvd., Lynchburg, VA 24502-2269 or phone (434) 582-2080. Fax (434) 582-2113. E-mail mphall at liberty.edu. Transportation Assistance: If you are flying to the tournament, you should make reservations for Lynchburg Regional Airport. Rental cars and vans are available. For those of you requesting transportation assistance, please fill out the transportation request form and return it to Michael Hall by November 1, 2004. Directions: To Liberty University: Liberty University is located on Candler's Mountain Road in the Southeast corner of Lynchburg, Virginia. Major roads through Lynchburg going North and South include Interstate 29 and State Highway 501. Divided Highway 460 serves Lynchburg from the East and West. Signs mark campus exits on both Interstate 29 and 460. To the Ramada Inn: Follow Interstate 29 to the Odd Fellows Road Exit. Tournament Registration: Registration will be held in the DeMoss Hall (follow signs) on Friday afternoon from 12:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. Public Transportation: Public transportation systems serving the Lynchburg area include USAir, Delta Airlines, and Greyhound bus line. Check with your local travel agency for schedules and rates. Special Announcement: Alcoholic beverage consumption is not allowed on the Liberty University campus. Smoking is only permitted outside the academic buildings. Please do not smoke in the public lounges or classrooms. Your adherence to the no smoking request will help to guarantee a pleasant visit. TOURNAMENT SCHEDULE Friday, November 5 12:00 - 3:00 p.m. Registration-DeMoss Hall Atrium 4:00 p.m. General Meeting 4:30 p.m. Round 1 6:30 p.m. Round 2 Saturday, November 6 8:00 a.m. Pairings Released for Rounds 3 and 4 8:30 a.m. Round 3 10:30 a.m. Round 4 12:30 p.m. Lunch (provided) 1:30 p.m. Round 5 4:00 p.m. Round 6 7:30 p.m. Tournament Banquet Sunday, November 7 7:30 a.m. Pairings Released 8:00 a.m. Elimination Rounds begin Please note that no continental breakfasts are being provided at Liberty as the hotel is providing a free continental breakfast to each tournament participant each morning of the tournament. Coffee and tea will be available at Liberty in the DeMoss Atrium. Liberty University Debate Tournament November 5-7, 2004 Transportation Form Liberty University, Lynchburg, Virginia School__________________________________________________________________ __ ________Yes. We need transportation from the Lynchburg Airport on Friday. ________Yes. We need transportation from the Ramada Inn to Liberty University. ________How many people require transportation? Flight Information: ________Airline ________Flight Number ________Flight arrival time on Friday ________Flight departure time on Monday ________Flight departure time on Tuesday Please return this form to Michael Hall before November 1, so that we can make the proper arrangements with our van rental company. Mail to Michael Hall, Liberty University, 1971 University Blvd., Department of Debate, Lynchburg, VA 24502-2269. Fax to 434-582-2113. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040901/9ae13837/attachment.htm From katekauf Wed Sep 1 13:09:24 2004 From: katekauf (Kate Baxter-Kauf) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:09:24 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Buffalo Hotel Update Information Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040901/ae3e600d/attachment.html From wnewnam Wed Sep 1 13:17:56 2004 From: wnewnam (William Newnam) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 14:17:56 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Viet Cong Endorses Kerry References: <20040901151148.68663.qmail@web50901.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001401c49050$021a2db0$91c58caa@emorycard.emory.edu> Thanks for sharing that. That is a very interesting story line for AP to follow. I found two other sections also interesting, one is Hung's reaction to Kerry's antiwar activies in the paragraphs just before the two you quote: Hung said he's also puzzled by the uproar over Kerry's decision to join the anti-war movement upon returning home. He said Kerry's actions proved he learned a lot during his time in Vietnam and that he wanted to keep other Americans from dying here. "When they went home, they knew the nature of the war and the people here were innocent and they knew it was nonsense to wage war here," said Hung, whose two older brothers joined the Viet Cong and laid mines in the rivers where the Swift boats operated. AND this one is even more interesting, because if you read it with Roods account in Chicago Tribune, where he describes Kerry's new plan to attack the VC directly rather than just waiting to draw fire directly, it sure sounds like the same incident. The shock expressed by the combatant here echos the surpise and the aggressiveness described by Rood. It sure looks like the same incident is being described from the perspectives of opposing combatants. Very interesting. It would make for a very interesting follow story to try to divine whether or not they were involved in the same battle. bill n emory ----- Original Message ----- From: Duane Hyland To: edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 11:11 AM Subject: [eDebate] Viet Cong Endorses Kerry Hi, Did anyone catch this article on the wire yesterday? http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apelection_story.asp?category=1131&slug=Kerry%20Viet%20Cong%20River The part of it I found interesting was: "Former Viet Cong soldier Duong Hoang Sinh...." "And while Kerry may be worried about veterans' support in America, Sinh said he would vote any day for his former enemy over President Bush. In the veteran's opinion, Kerry's experience along these rivers fighting Viet Cong might keep him from sending other young Americans to invade countries. "He knew the suffering and how much misery it brought to the people of Vietnam - he knew the cruelty of war," Sinh said. "So, I don't think he would go to war again if he's elected." THere we have it. Possibly the first Presidential candidate in American history endorsed by the enemy. While Sinh's observations are his own, and he is entitled to his opinion, I find this a bit like Jurgen Stroop endorsing David Ben Gurion to be President of Israel, or, perhaps more like Bobby Sands endorsing Margaret Thatcher for PM. What an odd world politics makes. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040901/06f7fa7a/attachment.htm From parcherj Wed Sep 1 13:49:31 2004 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 14:49:31 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [eDebate] Real Crimes #1 Message-ID: <24675936.1094064571334.JavaMail.root@wamui08.slb.atl.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040901/c5c272fd/attachment.html From parcherj Wed Sep 1 13:58:00 2004 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 14:58:00 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [eDebate] real crimes #1b Message-ID: <29077299.1094065081603.JavaMail.root@wamui08.slb.atl.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040901/71457f56/attachment.htm From parcherj Wed Sep 1 14:08:09 2004 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 15:08:09 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [eDebate] Real Crimes #1c Message-ID: <32677420.1094065690521.JavaMail.root@wamui08.slb.atl.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040901/f90a2004/attachment.html From privethedge Wed Sep 1 15:00:59 2004 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 13:00:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Real Crimes #1c In-Reply-To: <32677420.1094065690521.JavaMail.root@wamui08.slb.atl.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20040901200059.70155.qmail@web50901.mail.yahoo.com> Jeff, While these may be reasons to vote against Bush, they are hardly reasons to vote for Kerry. And, if I'm right - and I may not be - didn't the 9/11 report debunk a lot of Clark's claims? Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040901/62aaedc0/attachment.htm From oguevara Wed Sep 1 15:36:48 2004 From: oguevara (OMAR GUEVARA) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:36:48 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Argument and debate instructors&In-Reply-To=315E0B4ADBE84B4EA2D1FAE687E84110246008@EMA Message-ID: Mike, if you could tell me when...and I could clear my calender...I would attend. It would be fun to hang out after all this while, Omar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040901/d0c3a2cb/attachment.html From oguevara Wed Sep 1 15:43:02 2004 From: oguevara (OMAR GUEVARA) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:43:02 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Val Browning: Teams in Attendance Message-ID: [I am very happy, but also regretful, that we were not able to provide slots for everyone that asked to participate. I am going to sit down with all the Directors attending the 05 VAB and have a serious discussion with them as to the relative merits of converting the Val Browning to an open invitational. Part of me thinks this is a really good idea, part of me feels as though I should not tamper with the tradition of our communities' last "people's round robin." If anyone has an opinion about the subject please do not hesitate to back channel me. Thanks again, Omar] Teams Attending the 2005 Val Browning Round Robin TEAMS ATTENDING 2005 VAL BROWNING ROUND ROBIN: University of California-Berkeley (2) Eastern New Mexico University (1) Gonzaga University (2) Idaho State University (1) Mercer University (1) University of Miami (Florida) (1) Regis University (1) Santa Clara University (1) Weber State University (2) University of Southern California (2) Whitman College(2) University of Wyoming (2) PS-- I am hiring qualified critics. If you think you'd be interesting in judging please send me a back channel (last year we had a limited strike sheet, so If I could hire just a few more folks, Greg would probably be able to work his tab room magic even better). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040901/cccbfbdd/attachment.htm From parcherj Wed Sep 1 15:50:59 2004 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 16:50:59 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [eDebate] Thompson and anti-semitism and debate Message-ID: <12190866.1094071859848.JavaMail.root@wamui08.slb.atl.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040901/c556a92b/attachment.html From jreubenclark Wed Sep 1 16:11:41 2004 From: jreubenclark (Josh clark) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 15:11:41 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] ede warner please Message-ID: hey doc....could you back channel me please. Josh _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From dcbloomi Wed Sep 1 20:12:10 2004 From: dcbloomi (Daniel Bloomingdale) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 18:12:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Viet Cong Endorses Kerry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040902011210.25613.qmail@web14123.mail.yahoo.com> Politeness prevents me from using the language that I would like to use to discuss Duane Hyland's post. Here is the PG-13 version: 1. I did not know that the Vietnam is still "the enemy." Last I time I checked, the war was over. 2. Impugning Kerry's credentials (even if only by implication) based on who endorses him is so obviously a logical fallacy that I am surprised and dismayed to find it posted in this forum. 3. "I don't think he would go to war" is a damn good reason to prefer a candidate. 4. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Bush has the support of some rather unsavory characters. For example, Bush is very likely to win the Klan vote (and the Klan, unlike the Vietnamese, are still the enemy). Should we vote against him based on that fact? Or should we instead vote based on his record? --- NEIL BERCH wrote: > Duane--I don't think you're portraying this article > fully. I think the > views on the war of those who were in it may also > help to explain why, for > example, Colin Powell has been less hawkish than > Dick Cheney or Paul > Wolfowitz.--Neil > > --Neil Berch > West Virginia University > > > >From: Duane Hyland > >To: edebate at ndtceda.com > >Subject: [eDebate] Viet Cong Endorses Kerry > >Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 08:11:48 -0700 (PDT) > > > >Hi, Did anyone catch this article on the wire > yesterday? > > > >http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apelection_story.asp?category=1131&slug=Kerry%20Viet%20Cong%20River > > > >The part of it I found interesting was: > > > >"Former Viet Cong soldier Duong Hoang Sinh...." > > > > > > > >"And while Kerry may be worried about veterans' > support in America, Sinh > >said he would vote any day for his former enemy > over President Bush. In the > >veteran's opinion, Kerry's experience along these > rivers fighting Viet Cong > >might keep him from sending other young Americans > to invade countries. > > > >"He knew the suffering and how much misery it > brought to the people of > >Vietnam - he knew the cruelty of war," Sinh said. > "So, I don't think he > >would go to war again if he's elected." > > > >THere we have it. Possibly the first Presidential > candidate in American > >history endorsed by the enemy. While Sinh's > observations are his own, and > >he is entitled to his opinion, I find this a bit > like Jurgen Stroop > >endorsing David Ben Gurion to be President of > Israel, or, perhaps more like > >Bobby Sands endorsing Margaret Thatcher for PM. > > > >What an odd world politics makes. > > > >Duane > > > >');document.writeln('');document.writeln(' > >Printer-friendly version');document.writeln(' > >E-mail this story');document.writeln(' > >Get e-mail news updates');document.writeln(' > >Subscribe to the P-I');document.writeln('');//--> > > > > > > > > > >"You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. > Jackson" > > > >"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and > only one person were of > >the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more > justified in silencing that > >person that he, if he had the power, would be in > silencing mankind? If the > >opinion is right, they are deprived of the > opportunity of exchanging error > >for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as > great a benefit, the > >clearer perception and livelier impression of > truth, produced by its > >collision with error." John S. Mill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >--------------------------------- > >Do you Yahoo!? > >Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter > now. > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber > list, go here: > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > ===== One bright sunny morning, in the shadow of the steeple, by the relief office, I saw my people. As they stood there hungry, I stood there wondering if this land was made for you and me.? --Woody Guthrie From privethedge Wed Sep 1 20:19:21 2004 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 18:19:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Viet Cong Endorses Kerry In-Reply-To: <20040902011210.25613.qmail@web14123.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040902011921.53159.qmail@web50902.mail.yahoo.com> OH..would you take a freaking Zanax...If you can't see the irony in "Viet Cong for Kerry" you either have 0 sense of humor, or you take life waaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyy to seriously. Chill, dude. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040901/52d01c7f/attachment.htm From MWBRYANT Wed Sep 1 21:12:20 2004 From: MWBRYANT (MWBRYANT at aol.com) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 22:12:20 EDT Subject: [eDebate] Viet Cong Endorses Kerry Message-ID: <46.5750b16e.2e67db84@aol.com> In a message dated 9/1/04 9:29:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, privethedge at yahoo.com writes: > OH..would you take a freaking Zanax...If you can't see the irony in "Viet > Cong for Kerry" you either have 0 sense of humor, or you take life > waaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyy to seriously. > > Chill, dude. > If you'd stop being such a fucking nitwit troll maybe everyone could chill. What's it going to take to get you to stop trying to inflame everyone with you gawd-awful stupidity? Have you thought about calling in your insights to Rush instead of trolling this list? How's the search going? Bear -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040901/2112574b/attachment.html From MWBRYANT Wed Sep 1 21:25:16 2004 From: MWBRYANT (MWBRYANT at aol.com) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 22:25:16 EDT Subject: [eDebate] Thompson and anti-semitism and debate Message-ID: <8b.13ea0d82.2e67de8c@aol.com> In a message dated 9/1/04 4:51:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, parcherj at mindspring.com writes: > Bear - I don't understand your post or the questions. I never said > anything about anti-semitism and the debate community. I simply posted Thompson's > article as a means of questioning his credibility. Not only would I not call > criticisms of Israeli policies anti-semitic - I mayself have not hesitated to > criticize US policy toward Israel or Israel itself. Like Korcok mentioned, > I recall posts from Stroube that I thought were anti-semitic - but I don't > remember anyone else posting something in a similar vein. > That's OK, Jeff. You obviously understood enough to provide an answer. It was Duane that was suggesting that most of the debate community was as anti-semitic as Thompson. I think we can all agree that Duane, once again, is a nitwit lying troll. Bear -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040901/428e70d5/attachment.htm From christopherburk Wed Sep 1 21:45:51 2004 From: christopherburk (Christopher Burk) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 21:45:51 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Documentary on National Debate Tournament Message-ID: Hi Everyone, Do you get CSTV? I'd like acquire a DVD copy on this program. I'd be willing pay for it. I'm sure many individuals and teams would also like to get a copy. If CSTV is selling a copy, I'll buy it. Otherwise, perhaps someone with a high-quality DVD recorder and burner would be willing to make some copies. Here's the promo website with sample video: http://www.collegesports.com/cstv/programming/debate.html Here's the broadcast schedule: http://cstv.collegesports.com/tvschedule.htm?sportSel=DEBATE&seriesSel=no&schoolSel=no&conferenceSel=no&gameSel=no Let me know if you get access to a DVD of this program. Thanks in Advance, Chris Burk UT Dallas _________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee? Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From john Wed Sep 1 22:06:09 2004 From: john (John Willemin) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 20:06:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Viet Cong Endorses Kerry In-Reply-To: <46.5750b16e.2e67db84@aol.com> References: <46.5750b16e.2e67db84@aol.com> Message-ID: <20040901200440.H45843@null> Is it too much to ask to get the pissing contests taken offline? I tried asking via backchannel, but apparently no one uses that anymore. Has it been too long since someone said "can we have 2 lists and one of them be filtered to just the debate stuff"? Thanks john On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 MWBRYANT at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 9/1/04 9:29:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > privethedge at yahoo.com writes: > > > > OH..would you take a freaking Zanax...If you can't see the irony in "Viet > > Cong for Kerry" you either have 0 sense of humor, or you take life > > waaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyy to seriously. > > > > Chill, dude. > > > > If you'd stop being such a fucking nitwit troll maybe everyone could chill. > What's it going to take to get you to stop trying to inflame everyone with you > gawd-awful stupidity? > > Have you thought about calling in your insights to Rush instead of trolling > this list? > > How's the search going? > > Bear > From privethedge Wed Sep 1 22:06:35 2004 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 20:06:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Viet Cong Endorses Kerry In-Reply-To: <46.5750b16e.2e67db84@aol.com> Message-ID: <20040902030635.27872.qmail@web50908.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, OHHHH..Bear called me a Troll..lol.....The search is going, made it through '98 today. Hopefully through 2000 by tommorrow. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040901/2874234a/attachment.html From privethedge Wed Sep 1 22:08:51 2004 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 20:08:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Viet Cong Endorses Kerry In-Reply-To: <20040901200440.H45843@null> Message-ID: <20040902030851.59027.qmail@web50903.mail.yahoo.com> HI, You're right. I'm sorry. My bad. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040901/c4f4ad59/attachment.htm From jason.sykes Wed Sep 1 23:00:30 2004 From: jason.sykes (Jason Sykes GHS) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 23:00:30 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Re: Documentary on National Debate Tournament In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: i second that! i'd love to get my hands on a copy--even VHS--of this program. "Christopher Burk" writes: >http://www.collegesports.com/cstv/programming/debate.html ____________________ Grapevine High School 3223 Mustang Drive Grapevine, Texas 76051 (817) 251-5210 From dcbloomi Wed Sep 1 23:45:34 2004 From: dcbloomi (Daniel Bloomingdale) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 21:45:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Viet Cong Endorses Kerry In-Reply-To: <46.5750b16e.2e67db84@aol.com> Message-ID: <20040902044534.89886.qmail@web14106.mail.yahoo.com> The people who know me well know that I am utterly humorless and totally wrapped up in advancing my career. And there is no z in Xanax. --- MWBRYANT at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 9/1/04 9:29:46 PM Eastern > Daylight Time, > privethedge at yahoo.com writes: > > > > OH..would you take a freaking Zanax...If you can't > see the irony in "Viet > > Cong for Kerry" you either have 0 sense of humor, > or you take life > > waaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyy to seriously. > > > > Chill, dude. > > > > If you'd stop being such a fucking nitwit troll > maybe everyone could chill. > What's it going to take to get you to stop trying to > inflame everyone with you > gawd-awful stupidity? > > Have you thought about calling in your insights to > Rush instead of trolling > this list? > > How's the search going? > > Bear > ===== One bright sunny morning, in the shadow of the steeple, by the relief office, I saw my people. As they stood there hungry, I stood there wondering if this land was made for you and me.? --Woody Guthrie From parcherj Thu Sep 2 00:25:12 2004 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 01:25:12 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [eDebate] Real Crimes #2 Message-ID: <21626253.1094102712447.JavaMail.root@wamui02.slb.atl.earthlink.net> They knew ? Despite the whitewash, we now know that the Bush administration was warned before the war that its Iraq claims were weak By David Sirota and Christy Harvey In These Times 08-22-2004 www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/they_knew_0802 If desperation is ugly, then Washington, D.C. today is downright hideous. As the 9/11 commission recently reported, there was ?no credible evidence? of a collaborative relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida. Similarly, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. With U.S. casualties mounting in an election year, the White House is grasping at straws to avoid being held accountable for its dishonesty. The whitewash already has started: In July, Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee released a controversial report blaming the CIA for the mess. The panel conveniently refuses to evaluate what the White House did with the information it was given or how the White House set up its own special team of Pentagon political appointees (called the Office of Special Plans) to circumvent well-established intelligence channels. And Vice President Dick Cheney continues to say without a shred of proof that there is ?overwhelming evidence? justifying the administration?s pre-war charges. But as author Flannery O?Conner noted, ?Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.? That means no matter how much defensive spin spews from the White House, the Bush administration cannot escape the documented fact that it was clearly warned before the war that its rationale for invading Iraq was weak. Top administration officials repeatedly ignored warnings that their assertions about Iraq?s supposed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and connections to al-Qaida were overstated. In some cases, they were told their claims were wholly without merit, yet they went ahead and made them anyway. Even the Senate report admits that the White House ?misrepresented? classified intelligence by eliminating references to contradictory assertions. In short, they knew they were misleading America. And they did not care. What did President Bush (above), Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice know about Iraq?s actual capacity for making war, and when did they know it? Photo: Associated Press They knew Iraq posed no nuclear threat. There is no doubt even though there was no proof of Iraq?s complicity, the White House was focused on Iraq within hours of the 9/11 attacks. As CBS News reported, ?barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq.? Former Bush counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke recounted vividly how, just after the attack, President Bush pressured him to find an Iraqi connection. In many ways, this was no surprise ? as former Treasury Secretary Paul O?Neill and another administration official confirmed, the White House was actually looking for a way to invade Iraq well before the terrorist attacks. But such an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country required a public rationale. And so the Bush administration struck fear into the hearts of Americans about Saddam Hussein?s supposed WMD, starting with nuclear arms. In his first major address on the ?Iraqi threat? in October 2002, President Bush invoked fiery images of mushroom clouds and mayhem, saying, ?Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.? Yet, before that speech, the White House had intelligence calling this assertion into question. A 1997 report by the U.N.?s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) ? the agency whose purpose is to prevent nuclear proliferation ? stated there was no indication Iraq ever achieved nuclear capability or had any physical capacity for producing weapons-grade nuclear material in the near future. In February 2001, the CIA delivered a report to the White House that said: ?We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs.? The report was so definitive that Secretary of State Colin Powell said in a subsequent press conference, Saddam Hussein ?has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.? Ten months before the president?s speech, an intelligence review by CIA Director George Tenet contained not a single mention of an imminent nuclear threat ? or capability ? from Iraq. The CIA was backed up by Bush?s own State Department: Around the time Bush gave his speech, the department?s intelligence bureau said that evidence did not ?add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what [we] consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons.? Nonetheless, the administration continued to push forward. In March 2003, Cheney went on national television days before the war and claimed Iraq ?has reconstituted nuclear weapons.? He was echoed by State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, who told reporters of supposedly grave ?concerns about Iraq?s potential nuclear programs.? Even after the invasion, when troops failed to uncover any evidence of nuclear weapons, the White House refused to admit the truth. In July 2003, Condoleezza Rice told PBS?s Gwen Ifill that the administration?s nuclear assertions were ?absolutely supportable.? That same month, White House spokesman Scott McClellan insisted: ?There?s a lot of evidence showing that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.? They knew the aluminum tubes were not for nuclear weapons. To back up claims that Iraq was actively trying to build nuclear weapons, the administration referred to Iraq?s importation of aluminum tubes, which Bush officials said were for enriching uranium. In December 2002, Powell said, ?Iraq has tried to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes which can be used to enrich uranium in centrifuges for a nuclear weapons program.? Similarly, in his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush said Iraq ?has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.? But, in October 2002, well before these and other administration officials made this claim, two key agencies told the White House exactly the opposite. The State Department affirmed reports from Energy Department experts who concluded those tubes were ill-suited for any kind of uranium enrichment. And according to memos released by the Senate Intelligence Committee, the State Department also warned Powell not to use the aluminum tubes hypothesis in the days before his February 2003 U.N. speech. He refused and used the aluminum tubes claim anyway. The State Department?s warnings were soon validated by the IAEA. In March 2003, the agency?s director stated, ?Iraq?s efforts to import these aluminum tubes were not likely to be related? to nuclear weapons deployment. Yet, this evidence did not stop the White House either. Pretending the administration never received any warnings at all, Rice claimed in July 2003 that ?the consensus view? in the intelligence community was that the tubes ?were suitable for use in centrifuges to spin material for nuclear weapons.? Today, experts agree the administration?s aluminum tube claims were wholly without merit. They knew there was no hard evidence of chemical or biological weapons. In September 2002, President Bush said Iraq ?could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given.? The next month, he delivered a major speech to ?outline the Iraqi threat,? just two days before a critical U.N. vote. In his address, he claimed without doubt that Iraq ?possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons.? He said that ?Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons? and that the government was ?concerned Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States.? What he did not say was that the White House had been explicitly warned that these assertions were unproved. As the Washington Post later reported, Bush ?ignored the fact that U.S. intelligence mistrusted the source? of the 45-minute claim and, therefore, omitted it from its intelligence estimates. And Bush ignored the fact that the Defense Intelligence Agency previously submitted a report to the administration finding ?no reliable information? to prove Iraq was producing or stockpiling chemical weapons. According to Newsweek, the conclusion was similar to the findings of a 1998 government commission on WMD chaired by Rumsfeld. Bush also neglected to point out that in early October 2002, the administration?s top military experts told the White House they ?sharply disputed the notion that Iraq?s Unmanned Aerial Vehicles were being designed as attack weapons.? Specifically, the Air Force?s National Air and Space Intelligence Center correctly showed the drones in question were too heavy to be used to deploy chemical/biological-weapons spray devices. Regardless, the chemical/biological weapons claims from the administration continued to escalate. Powell told the United Nations on February 5, 2003, ?There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more.? As proof, he cited aerial images of a supposed decontamination vehicle circling a suspected weapons site. According to newly released documents in the Senate Intelligence Committee report, Powell?s own top intelligence experts told him not to make such claims about the photographs. They said the vehicles were likely water trucks. He ignored their warnings. On March 6, 2003, just weeks before the invasion, the president went further than Powell. He claimed, ?Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents.? To date, no chemical or biological weapons have been found in Iraq. Conclusion: They knew they were misleading America. In his March 17, 2003 address preparing America for the Iraq invasion, President Bush stated unequivocally that there was an Iraq/al-Qaida nexus and that there was ?no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.? In the context of what we now know the White House knew at the time, Bush was deliberately dishonest. The intelligence community repeatedly told the White House there were many deep cracks in its case for war. The president?s willingness to ignore such warnings and make these unequivocal statements proves the administration was intentionally painting a black-and-white picture when it knew the facts merited only gray at best. That has meant severe consequences for all Americans. Financially, U.S. taxpayers have shelled out more than $166 billion for the Iraq war, and more will soon be needed. Geopolitically, our country is more isolated from allies than ever, with anti-Americanism on the rise throughout the globe. And we are less secure. A recent U.S. Army War College report says ?the invasion of Iraq was a diversion from the more narrow focus on defeating al Qaeda.? U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi put it this way: ?The war in Iraq was useless, it caused more problems than it solved, and it brought in terrorism.? These statements are borne out by the facts: The International Institute of Strategic Studies in London reports al-Qaida is now 18,000 strong, with many new recruits joining as a result of the war in Iraq. Not coincidentally, the White House recently said the American homeland faces an imminent threat of a terrorist attack from a still-active al-Qaida operation in Afghanistan. Yet, the administration actually moved special forces out of Afghanistan in 2002 to prepare for an invasion of Iraq. Because of this, we face the absurd situation whereby we have no more than 20,000 troops in Afghanistan hunting down those who directly threaten us, yet have 140,000 troops in Iraq ? a country that was not a serious menace before invasion. Of course, it is those troops who have it the worst. Our men and women in uniform are bogged down in a quagmire, forced to lay down life and limb for a lie. To be sure, neoconservative pundits and Bush administration hawks will continue to blame anyone but the White House for these deceptions. They also will say intelligence gave a bit of credence to some of the pre-war claims, and that is certainly true. But nothing can negate the clear proof that President Bush and other administration official officials vastly overstated the intelligence they were given. They engaged in a calculated and well-coordinated effort to turn a war of choice in Iraq into a perceived war of imminent necessity. And we are all left paying the price. Senior editor David Sirota, who writes the ?Truth & Consequences? column in In These Times, is director of strategic communications for the Center for American Progress. Christy Harvey is deputy director of strategic communications for the Center for American Progress. For more information about In These Times, please go to www.inthesetimes.com Original Link: http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/they_knew_0802/ From mmk_savant Thu Sep 2 05:53:55 2004 From: mmk_savant (Michael Korcok) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 03:53:55 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Plea rejected Message-ID: <000401c490db$2419e190$0502a8c0@TOY> Fair enough. You had a chance. You are a raving lunatic who has lost the ability to do anything but scream incoherently. You have humiliated yourself. You hadn't read "the 180 and war crimes" before you ranted on and on and on about how I was a thought criminal and a nazi and dishonest and hiding stuff. I pointed out that EVERYTHING you thought I was hiding or misrepresenting or mis-stating WAS in that post. I even felt pity for the embarrassed and panicky realization you had of what a complete ass you had made of yourself. The pity was wasted. Your anger is misdirected at me. Your self-righteous fury is not a healthy reaction, Jeff. It wasn't my fault you started foaming at the mouth and raving about my unethical use of evidence before reading the first post. And screaming louder, shaking in righteous fury, and calling me a Nazi doesn't hide the fact that you peed on yourself. Finally, you have a new accusation, sort of. Look, you fascist moron. What "numerous pieces of evidence" did I "take out of context"? Oh wait, that isn't a genuine accusation on your part. You just think that screaming louder with uglier insults can mask the facts of what happened. Disgusting. Michael Korcok Thought Criminal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040902/1b7fb54a/attachment.html From privethedge Thu Sep 2 06:43:54 2004 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 04:43:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Plea rejected In-Reply-To: <000401c490db$2419e190$0502a8c0@TOY> Message-ID: <20040902114354.35255.qmail@web50907.mail.yahoo.com> HI, Michael..I might disagree with Jefff's poltical views, but I think he's a fine person and he isn't even close to a raving lunatic. I think he's one of the most intelligent people who writes here, so would you please just stick to the argument and drop the ad-homs? I expect ad-homs from the left, not the right, and in any case - Jeff doesn't deserve them cause his stuff makes a lot of sense, ussually! Besides, he's a good guy. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040902/dae89a16/attachment.htm From jeffrey.jarman Thu Sep 2 06:58:44 2004 From: jeffrey.jarman (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 06:58:44 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Make money judging at Wichita State Message-ID: <20040902115911.QXPZ6461.lakermmtao11.cox.net@YOUR6DDD04B03A> The tournament is September 24-26 (Fri - Sun). We'll pay 20/round CASH for any rounds you can judge. If you can cover all 9 debates (6 prelims & 3 elims) we'll pay you $200. There are a couple of meals served at the tournament and I can find lodging if anyone needs that. Let me know if you can help. Jeff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040902/e0dfe970/attachment.html From let_the_american_empire_burn Thu Sep 2 08:48:48 2004 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 08:48:48 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Top Gun for Dorks . . . ahem Geeks Message-ID: in response to : http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/JPubs/MitchellSuzuki3.rtf _ there's something a little too comprehendsible about papers of this sort. all the sentences seem a little too carefully worded, the concepts a little too abstract. perhaps i'm more inclined to poetics, but i fail to understand social scientist who deploy technical language within the generic academic format - almost as if they wanted to write like quantum physicists, but had to settle for something less. (why separate content from style? why advocate a performance that doesn't perform? and how can good ideas ever make for bland reading?)... however, if everyone else is doing it.... _ Sans introduction, this e-mail uses my mind as a point of departure to revisit long-settled questions about the feasibility of deliberative democracy. Part one considers the political importance of 'the extreme' in a world of growing mainstream mediocrity. Part two looks curiously at those who look "toward a future when competitive tournament debating and public debating come to be seen as synergistically reinforcing activities, not mutually exclusive modes of argumentative praxis". 1. Like-minded extremists Littering is certainly contagious, and has a multiplicity of forms: used soda cans, academic papers, satrical e-mails, etc. Studies of social influences on individual behavior not only demonstrate that no measure of anti-littering messages will entirely eliminate 'the litter crisis', but that anti-littering messages are themselves a sinister kind of littering - a type of trash that refuses to recognize itself as trashy. People are more likely to oppose littering when they see others opposing littering, and their desire to 'fit in' as group members blinds them to any consideration of whether their own personal littering actually matters one iota. Now consider 'the crisis of democracy'. Scholars implicitly assume that compromise between diverse perspectives is a societal plus while extremist advocacy between uncompromising parties is a societal minus. Yet what is the defintion of 'extreme' at work here? In this instance, for example : "Consider jury deliberations. Juries that begin deliberations with split opinions, but eventually reach consensus, gravitate toward compromise verdicts. However, when jurors start off agreeing about the basic facts of a case, further deliberation tends to swing the ultimate group judgment toward an EXTREME view held by one outlier juror (Brown, 1986). This theory helps explain damage award patterns in civil trials. Juries that begin deliberations split on guilt or innocence tend to impose moderate punitive damages, while juries that start out in agreement on guilt tend to undergo ?severity shifts,? veering toward the most EXTREME punitive damage award advocated in the group (Schkade, Sunstein, & Kahneman, 2000)." (All-caps emphasis added.) Isn't this a roundabout way of saying that in clear-cut cases jurors tend to demand higher punitive damages for the victims? What's unexpected about that? Is the hidden presumption here that the legal system only operates successfully when advocates create indecision among jurors so as to manufacture more moderate compromises? Left absent is any deliberation on the question of whether more 'moderate' or 'extreme' awards are appropraite, as this would probably require an impractical case-by-case consideration. So why automatically side with moderation when so-called 'extreme' punitive actions might be called for? Keep this question in mind while reading this : "Sunstein (2000, 101) calls this ?group polarization?: ?If certain people are deliberating with many like-minded others, views will not be reinforced, but instead will be shifted to more EXTREME points.? When groups engage in ?enclave deliberation? ? communicating exclusively with like-minded interlocutors, the polarization effect is heightened. This finding has serious implications for public argument, since it challenges the shopworn idea among liberal First Amendment scholars that ?more speech is always better? (Chemerinsky, 1998). Group polarization theory turns this axiom on its head: ?With respect to the Internet and new communications technologies, the implication is that groups of like-minded people, engaged in discussion with one another, will end up thinking the same thing that they did before ? but in more EXTREME form? (Sunstein, 2001, 65). Argumentation plays a key role here, since according to Sunstein (2001, 68), ?the central factor behind group polarization is the existence of a limited argument pool." (All-caps emphasis added.) What's 'extreme' mean here? Reinforcing one's beliefs by talking with folks with whom one agrees? Intensely expressing and developing one's own viewpoint? Imagining that argument and dialogue might not adequately achieve one's goals, and that other sorts of actions, even violence, might be necessary? Again, left absent is any situational context while implicit values (both positive and negative) are pre-applied to the terms. Examples of 'the extreme' are provided in the next paragraph: 'the Unorganized Militia and racial hate groups'. But Sunstein admits that the civil rights groups of the 60s and 70s were also predicated upon 'enclave deliberation' (typically centered around religious institutions)? And didn't majoritarians at the time also label these groups extremists and accuse them of disturbing the peace and fragmenting a harmonious social order ('balkanization', in so many words)? Consider the underlying assumptions of this half-sentence : "The notion that particular patterns of enclave deliberation can transform a relatively harmonious nation into to hotbed of runaway extremism and violence takes on particularly ominous overtones..." What's 'a relatively harmonious nation' mean here? A nation without violence? Or is it instead a nation where only legitimate actors can act violently and where their violence is not understood as violent? A nation where authorities act while those unauthorized to act are permitted to deliberate? And in times like these, are extreme measures ever called for? Apparently not : "Exposure to assorted ideas and interlocutors, on this logic, MODERATES the tendency of deliberative enclaves to be echo chambers that incubate EXTREMISM: '[G]roup polarization is diminished, and depolarization may result, if members have a degree of flexibility in their views and groups consist of an equal number of people with opposing views'." (All-caps emphasis added.) Again, the line between what's called 'polarization' and what might be called solidarity is left unexplored, as is the line between what's called 'flexibility' and what might be called ambivalence. In any case, none of the authors dares to examine a given political situation and ask whether moderate or extreme positions are needed - moderation is promoted across-the-board as the equalization of opposing viewpoints is prompted willy-nilly. Let us imagine a panel discussion on the topic of global warming: five scientists from both sides of the debate are asked to attend, that is, five scientist who believe global warming is occurring and is the result of human actions will be given equal time as five scientists who believe global warming is either not occuring or is not the result of human actions. Further assume that the mindset of the audience before the discussion is flexible, meaing they are open-minded and willing to be convinced by either case. And let us also imagine this: that one side in the debate is absolutely right, that global warming is a reality, and one that if not dealt with (very soon and in very extreme ways) will have catastrophic implications for all life on the planet. The ideal argumentative situation has been set up, and we'll assume that a comprehendsive and thorough discussion has taken place and audience members exit the forum more informed, more tolerant, more understanding of diverse viewpoints. Perhaps those who thought global warming was a farce have moved closer to the middle, but so too have those who thought global warming was the end of all human existence. So my overarching question: what if all the cross-fertilization and moderating influences of public discussion lead us to precisely the wrong result? What happens when 'the extreme' is what's most necessary? 2. Argumentative Mes in a world of democratic illusions Of course, no one reading this can do a damned thing about global warming, yet the illusion that we can is integral to most discussions of this kind. Consider the following utopian discourse : "This prescription could be extrapolated to a world-wide scale, where radically heterogeneous populations are increasingly called upon by the inescapable reality of interdependence to cope collectively with political, economic, and social sea changes wrought by globalization. Richard Schechner, professor of performance studies at New York University, isolates three scenarios for how the drama of globalization is likely to unfold. First, he argues, ?the boosters of globalization envision a Hollywood production full of high tech special effects starting American superheroes that dissolve national, cultural, and economic boundaries as they spread free market capitalism to every corner of the corner? (Schechner, 2002, 227). This is an optimistic vision that sees Americanization spreading around the world to stoke the fires of liberty and free enterprise. On the contrary, the second scenario is rather pessimistic. Schechner (2002, 227) regards it ?as the struggle of millions of individuals using the Internet as a global participatory forum creating new cultural myths battling against corporate conglomerates determined to privatize culture and copyright ideas.? This is a David versus Goliath story in the sense that seemingly powerless nations and individuals challenge powerful nation states and private enterprises. The third and final scenario takes a negative view. Schechner (2002, 227) notes, ?Opponents to globalization regard the fancy talk about ?technology transfers,? ?free trade,? and ?democracy? as a show staged to distract attention from what?s really happening: an ongoing process of accumulating and centralizing wealth and power.? Here, globalization rears an ugly head as the subtle vehicle of tyranny. Given the three scenarios, what is the desired course of action to be taken? Should we slow down or even stop globalization? Or should we exert our efforts to promote globalization? Whereas some people say globalization is good, others say it is bad. Our answer is: Since globalization has both positive and negative aspects, it would seem best to sort things out though intercivilizational dialogues. By ?intercivilization dialogues,? we mean constructive public arguments cutting across the boundaries of race, religion, history, and geographic location." What if no number of 'constructive public arguments' on the subject of globalization will affect how 'the drama of globalization' unfolds? Admittedly, this question is less entertaining than the ones above. It is much more fun to pretend that we have the power to choose between the three above options. No one likes to think of themselves as one ant among billions - we are the queen, we decide whether the mound will stay or move, we are the world, we are the future. In fact, that's nothing but a bad pop song. And so what exactly becomes of the difference between a debater and a spectator? What happens when performance alone is not enough to widen the pool of possible arguments, when performance itself legitimates the very structures which position themselves above debate, and when debate itself becomes a facade of pluralism, 'a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'? 3. Conclusion So what exactly is the alternative here, Mr. Mitchell? Embarrasing state secretaries of education aside, can you present examples where debate as cultural performance has achieved real world social change? Where have hybrid forensic programs succeeded? You've proposed putting more students through debate at the same time as you've said that more research is needed to determine the precise effects debate has on its students - isn't this a contradiction, or have presumed that the findings of the studies you've proposed will be positive? Do you really think a person can't think just as critically for not having spread through a 1AC or stayed up all night cutting Bush updates or placed in a national tournament? Even though you propose a synthesis between tournament competition and public debate, you've presented no evidence that such a transformation will occur, and this appears to me a critical test of your advocacy. And given the negative aspects of debate you've cited, maybe the shrinking of academic debate ain't so bad. Perhaps when this video game is over its participants will simply do what all people tend to do... move on. take this piece of litter for what it's worth, .k _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From jwpatt00 Thu Sep 2 08:48:41 2004 From: jwpatt00 (JW Patterson) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 09:48:41 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] TOC QUALIFYING TOURNAMENTS - 2005 In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20040902080220.00a748b0@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: > Following is the definitive list of the qualifying tournaments for the 2005 > TOC. No tournaments will be added until after May of 2005. Tournaments can > be be dropped as ?qualifiers? if they do not adhere to the TOC qualifying > standards. For example, in policy a tournament designated as a quarterfinal > qualifier must have at least 6 preliminary rounds and break to the > quarterfinals or the qualifying status will be reduced will be reduced to the > semifinals. > > THE ROAD TO THE SIXTH TOC OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY > > DATES: SATURDAY, SUNDAY, MONDAY > APRIL 30, MAY 1 AND 2, 2005 > > IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS FOR TOC 2005 > > 1. In policy, tournaments designated as a quarter-final or octa-final qualifer > must have at least six preliminary rounds; otherwise, the bid drops to the > semi-finals level. > > 2. A team or an LD debater must win at least one elimination round to be > eligible for a "ghost bid." For example, if a tournament breaks at the > double-octos level and is a TOC qualifier at the octos level, if two people or > teams from the same school met in the octos round, a ghost bid would be > awarded. If a tournament breaks at the octos level and is a TOC qualifier at > the quarters level, if two people or teams from the same school met in the > quarters, a ghost bid would be awarded. > > 3. In team debate, you must have two qualifiers as a team to qualify for the > TOC. If a team does not have two quals AS A TEAM, then it should submit for > an at-large bid. > > 4. Tournament Directors must submit complete result sheets on or before March > 1st, 2005. This includes the debaters full names, their schools, and states. > > > L-D OCTAFINAL qualifiers for 2004-2005: > > Barkley Forum at Emory University (GA) > The Glenbrooks (IL) > Greenhill School (TX) > Harvard University (MA) > St. Marks School (TX) > University of California at Berkeley > > L-D QUARTERFINAL qualifiers for 2004-2005: > > Apple Valley (MN) > Blake School (MN) > Crestian Classic (FL) > Florida Blue Key (FL) > Hendrick Hudson (NY) > Lexington (MA) > Manchester-by-the-Sea (MA) > Mid-America Cup at Valley (IA) > Silver and Black Invitational at Alta HS (UT) > Stanford University Spring National (CA) > Wake Forest University (NC) > Yale University (CT) > > L-D SEMIFINAL qualifiers for 2004-2005: > > Auburn Senior High School (WA) > Grapevine (TX) > Homewood (AL) > Iowa Caucuses > Isadore Newman (LA) > Monticello (NY) > Newburgh Free Academy (NY) > Ohio Valley Invitational (KY) > Omaha-Westside (NE) > Princeton University (NJ) > University of Texas at Austin > Vestavia Hills (AL) > Whitman College (WA) > > L-D FINAL ROUND qualifiers for 2004-2005: > > Arizona State University (AZ) > Archer's School For Girls (CA) > College Prep. (CA) > Colleyville-Heritage (TX) > Columbia University (NY) > Dowling (IA) > Federal Way (WA) > Hopkins Royal Cup (MN) > James Logan (CA) > Memorial-Houston (TX) > Nova (FL) > Project PRIDE/Newark City Invit. (NJ) > St. James (AL) > Westchester Classic (NY) > Winston Churchill (TX) > > > Policy OCTAFINAL qualifiers for 2004-2005: > > Barkley Forum at Emory University (GA) > The Glenbrooks (IL) > Greenhill School (TX) > Harvard University (MA) > Montgomery Bell Academy (TN) > St. Marks School (TX) > University of California at Berkeley > > Policy QUARTERFINAL qualifiers for 2004-2005: > > East Grand Rapids (MI) > Georgetown Day (DC) > Lexington (MA) > New Trier (IL) > Newburgh Free Academy (NY) > Ohio Valley Invitational (KY) > University of Michigan at Ann Arbor > University of Redlands (CA) > University of Southern California > University of Texas at Austin > Wake Forest University (NC) > > Policy SEMIFINAL qualifiers for 2004-2005: > > Blake (MN) > Colleyville-Heritage (TX) > Dowling (IA) > Grapevine (TX) > Iowa Caucus at Cedar Rapids (IA) > Isadore Newman (LA) > Maine East (IL) > Mid-America Cup at Valley (IA) > Silver and Black Invitational at Alta HS (UT) > Stanford University Spring National (CA) > University of Georgia > Vestavia Hills (AL) > > Policy FINAL ROUND qualifiers for 2004-2005: > > Arizona State University > Auburn Senior High School (WA) > Bronx High School of Science (NY) > Carrollton (GA) > Florida Blue Key > Gonzaga (WA) > Homewood (AL) > Hopkins Royal Cup (MN) > Long Beach (CA) > Memorial-Houston (TX) > Omaha-Westside (Nebraska) > Samford University (AL) > Watertown (SD) > Westminster (GA) > Whitman College (WA) > > Sincerely, > > J.W. Patterson > TOC Director and Founder > <<<< ------ End of Forwarded Message -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040902/a9c892e1/attachment.htm From kkuswa Thu Sep 2 09:21:04 2004 From: kkuswa (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 10:21:04 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] RE: Documentary on National Debate Tournament Message-ID: <12E81F39195C00468C4DE42509951D380120BF74@castor.richmond.edu> i'll look into making copies. a friend has it recorded on tivo. it's ok--not enough on the content and too much on the drama. great shot of the duck dancing. Good stuff on fullerton and louisville. some good lauren gentry footage. will be in touch on copies, kevin ps--STEVEN CLEMMONS AND I ARE STARTING A DEBATE WORKSHOP IN CALIFORNIA (Santa Clara) THIS COMING SUMMER. Should be awesome if you know students who want to come to a small camp. We are limiting it to 36 students. it will be right after NFL nationals for 23 days. More on that soon. Kevin -----Original Message----- From: Jason Sykes GHS [mailto:jason.sykes at gcisd.net] Sent: Thu 9/2/2004 12:00 AM To: Christopher Burk Cc: ksbrar at gmail.com; blain at unt.edu; kkuswa at richmond.edu; mcbaisle at garlandisd.net; arlee1 at hotmail.com; timmonsa at greenhill.org; dbreshears1969 at yahoo.com; dlingel at jesuitcp.org; Davehuston at aol.com; eric.emerson at kinkaid.org; erm868f at smsu.edu; esjenkins at hotmail.com; frappier at gem.gonzaga.edu; stables at usc.edu; dbteam at westga.edu; jbruschke at fullerton.edu; aetius80 at aol.com; jfp0001 at unt.edu; jbhoe at umich.edu; Karla_Leeper at baylor.edu; nkirkevans at hotmail.com; eber at msu.edu; smithr at wfu.edu; sharris at ku.edu; tara_l_tate at hotmail.com; will.baker at nyu.edu; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: Documentary on National Debate Tournament i second that! i'd love to get my hands on a copy--even VHS--of this program. "Christopher Burk" writes: >http://www.collegesports.com/cstv/programming/debate.html ____________________ Grapevine High School 3223 Mustang Drive Grapevine, Texas 76051 (817) 251-5210 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 6510 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040902/ff84359a/attachment.bin From bratt Thu Sep 2 09:47:43 2004 From: bratt (Ron Bratt) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 10:47:43 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Cable TV Show on NDT Message-ID: <011201c490fb$ce0e9630$0400a8c0@RonBratt> Hats off to College Sports TV for their outstanding 1 hour TV show hosted by Aaron Brown on the NDT. It really highlights the intensity of what we do and validates our activity to be on the same level as College Sports. If you have not seen it yet, go to www.cstv.com and they have a schedule. It actually was not hard for me at least to get the station from comcast as it is nationally offered as part of a Fox Sports Package for $1.99 a month on digital cable. Ronald Bratt Catholic University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040902/dc27ac55/attachment.htm From jwpatt00 Thu Sep 2 09:29:08 2004 From: jwpatt00 (JW Patterson) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 10:29:08 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] TOC QUALIFYING TOURNAMENTS - 2005 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Following is the definitive list of the qualifying tournaments for the 2005 TOC. No tournaments will be added until after May of 2005. Tournaments can be dropped as ?qualifiers? if they do not adhere to the TOC qualifying standards. For example, in policy a tournament designated as a quarterfinal qualifier must have at least 6 preliminary rounds and break to the quarterfinals or the qualifying status will be reduced to the semifinals. > > THE ROAD TO THE SIXTH TOC OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY > > DATES: SATURDAY, SUNDAY, MONDAY > APRIL 30, MAY 1 AND 2, 2005 > > IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS FOR TOC 2005 > > 1. In policy, tournaments designated as a quarter-final or octa-final qualifer > must have at least six preliminary rounds; otherwise, the bid drops to the > semi-finals level. > > 2. A team or an LD debater must win at least one elimination round to be > eligible for a "ghost bid." For example, if a tournament breaks at the > double-octos level and is a TOC qualifier at the octos level, if two people or > teams from the same school met in the octos round, a ghost bid would be > awarded. If a tournament breaks at the octos level and is a TOC qualifier at > the quarters level, if two people or teams from the same school met in the > quarters, a ghost bid would be awarded. > > 3. In team debate, you must have two qualifiers as a team to qualify for the > TOC. If a team does not have two quals AS A TEAM, then it should submit for > an at-large bid. > > 4. Tournament Directors must submit complete result sheets on or before March > 1st, 2005. This includes the debaters full names, their schools, and states. > > > L-D OCTAFINAL qualifiers for 2004-2005: > > Barkley Forum at Emory University (GA) > The Glenbrooks (IL) > Greenhill School (TX) > Harvard University (MA) > St. Marks School (TX) > University of California at Berkeley > > L-D QUARTERFINAL qualifiers for 2004-2005: > > Apple Valley (MN) > Blake School (MN) > Crestian Classic (FL) > Florida Blue Key (FL) > Hendrick Hudson (NY) > Lexington (MA) > Manchester-by-the-Sea (MA) > Mid-America Cup at Valley (IA) > Silver and Black Invitational at Alta HS (UT) > Stanford University Spring National (CA) > Wake Forest University (NC) > Yale University (CT) > > L-D SEMIFINAL qualifiers for 2004-2005: > > Auburn Senior High School (WA) > Grapevine (TX) > Homewood (AL) > Iowa Caucuses > Isadore Newman (LA) > Monticello (NY) > Newburgh Free Academy (NY) > Ohio Valley Invitational (KY) > Omaha-Westside (NE) > Princeton University (NJ) > University of Texas at Austin > Vestavia Hills (AL) > Whitman College (WA) > > L-D FINAL ROUND qualifiers for 2004-2005: > > Arizona State University (AZ) > Archer's School For Girls (CA) > College Prep. (CA) > Colleyville-Heritage (TX) > Columbia University (NY) > Dowling (IA) > Federal Way (WA) > Hopkins Royal Cup (MN) > James Logan (CA) > Memorial-Houston (TX) > Nova (FL) > Project PRIDE/Newark City Invit. (NJ) > St. James (AL) > Westchester Classic (NY) > Winston Churchill (TX) > > > Policy OCTAFINAL qualifiers for 2004-2005: > > Barkley Forum at Emory University (GA) > The Glenbrooks (IL) > Greenhill School (TX) > Harvard University (MA) > Montgomery Bell Academy (TN) > St. Marks School (TX) > University of California at Berkeley > > Policy QUARTERFINAL qualifiers for 2004-2005: > > East Grand Rapids (MI) > Georgetown Day (DC) > Lexington (MA) > New Trier (IL) > Newburgh Free Academy (NY) > Ohio Valley Invitational (KY) > University of Michigan at Ann Arbor > University of Redlands (CA) > University of Southern California > University of Texas at Austin > Wake Forest University (NC) > > Policy SEMIFINAL qualifiers for 2004-2005: > > Blake (MN) > Colleyville-Heritage (TX) > Dowling (IA) > Grapevine (TX) > Iowa Caucus at Cedar Rapids (IA) > Isadore Newman (LA) > Maine East (IL) > Mid-America Cup at Valley (IA) > Silver and Black Invitational at Alta HS (UT) > Stanford University Spring National (CA) > University of Georgia > Vestavia Hills (AL) > > Policy FINAL ROUND qualifiers for 2004-2005: > > Arizona State University > Auburn Senior High School (WA) > Bronx High School of Science (NY) > Carrollton (GA) > Florida Blue Key > Gonzaga (WA) > Homewood (AL) > Hopkins Royal Cup (MN) > Long Beach (CA) > Memorial-Houston (TX) > Omaha-Westside (Nebraska) > Samford University (AL) > Watertown (SD) > Westminster (GA) > Whitman College (WA) > > Sincerely, > > J.W. Patterson > TOC Director and Founder > <<<< ------ End of Forwarded Message ------ End of Forwarded Message -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040902/5d39606a/attachment.html From jeffrey.jarman Thu Sep 2 10:38:29 2004 From: jeffrey.jarman (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 10:38:29 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] James Roland Message-ID: <0I3F0057O7G79C@sunlight.wichita.edu> Email me, please. Thanks. Jeff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040902/0fc2a6d9/attachment.htm From jason.sykes Thu Sep 2 11:40:10 2004 From: jason.sykes (Jason Sykes GHS) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:40:10 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Re: Documentary on National Debate Tournament In-Reply-To: <12E81F39195C00468C4DE42509951D380120BF74@castor.richmond.edu> References: <12E81F39195C00468C4DE42509951D380120BF74@castor.richmond.edu> Message-ID: Thanks Kevin--I look forward to it! BTW, does anyone on this list have a copy of the 60 Minutes program on the UDL that ran some time ago? I'd really like to get a copy of that as well. Thanks! jason ____________________ Grapevine High School 3223 Mustang Drive Grapevine, Texas 76051 (817) 251-5210 From privethedge Thu Sep 2 12:13:33 2004 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 10:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Allen Santora - GMU Message-ID: <20040902171333.83935.qmail@web50905.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, Allen, if you still look at the list would you b/c me? Thanks, Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040902/dc51c89f/attachment.html From dave Thu Sep 2 14:04:19 2004 From: dave (David L. Steinberg) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 15:04:19 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Be safe Gators! Message-ID: <41376EB3.8020706@miami.edu> I would like to extend my thoughts to friends throughout Florida, especially the Irizarry family and the gator debaters who appear to be far more likely targets of Frances than we are here in south Florida. There is a genuine panic here with gas gone, ATMs empty, no bottled water left in any stores...., people fighting for cans of Tuna at publix! I just finished securing my storm shutters and now have a sense of security. So, be safe ! From oguevara Thu Sep 2 15:19:07 2004 From: oguevara (OMAR GUEVARA) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:19:07 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] CSU-Northridge invite? Message-ID: It is not on Brushke's page...anyone have a copy they could email me? OG Weber -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040902/67288ada/attachment.htm From askingdebate Thu Sep 2 14:18:33 2004 From: askingdebate (Anthony King) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 12:18:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Looking for Whalen and Bill Neesen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040902191833.82172.qmail@web50606.mail.yahoo.com> Please backchannel me asap, Tony king --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040902/44b2e3bd/attachment.html From frappier Thu Sep 2 17:13:20 2004 From: frappier (Frappier, Glen) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 15:13:20 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Gonzaga Tournament.... Message-ID: <36AE85DCADCA72409DD873C729D1AB9706F2FE8C@gem.gonzaga.edu> For those of you attending or still considering attending the Gonzaga Tournament in September: The hotel block is officially closed. Basically, we filled the entire block I reserved, and the rest of the hotel is booked on Sept. 17th for some bike race. I spoke with Justin, the reservations guy, at The River Inn and he has told me he will be able to accommodate anyone else who needs room. Basically, they're going to get you rooms at The Inn at The Park, which is another of the hotel properties, located about 3 minutes away from The River Inn. The Inn at The Park is the hotel we'll be using for the NDT. For reservations you can still call Justin Coen at (509)323-2574. If you're planning on entering the tournament I'd appreciate if you could do that in the next couple days. We're working on the hospitality right now and an accurate count of those attending always helps. Enter on the Bruschke site please. Also, if you are a good judge and would like to earn some cash that weekend, please give me a call or email me and we can definitely arrange something. That's it. Let me know if anyone has questions. Glen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040902/dc657886/attachment.htm From swcedebate Thu Sep 2 18:25:32 2004 From: swcedebate (jay derby) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 16:25:32 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Joe Koehle or delete Message-ID: Joe, could you back channel me jayspun at gmail.com Jason Southwestern College From privethedge Thu Sep 2 21:03:24 2004 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 19:03:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Wow - Best Hour of TV I ever Watched Message-ID: <20040903020324.80831.qmail@web50909.mail.yahoo.com> That documentary on the NDT was awesome!!:) My wife thought I had slipped a gear and maybe was on something when all I could do was sit there and smile and nod incoherently for about an hour watching it. Best hour of TV I ever saw. I hope that CSTV and the NDT will do this again and again and again. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040902/fae0f8ed/attachment.html From jfoy Thu Sep 2 22:45:04 2004 From: jfoy (Foy, John A.) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 21:45:04 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] NDT Documentary Message-ID: He ya'll, I'd really like a copy of the NDT documentary that was on CSTV. I want it so much that I'll pay $20.00, before you send it! That's right, an infamous moocher and abuser of trust is willing to pay upfront. Write Glue -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040902/8f8a7c9a/attachment.htm From parcherj Fri Sep 3 00:17:03 2004 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 01:17:03 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [eDebate] Real Crimes 3A Prison Abuse Message-ID: <4453175.1094188623923.JavaMail.root@wamui03.slb.atl.earthlink.net> Published on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 by Reuters Abu Ghraib General Says Told Prisoners 'Like Dogs' LONDON - The U.S. general in charge of Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was told by a military intelligence commander that detainees should be treated like dogs, she said in an interview broadcast on Tuesday. "He said they are like dogs, and if you allow them to believe at any point they are more than a dog then you've lost control of them." Janis Karpinski, the one-star general responsible for the military police who ran prisons in Iraq when pictures were taken showing prisoners being abused, said she and her soldiers were being made scapegoats for abuse ordered by others. In the interview with Britain's BBC radio, Karpinski said Geoffrey Miller, a two-star general sent to Iraq from the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, had ordered new procedures in cell blocs where Iraqis were interrogated. "He said, at Guantanamo Bay we've learned that the prisoners have to earn every single thing they have," Karpinski said. "He said they are like dogs, and if you allow them to believe at any point they are more than a dog then you've lost control of them." The United States has charged low-ranking military police officers commanded by Karpinski with abuse after several of them appeared in photographs abusing detainees. The photographs and other reports of abuse have led to hearings in Congress and fueled international outrage. But Karpinski, who has been suspended from her command for failings at Abu Ghraib but not charged with any crime, said military police would not have taken Iraqis out of their cells to pose them for photographs without being told to do so. "I was absolutely sickened by those images. And I couldn't even fathom a guess as to what happened to these people to make them go so far away from what they had been trained to do. "But I will say I know my military police personnel ... well enough to know they believed they were following instructions from a person authorized to give them instructions," she said. "We don't know yet who the individuals were that convinced them that what they were doing was to enhance the effort overall to find Saddam." Karpinski said Miller told her he planned to "Gitmo-ize" the treatment of detainees, using a colloquial term for Guantanamo. "He said every time we remove them from a cell (at Guantanamo) there's two MPs (military police) that accompany them. They have ankle chains on, they have wrist chains on and they have a belly chain on," she said. "That was the first time I said to General Miller: Sir, your conditions at Guantanamo Bay are different from our conditions here in Baghdad and throughout Iraq. You have 800 MPs to guard 640 detainees. We have 1,300 MPs to guard almost 14,000 detainees." Asked if she was "out of the loop" she said: "I was in my own loop. I was not in the loop that General Miller was creating. "The intelligence operation was directed. It was under a separate command and there was no reason for me to go out to look at Abu Ghraib at cell bloc 1a or 1b or visit the interrogation facilities." ?? Copyright 2004 Reuters Ltd From parcherj Fri Sep 3 00:17:46 2004 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 01:17:46 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [eDebate] Real Crimes 3B Prison Abuse Message-ID: <18897641.1094188667155.JavaMail.root@wamui03.slb.atl.earthlink.net> A Guide to the Memos on Torture for the hotlinks - see: http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=5579 The New York Times June 27th, 2004 The New York Times, Newsweek, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal have disclosed memorandums that show a pattern in which Bush administration lawyers set about devising arguments to avoid constraints against mistreatment and torture of detainees. Administration officials responded by releasing hundreds of pages of previously classified documents related to the development of a policy on detainees. 2002 JANUARY A series of memorandums from the Justice Department, many of them written by John C. Yoo, a University of California law professor who was serving in the department, provided arguments to keep United States officials from being charged with war crimes for the way prisoners were detained and interrogated. The memorandums, principally one written on Jan. 9, provided legal arguments to support administration officials' assertions that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to detainees from the war in Afghanistan. RELATED SITES ??? Yoo's Memo on Avoiding Geneva Conventions (PDF document) JAN. 25 Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel, in a memorandum to President Bush, said that the Justice Department's advice in the Jan. 9 memorandum was sound and that Mr. Bush should declare the Taliban and Al Qaeda outside the coverage of the Geneva Conventions. That would keep American officials from being exposed to the federal War Crimes Act, a 1996 law that carries the death penalty. RELATED SITES ??? Gonzales's Memo to Bush (PDF document) JAN. 26 In a memorandum to the White House, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said the advantages of applying the Geneva Conventions far outweighed their rejection. He said that declaring the conventions inapplicable would "reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice in supporting the Geneva Conventions and undermine the protections of the laws of war for our troops." He also said it would "undermine public support among critical allies." RELATED SITES ??? Powell's Memo to White House (PDF document) FEB. 2 A memorandum from William H. Taft IV, the State Department's legal adviser, to Mr. Gonzales warned that the broad rejection of the Geneva Conventions posed several problems. "A decision that the conventions do not apply to the conflict in Afghanistan in which our armed forces are engaged deprives our troops there of any claim to the protection of the conventions in the event they are captured." An attachment to this memorandum, written by a State Department lawyer, showed that most of the administration's senior lawyers agreed that the Geneva Conventions were inapplicable. The attachment noted that C.I.A. lawyers asked for an explicit understanding that the administration's public pledge to abide by the spirit of the conventions did not apply to its operatives. RELATED ??? Taft's Memo on Rejection of Geneva Conventions (PDF document) FEB. 7 In a directive that set new rules for handling prisoners captured in Afghanistan, President Bush broadly cited the need for "new thinking in the law of war." He ordered that all people detained as part of the fight against terrorism should be treated humanely even if the United States considered them not to be protected by the Geneva Conventions, the White House said. Document released by White House. RELATED SITES ??? Bush's Directive on Treatment of Detainees (PDF document) AUGUST A memorandum from Jay S. Bybee, with the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department, provided a rationale for using torture to extract information from Qaeda operatives. It provided complex definitions of torture that seemed devised to allow interrogators to evade being charged with that offense. RELATED SITES ??? Justice Dept. Memo on Torture (PDF document) ??? Letter by Author of Memo on Torture to White House Counsel Dec. 2 Memo from Defense Department detailing the policy for interrogation techniques to be used for people seized in Afghanistan. Document released by White House. RELATED SITES ??? Defense Dept. Memo on Afghanistan Detainees (PDF document) 2003 MARCH A memorandum prepared by a Defense Department legal task force drew on the January and August memorandums to declare that President Bush was not bound by either an international treaty prohibiting torture or by a federal anti-torture law because he had the authority as commander in chief to approve any technique needed to protect the nation's security. The memorandum also said that executive branch officials, including those in the military, could be immune from domestic and international prohibitions against torture for a variety of reasons, including a belief by interrogators that they were acting on orders from superiors "except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently unlawful.' APRIL A memorandum from Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld to Gen. James T. Hill outlined 24 permitted interrogation techniques, 4 of which were considered stressful enough to require Mr. Rumsfeld's explicit approval. Defense Department officials say it did not refer to the legal analysis of the month before. RELATED SITES ??? Rumsfeld's Memo on Interrogation Techniques (PDF document) DEC. 24 A letter to the International Committee of the Red Cross over the signature of Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski was prepared by military lawyers. The letter, a response to the Red Cross's concern about conditions at Abu Ghraib, contended that isolating some inmates at the prison for interrogation because of their significant intelligence value was a "military necessity," and said prisoners held as security risks could legally be treated differently from prisoners of war or ordinary criminals. Other Memorandums Some have been described in reports in The Times and elsewhere, but their exact contents have not been disclosed. These include a memorandum that provided advice to interrogators to shield them from liability from the Convention Against Torture, an international treaty and the Anti-Torture Act, a federal law. This memorandum provided what has been described as a script in which officials were advised that they could avoid responsibility if they were able to plausibly contend that the prisoner was in the custody of another government and that the United States officials were just getting the information from the other country's interrogation. The memorandum advised that for this to work, the United States officials must be able to contend that the prisoner was always in the other country's custody and had not been transferred there. International law prohibits the "rendition" of prisoners to countries if the possibility of mistreatment can be anticipated. Neil A. Lewis contributed to this report. Online Document Sources: Findlaw.com and National Security Archive, George Washington University (gwu.edu) From parcherj Fri Sep 3 00:18:57 2004 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 01:18:57 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [eDebate] Real Crimes 3C Prison Abuse Message-ID: <14188794.1094188737965.JavaMail.root@wamui03.slb.atl.earthlink.net> Posted on Fri, Aug. 27, 2004 Let Rumsfeld go; Abu Ghraib report too damning to ignore Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service (KRT) - The following editorial appeared in the Lexington Herald-Leader on Thursday, Aug. 26, 2004: --- The world, the American people and the Army need to see those responsible for the abuse at Abu Ghraib held accountable. That responsibility reaches all the way to the top of the Pentagon's civilian and military leadership, concluded a commission appointed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to investigate the mistreatment of prisoners. An internal Army investigation released Wednesday reinforces the commission's findings. The sickening scenes of Iraqis being tortured and humiliated by their American captors did incalculable damage to U.S. interests in Iraq and around the world. The episode shamed the U.S. military. To hold only those on the bottom accountable would be a travesty, especially in light of what these two investigations have found. Rumsfeld should resign or be fired. And some of his deputies should go as well. The independent commission headed by former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger found that Abu Ghraib had far too few military police to deal with the prison population. Couple that with weak or no oversight, and chaos reigned. The commission faulted Rumsfeld and the Defense Department for failing to set clear guidelines on interrogation. It also said that military commanders, surprised by the strength of the Iraqi insurgency, failed to seek adequate resources and personnel as prisoners poured into Abu Ghraib. By last October, just 90 guards were supposed to oversee more than 7,000 prisoners. Contrary to Bush administration contentions, the abuses were widespread and "serious both in number and effect." Prisoner abuse also was not confined to Iraq but was a problem in Afghanistan and Guantanamo as well. The incompetence, botched planning and unrealistic expectations that created the monster at Abu Ghraib are shocking. But Abu Ghraib is also a microcosm of the whole Iraq fiasco. Only voters can fire the person responsible for that. --- ?? 2004, Lexington Herald-Leader (Lexington, Ky.). Visit the World Wide Web site of the Herald-Leader at http://www.kentucky.com Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services. From parcherj Fri Sep 3 00:19:20 2004 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 01:19:20 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [eDebate] Real Crimes 3D Prison Abuse Message-ID: <24909622.1094188760987.JavaMail.root@wamui03.slb.atl.earthlink.net> US report on prison abuse a 'whitewash' ABC News Online US newspapers The New York Times and The Washington Post have opened fire at the conclusions of a report by the US Army on abuses in prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the Times calling it a "whitewashing" to exonerate the high command. "A newly released report by the Army's inspector general shows that Mr Rumsfeld's team may be turning over stones, but it's not looking under them," the Times said in an editorial. "The authors of this 300-page whitewash say they found no 'systemic' problem - even though there were 94 documented cases of prisoner abuse, including some 40 deaths, 20 of them homicides; even though only four prisons of the 16 they visited had copies of the Geneva Conventions; even though Abu Ghraib was a cesspool with one shower for every 50 inmates; even though the military police were improperly involved in interrogations; even though young people plucked from civilian life were sent to guard prisoners - 50,000 of them in all - with no training," it said. "Even the report's release on Thursday was an exercise in misdirection, timed to be overshadowed by the 9/11 commission's report," the Times noted. The Post noted "the probe concluded by sounding the defence offered up by the Pentagon ever since the photographs from Abu Ghraib prison were published: that the crimes did not result from Army policy and were not the fault of senior commanders but were 'unauthorised actions taken by a few individuals'. "This conclusion is contradicted by the independent investigations and reports of the International Committee of the Red Cross, by an earlier Army investigation undertaken before the scandal became public, and by testimony given to Congress. "Oddly, it doesn't even square with some of the findings buried in the inspector general's own report, which confirm that commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan ordered 'high-risk' interrogation procedures to be used on prisoners without adequate safeguards, training or regard for the Geneva Conventions," the Post added. From parcherj Fri Sep 3 00:26:21 2004 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 01:26:21 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [eDebate] Real Crimes 3D Prison Abuse Message-ID: <24464983.1094189181618.JavaMail.root@wamui03.slb.atl.earthlink.net> 130 Jurists Condemn White House Torture Memos by Jim Lobe Inter Press Service Nearly 130 influential U.S. jurists, including twelve former federal judges and a former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), have signed a statement denouncing Bush administration memoranda regarding the treatment of Iraqi and other detainees and accusing their authors of unprofessional conduct. The statement, in the form of an open letter sent Wednesday to President George W. Bush, other top administration officials and members of Congress, declares that the memoranda, which were drafted by political appointees in the Pentagon, the Justice Department and the White House, "seek to circumvent long established and universally acknowledged principles of law and common decency." The signers, who also include eight past presidents of the American Bar Association (ABA) and the heads of several U.S.-based international human rights groups, also call on the administration to release all other memoranda that relate to the detainee treatment and for Congress to compel their production if they are not released The memoranda "ignore and misinterpret the U.S. Constitution and laws, international treaties and rules of international law," according to the statement. "The lawyers who approved and signed these memoranda have not met their high obligation to defend the Constitution." The statement was released on the eve of the annual ABA meeting in Atlanta this weekend. The 400,000-member organization is expected to debate several resolutions condemning the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and call for an independent, bipartisan commission ??? something which the administration has so far rejected ??? to investigate how they took place and whether the memoranda contributed to a larger pattern of abuses in the war on terrorism. "The use of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment by United States personnel in the interrogation of prisoners captured in the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts has brought shame on the nation and undermined our standing in the world," according to a 20-page brief that is being submitted to the ABA's House of Delegates in support of the resolutions. "The American public still has not been adequately informed of the extent to which prisoners have been abused, tortured, or rendered to foreign governments which are known to abuse and torture prisoners," the brief states. "It is incumbent upon this organization, which makes the rule of law its touchstone, to urge the U.S. government to stop the torture and abuse of detainees, investigate violations of law and prosecute those who committed, authorized or condoned those violations, and assure that detention and interrogation practices adhere faithfully to the Constitution, laws and treaties of the United States and related customary international law." The administration, which has blamed reported abuses, including those depicted in the infamous photographs of sexual abuse and humiliation at Abu Ghraib prison, on low-ranking soldiers has insisted that the memoranda in question were never transmitted to military commanders in the field, nor did they reflect the government's actual policy. The administration has consistently maintained that it does not condone torture under any circumstances. But human rights groups and other watchdogs have contended that many of the abuses reported in Afghanistan, Iraq, and at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility have been so consistent that they appear to have been systemic. "It's not hard to see how these abstract arguments made in Washington," said Tom Malinowski, director of the Washington office of Human Rights Watch, in reference to the administration's memoranda, "led to appalling and systematic abuses that ended up doing huge damage to U.S. interests." One Pentagon memorandum, for example, asserted that the president in his role as "commander-in-chief" might choose to ignore laws, treaties, or even the Constitution regarding the treatment of prisoners in wartime. Another Justice Department memo asserts that the president has the authority to approve the infliction of extreme physical distress by redefining "torture" as "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." Similarly, mental pain and suffering does not amount to torture in the memo-writers' view, unless "it results in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years." Finally, memos by Justice and Defense Department political appointees presented a series of arguments that they said could be used as defenses against U.S. torture statutes and the UN's Convention Against Torture (CAT) that has been ratified by the United States. According to published reports, most career attorneys in the Justice, Defense and State Departments strongly opposed the positions taken in the memos but were overruled by senior political appointees. Military attorneys and the State Department were especially outspoken in arguing for applying the full range of protections to detainees, including members of the Taliban, under the Geneva Conventions, according to other memoranda that have leaked to the press. "The most senior lawyers in the Department of Justice, the White House, Department of Defense and the vice president' sought to justify actions that violate the most basic rights of all human beings," according to the jurists' statement. Among those who have been named in published accounts as responsible for the memos include former Asst. Attorney General Jay Bybee who is now a federal judge; the Pentagon's general counsel, William Haynes II, who has been nominated for a federal judgeship; Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Douglas Feith; the former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), Jack Goldsmith; and John Yoo, one of his deputies in the OLC. Most of the attorneys involved have been associated with The Federalist Society, an association of mainly far-right attorneys who gained top positions in the Bush administration, particularly in the Justice Department. "The lawyers who prepared and approved these memoranda have failed to meet their professional obligations," according to the statement, which was signed by, among others, former FBI director William Sessions, retired Chief Judge of the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals John J. Gibbons, former U.S. Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, and former Circuit Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Abner Mikva, among others. "They have counseled individuals to ignore the law and offered arguments to minimize their exposure to sanction or liability for doing so," the statement added, noting that in several cases, the memoranda ignored well-established precedents, including Supreme Court decisions, that directly contradicted their positions. Legal experts have been particularly harsh in their criticism of the attorneys in the OLC, which is supposed to provide the Attorney General with opinions that are firmly grounded in accepted law. Goldsmith resigned in June to take a position at Harvard Law School, while Yoo, who has aggressively defended the memos in public and in the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, left the administration last year for the University of California's Boalt Hall School of Law in Berkeley and the American Enterprise Institute, a neo-conservative think tank in Washington. Among the human rights groups whose directors signed the statement were Human Rights First (formerly Lawyers Committee for Human Rights), Human Rights Watch, the International League for Human Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, and the Alliance for Justice. From hansonjb Fri Sep 3 00:42:05 2004 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 22:42:05 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] need to hire judges for sept. 25 and 26 Message-ID: <023c01c49179$35f0a450$ed07070a@whitman.edu> hi we need to hire judges for sept. 25 and 26 at the reed parliamentary and nfa-ld debate tournament in portland, oregon. pay is $100 plus $15 per parli and $10 per ld elim that you judge. email me if you want to judge. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From olneych Fri Sep 3 10:41:04 2004 From: olneych (Charles E Olney) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 11:41:04 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Re: Wow - Best Hour of TV I ever Watched In-Reply-To: <20040903020324.80831.qmail@web50909.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040903020324.80831.qmail@web50909.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I wrote this back in April, but it was at the end of a long, rambling post that talked about a bunch of other stuff, so I think it might have been skipped over by a lot of people. Given the current discussion, I thought I'd re-post it: The cameras at the NDT: I was not a fan. I understand the positive aspects of having it filmed and I don?t think it was the worst idea in the world, but I think it ended up being a LOT more obtrusive, annoying, and (in some cases) downright awful than most people expected. I don?t think I?m alone in saying that I had absolutely no idea how ubiquitous the cameras would be. They were everywhere, they made a number of situations that were already filled with emotion and stress all that much worse. I didn?t like that I had to think about the fact that the cameras were running during those moments. It remains to be seen what the final project looks like, but I?m also uncomfortable with the degree to which they focused on the ?big stories,? close-ups on people crying after hearing the decision on elim day, etc. The NDT is already tense enough, you know... And one of the things that makes this community great is that everyone really cares about each other. When someone?s career ends, we?re all there to try and make it as supportive a moment as possible. The best part about the NDT, for me, has always been the dinner on Sunday night because it lets the whole community recognize every single participant. Perhaps the filming will facilitate that, but I?m skeptical. I don?t want to say that filming should be banned or anything, but I do think that if people had known beforehand how immense an operation this was going to be, they might have been less willing to participate. If anything like this is going to happen in the future, I think the community as a whole should have a large voice in discussing it. >>> I haven't seen the final product, so I don't know how that played out, but I did see what it was like during the NDT itself, and frankly that's a lot more important to me. Everyone seems to be super-excited about this thing, so maybe I'm totally off-base, but I talked to a lot of folks at the NDT who really hated it, and I think it's important that, if there are a big number of people who feel that way, we take that into consideration when making decisions about this kind of thing for the future. Charles From TM0JRB1 Fri Sep 3 11:19:59 2004 From: TM0JRB1 (John Butler) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 11:19:59 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Purchasing the Best Hour of TV Message-ID: NDT Folks: Perhaps I missed this among the many messages about the documentary, but have we, as a community, found a way to make the CSTV production available for purchase? Can the poeple originally involved in setting up the deal negotiate a way to purchase this? Is this in the works and I am simply inquiring too early? I have had no luck finding a person who gets the channel and is able to tape it for me; thus the question. If anyone knows anything official, can you let us know. John Butler, Ph.D. Assistant Professor and Director of Forensics Department of Communication Northern Illinois University DeKalb, Illinois 60115 815-753-7101 From oldmanwaterman Fri Sep 3 11:31:33 2004 From: oldmanwaterman (Old Man Waterman) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 12:31:33 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] CSTV NDT documentary on IRC Message-ID: Could someone just post a copy of the documentary on IRC or Soulseek?? None of my local cable providers have CSTV . . . seems to be a common problem. OMW _________________________________________________________________ Check out Election 2004 for up-to-date election news, plus voter tools and more! http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx From privethedge Fri Sep 3 11:37:21 2004 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 09:37:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Re: Wow - Best Hour of TV I ever Watched In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040903163721.69963.qmail@web50906.mail.yahoo.com> No..now that you share your viewpoint, I can see the truth in what you write. I can see why the filming would be tough given the circumstances of the tournament. And, from what I saw, things did get pretty emotional (I thought the footage of the..was it an elim round..between Louisville and Harvard #2 was pretty intense)..and seeing Ede yell at the judges after the 1/4's really made me: 1) Realize that I was totally ignorant about what hes' trying to do down there. After watching this show, I don't think that it's the type of debate I'd want to judge, but I have a better understanding of what he's up to now, and I can see why his teams achieve what they achieve - it is radical. 2) Stand in awe of his love for his kids - same for all the coaches (and wow, can Dr. Bruske, I know I spelt that wrong, really play piano). 3) Stand in awe that any coach would go off on a judge panel like that - but wow... But, yeah - I can see your side too. I hope a happy medium can be found so that debate junkies like me can get their fix, while debaters are left to debate in the most stress free atmosphere that can be found for them...as if. ONe thing for sure - even though I disagree with many of you on this list about political matters and life choices - I never felt more proud than to watch that show and see people that I admire, and in some cases worship, doing what they do best - it really was the best hour of TV I ever watched... Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040903/354ee4bf/attachment.html From tejinder Fri Sep 3 12:42:03 2004 From: tejinder (Tejinder Singh) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 10:42:03 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Some of my thoughts on the NDT documentary Message-ID: <002001c491dd$52c26cd0$1c01a8c0@Tejinder> I've included below a set of notes that I sent to producers involved in the making of the film. So when you read it, I'll often say, "you did this," and in that case, I'm referring to the people who made the movie. They solicited my opinion on this matter, and I thought I'd share it with y'all. I'll begin by saying that I loved the cameras at the NDT. I love attention of all stripes, and I think the people at Wonderland Productions who came out to film us were a lot of fun...in fact I'm cruising to NYC pretty soon to hang out with them some more, among others. In any case, these are my thoughts on the film, as sent to the producers, with some modifications: By making the documentary only a 45 minute feature, CSTV forced the production and editing to focus on basically providing a summary of the tournament, when the really interesting stuff about the tournament is in the details....That said, my feelings about the show were mixed: 1) I didn't particularly care for the way I came off...but then again, a lot of that was probably under my control, and perhaps I shouldn't have given y'all some of the material that I did. But now that I think about it, I don't think I really liked the way that anybody came off too much. I think this is because only vary small slices of our personalities were ever shown, and so nobody in the film really seems to resemble (personality or intellect-wise) the people that I have come to know and appreciate through years of interaction. This is especially true of Tristan Morales. I think that the way Tristan is portrayed is a tragedy. He is an awesome debater and in general, a pretty classy guy. He occasionally does some immature things like clap after he wins, but I think the decision to focus on that exclusive of his positive qualities was a mistake. He really does deserve much better. I also think that the film doesn't really demonstrate any particular debaters' talents very well. For example, if you asked me at the end of the movie who I think the best debater in the country is, I'd have to pick Dan Shalmon, because he's the only one who gets to make a complete argument on film. Then again...Dan Shalmon probably was the best debater in the country last year...but the point remains that aside from his 30 seconds of argument on the tape, the rest of us have sentence fragments and facial expressions, and it doesn't really give the audience much of an insight into what we do or why we're good at it...but that's probably impossible to do, given the time constraint and how complicated debate is, so maybe you can't really blame yourself for that. 2) I thought the show did a really good job of allowing the audience to grasp the intensity of the competition, despite the fact that there is no easy way to condense 4 days of debating into a film of less than an hour's duration. 3) I thought the clips of debates shown were generally good, but could have been better. I think that spending more time on cross examination periods, where people talk slower and debaters interact with each other, might have been a better approach than taking barely comprehensible clips of speeches. I think that the speech clips which were used served primarily to illustrate that we talk at an incomprehensible pace...which is an important point, but not really one that gains strength through repetition. 4) I liked the general organization of the film, which showed snapshots of the featured teams at each stage of the tournament. It really helped to give a global sense of perspective to the whole thing, because often while you're debating at the NDT, you only see things in your own neck of the woods, and you miss out on a lot. As a participant, it was fun for me to be able to see what other people were doing while I was in a round, or while I was preparing to debate somewhere. I think that for somebody who was not a participant, the organization of the film allows people to follow the tournament relatively easily, which could have been very difficult if the editing were not well done. The downside of this approach is that the film lacks a sense of continuity at times, but it's hard for me to imagine how you could have done it better, given your time constraints. 4) I think that this film missed a lot of what is important about the NDT. The NDT is a tournament unlike any other debate tournament in that every debater at the NDT receives an award and is acknowledged at the ceremony on Sunday night. That ceremony is a pretty beautiful thing, where the community comes together and pays respect to its leaders and to every single one of its participants. I think that in the rush to emphasize the competitive aspects of the tournament, your program missed out on one of the things which makes the debate commnity unique and interesting, which is that it actually is a community, where the people care deeply about each other. I understand that you're operating under a time constraint when you make this thing...but this is, in my mind, really important. Whether it makes for good TV or not is perhaps another question, but if your goal is to provide an audience with an insider's view of the activity, then the community aspects are vital. Additionally, the NDT is a great place to showcase what debate means to different people, and I don't really know if that came out. The film did a good job of showing how Louisville views debate, but I think it left everybody else's feelings on the matter more or less open to speculation. The fact is, debate means different things to different people, and those meanings determine, to a large degree, the way we choose to debate. A good analogy might be the documentary Spellbound, which spent a lot of time showing the children involved and their parents and the different angles and motivations they had. That's what really made that movie sweet, and it enhanced the experience of watching the actual spelling bee. A lot of my criticism of the film reminds me of what reality TV cast members say about their experience being filmed, which is that the film is mostly odd to me for what it leaves out and what it chooses to emphasize. I understand that a debate tournament may not be the most dramatic or exciting event to watch all the time, but I sort of feel like this film wound up creating extra drama when none was there, and excluding important facets of the tournament which would complete the story. Nevertheless, I think that this film can only be positive for debate as an activity, and I want to commend you on an unprecedented accomplishment and contribution to debate. My criticisms aside, this is a really well done film, and you should be proud of it. I only wish it could have been longer so that people could see what we're really about. Tejinder From gsimerly Fri Sep 3 13:28:16 2004 From: gsimerly (Greg Simerly) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 13:28:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] MTSU tournament invitation Message-ID: <4138B7C0.1060704@mtsu.edu> MTSU TOURNAMENT INVITATION August 31, 2004 Dear Friends, The Middle Tennessee State University Debate Forum, the Department of Speech and Theatre, and the College of Liberal Arts cordially invite you to the ?Boro for the Naveen ?Scott? Pejaver Debates, September 24-26, 2004. The Pejaver offers six preliminary rounds of debate on the CEDA topic in open, junior, and novice with appropriate elimination rounds, as well as six rounds of NPDA parliamentary debate with appropriate elimination rounds. We are unable to offer competition in individual events this year. The university now charges for room use by the hour, and it is exorbitant. Please note the new directions from the hotel to campus to avoid construction. We are very fortunate to have ML Sandoz of Vanderbilt University directing the tab room. We look forward to seeing you the ?Boro! Sincerely, Greg Simerly Director of Debate gsimerly at mtsu.edu (615) 898-5607 office (615) 210-1996 cell TOURNAMENT HOTEL GREAT NEWS!!! The hotel rate has dropped to $41/room, plus taxes ($10 less than last year). The usual hotel is the tournament hotel, the same hotel as the past few years. The Best Value Inn and Suites (previously the Guesthouse Inn, and before that the Shoney?s Inn) is located at 1954 S. Church Street (off Interstate 24, Murfreesboro exit 81). Speak with Bob Batel, weekdays 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. to make your reservations, (615) 896-6030. Plan on being patient. Other hotels located off I-24, exit 81: Ramada (615) 896-5080; Travelodge (615) 896-2320; Quality Inn (615) 848-9030 Hotels located off I-24, exit 78: Holiday Inn (615) 896-2420 Motel 6 (615) 890-8524 2227 Hampton Inn (615) 896-1172 Country Inns & Suites (615) 890-5951 Wingate Inn (615) 849-9000 Best Western-Chaffin Inn (615) 895-3818 Comfort Inn (615) 890-2811 Microtel (615) 904-2000 DIRECTIONS FROM HOTELS TO CAMPUS From the Best Value Inn, turn left onto S. Church St. (on Friday, you may want to hang a right, then a quick left into the discount fireworks and gasoline place, rather than fight traffic to turn left). Drive to the first light and turn right between Wendy?s and Krystal onto Rutherford Blvd. Follow Rutherford for several miles. When you cross over Main St., look for a small strip mall on the left. Get in the left lane. Go past Greek Row, and take your next left onto MTSU Blvd. Go through the first stop sign. Business & Aerospace (BAS) is the second building on your left. Drop your debaters off in the circle drive. They?ll need to go through the lobby, across the courtyard into the South lobby. Pairings will be on the second floor lobby. NAVEEN "SCOTT" PEJAVER DEBATES INFORMATION TOPIC: The CEDA policy topic will be used in each division. ENTRIES: Each college or university may enter an unlimited number of teams in each division, unless large entries create an untenable tournament management situation. We reserve the right to match teams from the same school against each other. JUDGES: Each college or university is expected to provide one qualified judge for every two teams entered. Judges should plan to judge one round beyond the point of elimination of their students. ALL DEBATE JUDGES WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE FIRST ELIMINATION ROUND ON SUNDAY. We will hire you for any unassigned rounds if you wish. We will have a very few hired judges available. You MUST speak with Greg directly to hire a judge. Hired judges will be available at $150.00 per uncovered team. We want your judges, not your money. We hope to have limited strikes available, depending on the number of teams entered and judges available. FEES: $75 per team. Please make all checks payable to the Intercollegiate Debate Association of MTSU (IDA of MTSU). We cannot accept checks made payable in any other way. CEDA STATEMENT ON SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION: This tournament abides by the CEDA Statement on Sexual Discrimination and the CEDA ethics document. The parliamentary division will follow the NPDA Rules of Debating. Parli rounds will be flighted. ENTRY DEADLINE: Tuesday, September 21, 5:00 p.m., Central. Please call, e-mail or fax your DEBATE entries and all changes prior to the deadline to Greg Simerly, (615) 898-5607 (office), fax (615) 898-5826, cell (615) 210-1996, or e-mail gsimerly at mtsu.edu. NAVEEN "SCOTT" PEJAVER DEBATE TOURNAMENT SCHEDULE Friday, September 24 2:00-3:00 p.m. Registration, Second floor Lobby of Business and Aerospace Building (BAS) (same place as last year) 3:00 Pairings released for rounds 1 & 2 4:00-6:00 Round 1 6:00-8:00 Round 2 Saturday, September 25 8:00 a.m. Pairings released for round 3, Best Value Inn & BAS Lobby 9:00-11:00 Round 3 11:30 am-1:30 p.m. Round 4 1:30-2:30 Lunch (the Grill in KUC is open) 2:30 Pairings released for round 5 3:00-5:00 Round 5 5:30-7:30 Round 6, teams clearing posted ASAP 8:00 Russ Church Memorial Reception, teams clearing posted Best Value Inn meeting room Sunday, September 26 8:00 a.m. Pairings for first elimination round, Best Value Inn & BAS Lobby 9:00-11:00 First elimination round 11:30 Awards; elims continue -- Greg Simerly Director of Debate Coordinator, Communication Studies MTSU box 43 Murfreesboro, TN 37132 (615) 898-5607 office, (615) 898-5826 fax From JeremyWilliams02 Fri Sep 3 14:44:16 2004 From: JeremyWilliams02 (JeremyWilliams02 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 15:44:16 EDT Subject: [eDebate] NEED HELP IMMEDENTLY Message-ID: My name is Jeremy . I am in NFA LD and our resolution has to do with reforming the criminal justice system. I am trying to find some who has any research on the ICCPR that they could send cause I am writing a case on it. It would help dramatically. Also, if you have an extra copy of any theory stuff, we could use it. I think that debate is an important part of society and I hope that you someone would help use your resources to help with the participation of this wonderful activity. My email address is _jeremywilliams02 at aol.com_ (mailto:jeremywilliams02 at aol.com) . If someone could help me in anyway, let me know. Our debate team will thank you alot and so would I. Also, if you have any advice on how we can develop as a team. Let me know. Thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040903/ec2e8596/attachment.htm From stannardmatt Fri Sep 3 16:30:04 2004 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 15:30:04 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Time Magazine Poll: Bush 52%, Kerry 41% Message-ID: Friday, Sep. 03, 2004 Campaign 2004: Bush Opens Double-Digit Lead TIME Poll: Among likely voters, 52% would vote for President George Bush, while 41% would vote for John Kerry and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader New York: For the first time since the Presidential race became a two person contest last spring, there is a clear leader, the latest TIME poll shows. If the 2004 election for President were held today, 52% of likely voters surveyed would vote for President George W. Bush, 41% would vote for Democratic nominee John Kerry, and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader, according to a new TIME poll conducted from Aug. 31 to Sept. 2. Poll results are available on TIME.com and will appear in the upcoming issue of TIME magazine, on newsstands Monday, Sept. 6. Most important issues: When asked what they consider are the most important issues, 25% of registered voters cited the economy as the top issue, followed by 24% who cited the war on terrorism as the top issue. The situation in Iraq was rated the top issue by 17% of registered voters, moral values issues such as gay marriage and abortion were the top issue for 16% of respondents, and health care was the most important issue for 11% of respondents. Bush vs. Kerry: The economy: 47% trust President Bush more to handle the economy, while 45% trust Kerry. Health care: 48% trust Senator Kerry to handle health care issues, while 42% trust Bush. Iraq: 53% trust Bush to handle the situation in Iraq, while 41% trust Kerry. Terrorism: 57% trust Bush to handle the war on terrorism, while 36% trust Kerry. Understanding the needs of people: 47% said they trust Kerry to understand the needs of people like themselves, while 44% trusted Bush to understand their needs. Providing strong leadership: 56% said they trust Bush to provide strong leadership in difficult times, while 37% said they trust Kerry to provide leadership in difficult times. Tax policy: 49% trust Bush to handle tax policy, while 40% trust Kerry. Commanding the Armed Forces: 54% said they trust Bush to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces, while 39% said they trust Kerry. Bush on the Issues: Iraq: Half (50%) of those surveyed approve of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, while 46% disapprove. In last week's TIME poll, 48% approved of the way Bush was handling the situation in Iraq and 48% disapproved. Terrorism: Almost two thirds (59%) said they approve of how President Bush is handling the war on terrorism, while 38% disapprove. Last week's TIME poll found 55% approved of Bush's handling of the war on terrorism, while 40% disapproved. The Economy: Survey respondents were split on the President's handling of the economy. Almost half (48%) said the approved of Bush's handling of the economy, while 48% said the disapproved. Other results include: Was U.S. Right Going to War with Iraq? Over half of those surveyed (52%) think the U.S. was right in going to war with Iraq, while 41% think the U.S. was wrong to go to war. Have the United States' actions in Iraq made the world safer? Almost half (45%) think the United States' actions in Iraq have made the world safer, while 45% think the world is more dangerous. In a similar TIME poll taken Aug. 3 - 5, over half (52%) said the world was more dangerous, and 38% said the world was safer. # # # Methodology: The TIME Poll was conducted August 31 - September 2 by telephone among a random sample of 1,316 adults, including 1,128 reported registered voters and 926 likely voters. The margin of error for registered voters is +/- 3% points, and +/- 4% points for likely voters. Schulman, Ronca, & Bucuvalas (SRBI) Public Affairs conducted the poll, and more complete results are attached. _________________________________________________________________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar ? get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ From hansonjb Fri Sep 3 18:04:25 2004 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 16:04:25 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Time Magazine Poll: Bush 52%, Kerry 41% References: Message-ID: <02e601c4920b$0337ca60$ed07070a@whitman.edu> interesting. bush has definitely gotten a boost from the swift boat "controversy" and the convention but this is by far the widest margined poll i have seen. the latest zogby poll (finished sept. 2) pegs it at: 46-43 bush. a good list of polls is at: http://www.pollingreport.com jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "matt stannard" To: Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 2:30 PM Subject: [eDebate] Time Magazine Poll: Bush 52%, Kerry 41% Friday, Sep. 03, 2004 Campaign 2004: Bush Opens Double-Digit Lead TIME Poll: Among likely voters, 52% would vote for President George Bush, while 41% would vote for John Kerry and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader New York: For the first time since the Presidential race became a two person contest last spring, there is a clear leader, the latest TIME poll shows. If the 2004 election for President were held today, 52% of likely voters surveyed would vote for President George W. Bush, 41% would vote for Democratic nominee John Kerry, and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader, according to a new TIME poll conducted from Aug. 31 to Sept. 2. Poll results are available on TIME.com and will appear in the upcoming issue of TIME magazine, on newsstands Monday, Sept. 6. Most important issues: When asked what they consider are the most important issues, 25% of registered voters cited the economy as the top issue, followed by 24% who cited the war on terrorism as the top issue. The situation in Iraq was rated the top issue by 17% of registered voters, moral values issues such as gay marriage and abortion were the top issue for 16% of respondents, and health care was the most important issue for 11% of respondents. Bush vs. Kerry: The economy: 47% trust President Bush more to handle the economy, while 45% trust Kerry. Health care: 48% trust Senator Kerry to handle health care issues, while 42% trust Bush. Iraq: 53% trust Bush to handle the situation in Iraq, while 41% trust Kerry. Terrorism: 57% trust Bush to handle the war on terrorism, while 36% trust Kerry. Understanding the needs of people: 47% said they trust Kerry to understand the needs of people like themselves, while 44% trusted Bush to understand their needs. Providing strong leadership: 56% said they trust Bush to provide strong leadership in difficult times, while 37% said they trust Kerry to provide leadership in difficult times. Tax policy: 49% trust Bush to handle tax policy, while 40% trust Kerry. Commanding the Armed Forces: 54% said they trust Bush to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces, while 39% said they trust Kerry. Bush on the Issues: Iraq: Half (50%) of those surveyed approve of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, while 46% disapprove. In last week's TIME poll, 48% approved of the way Bush was handling the situation in Iraq and 48% disapproved. Terrorism: Almost two thirds (59%) said they approve of how President Bush is handling the war on terrorism, while 38% disapprove. Last week's TIME poll found 55% approved of Bush's handling of the war on terrorism, while 40% disapproved. The Economy: Survey respondents were split on the President's handling of the economy. Almost half (48%) said the approved of Bush's handling of the economy, while 48% said the disapproved. Other results include: Was U.S. Right Going to War with Iraq? Over half of those surveyed (52%) think the U.S. was right in going to war with Iraq, while 41% think the U.S. was wrong to go to war. Have the United States' actions in Iraq made the world safer? Almost half (45%) think the United States' actions in Iraq have made the world safer, while 45% think the world is more dangerous. In a similar TIME poll taken Aug. 3 - 5, over half (52%) said the world was more dangerous, and 38% said the world was safer. # # # Methodology: The TIME Poll was conducted August 31 - September 2 by telephone among a random sample of 1,316 adults, including 1,128 reported registered voters and 926 likely voters. The margin of error for registered voters is +/- 3% points, and +/- 4% points for likely voters. Schulman, Ronca, & Bucuvalas (SRBI) Public Affairs conducted the poll, and more complete results are attached. _________________________________________________________________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From parcherj Fri Sep 3 20:17:07 2004 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 21:17:07 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [eDebate] Funerals Message-ID: <4945302.1094260627852.JavaMail.root@wamui05.slb.atl.earthlink.net> I am personally OUTRAGED that the man who sends these kids to die skips their funerals and honors them only in empty campaign advertisements and fundraisers. Mourning in America By JOHN B. ROBERTS II NYT Published: November 19, 2003 AVARRE, Fla. ??? In the middle of the night on Oct. 23, 1983, the White House learned that suicide bombers had struck in Lebanon. At the Beirut airport, 241 marines were killed in their barracks. Ten minutes later a second suicide bomber killed 58 French soldiers two miles away. The next morning I was asked if I could get away from my job in the White House policy planning office for a few days to handle the press advance if President Ronald Reagan decided to attend a memorial service for the slain marines. If the president decided to go, I said, I'd go too. I come from a military family. My father fought in World War II, Korea and Vietnam. I understood the importance of honoring fallen troops, but I didn't look forward to going to Camp Lejeune, N.C. I still remembered what it was like to have childhood friends become fatherless overnight. That evening, on Oct. 24, I received a call on an entirely different military matter. It was from Dana Rohrabacher, one of the president's speechwriters. (He's now a Republican representative from California.) American troops were landing in Grenada, he told me. He asked if I could come back to the White House to help out on a speech about the invasion that the president would give the next morning. We worked late toying with ideas to explain why sending American troops into battle was the right thing to do. Two days later, with the Grenada invasion under way, the president made up his mind about the memorial service: he was going to go. We had just over seven days to prepare, and so I grabbed the first available flight from Andrews Air Force Base to Camp Lejeune. It was a noisy cargo plane. The crew gave me disposable earplugs and directed me to a seat made of webbing. I felt out of place in my preppy-looking blue blazer and khakis. The earplugs blocked the engine drone, leaving me to my thoughts. I was uncomfortable about the task ahead. There would be grief, and anger, and raw pain mingled uneasily with patriotism and pride and a search to draw meaning from mind-numbing slaughter. My job was among the most thankless at such a time. Nobody likes the intrusion of a camera at a time of sorrow. And I was the guy responsible for making sure the press had a ringside seat. I wondered whether I would be welcomed ??? or reviled. The Marine public affairs staff members I worked with over the course of the week were professionals. They did their best to be accommodating as I laid on requirements from helicopters and vans to ferry the press, to camera platforms and extra phone lines for filing reports. When my demands exceeded their authority, the issue would move up the chain of the command. A request by the television networks to cover the memorial service live went all the way to the top. The White House supported the request, but Maj. Gen. Alfred M. Gray Jr., commander of the Second Marine Division at Camp Lejeune, and later the commandant of the Marine Corps, resisted the idea. The general, who at the time was responsible for troops in both Lebanon and Grenada, reminded me sharply that the networks' need for extra phone lines at his headquarters came second to his need to use it as a command center for Marine operations. I didn't want to pull rank and draw Michael K. Deaver, the president's chief image-maker, into the issue. Something told me the general's concerns were more about propriety than logistics. The atmosphere was tense, but I made my pitch. If coverage was limited to the network news, we would be lucky to get five minutes of broadcast time. Live television, I said, would bring the unedited memorial service into millions of homes, allowing the nation to share not only the grief but also the dignity of the service commemorating the fallen soldiers. The families would still meet privately with the president and Nancy Reagan. The press would not intrude upon that. Finally, I said that Americans had been shocked by the attack. Letting them share in the full memorial service would help restore pride. The general not only relented, but also invited me to come to the hospital with him to meet wounded marines who had just been evacuated from Grenada. There has been considerable discussion recently about whether President Bush has done enough to honor the lives of soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. While the president writes letters to the families of soldiers who have been killed and meets privately with them at military bases, he has not attended an open memorial or a military service. That's a mistake. And if given the opportunity, I would tell the president today what I told the general back then. The commander in chief should publicly honor the individual lives sacrificed in war. He should show his respect in front of the television cameras. A nation is a community, and the lives that are lost belong not just to their families, but to us all. As the only political figure who represents the whole nation, the duty of commemorating these deaths belongs uniquely to the president. As a fellow Republican, I would also offer Karl Rove some friendly political advice. Skipping memorial services makes the president look weak. It creates the impression that he values his own political standing above the lost lives of servicemen and women. Avoiding the grieving families invites demagoguery because so many of our professional soldiers come from the middle and lower classes of American society, and not the president's own privileged social class. With an election approaching, presenting the picture of a president who has time for fundraisers but not for military funerals would be an egregious mistake. Finally, there is an asymmetry to the administration's use of the military in presidential events. It is wrong to bask publicly in glory on the deck of an aircraft carrier unless you are also willing to grieve openly for fallen soldiers. You can't wrap yourself in the flag while avoiding flag-draped coffins. Two networks went live at Camp Lejeune when Nancy and Ronald Reagan arrived for the memorial service. It was a cold November morning. We had deliberately not made a rain plan, so the president and first lady stood under umbrellas. The pool press, sandwiched between the podium and the families, knelt in the soaked grass throughout the service to avoid blocking the mourners' view. I knelt with them. And although I was already shivering with cold, I will never forget the fresh chills that ran through me when I heard the sobs behind me. The president later said that going to the service was "as hard as anything" he had ever done. Days earlier, working on the Grenada speech, I had seen war almost as an abstraction. With the families at Camp Lejeune, it was depressingly real. At that moment, in that place, I felt a sense of moral accountability for my own minor role in White House affairs. My feelings couldn't have been even a tiny fraction of what the president must have felt that day. When a subsequent Pentagon review faulted Marine commanders in Beirut for lax security, the president shouldered the blame. "I took the full responsibility," he wrote in his memoir. "I was the one who had sent them there." For that reason alone, it is time for President Bush to honor the dead. John B. Roberts II, who served in the Reagan administration from 1981 to 1985, is author of "Rating the First Ladies: The Women Who Influenced the Presidency." From korryharvey Sat Sep 4 01:03:30 2004 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 23:03:30 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] bush by the numbers Message-ID: for all the clamoring over kerry's horrible senate record, maybe this is why the (official) bush campaign isn't really willing to focus on the respective candidates' records. --------------------------------------------------------------- Published on Friday, September 3, 2004 by the lndependent/UK Bush by Numbers: Four Years of Double Standards by Graydon Carter 1-- Number of Bush administration public statements on National security issued between 20 January 2001 and 10 September 2001 that mentioned al-Qa'ida. 104-- Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defense in the same period that mentioned Iraq or Saddam Hussein. 101-- Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defense in the same period that mentioned missile defense 65-- Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defense in the same period that mentioned weapons of mass destruction. 0-- Number of times Bush mentioned Osama bin Laden in his three State of the Union addresses. 73-- Number of times that Bush mentioned terrorism or terrorists in his three State of the Union addresses. 83-- Number of times Bush mentioned Saddam, Iraq, or regime (as in change) in his three State of the Union addresses. $1m-- Estimated value of a painting the Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas, received from Prince Bandar, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States and Bush family friend. 0-- Number of times Bush mentioned Saudi Arabia in his three State of the Union addresses. 1,700-- Percentage increase between 2001 and 2002 of Saudi Arabian spending on public relations in the United States. 79-- Percentage of the 11 September hijackers who came from Saudi Arabia. 3-- Number of 11 September hijackers whose entry visas came through special US-Saudi "Visa Express" program. 140-- Number of Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family, evacuated from United States almost immediately after 11 September. 14-- Number of Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) agents assigned to track down 1,200 known illegal immigrants in the United States from countries where al-Qa'ida is active. $3m-- Amount the White House was willing to grant the 9/11 Commission to investigate the 11 September attacks. $0-- Amount approved by George Bush to hire more INS special agents. $10m-- Amount Bush cut from the INS's existing terrorism budget. $50m-- Amount granted to the commission that looked into the Columbia space shuttle crash. $5m-- Amount a 1996 federal commission was given to study legalized gambling. 7-- Number of Arabic linguists fired by the US army between mid-August and mid-October 2002 for being gay. George Bush: Military man 1972-- Year that Bush walked away from his pilot duties in the Texas National Guard, Nearly two years before his six-year obligation was up. $3,500-- Reward a group of veterans offered in 2000 for anyone who could confirm Bush's Alabama guard service. 600-700-- Number of guardsmen who were in Bush's unit during that period. 0-- Number of guardsmen from that period who came forward with information about Bush's guard service. 0-- Number of minutes that President Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, the Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, the assistant Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, the former chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle, and the White House Chief of Staff, Karl Rove ? the main proponents of the war in Iraq ?served in combat (combined). 0-- Number of principal civilian or Pentagon staff members who planned the war who have immediate family members serving in uniform in Iraq. 8-- Number of members of the US Senate and House of Representatives who have a child serving in the military. 10-- Number of days that the Pentagon spent investigating a soldier who had called the President "a joke" in a letter to the editor of a Newspaper. 46-- Percentage increase in sales between 2001 and 2002 of GI Joe figures (children's toys). Ambitious warrior 2-- Number of Nations that George Bush has attacked and taken over since coming into office. 130-- Approximate Number of countries (out of a total of 191 recognized by the United Nations) with a US military presence. 43-- Percentage of the entire world's military spending that the US spends on defense (That was in 2002, the year before the invasion of Iraq.) $401.3bn-- Proposed military budget for 2004. Savior of Iraq 1983-- The year in which Donald Rumsfeld, Ronald Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East, gave Saddam Hussein a pair of golden spurs as a gift. 2.5-- Number of hours after Rumsfeld learnt that Osama bin Laden was a suspect in the 11 September attacks that he brought up reasons to "hit" Iraq. 237-- Minimum number of misleading statements on Iraq made by top Bush administration officials between 2002 and January 2004, according to the California Representative Henry Waxman. 10m-- Estimated number of people worldwide who took to the streets on 21 February 2003, in opposition to the invasion of Iraq, the largest simultaneous protest in world history. $2bn-- Estimated monthly cost of US military presence in Iraq projected by the White House in April 2003. $4bn-- Actual monthly cost of the US military presence in Iraq according to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld in 2004. $15m-- Amount of a contract awarded to an American firm to build a cement factory in Iraq. $80,000-- Amount an Iraqi firm spent (using Saddam's confiscated funds) to build the same factory, after delays prevented the American firm from starting it. 2000-- Year that Cheney said his policy as CEO of Halliburton oil services company was "we wouldn't do anything in Iraq". $4.7bn-- Total value of contracts awarded to Halliburton in Iraq and Afghanistan. $680m-- Estimated value of Iraq reconstruction contracts awarded to Bechtel. $2.8bn-- Value of Bechtel Corp contracts in Iraq. $120bn-- Amount the war and its aftermath are projected to cost for the 2004 fiscal year. 35-- Number of countries to which the United States suspended military assistance after they failed to sign agreements giving Americans immunity from prosecution before the International Criminal Court. 92-- Percentage of Iraq's urban areas with access to potable water in late 2002. 60-- Percentage of Iraq's urban areas with access to potable water in late 2003. 55-- Percentage of the Iraqi workforce who were unemployed before the war. 80-- Percentage of the Iraqi workforce who are unemployed a Year after the war. 0-- Number of American combat deaths in Germany after the Nazi surrender in May 1945. 37-- Death toll of US soldiers in Iraq in May 2003, the month combat operations "officially" ended. 0-- Number of coffins of dead soldiers returning home that the Bush administration has permitted to be photographed. 0-- Number of memorial services for the returned dead that Bush has attended since the beginning of the war. A soldier's best friend 40,000-- Number of soldiers in Iraq seven months after start of the war still without Interceptor vests, designed to stop a round from an AK-47. $60m-- Estimated cost of outfitting those 40,000 soldiers with Interceptor vests. 62-- Percentage of gas masks that army investigators discovered did Not work properly in autumn 2002. 90-- Percentage of detectors which give early warning of a biological weapons attack found to be defective. 87-- Percentage of Humvees in Iraq not equipped with armour capable of stopping AK-47 rounds and protecting against roadside bombs and landmines at the end of 2003. Making the country safer $3.29-- Average amount allocated per person Nationwide in the first round of homeland security grants. $94.40-- Amount allocated per person for homeland security in American Samoa. $36-- Amount allocated per person for homeland security in Wyoming, Vice-President Cheney's home state. $17-- Amount allocated per person in New York state. $5.87-- Amount allocated per person in New York City. $77.92-- Amount allocated per person in New Haven, Connecticut, home of Yale University, Bush's alma mater. 76-- Percentage of 215 cities surveyed by the US Conference of Mayors in early 2004 that had yet to receive a dime in federal homeland security assistance for their first-response units. 5-- Number of major US airports at the beginning of 2004 that the Transportation Security Administration admitted were Not fully screening baggage electronically. 22,600-- Number of planes carrying unscreened cargo that fly into New York each month. 5-- Estimated Percentage of US air cargo that is screened, including cargo transported on passenger planes. 95-- Percentage of foreign goods that arrive in the United States by sea. 2-- Percentage of those goods subjected to thorough inspection. $5.5bn-- Estimated cost to secure fully US ports over the Next decade. $0-- Amount Bush allocated for port security in 2003. $46m-- Amount the Bush administration has budgeted for port security in 2005. 15,000-- Number of major chemical facilities in the United States. 100-- Number of US chemical plants where a terrorist act could endanger the lives of more than one million people. 0-- Number of new drugs or vaccines against "priority pathogens" listed by the Centers for Disease Control that have been developed and introduced since 11 September 2001. Giving a hand up to the advantaged $10.9m-- Average wealth of the members of Bush's original 16-person cabinet. 75-- Percentage of Americans unaffected by Bush's sweeping 2003 cuts in capital gains and dividends taxes. $42,000-- Average savings members of Bush's cabinet received in 2003 as a result of cuts in capital gains and dividends taxes. 10-- Number of fellow members from the Yale secret society Skull and Bones that Bush has named to important positions (including the Associate Attorney General Robert McCallum Jr. and SEC chief Bill Donaldson). 79-- Number of Bush's initial 189 appointees who also served in his father's administration. A man with a lot of friends $113m-- Amount of total hard money the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign received, a record. $11.5m-- Amount of hard money raised through the Pioneer program, the controversial fund-raising process created for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign. (Participants pledged to raise at least $100,000 by bundling together checks of up to $1,000 from friends and family. Pioneers were assigned numbers, which were included on all checks, enabling the campaign to keep track of who raised how much.) George Bush: Money manager 4.7m-- Number of bankruptcies that were declared during Bush's first three years in office. 2002-- The worst year for major markets since the recession of the 1970s. $489bn-- The US trade deficit in 2003, the worst in history for a single year. $5.6tr-- Projected national surplus forecast by the end of the decade when Bush took office in 2001. $7.22tr-- US national debt by mid-2004. George Bush: Tax cutter 87-- Percentage of American families in April 2004 who say they have felt no benefit from Bush's tax cuts. 39-- Percentage of tax cuts that will go to the top 1 per cent of American families when fully phased in. 49-- Percentage of Americans in April 2004 who found that their taxes had actually gone up since Bush took office. 88-- Percentage of American families who will save less than $100 on their 2006 federal taxes as a result of 2003 cut in capital gains and dividends taxes. $30,858-- Amount Bush himself saved in taxes in 2003. Employment tsar 9.3m-- Number of US unemployed in April 2004. 2.3m-- Number of Americans who lost their jobs during first three Years of the Bush administration. 22m-- Number of jobs gained during Clinton's eight years in office. Friend of the poor 34.6m-- Number of Americans living below the poverty line (1 in 8 of the population). 6.8m-- Number of people in the workforce but still classified as poor. 35m-- Number of Americans that the government defines as "food insecure," in other words, hungry. $300m-- Amount cut from the federal program that provides subsidies to poor families so they can heat their homes. 40-- Percentage of wealth in the United States held by the richest 1 per cent of the population. 18-- Percentage of wealth in Britain held by the richest 1e per cent of the population. George Bush And his special friend $60bn-- Loss to Enron stockholders, following the largest bankruptcy in US history. $205m-- Amount Enron CEO Kenneth Lay earned from stock option profits over a four-year period. $101m-- Amount Lay made from selling his Enron shares just before the company went bankrupt. $59,339-- Amount the Bush campaign reimbursed Enron for 14 trips on its corporate jet during the 2000 campaign. 30-- Length of time in months between Enron's collapse and Lay (whom the President called "Kenny Boy") still not being charged with a crime. George Bush: Lawman 15-- Average number of minutes Bush spent reviewing capital punishment cases while governor of Texas. 46-- Percentage of Republican federal judges when Bush came to office. 57-- Percentage of Republican federal judges after three years of the Bush administration. 33-- Percentage of the $15bn Bush pledged to fight Aids in Africa that must go to abstinence-only programs. The Civil libertarian 680-- Number of suspected al-Qa'ida members that the United States admits are detained at Guant?namo Bay, Cuba. 42-- Number of nationalities of those detainees at Guantanamo. 22-- Number of hours prisoners were handcuffed, shackled, and made to wear surgical masks, earmuffs, and blindfolds during their flight to Guantanamo. 32-- Number of confirmed suicide attempts by Guantanamo Bay prisoners. 24-- Number of prisoners in mid-2003 being monitored by psychiatrists in Guantanamo's new mental ward. A health-conscious president 43.6m-- Number of Americans without health insurance by the end of 2002 (more than 15 per cent of the population). 2.4m-- Number of Americans who lost their health insurance during Bush's first year in office. Environmentalist $44m-- Amount the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign and the Republican National Committee received in contributions from the fossil fuel, chemical, timber, and mining industries. 200-- Number of regulation rollbacks downgrading or weakening environmental laws in Bush's first three years in office. 31-- Number of Bush administration appointees who are alumni of the energy industry (includes four cabinet secretaries, the six most powerful White House officials, and more than 20 other high-level appointees). 50-- Approximate number of policy changes and regulation rollbacks injurious to the environment that have been announced by the Bush administration on Fridays after 5pm, a time that makes it all but impossible for news organizations to relay the information to the widest possible audience. 50-- Percentage decline in Environmental Protection Agency enforcement actions against polluters under Bush's watch. 34-- Percentage decline in criminal penalties for environmental crimes since Bush took office. 50-- Percentage decline in civil penalties for environmental crimes since Bush took office. $6.1m-- Amount the EPA historically valued each human life when conducting economic analyses of proposed regulations. $3.7m-- Amount the EPA valued each human life when conducting analyses of proposed regulations during the Bush administration. 0-- Number of times Bush mentioned global warming, clean air, clean water, pollution or environment in his 2004 State of the Union speech. His father was the last president to go through an entire State of the Union address without mentioning the environment. 1-- Number of paragraphs devoted to global warming in the EPA's 600-page "Draft Report on the Environment" presented in 2003. 68-- Number of days after taking office that Bush decided Not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty to reduce greenhouse gases by roughly 5.2 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. The United States was to cut its level by 7 per cent. 1-- The rank of the United States worldwide in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. 25-- Percentage of overall worldwide carbon dioxide emissions the United States is responsible for. 53-- Number of days after taking office that Bush reneged on his campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. 14-- Percentage carbon dioxide emissions will increase over the next 10 years under Bush's own global-warming plan (an increase of 30 per cent above their 1990 levels). 408-- Number of species that could be extinct by 2050 if the global-warming trend continues. 5-- Number of years the Bush administration said in 2003 that global warming must be further studied before substantive action could be taken. 62-- Number of members of Cheney's 63-person Energy Task Force with ties to corporate energy interests. 0-- Number of environmentalists asked to attend Cheney's Energy Task Force meetings. 6-- Number of months before 11 September that Cheney's Energy Task Force investigated Iraq's oil reserves. 2-- Percentage of the world's population that is British. 2-- Percentage of the world's oil used by Britain. 5-- Percentage of the world's population that is American. 25-- Percentage of the world's oil used by America. 63-- Percentage of oil the United States imported in 2003, a record high. 24,000-- Estimated number of premature deaths that will occur under Bush's Clear Skies initiative. 300-- Number of Clean Water Act violations by the mountaintop-mining industry in 2003. 750,000-- Tons of toxic waste the US military, the world's biggest polluter, generates around the world each Year. $3.8bn-- Amount in the Superfund trust fund for toxic site clean-ups in 1995, the Year "polluter pays" fees expired. $0m-- Amount of uncommitted dollars in the Superfund trust fund for toxic site clean-ups in 2003. 270-- Estimated number of court decisions citing federal Negligence in endangered-species protection that remained unheeded during the first year of the Bush administration. 100-- Percentage of those decisions that Bush then decided to allow the government to ignore indefinitely. 68.4-- Average Number of species added to the Endangered and Threatened Species list each year between 1991 and 2000. 0-- Number of endangered species voluntarily added by the Bush administration since taking office. 50-- Percentage of screened workers at Ground Zero who now suffer from long-term health problems, almost half of whom don't have health insurance. 78-- Percentage of workers at Ground Zero who now suffer from lung ailments. 88-- Percentage of workers at Ground Zero who Now suffer from ear, nose, or throat problems. 22-- Asbestos levels at Ground Zero were 22 times higher than the levels in Libby, Montana, where the W R Grace mine produced one of the worst Superfund disasters in US history. Image booster for the US 2,500-- Number of public-diplomacy officers employed by the State Department to further the image of the US abroad in 1991. 1,200-- Number of public-diplomacy officers employed by the State Department to further US image abroad in 2004. 4-- Rank of the United States among countries considered to be the greatest threats to world peace according to a 2003 Pew Global Attitudes study (Israel, Iran, and North Korea were considered more dangerous; Iraq was considered less dangerous). $66bn-- Amount the United States spent on international aid and diplomacy in 1949. $23.8bn-- Amount the United States spent on international aid and diplomacy in 2002. 85-- Percentage of Indonesians who had an unfavorable image of the United States in 2003. Second-party endorsements 90-- Percentage of Americans who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president on 26 September 2001. 67-- Percentage of Americans who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president on 26 September 2002. 54-- Percentage of Americans who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president on 30 September, 2003. 50-- Percentage of Americans who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president on 15 October 2003. 49-- Percentage of Americans who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president in May 2004. More like the French than he would care to admit 28-- Number of vacation days Bush took in August 2003, the second-longest vacation of any president in US history. (Record holder Richard Nixon.) 13-- Number of vacation days the average American receives each Year. 28-- Number of vacation days Bush took in August 2001, the month he received a 6 August Presidential Daily Briefing headed "Osama bin Laden Determined to Strike US Targets." 500-- Number of days Bush has spent all or part of his time away from the White House at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, his parents' retreat in Kennebunkport, Maine, or Camp David as of 1 April 2004. No fool when it comes to the press 11-- Number of press conferences during his first three Years in office in which Bush referred to questions as being "trick" ones. Factors in his favor 3-- Number of companies that control the US voting technology market. 52-- Percentage of votes cast during the 2002 midterm elections that were recorded by Election Systems & Software, the largest voting-technology firm, a big Republican donor. 29-- Percentage of votes that will be cast via computer voting machines that don't produce a paper record. 17-- On 17 November 2001, The Economist printed a correction for having said George Bush was properly elected in 2000. $113m-- Amount raised by the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign, the most in American electoral history. $185m-- Amount raised by the Bush-Cheney 2004 re-election campaign, to the end of March 2004. $200m-- Amount that the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign expects to raise by November 2004. 268-- Number of Bush-Cheney fund-raisers who had earned Pioneer status (by raising $100,000 each) as of March 2004. 187-- Number of Bush-Cheney fund-raisers who had earned Ranger status (by raising $200,000 each) as of March 2004. $64.2m-- The Amount Pioneers and Rangers had raised for Bush-Cheney as of March 2004. 85-- Percentage of Americans who can't Name the Chief Justice of the United States. 69-- Percentage of Americans who believed the White House's claims in September 2003 that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 11 September attacks. 34-- Percentage of Americans who believed in June 2003 that Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction" had been found. 22-- Percentage of Americans who believed in May 2003 that Saddam had used his WMDs on US forces. 85-- Percentage of American young adults who cannot find Afghanistan, Iraq, or Israel on a map. 30-- Percentage of American young adults who cannot find the Pacific Ocean on a map. 75-- Percentage of American young adults who don't know the population of the United States. 53-- Percentage of Canadian young adults who don't know the population of the United States. 11-- Percentage of American young adults who cannot find the United States on a map. 30-- Percentage of Americans who believe that "politics and government are too complicated to understand." Another factor in his favor 70m-- Estimated number of Americans who describe themselves as Evangelicals who accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior and who interpret the Bible as the direct word of God. 23m-- Number of Evangelicals who voted for Bush in 2000. 50m-- Number of voters in total who voted for Bush in 2000. 46-- Percentage of voters who describe themselves as born-again Christians. 5-- Number of states that do not use the word "evolution" in public school science courses. This is an edited extract from "What We've Lost", by Graydon Carter, published by Little Brown on 9 September _________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee? Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From korryharvey Sat Sep 4 02:48:53 2004 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 00:48:53 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] medicare premiums to go up 17% in '05-- biggest jump ever Message-ID: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5908315/ _________________________________________________________________ On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement From parcherj Sat Sep 4 06:24:11 2004 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 07:24:11 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [eDebate] Stem Cell Research Message-ID: <2370972.1094297051339.JavaMail.root@wamui05.slb.atl.earthlink.net> Kinsley: The emptiness of our stem-cell research policy By Michael Kinsley MSNBC Updated: 8:47 a.m. ET Oct. 24, 2003Oct. 24 - Conservatives wonder why so many liberals don???t just disagree with President Bush???s policies but seem to dislike him personally. The story of stem-cell research may help to explain. Two years ago, Bush announced an unexpectedly restrictive policy on the use of stem cells from human embryos in federally funded medical research. Because federal funding plays such a large role, the government more or less sets the rules for major medical research in this country. If he???s got both his facts and his logic wrong???and he has???Bush???s alleged moral anguish on this subject is unimpressive. BUSH???S POLICY was that research could continue on stem-cell ???lines??? that existed at the moment of his speech, in August 2001, but that otherwise, embryo research was banned. Even surplus embryos already in the freezer at fertility clinics???where embryos are routinely created and destroyed by the thousands every year???could not be used for medical research and would have to be thrown out instead. BAD ASSUMPTIONS Bush???s professed moral concern was bolstered by two factual assumptions. One was that there were more than 60 stem-cell lines available for research. Stem cells are ???wild card??? cells. They multiply and evolve into cells for specific purposes in the human body. A ???line??? is the result of a particular cell that has been ???tweaked??? and is multiplying in the laboratory. The hope is to develop lines of cells that can be put back into human beings and be counted on to evolve into replacements for missing or defective parts. The likeliest example is dopamine-producing brain cells for people with Parkinson???s disease. The dream is replacements for whole organs or even limbs. But each line is a crapshoot. So the more lines, the better. And it turns out that the number of useful lines is more like 10 than 60. InsertArt(2050991)Bush also touted the possibility of harmlessly harvesting stem cells from adults. He said, ???Therapies developed from adult stem cells are already helping suffering people.??? This apparently referred to decades-old techniques such as removing some of a leukemia patient???s bone marrow and then reinjecting it after the patient has undergone radiation. As for finding adult stem cells that could turn into unrelated body parts, that was just a dream two years ago, and now it is not even that. A new study, reported last week in Nature, concluded that when earlier studies thought they saw new specialized cells derived from adult stem cells, they were really seeing those adult cells bonding with pre-existing specialized cells. There???s hope in this bonding process, too???but not the hope researchers had for adult stem cells, and nothing like the hope they still have for embryonic stem cells. Since Bush???s speech, scientists have used embryonic stem cells to reverse the course of Parkinson???s in rats. A RECONSIDERATION? Put it all together, and the stem cells that can squeeze through Bush???s loopholes are far less promising than they seemed two years ago while the general promise of embryonic stem cells burns brighter than ever. If you claim to have made an anguished moral decision, and the factual basis for that decision turns out to be faulty, you ought to reconsider, or your claim to moral anguish looks phony. But Bush???s moral anguish was suspect from the beginning because the policy it produced makes no sense. The week-old embryos used for stem-cell research are microscopic clumps of cells, unthinking and unknowing, with fewer physical human qualities than a mosquito. Fetal-tissue research has used brain cells from aborted fetuses, but this is not that. Week-old, lab-created embryos have no brain cells. Furthermore, not a single embryo dies because of stem-cell research, which simply uses a tiny fraction of the embryos that live and die as a routine part of procedures at fertility clinics. And actual stem-cell therapy for real patients, if it is allowed to develop, will not even need these surplus embryos. Once a usable line is developed from an embryo, the cells for treatment can be developed in a laboratory. EMBRYO AS HUMAN None of this matters if you believe that a microscopic embryo is a human being with the same human rights as you and me. George W. Bush claims to believe that, and you have to believe something like that to justify your opposition to stem-cell research. But Bush cannot possibly believe that embryos are full human beings, or he would surely oppose modern fertility procedures that create and destroy many embryos for each baby they bring into the world. Bush does not oppose modern fertility treatments. He even praised them in his anti-stem-cell speech. It???s not a complicated point. If stem-cell research is morally questionable, the procedures used in fertility clinics are worse. You cannot logically outlaw the one and praise the other. And surely logical coherence is a measure of moral sincerity. If he???s got both his facts and his logic wrong???and he has???Bush???s alleged moral anguish on this subject is unimpressive. In fact, it is insulting to the people (including me) whose lives could be saved or redeemed by the medical breakthroughs Bush???s stem-cell policy is preventing. This is not a policy disagreement. Or rather, it is not only a policy disagreement. If the president is not a complete moron???and he probably is not???he is a hardened cynic, staging moral anguish he does not feel, pandering to people he cannot possibly agree with, and sacrificing the future of many American citizens for short-term political advantage. Is that a good enough reason to dislike him personally? ?? 2004 MSNBC Interactive From GatorDebate Sat Sep 4 09:28:09 2004 From: GatorDebate (GatorDebate at aol.com) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 10:28:09 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Be safe Gators! Message-ID: <3B528970.1A1D01D1.37F60172@aol.com> Hey Dave, Thank you for the thoughts and concerns. We decided to pack up on Wednesday night and take off for South Carolina on Thursday morning. We live about 20 miles west of Daytona Beach so there is some concern that the storm could be at its strongest when it passes through our county. To all the other members of our community here in Florida I hope y'all stay safe and can make it through the storm. We're keeping our fingers crossed that our home will still be standing when we return. frank gator debate In a message dated 9/2/2004 3:04:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "David L. Steinberg" writes: > ? ?I would like to extend my thoughts to friends throughout Florida, >especially the Irizarry family and the gator debaters who appear to be >far more likely targets of Frances than we are here in south Florida. ? >There is a genuine panic here with gas gone, ATMs empty, no bottled >water left in any stores...., people fighting for cans of Tuna at >publix! ?I just finished securing my storm shutters and now have a sense >of security. ?So, be safe ! > > > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at ndtceda.com >To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: >http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From dave Sat Sep 4 10:51:59 2004 From: dave (David L. Steinberg) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 11:51:59 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Be safe Gators! In-Reply-To: <3B528970.1A1D01D1.37F60172@aol.com> References: <3B528970.1A1D01D1.37F60172@aol.com> Message-ID: <4139E49F.3020507@miami.edu> Frank, glad you and your crew got out of town. As I understand it, there is still a mess in Volusia County from Charlie. Thankfully, the intensity of Frances is way down from what it was, but there will certainly be much rain, wind and surge from Sebastian north to Flagler. Panic in South Florida has given way to boredom and inconvenience. We are trapped in our boarded up homes, advised to stay put. Businesses are closed, and yet the weather is pretty good (thank goodness!) where we are. The fury of couped up children is comparable to a hurricane, though. Local TV and News are dedicated to 24/7 hurricane coverage. This is a blessing, as it spared us W's speech and the inevitable coverage of the bounce off the R's convention. Back to another game of Risk.... Take care, dave GatorDebate at aol.com wrote: >Hey Dave, > >Thank you for the thoughts and concerns. We decided to pack up on Wednesday night and take off for South Carolina on Thursday morning. We live about 20 miles west of Daytona Beach so there is some concern that the storm could be at its strongest when it passes through our county. To all the other members of our community here in Florida I hope y'all stay safe and can make it through the storm. We're keeping our fingers crossed that our home will still be standing when we return. > >frank >gator debate > >In a message dated 9/2/2004 3:04:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "David L. Steinberg" writes: > > > >> I would like to extend my thoughts to friends throughout Florida, >>especially the Irizarry family and the gator debaters who appear to be >>far more likely targets of Frances than we are here in south Florida. >>There is a genuine panic here with gas gone, ATMs empty, no bottled >>water left in any stores...., people fighting for cans of Tuna at >>publix! I just finished securing my storm shutters and now have a sense >>of security. So, be safe ! >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>eDebate mailing list >>eDebate at ndtceda.com >>To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: >>http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at ndtceda.com >To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: >http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040904/0299c6e1/attachment.html From stannardmatt Sat Sep 4 16:14:13 2004 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 15:14:13 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] bush by the numbers Message-ID: > >$36-- Amount allocated per person for homeland security in Wyoming, >Vice-President Cheney's home state. > Damn right. I fail to see the problem here. :) stannard _________________________________________________________________ Check out Election 2004 for up-to-date election news, plus voter tools and more! http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx From mphall Sat Sep 4 23:10:38 2004 From: mphall (Hall, Michael P.) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 00:10:38 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Funerals Message-ID: <5F542458E47E8B42BF52A0071168D4BA8493A1@grumpy.University.liberty.edu> Jeff, Reasonable people can disagree about whether or not the president should attend the funerals of those killed in war. Your claim that Bush "honors them only in empty campaign advertisements and fundraisers" is false. Just a few points. 1. From the article you cite, "the president writes letters to the families of soldiers who have been killed and meets privately with them at military bases." Both honor a soldier's sacrifice and neither is an advertisement or fundraiser. 2. You're too quick to ascribe motive. There are at least two reasonable defenses given by the administration. First, there is no way the president can attend the funeral of every service member killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Selective attendance could easily be interpreted as a slight, interpreted by some families as a sign that their son or daughter's sacrifice wasn't deemed important enough for the president to attend. Second, there is a less compelling but reasonable argument to be made for the privacy of the families. I'm sure many families would like a publicly broadcast funeral with the president in attendance, but I am also pretty sure there are many other families who would rather grieve privately. I agree with Roberts' observation that service member's deaths are acts of heroism that belong to the entire nation, but disagree with your apparent conclusion that the only alternative view relies purely on political calculation. 3. You should direct an equal share of your outrage at JFK and LBJ. >From a USA Today article 12/31/2003, "Bush's absence at funerals or memorials follows a custom of the Vietnam War. Researchers at the Kennedy and Johnson libraries and archivists of President Nixon's records found no evidence that those presidents attended ceremonies or funerals for U.S. troops killed in war." Recent examples of presidential attendance involve isolated military tragedies in situations where casualties were unlikely to be ongoing (Cole bombing - Clinton, Beirut Marine barracks bombing - Reagan, failed hostage rescue - Carter). I didn't bother to look for beyond these administrations but I'd be surprised if FDR attended the funerals of all of the soldiers killed in WWII. 4. This looks like a catch 22 for Bush. Since you see Bush's motives a purely political, why would you read his attendance at a service member's funeral as anything other than an attempt to politically capitalize on their sacrifice? 5. Since you speculate about Bush's motives, I'll try my hand at mind reading. I suspect that some people are mad for unspoken and less noble reasons than yours and Roberts'. First, many in the media are steamed because they don't have unfettered access to Dover. Second, I suspect that many opponents of the Iraq War are primarily interested in the public seeing 1000 flag draped caskets in the hopes that public opinion turns against the war. Is this unreasonable? Not necessarily. Is it honoring the fallen? No. As a test imagine this. If, hypothetically, Bush's greeting of each KIA service member was wildly popular and made his reelection more likely, how many articles denouncing Bush's failure to attend their funerals would still be written? I can't imagine what it would be like to meet a son, daughter, husband, wife, father, or mother in a casket at Dover Air Force Base, and I could see how some family members would feel personally offended by the president's absence. However, there is a significant difference between arguing that Bush needs to do more to honor their sacrifice and accusing him of only caring about their value as political commodities. mph ________________________________ From: edebate-admin at ndtceda.com on behalf of Jeff Parcher Sent: Fri 9/3/2004 9:17 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Funerals I am personally OUTRAGED that the man who sends these kids to die skips their funerals and honors them only in empty campaign advertisements and fundraisers. Mourning in America By JOHN B. ROBERTS II NYT Published: November 19, 2003 AVARRE, Fla. ?EUR" In the middle of the night on Oct. 23, 1983, the White House learned that suicide bombers had struck in Lebanon. At the Beirut airport, 241 marines were killed in their barracks. Ten minutes later a second suicide bomber killed 58 French soldiers two miles away. The next morning I was asked if I could get away from my job in the White House policy planning office for a few days to handle the press advance if President Ronald Reagan decided to attend a memorial service for the slain marines. If the president decided to go, I said, I'd go too. I come from a military family. My father fought in World War II, Korea and Vietnam. I understood the importance of honoring fallen troops, but I didn't look forward to going to Camp Lejeune, N.C. I still remembered what it was like to have childhood friends become fatherless overnight. That evening, on Oct. 24, I received a call on an entirely different military matter. It was from Dana Rohrabacher, one of the president's speechwriters. (He's now a Republican representative from California.) American troops were landing in Grenada, he told me. He asked if I could come back to the White House to help out on a speech about the invasion that the president would give the next morning. We worked late toying with ideas to explain why sending American troops into battle was the right thing to do. Two days later, with the Grenada invasion under way, the president made up his mind about the memorial service: he was going to go. We had just over seven days to prepare, and so I grabbed the first available flight from Andrews Air Force Base to Camp Lejeune. It was a noisy cargo plane. The crew gave me disposable earplugs and directed me to a seat made of webbing. I felt out of place in my preppy-looking blue blazer and khakis. The earplugs blocked the engine drone, leaving me to my thoughts. I was uncomfortable about the task ahead. There would be grief, and anger, and raw pain mingled uneasily with patriotism and pride and a search to draw meaning from mind-numbing slaughter. My job was among the most thankless at such a time. Nobody likes the intrusion of a camera at a time of sorrow. And I was the guy responsible for making sure the press had a ringside seat. I wondered whether I would be welcomed ?EUR" or reviled. The Marine public affairs staff members I worked with over the course of the week were professionals. They did their best to be accommodating as I laid on requirements from helicopters and vans to ferry the press, to camera platforms and extra phone lines for filing reports. When my demands exceeded their authority, the issue would move up the chain of the command. A request by the television networks to cover the memorial service live went all the way to the top. The White House supported the request, but Maj. Gen. Alfred M. Gray Jr., commander of the Second Marine Division at Camp Lejeune, and later the commandant of the Marine Corps, resisted the idea. The general, who at the time was responsible for troops in both Lebanon and Grenada, reminded me sharply that the networks' need for extra phone lines at his headquarters came second to his need to use it as a command center for Marine operations. I didn't want to pull rank and draw Michael K. Deaver, the president's chief image-maker, into the issue. Something told me the general's concerns were more about propriety than logistics. The atmosphere was tense, but I made my pitch. If coverage was limited to the network news, we would be lucky to get five minutes of broadcast time. Live television, I said, would bring the unedited memorial service into millions of homes, allowing the nation to share not only the grief but also the dignity of the service commemorating the fallen soldiers. The families would still meet privately with the president and Nancy Reagan. The press would not intrude upon that. Finally, I said that Americans had been shocked by the attack. Letting them share in the full memorial service would help restore pride. The general not only relented, but also invited me to come to the hospital with him to meet wounded marines who had just been evacuated from Grenada. There has been considerable discussion recently about whether President Bush has done enough to honor the lives of soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. While the president writes letters to the families of soldiers who have been killed and meets privately with them at military bases, he has not attended an open memorial or a military service. That's a mistake. And if given the opportunity, I would tell the president today what I told the general back then. The commander in chief should publicly honor the individual lives sacrificed in war. He should show his respect in front of the television cameras. A nation is a community, and the lives that are lost belong not just to their families, but to us all. As the only political figure who represents the whole nation, the duty of commemorating these deaths belongs uniquely to the president. As a fellow Republican, I would also offer Karl Rove some friendly political advice. Skipping memorial services makes the president look weak. It creates the impression that he values his own political standing above the lost lives of servicemen and women. Avoiding the grieving families invites demagoguery because so many of our professional soldiers come from the middle and lower classes of American society, and not the president's own privileged social class. With an election approaching, presenting the picture of a president who has time for fundraisers but not for military funerals would be an egregious mistake. Finally, there is an asymmetry to the administration's use of the military in presidential events. It is wrong to bask publicly in glory on the deck of an aircraft carrier unless you are also willing to grieve openly for fallen soldiers. You can't wrap yourself in the flag while avoiding flag-draped coffins. Two networks went live at Camp Lejeune when Nancy and Ronald Reagan arrived for the memorial service. It was a cold November morning. We had deliberately not made a rain plan, so the president and first lady stood under umbrellas. The pool press, sandwiched between the podium and the families, knelt in the soaked grass throughout the service to avoid blocking the mourners' view. I knelt with them. And although I was already shivering with cold, I will never forget the fresh chills that ran through me when I heard the sobs behind me. The president later said that going to the service was "as hard as anything" he had ever done. Days earlier, working on the Grenada speech, I had seen war almost as an abstraction. With the families at Camp Lejeune, it was depressingly real. At that moment, in that place, I felt a sense of moral accountability for my own minor role in White House affairs. My feelings couldn't have been even a tiny fraction of what the president must have felt that day. When a subsequent Pentagon review faulted Marine commanders in Beirut for lax security, the president shouldered the blame. "I took the full responsibility," he wrote in his memoir. "I was the one who had sent them there." For that reason alone, it is time for President Bush to honor the dead. John B. Roberts II, who served in the Reagan administration from 1981 to 1985, is author of "Rating the First Ladies: The Women Who Influenced the Presidency." _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040905/a3b4fa94/attachment.htm From mphall Sat Sep 4 23:57:34 2004 From: mphall (Hall, Michael P.) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 00:57:34 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Funerals Message-ID: <5F542458E47E8B42BF52A0071168D4BA8493A4@grumpy.University.liberty.edu> Decided to look into FDR after all. To summarize, there is an established practice of presidents (including Washington, FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower) not attending funeral services for fallen soldiers. The notable exception seems to be when the president had a personal relationship with a soldier. http://www.americanheritage.com/xml/2004/1/2004_1_dept_innews.xml ________________________________ From: edebate-admin at ndtceda.com on behalf of Jeff Parcher Sent: Fri 9/3/2004 9:17 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Funerals I am personally OUTRAGED that the man who sends these kids to die skips their funerals and honors them only in empty campaign advertisements and fundraisers. Mourning in America By JOHN B. ROBERTS II NYT Published: November 19, 2003 AVARRE, Fla. ?EUR" In the middle of the night on Oct. 23, 1983, the White House learned that suicide bombers had struck in Lebanon. At the Beirut airport, 241 marines were killed in their barracks. Ten minutes later a second suicide bomber killed 58 French soldiers two miles away. The next morning I was asked if I could get away from my job in the White House policy planning office for a few days to handle the press advance if President Ronald Reagan decided to attend a memorial service for the slain marines. If the president decided to go, I said, I'd go too. I come from a military family. My father fought in World War II, Korea and Vietnam. I understood the importance of honoring fallen troops, but I didn't look forward to going to Camp Lejeune, N.C. I still remembered what it was like to have childhood friends become fatherless overnight. That evening, on Oct. 24, I received a call on an entirely different military matter. It was from Dana Rohrabacher, one of the president's speechwriters. (He's now a Republican representative from California.) American troops were landing in Grenada, he told me. He asked if I could come back to the White House to help out on a speech about the invasion that the president would give the next morning. We worked late toying with ideas to explain why sending American troops into battle was the right thing to do. Two days later, with the Grenada invasion under way, the president made up his mind about the memorial service: he was going to go. We had just over seven days to prepare, and so I grabbed the first available flight from Andrews Air Force Base to Camp Lejeune. It was a noisy cargo plane. The crew gave me disposable earplugs and directed me to a seat made of webbing. I felt out of place in my preppy-looking blue blazer and khakis. The earplugs blocked the engine drone, leaving me to my thoughts. I was uncomfortable about the task ahead. There would be grief, and anger, and raw pain mingled uneasily with patriotism and pride and a search to draw meaning from mind-numbing slaughter. My job was among the most thankless at such a time. Nobody likes the intrusion of a camera at a time of sorrow. And I was the guy responsible for making sure the press had a ringside seat. I wondered whether I would be welcomed ?EUR" or reviled. The Marine public affairs staff members I worked with over the course of the week were professionals. They did their best to be accommodating as I laid on requirements from helicopters and vans to ferry the press, to camera platforms and extra phone lines for filing reports. When my demands exceeded their authority, the issue would move up the chain of the command. A request by the television networks to cover the memorial service live went all the way to the top. The White House supported the request, but Maj. Gen. Alfred M. Gray Jr., commander of the Second Marine Division at Camp Lejeune, and later the commandant of the Marine Corps, resisted the idea. The general, who at the time was responsible for troops in both Lebanon and Grenada, reminded me sharply that the networks' need for extra phone lines at his headquarters came second to his need to use it as a command center for Marine operations. I didn't want to pull rank and draw Michael K. Deaver, the president's chief image-maker, into the issue. Something told me the general's concerns were more about propriety than logistics. The atmosphere was tense, but I made my pitch. If coverage was limited to the network news, we would be lucky to get five minutes of broadcast time. Live television, I said, would bring the unedited memorial service into millions of homes, allowing the nation to share not only the grief but also the dignity of the service commemorating the fallen soldiers. The families would still meet privately with the president and Nancy Reagan. The press would not intrude upon that. Finally, I said that Americans had been shocked by the attack. Letting them share in the full memorial service would help restore pride. The general not only relented, but also invited me to come to the hospital with him to meet wounded marines who had just been evacuated from Grenada. There has been considerable discussion recently about whether President Bush has done enough to honor the lives of soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. While the president writes letters to the families of soldiers who have been killed and meets privately with them at military bases, he has not attended an open memorial or a military service. That's a mistake. And if given the opportunity, I would tell the president today what I told the general back then. The commander in chief should publicly honor the individual lives sacrificed in war. He should show his respect in front of the television cameras. A nation is a community, and the lives that are lost belong not just to their families, but to us all. As the only political figure who represents the whole nation, the duty of commemorating these deaths belongs uniquely to the president. As a fellow Republican, I would also offer Karl Rove some friendly political advice. Skipping memorial services makes the president look weak. It creates the impression that he values his own political standing above the lost lives of servicemen and women. Avoiding the grieving families invites demagoguery because so many of our professional soldiers come from the middle and lower classes of American society, and not the president's own privileged social class. With an election approaching, presenting the picture of a president who has time for fundraisers but not for military funerals would be an egregious mistake. Finally, there is an asymmetry to the administration's use of the military in presidential events. It is wrong to bask publicly in glory on the deck of an aircraft carrier unless you are also willing to grieve openly for fallen soldiers. You can't wrap yourself in the flag while avoiding flag-draped coffins. Two networks went live at Camp Lejeune when Nancy and Ronald Reagan arrived for the memorial service. It was a cold November morning. We had deliberately not made a rain plan, so the president and first lady stood under umbrellas. The pool press, sandwiched between the podium and the families, knelt in the soaked grass throughout the service to avoid blocking the mourners' view. I knelt with them. And although I was already shivering with cold, I will never forget the fresh chills that ran through me when I heard the sobs behind me. The president later said that going to the service was "as hard as anything" he had ever done. Days earlier, working on the Grenada speech, I had seen war almost as an abstraction. With the families at Camp Lejeune, it was depressingly real. At that moment, in that place, I felt a sense of moral accountability for my own minor role in White House affairs. My feelings couldn't have been even a tiny fraction of what the president must have felt that day. When a subsequent Pentagon review faulted Marine commanders in Beirut for lax security, the president shouldered the blame. "I took the full responsibility," he wrote in his memoir. "I was the one who had sent them there." For that reason alone, it is time for President Bush to honor the dead. John B. Roberts II, who served in the Reagan administration from 1981 to 1985, is author of "Rating the First Ladies: The Women Who Influenced the Presidency." _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040905/7dce33fb/attachment.html From kkuswa Sun Sep 5 08:44:10 2004 From: kkuswa (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 09:44:10 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] please enter the UR tourney using the bruschke system Message-ID: <12E81F39195C00468C4DE42509951D380120BF8F@castor.richmond.edu> good luck to all those facing frances...... as a reminder, the UR tournament is approaching (Oct 9-11) and we are trying to make food plans and reserve enough rooms. as soon as you have some numbers, put your entry in the Bruschke system. http://commweb.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/web/Login.aspx not only does Bruschke play piano and rock as a debate coach, his program has also made it real easy to enter tournaments on-line....hope to see you here in Richmond. kevin ************************************** Dr. Kevin Douglas Kuswa (U) Director of Debating Spide(R)bate Dept. of Rhetoric and Comm. Studies University of Richmond, VA 23173 (804) 289-8269 ************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040905/24ff76d7/attachment.htm From blackmon47 Sun Sep 5 11:04:55 2004 From: blackmon47 (Neil Blackmon) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 12:04:55 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] FRANCES Update from Florida Message-ID: Hey ya'll, I just wanted to let people know what the deal was with the University of Florida folks and their families as Frances continues to bear down on Florida this morning. I spent the later part of the week helping my old man shutter up in Jupiter, Florida-- then went back to Gainesville. I talked to the debaters and it appears the debaters are fine. They spent the evening watching Top Gun and drinking lemonade. It sounded very pleasant. Marissa Silber seems to be doing quite well; though after speaking with her this morning she was a bit concerned that the power may go out. It turned out to only be a surge which caused her television to turn off for five minutes. She is terrified of fifty mile an hour wind gusts; but she is a trooper. Some folks in Gainesville have lost power; whcih makes me anxious to get back to New York, where nothing bad ever happens. As far as I know everyone's families in South Florida are okay, which is where the real tough spots were. Best-- Neil Blackmon Director of Debate, Pace University _________________________________________________________________ Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ From blackmon47 Sun Sep 5 11:19:59 2004 From: blackmon47 (Neil Blackmon) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 12:19:59 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] "W", the President, comments on Frances Message-ID: Hey ya'll, I also thought you might want to know insider news about "W", the President's, planned response to Hurricane Frances. In a statement by Dick Cheney which was relayed from his underground portal in the center of the earth directly to W, on the campaign trail in Ohio, The President indicated he will "use whatever means necessary to seek out and crush the perpetrators of this violent storm." When reminded by a young campaign aide that hurricanes were natural disasters, Bush questioned the aide's patriotism, evoked 9-11, and promptly fired him. A brief quote from that tirade: "That is where the terrorists will go next. The evildoer is crafty. Nature is an ideal weapon of mass destruction. We must seek it out, as we have done ever since we were snakebit on 9-11.Hurricanes come from Africa, young man. Have you any idea the strentgh of Al-Qaeda in Africa? Well, you should. We will crush these hurricanes; and rise from the ashes, as we did that fateful day, September 11. The people of Florida love liberty. So do Republicans. We must work together to build enduring freedom and provide electricity, a linchpin of freedom and liberty, two things Republicans love, to all Floridians." The Kerry camp released two statements. The first: "W, The President, is correct to root out evil, and hurricanes are evil. We will always respond swiftly and certainly to hurricanes and the seeds of terror they seek to sow." However, Kerry quickly recanted, citing the science that hurricanes were in fact natural disasters. "Well, our response may be swift and certain. But it may not. After all, hurricanes are a complicated issue." Bush quickly accused Kerry of not liking electricity, or liberty, and then said Frances will join terrorists in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies, and candles. _________________________________________________________________ Check out Election 2004 for up-to-date election news, plus voter tools and more! http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx From korryharvey Sun Sep 5 11:27:43 2004 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 09:27:43 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] swift vets meet 'citizens for honest fighter pilots'-- next wave of smear coming Message-ID: http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=8795&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From canteen_boy1069 Sun Sep 5 15:11:27 2004 From: canteen_boy1069 (Dustin Rimmey) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 13:11:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Mike Hester Please Message-ID: <20040905201127.84852.qmail@web51404.mail.yahoo.com> Could You Backchannel Me Please? Dustin Rimmey ESU Debate Father can you hear me?How have I let you down?I curse the day that I was bornand all the sorrow in this worldLet me take you to the herding ground where all good men are trampled downJust to settle a bet that could not be won between a prideful father and his sonWill you guide me now for I can't see a reason for the suffering and this long miseryWhat if every living soul could be upright and strong? Well then I do imagineThere will be (sorrow)Yeah there will be (sorrow)And there will be sorrow no more --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040905/23500d9d/attachment.html From korryharvey Sun Sep 5 15:35:19 2004 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 13:35:19 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] bush by the numbers Message-ID: sorry, but i hear communists aren't eligble for national security benefits. _________________________________________________________________ On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement From db8coach Sun Sep 5 16:57:40 2004 From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 14:57:40 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] More damn lies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001801c49393$5d490a80$6400a8c0@uservlilswviez> Well, as long as Korry and Jeff are being silly...... Was Bush "really" a cheerleader at Yale. This could swing the Presidency. http://www.cheerleadersfortruth.com/ Bob Lechtreck From notredamedebate Sun Sep 5 16:03:19 2004 From: notredamedebate (John Boyer) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 16:03:19 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Notre Dame Debate Message-ID: Hello all, My name is John Boyer, ome of you met me last year as the policy assistant at the University of Puget Sound. This year I am the Director of Debate at the University of Notre Dame. For the first year in a LONG time, Notre Dame will be resurrecting a policy debate team. The adminstration is committed to building a strong policy tradition at Notre Dame to go along with an already strong tradition in parliamentary debate. We plan on travelling to a few tournaments this year, and hope to be ready for the Clay Debates at Kentucky in October. If we aren't ready by then, we'll be out at Loyola or Wayne State, and have some debaters at Wake Forest. You will be seeing former Marquette Debate alum, Kiley Kane travelling with the team as the policy coach most often, but I will make it to a few tournaments as well. I'd also like to announce that we will be adding policy to the schedule of our spring tournament, the Irish Invitational, February 11-13. This is the weekend after Northwestern, and I believe the weekend of the Heart, but hopefully a few teams are able to attend our beautiful campus. Please backchannel me if you are thinking of sending a few teams to this tournament and I will get you an invitation. John Boyer Director of Debate University of Notre Dame 302 LaFortune South Bend, IN notredamedebate at gmail.com From trond Sun Sep 5 16:28:21 2004 From: trond (trond at umich.edu) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 17:28:21 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Citizens for Honest Fighter Pilots Message-ID: <1094419701.413b84f560976@web.mail.umich.edu> Jackson Baker, Memphis Flyer, 2/13/2004 http://www.memphisflyer.com/MFSearch/full_results.asp?xt_from=2&aID=2834. I suggest this story be read carefully. Honest people will compare the level of evidence (that's evidence, not coverage on Fox) provided there to that contained in the hearsay produced by Nixon's anti-Kerry operative O'Neill and the homophobe/anti-Catholic Corsi. (I am still amazed that Corsi gets a pass. What he has said is worse than anything Kerry misled about and sufficient, in my eyes, to thoroughly discredit Unfit for Command. But nobody in the "liberal media" seemed willing to throw a brush back pitch at O'Neill publicly, except Matthews. I would ask the same question over and over again: "Mr. O'Neill, why did you choose to co-author and research this book with a man says the Pope supports pedophilia? Why should Catholic voters in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida believe you if you continue to refuse to discredit these bigoted comments by your co-author?") Recall that save Gardner, not one SBVT testimonial is from a person who served with Kerry on his boat. Gardner is mentally unstable, and played a role in the Rove-directed hatchet job on McCain in SC in 2000. Schatche alone claims he was with Kerry, contradicted by all three other parties and he is unable to produce a scintilla of evidence. The nurse is either lying or making claims which not only can't be proven but are contradicted by all available evidence. Track this all at: MediaMatters.org. The same media constultants, Spaeth Communications, based in Texas I believe, and with close ties to the Bush's and Rove, produced both the anti-McCain ads and their associated media buys, and did the same for SVBT. In this story from Memphis, in contrast, we have two men who were in Montgomery, one of whom is able to explain at several levels why they would know if Bush had shown up. Recall that NO ONE, NOT ONE SOUL, NOT ONE SINGLE HUMAN BEING has stepped forward to corroborate Bush's story and Bush cannot recall the name a single person with whom he worked. Cannot recall the name of a single person. No one has stepped forward to claim Trudeau's $10,000 for someone, anyone, who can prove Bush showed up in Alabama. Why is it important? Because Bush claims he is a man of integrity, a patriot, who is sensitive to the suffering of our soldiers while resolute enough to confront our enemies. Complete and utter nonsense that only idiots or ideologues would accept, given what we know about him starting in 1966 right through the present day. No image is more clarifying on this score than Bush, when informed about the attack on the U.S., fidgeting in his seat before reading a children's book. That is inspiring stuff, George. Look, I love negative advertising, regardless of source. LOVE IT. Unfortunately going back at least to Atwater, I must confess the self-righteous stategists in the GOP, and the Bush aristocracy in particular, are exceedingly gifted in the art of the smear and most of the time the Dems are still whining about the attack as the bleeding continues. Given the track record of the Bushes, this is clearly a case where to go negative first would, truly, have been an act of self-defense in the face of an imminent threat, not a pre-emptive strike. My problem with Kerry, the Dems, and the "left"-leaning 527s is that their strong attacks have focused on mostly current policy issues, whether jobs, Iraq mismanagement, misleading use of Iraqi intelligence, etc., where what they should have done is use the many, many factual claims and other claims at least meeting the SVBT evidentiary standard, to thorougly discredit the President as a human being, member of the Guard, and dedicated citizen. If for no other reason that to help somewhat restrain Bush from ramming through his regressive agenda in a second term, a la GOP and Clinton, and to ensure that future references to the "Great President Bush" is universally met with dirisive laughter all around. LBJ wouldn't take this garbage. He'd have already produced the prostitute photos and the cashed check to the abortion clinic. Trond Jacobsen P.S. Why anyone who believes in science and rational inquiry could embrace such an obvious theocrat is hard for me to understand. True, smart people believe in god and religion. Theocratic rule by a reactionary slice of the hard right wing who believe the earth was formed in 4004 B.C. and that god will save us from global warming (if its not just a satanic plot), is something altogether different. Bush appointed to the top law enforcement post in the U.S. a man who believes, literally, that calico cats are the mark of the devil. President Bush believes god is guiding his efforts in the war on terror. Arguably, the coupling of these sentiments and the awesome power of the United States poses the greatest single threat to world peace and stability. From korryharvey Sun Sep 5 21:40:35 2004 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 19:40:35 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Thousands in Darfur flee fresh violence Message-ID: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,14658,1298055,00.html _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Guardian Unlimited Special reports Thousands in Darfurflee fresh violence, says UN.url Type: application/octet-stream Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040905/5da30774/attachment.obj From gvinedebate Mon Sep 6 08:10:01 2004 From: gvinedebate (Jane Boyd) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 08:10:01 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Forensic Coach Workshop Message-ID: <000901c49412$d1c4bbf0$68169384@jane> Forensic Coach Workshop It's Fun, Flexible, and Free! Grapevine High School, Grapevine, TX September 11th, 2004 Grapevine Classic Debate and Speech Tournament Free Instruction on coaching successful high school speech and debate is closer and more accessible than you think! Welcome to the Grapevine Classic Teacher Education Clinic! During the weekend of the Grapevine Classic, we invite new debate and speech coaches, as well as experienced coaches interested in undergoing a refresher course, to attend lecture sessions on both basic and intermediate skills involved in coaching forensic activities. Lectures by regionally and nationally successful coaches and experts will provide introductory and intermediate instruction in Policy debate, Lincoln-Douglas debate, and Individual Event speech programs. In addition, lectures will encompass general tips and guides for running and coaching a forensic program. This educational resource is offered free of charge by your friends at the NFL. Clinic Schedule The Teacher Education Clinic will be divided into eight sessions. The first session will begin on Saturday, September 11th, 2004 at 8 am. The remaining seven sessions will occur throughout the day while debate and speech activities are taking place at the Grapevine Classic Debate and Speech Tournament. We leave the lecture choices to your discretion and hope that you take advantage of all that this free clinic has to offer! The tournament also provides an excellent opportunity for you and your new students to view competition rounds free of fees or admission costs. Session 1: Sat. Sept. 11th, 8:00-9:00 am. "The Basics: How To Teach Novice Debate If You've Never Taught Debate Before" by Glenda Ferguson This session is designed as an overview of running a forensic program. All forms of speech and debate will be briefly described and teachers can expect to receive lesson plans, student information forms, and other coaching materials that will aid in the start-up of a novice program. Session 2: Sat. Sept. 11th, 9: 15-10:15 am. "Interpretation Individual Events" by Karen Baker: This session will continue the instruction offered by the introductory lecture by expanding on dramatic interpretation, humorous interpretation, duo interpretation, prose, and poetry. Coaching and student materials will be distributed Session 3: Sat. Sept. 11th, 10:30-11:30 am. "Extemporaneous Speaking: The Individual Event" by Alicia Elliot: This lecture session will serve as an introduction to extemporaneous speaking. Both U.S. and international extemporaneous speaking will be explained. Concepts of research and speech organization will also be discussed. Coaching and student materials will be distributed. Session 4: Sat. Sept. 11th, 11:45-12:45 pm "Student Congress Debate" by Dixie Waldo: From a beginner's perspective, this session will focus on the fundamentals of Congress debate. The debate's structure, resolution and bill form, procedures, and general principles will be explained. Coaching and student materials will be distributed. Session 5: Sat. Sept. 11th, 1:00-2:00 pm "Overview of the 2004-5 Policy Topic" by Stephen Bouchard: This session will serve as an introductory lecture on the policy debate topic for this school year. Research, strategy, and other technical aspects involved in successfully preparing to debate the UN Peacekeeping topic will be investigated. Coaching and student materials will be distributed. Session 6: Sat. Sept. 11th, 2:15-3:15 pm "Introduction to Lincoln-Douglas Debate" by Kandi King and Ann Turpin: >From a beginner's perspective, this session will focus on the fundamentals of Lincoln-Douglas Debate. The debate's structure, resoluform, terminology, and general principles will be explained. Coaching and student materials will be distributed. Session 7: Sat. Sept. 11th, 3:30-4:30 pm "The Kritik" by Jonathan Paul: This session will focus on the distinct policy strategy known as a kritik. By investigating and explaining this policy concept, the session audience will garner a more advanced knowledge of policy debate. Coaching and student materials will be distributed. Session 8: Sat. Sept. 11th, 4:45-5:45 pm "Original Oratory: The Individual Event" by Sally Squibb: This session will focus on the elements involved in preparing this persuasive speech, coaching the competitors, and succeeding in tournaments at this individual event. Coaching and student materials will be distributed. For more information or to confirm your attendance, please contact: National Forensic League P.O. Box 38 Ripon, WI 54971 Phone: 920-748-6206 Fax: 920-748-9478 E-mail: nfl at centurytel.net You may pre-register on the Grapevine Classic website as well. Register Now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040906/551d7872/attachment.html From doyle Mon Sep 6 13:02:44 2004 From: doyle (Doyle Srader) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 13:02:44 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] The Republican party's target demographic, ladies and gentlemen! Message-ID: <01LEJQK3KAYO002U1K@TITAN.SFASU.EDU> http://www.actupny.org/reports/rnc_nyc-kicking.mov Of course, the kicks were probably self-inflicted, right? Doyle Srader, Ph.D. Lecturer, Speech Communication Stephen F. Austin State University http://www.faculty.sfasu.edu/f_sraderdw/ "As you know, we don't have relationships with Iran. I mean, that's - ever since the late '70s, we have no contacts with them, and we've totally sanctioned them. In other words, there's no sanctions - you can't - we're out of sanctions." -- George W. Bush, Annandale, Va, Aug. 9, 2004 From hansonjb Mon Sep 6 16:14:37 2004 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 14:14:37 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] re polls showing 11 point lead for bush . . . Message-ID: <017801c49457$7cf604e0$ed07070a@whitman.edu> Differences Between Polls Full Week Tracking Update Sept 2 Bush + 2.8 August 26 Bush + 0.3 August 19 Kerry + 1.2 August 12 Kerry + 2.8 August 5 Kerry + 1.9 RasmussenReports.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- this comes from http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Poll%20Differences%20Sept%206.htm based on the zogby poll as well as others, bush probably has more like a 4 to 5 point lead right now. September 6, 2004--We have been flooded with e-mails asking (in varying tones of politeness) why our poll results seem different from those released by Time and Newsweek. There are two basic explanations, one involving our polling data and one involving the newsmagazines. For those who need to know the answer before the explanation, the bottom line is that the President is ahead by 4 to 5 points at this time. That's a significant improvement over the past few weeks, but not a double digit lead. Our current poll (showing the President ahead by just over a point) includes a Saturday sample that is way out of synch with all the days before it and with the Sunday data that followed. In fact, Saturday's one-day sample showed a big day for Kerry while all the days surrounding it showed a decent lead for the President. It seems likely that Saturday reflects a rogue sample (especially since it was over a holiday weekend). But, it remains in our 3-day rolling average for one more day (Tuesday's report). If we drop the Saturday sample from our data, Bush is currently ahead by about 4 percentage points in the Rasmussen Reports Tracking Poll. That's still a smaller lead than shown by Time and Newsweek. Those polls appear to have the mirror image problem of a Los Angeles Times poll in June reportedly showing Kerry with a huge lead. That LA Times survey included too many Democrats in their sample. Today, it seems likely that Time and Newsweek included too many Republicans. Time reports that Republicans will vote for Bush by an 89% to 9% margin; Democrats for Kerry by an 80% to 9% margin; and, unaffiliated voters for Bush 43% to 39%. Four years ago, 35% of voters were Republicans, 39% were Democrats, and the rest were unaffiliated. If you apply those percentages to the Time internals, you find Bush up by about 3 percentage points. If you do the same with the Newsweek internal numbers, you find Bush with a six point lead. Those results are very close to the Rasmussen Reports data (excluding the Saturday sample). All of this leads me to conclude that the President is currently ahead by 4 or 5 percentage points. For those who say turnout might be different this time, I agree. It might be different. One of our great challenges between now and Election Day is to figure out how much (if at all) the turnout will change from historic norms. Partisans from both sides seem convinced that there are special circumstance that will increase turnout for their team. Others speculate that their may be a smaller number of unaffiliated voters since events of the past four years have caused people to take sides. Whatever the turnout differences may be, they will not be big enough to match the implications of the Time and Newsweek polls. As always, it's useful to use common sense when reviewing poll data. If a poll suggests that 10 or 20 percent of Americans are changing their mind on a regular basis, it should be viewed with caution. Most of the time, you will find that the partisan mix of the polling sample is changing more than the actual perceptions of voters. Yesterday, we released a brief assessment of the Bush Bounce. Based upon our 7-day Tracking data (less susceptible to one-day rogue samples), it appears that the President has gained more than five points over a three week period of time. Given the Swift Boat issue and the Republican National Convention, that seems to be a reasonable measure of the shift. During the Republican Convention week, the President's numbers improved across the board. He took the lead in the 16-Battleground States, his Job Approval ratings went up to their highest levels in six months, and the number saying the country is moving in the right direction increased to its highest level of the year. Supplemental data is available for RR Premium Members Learn about Premium Membership Rasmussen Reports is an independent public opinion research firm that provides daily updates on the Presidential election and the nation's economic confidence. We also update our Electoral College projections on a regular basis. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From privethedge Mon Sep 6 19:06:40 2004 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 17:06:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] re polls showing 11 point lead for bush . . . In-Reply-To: <017801c49457$7cf604e0$ed07070a@whitman.edu> Message-ID: <20040907000640.56601.qmail@web50902.mail.yahoo.com> I don';t think any of the people on my side of this election are taking comfort from the polls. Heck, Dukasis lead Bush I in the polls, Mondale once lead Reagan, Clinton once trailed Bush. This election is wayyyy to close to take comfort on a post convention bounce. Neither side should be too happy or sad right now. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040906/fd1cacb1/attachment.htm From rachaelmccampbell Mon Sep 6 20:24:08 2004 From: rachaelmccampbell (Rachael McCampbell) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 18:24:08 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Debating Team Movie Message-ID: <00fd01c49479$5ff40dc0$12f61b04@Einstein> Someone a while back asked if anyone knew about a movie that hasn't come out yet called, "Debating Robert Lee." Anyway, I worked on it and am involved in the production. The movie is about a high school debate team and their relationship with each other and their teacher. It's set in present time in Palos Verdes, California. It's a really good ensemble cast of young people. Hopefully they will get a website up soon so you can learn more. If you like to debate and like movies with a strong message and sense of humor too, then you'll like this movie a lot! Hopefully it will be out by next year. I'll keep you posted. Thanks, Rachael rachaelmccampbell at verizon.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040906/1ebb1c6f/attachment.html From trond Mon Sep 6 20:32:28 2004 From: trond (trond at umich.edu) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 21:32:28 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Gabe Scott sighting Message-ID: <1094520748.413d0fac59e6b@web.mail.umich.edu> Flipping through the channels waiting for the Sox game tonight I game across a PBS special on the history of gold mining in North America. A segment of this show was about the USS Portland, the workhouse serving the Klondike Gold Rush, but lost in November 1912 and never found until now. Seems a man name Gabriel living in Cordova located this ship wreck during low tide in Kallal Bay (?). The show's host started talking about how she went to Cordova to talk to Gabriel and as she is walking out the pier I see this smiling red head come into view. Gabe's find was confirmed by nautical archaeologists and the site was nominated as a National Historic Site. Nice work. Miss you Gabe Scott. Trond Jacobsen From MWBRYANT Mon Sep 6 20:54:40 2004 From: MWBRYANT (MWBRYANT at aol.com) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 21:54:40 EDT Subject: [eDebate] CSTV Movie Message-ID: <158.3e721d11.2e6e6ee0@aol.com> Does anyone know if the movie is going to be shown again? Times? Bear -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040906/8c08ebf5/attachment.htm From parcherj Mon Sep 6 22:31:02 2004 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 23:31:02 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Funerals References: <5F542458E47E8B42BF52A0071168D4BA8493A1@grumpy.University.liberty.edu> Message-ID: <213701c4948b$1a24c980$2060fea9@Jeff> Mike - Good to hear from you. Hope all is well. My reactions below. >2. You're too quick to ascribe motive. There are at least two reasonable defenses given by the administration. First, there is no way the president can >attend >the funeral of every service member killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. No one would suggest the President should attend every funeral - that is an obvious straw man and you know it. LBJ chose two funerals to attend. Reagan went to the memorial service for the marines killed in lebanon rather than their individual funerals. Though he did attend a number of other individual funerals (from Grenada, I believe). Carter attended the memorial service for the soldiers killed in the hostage rescue attempt. Clinton went to a service for the men killed in the Cole Attack. Private letters and vists to a few of the family members represent to me the MINIMUM of what the Commander-in-Chief has should be prepared to do. He's the commanding officers and the leader of a DEMOCRACY. A public acceptance of his responsibility and show of his mourning seems appropriate. And despite the lies told by Bush's press secretary and numerous other apologists for the administration: past Presidents HAVE attended funerals, memorial services and gone to other PUBLIC lengths to accept responsibility, honor and commemorate the service of men and women of die under their command. Perhaps the greatest speech ever made by an American President was the Gettysberg address delivered at a mass memorial at a cemetary. >Selective attendance could easily be interpreted as a slight, interpreted by some families as a sign that their son or daughter's sacrifice wasn't deemed important >enough for the president to attend. This seems like pure rationalization. It didn't stop Reagan or others and a Presidential attendance at a single funeral would obviously be explained and interpreted as symbolic of the President honoring all of those that have served and died under his command. >Second, there is a less compelling but reasonable argument to be made for the privacy of the families. I'm sure many families would like a publicly broadcast >funeral with the president in attendance, but I am also pretty sure there are many other families who would rather grieve privately. I agree with Roberts' >observation that service member's deaths are acts of heroism that belong to the entire nation, but disagree with your apparent conclusion that the only alternative >view relies purely on political calculation. Obviously the President would not attend a funeral against the wishes of a family. I think it's naive to believe most families would not be overwhelmingly honored to have the President attend. As for the poltical calculation - I believe the calculus that President only honor soldiers privately is purely political. I will show you some additionaly evidence of that below. >3. You should direct an equal share of your outrage at JFK and LBJ. From a USA Today article 12/31/2003, "Bush's absence at funerals or memorials follows >a custom of the Vietnam War. Researchers at the Kennedy and Johnson libraries and archivists of President Nixon's records found no evidence that those >presidents attended ceremonies or funerals for U.S. troops killed in war." Recent examples of presidential attendance involve isolated military tragedies in >situations where casualties were unlikely to be ongoing (Cole bombing - Clinton, Beirut Marine barracks bombing - Reagan, failed hostage rescue - Carter). I >didn't bother to look for beyond these administrations but I'd be surprised if FDR attended the funerals of all of the soldiers killed in WWII. See above. Your source is innaccurate LBJ attended two funerals. One was for a soldier that he had met. See: http://hnn.us/articles/1784.html. The author's choice to distinguish between one time events and ongoing conflicts is odd and the fact that he seems to have entirely missed Reagan and LBJ's attendance makes me thinks it's either partisan or very sloppy journalism >4. This looks like a catch 22 for Bush. Since you see Bush's motives a purely political, why would you read his attendance at a service member's funeral as >anything other than an attempt to politically capitalize on their sacrifice? Obviously it depends on the context. If he were to change his mind now and attend - I'd be suspicious of his motives, of course. But your argument seems to admit that the reason for his non-attendance is in fact politically based which is my point. I doubt that Ronald Reagan cared about how his attendance would effect his popularity. He fealt obliged to attend. >5. Since you speculate about Bush's motives, I'll try my hand at mind reading. I suspect that some people are mad for unspoken and less noble reasons than >yours and Roberts'. First, many in the media are steamed because they don't have unfettered access to Dover. Second, I suspect that many opponents of the >Iraq War are primarily interested in the public seeing 1000 flag draped caskets in the hopes that public opinion turns against the war. Is this unreasonable? Not >necessarily. Is it honoring the fallen? No. As a test imagine this. If, hypothetically, Bush's greeting of each KIA service member was wildly popular and made >his reelection more likely, how many articles denouncing Bush's failure to attend their funerals would still be written? I have no doubt that seeing Bush greeting caskets coming back from Iraq would be a net political negative for the President. And I'm sure some people only criticize him for THAT reason. I criticize for a combination of those reasons. Deaths are the cost of the war. A war I initially supported by the way. And I do not believe the costs of any policy should ever be hidden. We live in a democracy and for people to decide whether Iraq has been worth it - we should be able to see the faces and feel some of the pain of those who have been sacrificed. You cannot be saying that it's good to hide casualties can you? >I can't imagine what it would be like to meet a son, daughter, husband, wife, father, or mother in a casket at Dover Air Force Base, and I could see how some >family members would feel personally offended by the president's absence. However, there is a significant difference between arguing that Bush needs to do more >to honor their sacrifice and accusing him of only caring about their value as political commodities. The reason I said he honors them only in political advetisements and fund raisers is because the President has not been hesitant in any way to politicize the miltary for his reelection. We've seen him IN IRAQ serving turkey for god's sake. They put him on an aircraft carrier. He praises our military constantly. He attended in a very public way, the memorial for the Pentagon victims of 9-11. Yet, when it comes to soldiers deaths in Iraq he is MIA. I find it difficult to believe you do not find this behavior highly hypocritical at the least. For me it reveals the motive. That's my opinion. I can't know what's in the man's heart. I can only guess from his actions. When Carter took the fall for the failed hostage rescue and went to the memorial service that told me something about his heart. When Reagan took the fall for Lebanon and went to the service that told me something about his heart. Watching Bush wrap himself in glamour of the military aexceptt when it might be politically inexpedient tell me something about him too. JP From parcherj Mon Sep 6 22:54:44 2004 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 23:54:44 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Funerals References: <5F542458E47E8B42BF52A0071168D4BA8493A4@grumpy.University.liberty.edu> Message-ID: <215001c4948e$69ffdfa0$2060fea9@Jeff> >To summarize, there is an established practice of presidents (including Washington, FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower) not attending funeral services for >fallen soldiers. The notable exception seems to be when the president had a personal relationship with a soldier. >http://www.americanheritage.com/xml/2004/1/2004_1_dept_innews.xml I listed the services attended by recent Presidents and posted the link. If you read that link, you'll note the Marlin Fitzwater says Bush Senior attended 2 individual funerals. Though there is no public record that they could find. Which illustrates some of the difficulty with this argument. It is quite possible that FDR. IKE or Truman attended funerals and there simply is no record. The press allowed events like this to be private in those days. And even Reagan's attendance at individual funerals is mentioned only briefly in press stories of the time. In any event, there's quite few documented examples of recent Presidents attending funerals/services so I think this article citing non-attendance as the rule seems a bit off. But perhaps more relelvantly, it discusses all the public ways in which these presidents memorialized men and women who died under their command. Ike and FDR attended memorials on oversees visits to Asia and Europe. They went to the gravesites. Things which Bush has not done. JP From parcherj Mon Sep 6 22:59:22 2004 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 23:59:22 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Hiding Casualties References: <24464983.1094189181618.JavaMail.root@wamui03.slb.atl.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <217501c4948f$0f50bc40$2060fea9@Jeff> Published on Sunday, November 2, 2003 by the Toronto Star Pentagon Keeps Dead Out of Sight Bush Team Doesn't Want People to See Human Cost of War Even Body Bags are Now Sanitized as 'Transfer Tubes' by Tim Harper WASHINGTON-Charles H. Buehring came home last week. He arrived at the air force base in Dover, Del., in the middle of the night, in an aluminum shipping case draped in an American flag. When the military truck drove his remains across the tarmac, workers paused and removed their hats. He was met by a six-member honor guard acting as pallbearers, to allow a "dignified transfer" to the Charles C. Carson mortuary, where he became one of an estimated 60,000 American casualties of war that have been processed there over almost five decades. "It reminds us we are at war," says Lt.-Col. Jon Anderson, who describes business at the Dover mortuary as "steady." But America never saw Lt.-Col. Buehring's arrival, days after a rocket from a homemade launcher ended his life at age 40 in Baghdad's heavily fortified Rasheed Hotel last Monday. Americans have never seen any of the other 359 bodies returning from Iraq. Nor do they see the wounded cramming the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington or soldiers who say they are being treated inhumanely awaiting medical treatment at Fort Stewart, Ga. In order to continue to sell an increasingly unpopular Iraqi invasion to the American people, President George W. Bush's administration sweeps the messy parts of war - the grieving families, the flag-draped coffins, the soldiers who have lost limbs - into a far corner of the nation's attic. No television cameras are allowed at Dover. Bush does not attend the funerals of soldiers who gave their lives in his war on terrorism. Buehring of Winter Springs, Fla., described as "a great American" by his commanding officer, had two sons, 12 and 9, was active in the Boy Scouts and his church and had served his country for 18 years. No government official has said a word publicly about him. If stories of wounded soldiers are told, they are told by hometown papers, but there is no national attention given to the recuperating veterans here in the nation's capital. More than 1,700 Americans have been wounded in Iraq since the March invasion. "You can call it news control or information control or flat-out propaganda," says Christopher Simpson, a communications professor at Washington's American University. "Whatever you call it, this is the most extensive effort at spinning a war that the department of defense has ever undertaken in this country." Simpson notes that photos of the dead returning to American soil have historically been part of the ceremony, part of the picture of conflict and part of the public closure for families - until now. "This White House is the greatest user of propaganda in American history and if they had a shred of honesty, they would admit it. But they can't." Lynn Cutler, a Democratic strategist and former official in Bill Clinton's White House, says this is the first time in history that bodies have been brought home under cover of secrecy. "It feels like Vietnam when Lyndon Johnson was accused of hiding the body bags .... "This is a big government and a big Pentagon and they could have someone there to meet these bodies as they come back to the country." But today's military doesn't even use the words "body bags" - a term in common usage during the Vietnam War, when 58,000 Americans died. During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the Pentagon began calling them "human remains pouches" and it now refers to them as "transfer tubes." One term that has crept into the U.S. military lexicon, however, is the "Dover test," shorthand for the American public's tolerance for wartime fatalities. The policy of banning cameras at Dover dates back to the 1991 Gulf War, under Bush's father, Pentagon officials say. But it has been unevenly applied: You can see photos of soldiers' bodies returning in coffins from Afghanistan at Ramstein airbase in Germany. Clinton met returning coffins from Kosovo and, in an elaborate ceremony, was on hand for the arrival of the bodies of his former commerce secretary Ronald Brown 32 others killed in a 1996 plane crash. Pictures were allowed of incoming caskets after the terrorist attack on the USS Cole in 2000 and President George H.W. Bush helped eulogize Americans killed in Panama and Lebanon. But last March, a directive came down reaffirming the banning of cameras, likely in anticipation of the sheer volume of casualties being repatriated. At Dover, Lt.-Col. Anderson says the policy is strictly in place to respect the privacy of the families, although he is well aware that there are those who think it was a political decision. "The administration has clearly made an attempt to limit the attention that would build up if they were showing Dover every day," says Joseph Dawson, a military historian at Texas A & M University. The White House policy works - to a point. If there are no pictures of caskets being delivered to U.S. airbases, citizens don't think of them, analysts say. Dawson says television pictures of the wounded at Walter Reed would be a jolt to Americans as they head out to dinner or are thinking of the week's NFL matchups. Right now, he says, they likely equate war casualties with highway accidents: They know both kill and don't need to see graphic photos. "The administration may have to come to grips with this in the months to come. This strategy depends on how long this war goes on. I have to wonder whether it might be a good idea to have a monthly remembrance to reflect on how this campaign is going." The need for reflection in America is important, Dawson says, because the country seems to have lapsed back into a state of complacency. "The country should be asking whether these men and women are putting their lives on the line for a justifiable purpose." The Bush strategy, he says, is to divert focus from the dead and the wounded until - or if - his administration's policy can be judged a winner, then laud the men and women who gave their lives for freedom. From parcherj Mon Sep 6 23:41:43 2004 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 00:41:43 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [eDebate] Leaks #2 Message-ID: <6594665.1094532103385.JavaMail.root@wamui09.slb.atl.earthlink.net> Whatever Happened to the Plame Investigation? An Act of Treason by the Bush Administration Gets Buried Alive. A BUZZFLASH GUEST COMMENTARY by Melanie Sloan, Executive Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics In Washington Remember Valerie Plame? Ms. Plame was the CIA undercover operative who was outed by the White House in effort to punish her husband former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had publicly stated in a July 6, 2003 op-ed in the New York Times, that despite President Bush???s statements to the contrary, Iraq had not attempted to purchase yellow cake uranium from Niger. The existence of that uranium, you may recall, was presented to the public as "evidence" that Iraq had nuclear weapons which, in turn, was used to justify our unilateral attack on Iraq. Ms. Plame, however, had nothing to do with any of that. Ms. Plame was an operative under deep cover -- the CIA had created an entire company just so that Ms. Plame could claim that she worked there. Yet once Joseph Wilson broke his silence and announced that the White House was lying, Karl Rove decided that Wilson needed to be punished and that his wife was "fair game." Two top government officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson???s wife. But only the ever-ready apologist for the Republican Party, Robert Novak, took the bait. On July 14, 2003, Novak wrote a piece outing Ms. Plame as an operative. Neither Karl Rove -- or whomever among the Bush senior staff leaked it -- nor Novak gave a moment???s consideration to the lives that they may have jeopardized by outing Ms. Plame. Never mind that anyone in another country who had so much as met Ms. Plame might now be suspected of spying. No thought was given to the fact that others, who were in fact spies, might be outed through their connection to Ms. Plame, and no thought was given to the fact that actual lives could be lost as a result of this odious act. Never mind that outing an undercover CIA operative is a federal crime. A very serious matter, yet you would never know that from the White House???s response. When the revelation first hit the press in July, the White House first refused to comment and later, had White House press secretary Scott McClellan claim -- without so much as a question asked of White House staff -- "that is not the way this White House operates," and that "no one was certainly given any authority to do any of that nature, and I???ve seen no evidence to suggest there???s any truth to it." It???s hard to find evidence you are doing your very best to ignore. Finally, in October the CIA referred the matter to the Department of Justice for investigation, and Attorney General John Ashcroft???s Justice Department, despite the obvious conflict of interest, refused to appoint a special prosecutor. President Bush???s response: "And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of." Apparently, it never crossed the President???s mind to simply ask his staff who the leaker was (or leakers were). The Justice Department launched its allegedly official probe on September 26th, but neglected to direct the White House to preserve critical evidence until the evening of September 29th. Then, when the White House Counsel asked if he could wait until the next day to inform the staff of the need to preserve documents, the Justice Department allowed it. Simply, if the leaker(s) had not been smart enough to get rid of the evidence between July 6th and September 29th, the White House Counsel???s office wanted to be sure that there was at least one last chance to do so before destroying evidence would constitute criminal obstruction of justice. Since September 29th? Nothing, not a word. Nothing from the White House and nothing from the Department of Justice. The President never asked his staff to investigate the matter and never called for the leaker to come forward. The White House is, however, "cooperating." The Department of Justice investigation appears to be at a standstill. Sure, the Department might claim that even the existence of a grand jury investigating the matter is a secret, but recall how such secret investigations were conducted during the Clinton years. Was there ever a grand jury matter that wasn???t leaked to the press? No, the press set up camp outside the Courthouse where the grand jury sat and took note of and publicly report on every person who went in. A grand jury investigation involving the White House is too good a story not to be subject of its own leak. Why has the investigation stalled? Is it because the Department of Justice, just as suspected by the Democrats all along, isn???t serious about prosecuting the leaker? Is it because George Bush has swept the matter under the carpet? Where are the Congressional hearings that were so common during the Clinton administration? Can anyone seriously doubt if the same events had transpired during the Clinton years there would have been day after day, and month after month of hearings with Congressional leaders clamoring for an independent counsel, with the result that one would have been appointed? I guess the truth is that neither this administration, nor this Congress, cares nearly as much about national security and the safety of undercover operatives as they do about politics. * * * Melanie Sloan is the Executive Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ("CREW") [LINK]. CREW is a public interest legal watchdog group that exposes government officials who betray the public trust. CREW aims to counterbalance the conservative legal watchdog groups that had such a strong impact over the past decade. From parcherj Mon Sep 6 23:41:12 2004 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 00:41:12 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [eDebate] Leaks #1 Message-ID: <18366206.1094532072490.JavaMail.root@wamui09.slb.atl.earthlink.net> My comment: Frankly, the leaking of this information to try to steal away headlines from the Democratic Convention should have gotten ALOT more attention. I don't see how anyone cannot be outraged by people jeopardizing US lives in this manner. August 10, 2004 Bush Team on Defensive Over al-Qaeda Leak by Jim Lobe Inter Press Service One of the greatest coups in Washington's nearly three-year war against al-Qaeda has suddenly turned sour with reports the White House prematurely exposed the identity of a key source whose contacts and communication with the terrorist group's operational masterminds had yet to be fully exploited. The source, 25-year-old computer wizard Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan, had been cooperating with Pakistani police and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) since he was quietly detained in Lahore on July 12, until the New York Times published his name last Monday after receiving a "background" briefing by the White House. The Bush administration, which had elevated the terror-warning level in three U.S. states on the basis of information acquired from Khan, set up the briefing to dispel public skepticism about the terrorism threat, particularly after it was disclosed that much of the information on which it was based was several years old. British and Pakistani intelligence agencies were reportedly furious with the leak, which forced UK police to hurriedly round up 13 al-Qaeda suspects who are alleged to have been in email communication with Khan. Five others who were sought by MI5 reportedly escaped capture, and there is some question that the British had gathered enough evidence to persuade a judge to keep the 13 detainees in custody, according to published reports. "The outing of Khan, probably the most important asset the U.S. has ever had inside al-Qaeda, is a huge disaster and a setback to attempts to finish off the top leadership of al-Qaeda," according to Juan Cole, a Middle East specialist at the University of Michigan, whose Web log (or "blog") "Informed Comment" is widely read in Washington. Two of those arrested by the British, Abu Issa al Hindi and Babar Ahmed, however, are wanted by the United States. Ahmed reportedly obtained detailed information about the movements of a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier, the Constellation, in 2001, six months after the al-Qaeda suicide attack on the USS Cole off Yemen. Hindi was reportedly sent to the United States at around the same time to carry out surveillance on key U.S.-based financial institutions in New York, Newark, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C., which were named as likely possible targets when the terror alert was elevated eight days ago. Those tidbits are among what U.S. officials have called a "treasure trove" of information found on computers owned by Khan, who apparently agreed to continue sending and receiving encrypted messages to his al-Qaeda contacts after his arrest in order to help catch other operatives. Investigators reportedly found that one of the files on Hamdi's computer had been opened as recently as January, suggesting that an attack on one or more of the financial targets ??? which included the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Washington ??? may have been in an operational phase, justifying a heightened alert. It was the skepticism that greeted the alert, particularly after other leaks confirmed the underlying evidence was at least three years old, that spurred the White House to provide more information to reporters, including Khan's name. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, confirmed Sunday briefing officials had given Khan's name to the Times but insisted he was identified "on background," an assertion that caused consternation among experienced journalists here, who know that everything said by officials "on background" can be quoted so long as the name of the briefing officials is not disclosed. "The problem," she told CNN's Wolf Blitzer, "is that when you're trying to strike a balance between giving enough information to the public so that they know that you're dealing with a specific, credible, different kind of threat than you've dealt with in the past, you're always weighing that against ... operational considerations. We think for the most part, we've struck a balance, but it's indeed a very difficult balance to strike." But British Home Secretary David Blunkett suggested the balance had been anything but well struck. In an opinion piece published Sunday, he was openly contemptuous of the White House's management of the information. "In the United States there is often high-profile commentary followed, as in the current case, by detailed scrutiny, with the potential risk of ridicule," Blunkett wrote in The Observer. "Is it really the job of a senior cabinet minister in charge of counter-terrorism to feed the media? To increase concern? Of course not. This is arrant nonsense." Pakistani officials, who have been under enormous pressure from Washington, also expressed frustration. "This is a network that we are trying to break," said Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayyat, who denied the information had been leaked from Pakistan. "It is in the process of being dismantled, [but] the network is still not finished." Even staunchly loyal Republicans said the White House had made a serious mistake. "In this situation, in my view, they should have kept their mouth shut and just said, 'We have information, trust us,'" said Virginia Senator George Allen. Some observers charged that the public skepticism surrounding the administration's conduct in the "war against terrorism" had been largely induced by the government itself. According to one recent poll, nearly 40 percent of the public believes the White House is manipulating the threat level for political reasons, a notion that gained more support when the Department of Homeland Security raised the threat level to "orange" or "high" on the morning after Bush's Democratic foe, John Kerry, accepted the presidential nomination, concluding a four-day party convention. Similarly, the administration announced the arrest in Pakistan of a senior al-Qaeda operative, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, wanted for organizing the 1998 suicide bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, on the third day of the Democratic convention, and three weeks after the The New Republic weekly quoted Pakistani intelligence officials as saying the White House had asked them to announce the arrest or killing of any "high-value [al-Qaeda] target" any time between July 26 and 28, the first three days of the Democratic Convention. At the time, former CIA officer Robert Baer said the announcement made "no sense." "To keep these guys off-balance, a lot of this stuff should be kept in secret. You get no benefit from announcing an arrest like this." "By exposing the only deep mole we've ever had within al-Qaeda, it ruined the chance to capture dozens if not hundreds more," a former Justice Department prosecutor, John Loftus, told Fox News on Saturday. From korryharvey Tue Sep 7 00:36:06 2004 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 22:36:06 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Gabe Scott sighting / open invitation to alaska Message-ID: good work, indeed! think he sifted around for a few gold nugs before alerting anyone!? ya' know, if anyone could just stumble along onto a lost shipwreck carrying bags of gold it would have to be gabe-- the only person i've ever personally known to come across multiple unopened beers in the wild on more than one occasion! and good work to you, too, trond, for bringing this to our attention! i wish i could have seen it with you. i had to go wake jeri up just to read your post. can't even tell you how big our smiles were at hearing this news. i, too miss brother gabe, and all the seawolves of old. whadya say to a reunion trip to cordova next summer!? i figured out that i'm about a 10 minute drive from haines, ak.... yep, that's how far we live from the ferry terminal ;-) anyone else reading this thread up for a trip to alaska next summer. could meet up at my place in bellingham to get things together before hopping on the ferry... yes, i'm very serious. bizarre. not sure if all this is the work of the gah-brill vortex or the bavarian illuminati! either way, made my day. take care korry _________________________________________________________________ Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx From korryharvey Tue Sep 7 01:12:36 2004 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 23:12:36 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] More damn lies / daybreak in alabama Message-ID: tried to respond to this post yesterday, but something seems to have gone wrong. will try again. sorry if it's duplicated. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>bob sez: Well, as long as Korry and Jeff are being silly...... Was Bush >>"really" a cheerleader at Yale. This could swing the Presidency. >>http://www.cheerleadersfortruth.com/ forgive my ignorance, bob, but what exactly is so silly about medicare rates taking their largest leap since the creation of the program? you may not rely on medicare. others do. what is so silly about taking a look at the president's record? is that not relevant to the election? ya' know, it is a little puzzling that conservatives often berate their opponents for their "negativity" while simultaneously reveling in their own scorched earth electoral warfare. and yet, at the very same time, they seem rather quick to complain that anyone taking issue with the president's actual record is somehow lying, crazy or unpatriotic. can't have it both ways. what is so silly about jeff's posts regarding the war on terror, prisoner abuse, the honoring of fallen soldiers? please, feel free to engage the issues, as they are open to discussion. but simply calling these concerns silly and cussing at them is, well... rather silly. if you disagree with the claims made in these posts, fine. refute them. just calling us silly liars adds little to the discussion. gotta admit, however, the cheerleader site was at the very least entertaining. maybe it's all an intricate right wing conspiracy to deny that george was ever a cheerleader in the first place so as not to blemish his macho image. meanwhile, given recent disclosures and reports, it looks like a real "missing in action" conspiracy may be seeing daybreak in alabama. "When I get to be a composer I'm gonna write me some music about Daybreak in Alabama And I'm gonna put the purtiest songs in it Rising out of the ground like a swamp mist And falling out of heaven like soft dew. I'm gonna put some tall tall trees in it And the scent of pine needles And the smell of red clay after rain And long red necks And poppy colored faces And big brown arms And the field daisy eyes Of black and white black white black people And I'm gonna put white hands And black hands and brown and yellow hands And red clay earth hands in it Touching everybody with kind fingers And touching each other natural as dew In that dawn of music when I Get to be a composer And write about daybreak In Alabama." ~Langston Hughes _________________________________________________________________ Check out Election 2004 for up-to-date election news, plus voter tools and more! http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx From privethedge Tue Sep 7 06:37:38 2004 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 04:37:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] The Remaining Air Dates and Times In-Reply-To: <158.3e721d11.2e6e6ee0@aol.com> Message-ID: <20040907113738.65581.qmail@web50904.mail.yahoo.com> Thu, Sep. 9 11:00 pm CSTV Original The National Collegiate Debate Championship Fri, Sep. 10 3:00 am CSTV Original The National Collegiate Debate Championship Mon, Sep. 13 7:00 pm CSTV Original The National Collegiate Debate Championship Sat, Sep. 18 11:00 pm CSTV Original The National Collegiate Debate Championship Fri, Oct. 1 11:00 pm CSTV Original The National Collegiate Debate Championship Tue, Oct. 5 8:00 pm CSTV Original The National Collegiate Debate Championship Wed, Oct. 6 5:00 am CSTV Original The National Collegiate Debate Championship Sat, Oct. 30 9:00 pm CSTV Original The National Collegiate Debate Championship "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040907/ce0c495a/attachment.html From dan.overbey Tue Sep 7 07:21:46 2004 From: dan.overbey (dan.overbey at att.net) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 12:21:46 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] CSTV Documentary is available Message-ID: <090720041221.20824.413DA7DA0000D28D000051582158766755970A0D9D0A9001D2020E0B@att.net> If you go to CSTV.com and email their customer service people you can sign a Viewer License (they fax it to you), pay the $25 fee, and they will send you a copy of the documentary. The agreement is the typical "I won't burn a bunch of copies of this" type..... dan From wnewnam Tue Sep 7 09:57:29 2004 From: wnewnam (William Newnam) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 10:57:29 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] bush ooops Message-ID: <000901c494ea$ff4f9440$91c58caa@emorycard.emory.edu> Given all of the heaviness of the current political campaign, Walker gave us a light-hearted moment yesterday--though it is not so clear he even realized it: Bush: OB-GYNs Kept from 'Practicing Their Love' Mon Sep 6,11:44 PM ET Add Politics to My Yahoo! POPLAR BLUFF, Mo. (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) offered an unexpected reason on Monday for cracking down on frivolous medical lawsuits: "Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." The Republican president, long known for verbal and grammatical lapses, included the anecdote about obstetrician gynecologists in his stump speech attacking Democratic presidential rival Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards (news - web sites), a former trial lawyer. At a rally of cheering supporters in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, Bush made his usual pitch for limiting "frivolous lawsuits" that he said drive up the cost of health care and run doctors out of business. But then he added, "We've got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." Unfazed, Bush went on to deride his rivals as "pro-trial lawyer," and concluded, "I think you've got to make a choice. My opponent made his choice, and he put him on the ticket. I made my choice. I'm for medical liability reform now." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040907/900defc9/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 417 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040907/900defc9/attachment.gif From db8coach Tue Sep 7 10:22:44 2004 From: db8coach (db8coach at cox.net) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 11:22:44 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] More damn lies / daybreak in alabama Message-ID: <20040907152244.BHGD4909.fed1rmmtao07.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net> >>>>>>>>>> forgive my ignorance, bob, >>>>>>>>>> Forgiven. >>>>>>>>>> what is so silly about taking a look at the president's record? >>>>>>>>>> What's silly is that you and Jeff take every opportunity to wage your private battle against George Bush on a listserv designed for intercollegiate debate (I think the ISP still says NDTCEDA.....). That's right, I just made the "wrong forum" argument. Tough. Bob Lechtreck From privethedge Tue Sep 7 10:27:17 2004 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 08:27:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] bush ooops In-Reply-To: <000901c494ea$ff4f9440$91c58caa@emorycard.emory.edu> Message-ID: <20040907152717.36347.qmail@web50908.mail.yahoo.com> Well, like some on this this have said, the world's all about peace, love, and understanding..lol...Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040907/e9dd98fc/attachment.htm From stannardmatt Tue Sep 7 10:46:19 2004 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 09:46:19 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] More damn lies / daybreak in alabama Message-ID: Bob: Are you willing, also, to make the "wrong forum" argument to your trusted colleague, Mr. Korcok? stannard >What's silly is that you and Jeff take every opportunity to wage your >private battle against George Bush on a listserv designed for >intercollegiate debate (I think the ISP still says NDTCEDA.....). > >That's right, I just made the "wrong forum" argument. Tough. > >Bob Lechtreck _________________________________________________________________ Check out Election 2004 for up-to-date election news, plus voter tools and more! http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx From db8coach Tue Sep 7 10:55:19 2004 From: db8coach (db8coach at cox.net) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 11:55:19 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] More damn lies / daybreak in alabama Message-ID: <20040907155519.HEIY28358.fed1rmmtao05.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net> >>>>>>>>>> Are you willing, also, to make the "wrong forum" argument to your trusted colleague, Mr. Korcok? >>>>>>>>>> Yes. Although, you should check the archives. Mike posts a FRACTION of what Korry and Jeff have been doing, and Mike is almost always answering rather than initiating. Bob Lechtreck From berchnorto Tue Sep 7 12:37:44 2004 From: berchnorto (NEIL BERCH) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 13:37:44 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] More damn lies / daybreak in alabama References: <20040907155519.HEIY28358.fed1rmmtao05.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net> Message-ID: Posts for August: Korcok--25 Parcher--10 Harvey--20 Korcok also had 6 in July, none in June, 5 in May. Harvey had 6 in June, none in July or May. Parcher did not post in May, June, or July. What fraction are we talking about? --Neil Berch West Virginia University ----- Original Message ----- From: db8coach at cox.net To: matt stannard ; korryharvey at hotmail.com ; edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 11:55 AM Subject: Re: Re: [eDebate] More damn lies / daybreak in alabama >>>>>>>>>> Are you willing, also, to make the "wrong forum" argument to your trusted colleague, Mr. Korcok? >>>>>>>>>> Yes. Although, you should check the archives. Mike posts a FRACTION of what Korry and Jeff have been doing, and Mike is almost always answering rather than initiating. Bob Lechtreck _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040907/8caeb823/attachment.html From berchnorto Tue Sep 7 12:41:29 2004 From: berchnorto (NEIL BERCH) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 13:41:29 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] More damn lies / daybreak in alabama Message-ID: Posts since May 1 (including up-to-the-minute in September): Korcok--37 Parcher--27 Harvey--36 ----- Original Message ----- From: NEIL BERCH To: matt stannard ; korryharvey at hotmail.com ; edebate ; db8coach at cox.net Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 1:37 PM Subject: Re: Re: [eDebate] More damn lies / daybreak in alabama Posts for August: Korcok--25 Parcher--10 Harvey--20 Korcok also had 6 in July, none in June, 5 in May. Harvey had 6 in June, none in July or May. Parcher did not post in May, June, or July. What fraction are we talking about? --Neil Berch West Virginia University ----- Original Message ----- From: db8coach at cox.net To: matt stannard ; korryharvey at hotmail.com ; edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 11:55 AM Subject: Re: Re: [eDebate] More damn lies / daybreak in alabama >>>>>>>>>> Are you willing, also, to make the "wrong forum" argument to your trusted colleague, Mr. Korcok? >>>>>>>>>> Yes. Although, you should check the archives. Mike posts a FRACTION of what Korry and Jeff have been doing, and Mike is almost always answering rather than initiating. Bob Lechtreck _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040907/c0bf9c7f/attachment.htm From dcbloomi Tue Sep 7 13:32:43 2004 From: dcbloomi (Daniel Bloomingdale) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 11:32:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] I guess I'm posting this in the wrong forum . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040907183243.64288.qmail@web14107.mail.yahoo.com> Tough. However, if it has already been posted, I apolgize. Apparently they don't believe they can make a case for four more years without deceiving us. You might find FAIR's discussion of the Iraq appropriations bill especially interesting, given the (deceitful) attacks leveled at the RNC against Kerry's vote. FAIR Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting 112 W. 27th Street New York, NY 10001 MEDIA ADVISORY: If Only They Had Invented the Internet The Failure of Fact-Checking at the Republican Convention September 3, 2004 It is the function of journalism to separate fact from fiction. In covering the Republican National Convention of 2004, the media made isolated efforts to point out some of the convention speakers' more egregious distortions, but on the whole failed in their vital role of letting citizens know when they are being lied to. To take the example that dominated the convention perhaps more than any other claim: Professional politicians and political correspondents alike know that legislators frequently vote against appropriations for a variety of reasons, even though they do not seek to eliminate the programs being voted on. They know that different versions of the same appropriation are often offered, and that lawmakers will sometimes vote for one version and against another-- not because they suffer from multiple personality disorder, but because that's how they express disagreements about how government programs should be funded. No one who has spent any amount of time in or around government would find this the least bit confusing. Yet news analysts generally allowed Republican Party leaders to pretend shock that Sen. John Kerry would vote against an $87 billion appropriation for the Iraq War-- as if this meant that Kerry opposed giving troops "money for bullets, and fuel, and vehicles, and body armor," as George W. Bush declared ( 9/2/04). (The references to Kerry voting against body armor were particularly disingenuous, given that the $87 billion only included money for body armor at the insistence of congressional Democrats-- Army Times, 10/20/03.) And journalists were complacent as Republicans expressed mock bafflement over why Kerry would vote against this bill when he had voted for another version of the bill (or "exactly the same thing," in former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's words-- 8/30/04). The reason that Kerry introduced an alternative bill-- because he wanted to pay for the appropriation by raising taxes on the wealthy rather than through deficit spending-- was well-publicized at the time (Washington Post, 9/18/03). Yet rather than challenging the dishonesty of this centerpiece of the Republican attack on Kerry, CNN's Jeff Greenfield after Bush's speech (9/2/04) called it "one of the most familiar and effective lines of his stump speech." Bush himself threatened to veto the Iraq spending bill if the reconstruction aid for Iraq it included was in the form of loans rather than grants; by the logic of the Republican convention, Bush "flip-flopped" exactly the same way that Kerry did on the $87 billion by supporting one version of the bill and opposing another. Yet a Nexis search of television coverage of the convention turns up only one reference to Bush's veto of the bill, by Paul Begala on CNN ( 9/1/04). Overwhelmingly, TV pundits covering the convention allowed the charade surrounding the $87 billion to pass without critical comment. But overlooking distortions was the norm in television's coverage of the convention. When Dick Cheney spoke ( 9/1/04), he said of Kerry: "He declared at the Democratic Convention that he will forcefully defend America after we have been attacked.... We cannot wait for the next attack. We must do everything we can to prevent it and that includes the use of military force." Kerry did say in that speech (7/29/04), "I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and a certain response. " But he couldn't have meant that that was the only time military force might be required, since he had said earlier in the speech that "the only justification for going to war" is "to protect the American people, fundamental American values from a threat that was real and imminent." Cheney went on to say, "Senator Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't approve as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few persistent critics." In this he echoed Sen. Zell Miller ( 9/1/04), who charged, "Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations." In his acceptance speech, Kerry actually said, "I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security." Miller and Cheney's speeches were filled with similar misrepresentations of Kerry's positions and record. Yet afterwards, Newsweek managing editor Jon Meacham, appearing as a pundit on MSNBC ( 9/1/04), had this analysis: If I taught at the Kennedy School, I would take these two speeches as ur-text of partisan rhetoric. I think it was a brilliant tactical night, one of the most brilliant in the age of television. These were two concise, rather devastating rhetorical hits at John Kerry. And there was just-- they did not miss a base. They did not miss anything that they could hit. It's not that journalists never attempt to fact-check claims made in political speeches-- sometimes effectively, sometimes less so. (A couple of the better efforts were by AP's Calvin Woodward-- 9/2/04-- and the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler and Dan Morgan, 9/3/04). But these efforts are generally segregated from regular news coverage of the convention, not incorporated into the main reports and analysis, as if sorting out what's true and what isn't were a departure from normal journalistic practice. When MSNBC's Chris Matthews ( 9/1/04) questioned Miller about the fairness of his litany of weapons programs that Kerry "tried his best to shut down," he was following a line of debunking that was laid out six months ago by Slate's Fred Kaplan ( 2/25/04), who pointed out that Republicans were citing Kerry's "no" vote on the 1991 Defense appropriations bill as if it were an attempt to eliminate all Pentagon spending. What was remarkable was that Matthews was willing to bring up this criticism in a live interview-- a breach of media operating procedure so dramatic that it provoked Miller to say he "wish[ed] we lived in the day where you could challenge a person to a duel." But ascertaining the truth is the responsibility of every journalist in every story. It's the first point in the Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics: "Journalists should test the accuracy of information from all sources." It's the ubiquitous reports that analyze the aesthetics of oratory and speculate on the impact speeches will have on the horserace that ought to be the exception. It would hardly be unprecedented for the media to consistently call attention to the veracity of a political campaign. During the 2000 campaign, reporters and pundits delighted in pointing out examples of what they said were "exaggerations" by Vice President Al Gore. Unfortunately, these examples were often false-- contrary to more than a thousand media assertions, Gore never claimed to have "invented" the Internet, and he actually did serve as a model for the character in Love Story, according to the novel's author (Daily Howler, 12/7/99, 12/3/02). It's telling that when faced with real distortions, not on trivial matters of little consequence to voters or the campaign, but on life-or-death matters that are central to the presidential debate, most journalists become agnostics regarding the truth or falsity of the smears they pass along. ===== One bright sunny morning, in the shadow of the steeple, by the relief office, I saw my people. As they stood there hungry, I stood there wondering if this land was made for you and me.? --Woody Guthrie From stannardmatt Tue Sep 7 13:38:06 2004 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 12:38:06 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Colorado College Tournament invitation Message-ID: 60th Annual James "Al" Johnson Forensics Invitational The Colorado College October 29,30,31 2004 Dear Colleague: The Colorado College cordially invites you to attend the James "Al" Johnson Forensic Invitational to take place at the CC campus October 29-31, 2004. Open and Inexperienced divisions of NPDA debate, an Open division of eleven individual events, NFA Lincoln Douglas debate and Team Debate will be offered. In NPDA Debate, we continue to offer central topic announcements and will provide "warm room" disclosure of decisions. We are also providing "wellness" amenities, including lunch for all participants on Saturday, a humane tournament schedule, and opportunities for breaks and provided food throughout the competition. The attached invitation contains complete information about the tournament. If there is a question you don't find answered, please do not hesitate to contact me. I expect this year's tournament to draw outstanding competition that will be complemented by an excellent tab room staff. I hope that you will join us in the shadow of beautiful Pike's Peak for a superb fall tournament. With warm personal regards, Bonnie Stapleton Tournament Director (719) 389-6339 bstapleton at coloradocollege.edu James "Al" Johnson Forensic Invitational 29,30,31 October 2004 Friday, October 29, 2004---The Colorado College 8:30 Registration Opens-Worner Center Lobby (Registration continues until 11:45 for NPDA Debate Schools and until 2:45 for IE only Schools.) 9:00 Team Debate Rd 1, L-D Debate Rd 1 10:00 L-D Debate Rd 2 11:00 Team Debate Rd 2, L-D Debate Rd 3 12:00 NPDA Debate Rd 1 Topic Released 1:30 NPDA Debate Rd 2 Topic Released 2:00 Team Debate Rd 3 3:00 IE Rd 1 Pattern A, Extemp Draw 4:00 Team Debate Rd 4 4:45 NPDA Debate Rd 3 Topic Released 6:15 IE Rd 1 Pattern B, L-D Rd 4 Saturday, October 30, 2004---The Colorado College 8:00 Team Debate Rd 5 IE Rd 2 Pattern A, Extemp Draw 9:45 IE Rd 2 Pattern B, L-D Elim as Needed 10:00 Team Debate Rd 6 11:30 Lunch Break-Lunch Provided for all Participants in Worner Center! 12:30 NPDA Debate Rd 4 Topic Released 1:15 Team Debate Elim as needed 2:00 IE Sems and Finals as needed, L-D Elim as Needed 3:30 NPDA Debate Rd 5 Topic Released Team Debate Elim as Needed 5:00 IE Finals as needed, L-D Elim as needed 5:30 Team Debate Elim as Needed 6:30 NPDA Debate Rd 6 Topic Released NPDA Elimination Round Qualifiers Posted ASAP in Worner Center and By 10:00 P.M. at Hotel You may call Debate Office to Find Out About Breaks As Soon as Available at 389-6339 Sunday, October 31, 2004---The Colorado College ***DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME ENDS-DON'T FORGET TO CHANGE YOUR CLOCK!!! *** 8:30 AWARDS Gates Common Room, Palmer Hall, NPDA and Team Debate Elims to Follow Conflict Pattern "A" Event ADS, CA, DI, EXT, INF, POI Conflict Pattern "B" Events: L-D, DUO, IMP, PER , POE , PRO NPDA TOPIC ANNOUNCEMENTS WILL TAKE PLACE AT Gates Common Room, Palmer Hall Extemp Prep is in Olin Room #1 Colorado College Tournament Tournament Hotel: We are very excited to return to the Radisson Inn of Colorado Springs North for the tournament hotel. We have chosen this hotel based on facilities, room quality, price, and proximity to eating establishments. Let us know what you think of the change. Radisson inn Colorado Springs North 8110 North Academy Blvd. Colorado Springs, CO 80920 719-598-5770 1-800-333-3333 Rate: $52 per night for 1-4 people Cut off Date for Rate: September 28, 2004 Be sure to mention that you are with the Colorado College Debate Tournament to receive these rates. Our block is guaranteed in writing, but sometimes an inexperienced clerk may think that the hotel is full because we have the rooms reserved for the tournament. If you are interested in sales tax exemption, you can contact Bonnie or the Radisson for that information. Our sales contact at the Radisson is Kevin Cronk. The rooms at this hotel offer all of the in-room amenities you would expect of a good tournament hotel-ironing boards, coffee makers and mini-refrigerators. In addition, it offers several features that we find especially attractive for tournament competition, including a full restaurant and bar, 24-hour indoor pool and fitness center, and in room Web TV. There are 25 restraurants within walking distance of the hotel, which is about 25 minutes from the airport. If you need directions you may contact us, or the Radisson Directly. Events: Open and Inexperienced Divisions of NPDA Parliamentary Debate, Open and Division in two conflict patterns of After Dinner Speaking, Communication Analysis, Dramatic Duo, Dramatic Interpretation, Extemporaneous Speaking, Impromptu Speaking, Informative Speaking, Persuasive Speaking, Poetry Interpretation, Program Oral Interpretation, and Prose Interpretation, and Open Team Debate will be offered. NFA Lincoln-Douglas Debate will be offered if there are sufficient entries. Entries: Any regularly enrolled undergraduate in a two year or four year college is eligible to participate. Eligibility standards for AFA and NPDA nationals will be enforced. A contestant may enter up to three individual events per conflict pattern (excepting L-D Debate) as well as NPDA Debate. Students who enter Lincoln Douglas Debate may enter a maximum of one other individual event in conflict pattern B and three events in conflict pattern A as well as NPDA debate. Contestants in Team Debate may not cross enter in individual events, L-D or NPDA Debate. EMAIL IS THE PREFERRED METHOD OF REGISTRATION. Please E-Mail your entries so that it arrives no later than TUESDAY OCTOBER 27, by 5:00 p.m. MDT. If you need to fax or phone in your entry, please contact us beforehand and verify that your entry will be received. Parliamentary Debate (NPDA): An Open and Inexperienced division of Parliamentary Debate will be offered. Any eligible student may enter Open division. The Inexperienced division is reserved only for those relatively new to the activity, and not those who have debated regularly. NPDA sweepstakes points will be given to the top teams from a school regardless of division. Six preliminary rounds of NPDA will be followed by an appropriate number of elimination rounds as indicated by the NPDA by-laws. We will administer the NPDA debate competition in accordance with procedures at the NPDA national tournament. The topic for each NPDA round will be announced at the time of the scheduled start for each NPDA round. Teams should be in their scheduled room and ready to compete exactly fifteen minutes after the topic has been announced. We will determine the appropriate amount of "walking time" to add onto the preparation time before round one so we can adjust it for weather conditions and tournament size. Teams who are not ready to debate at the end of the allotted prep time will be subject to forfeiture. TIME LIMITS ARE: PM - 7 min, all other constructive speeches - 8 min, Opposition Rebuttal - 4 min, and Government rebuttal - 5 min. Decision disclosure at the end of the round is at the discretion of the judge, but we request oral critiques are abbreviated until such time as the ballot is returned to the judge's table. We will be offering a "warm room" where we will post results of each debate round as they become available from the tab room. We typically offer judge strikes, and will adjust the number of strikes to be appropriate for the judging pool and entry size. If you require more information about strikes, please contact Bonnie. Team Debate: An open division of team debate will be offered on the current topic. Any eligible student may enter. Please note that students entered in Team debate will not be able to cross enter into NPDA debate or Individual Events. The time limits for this event will be 8-3-5-8prep. Participation in the tournament constitutes adherence to the CEDA policies concerning sexual harassment and competitor practices. Elimination Rounds: At the end of the preliminary rounds, the top teams in each division of NPDA and Team debate will proceed to elimination rounds. Teams advance first on their win loss record, next on adjusted speaker points, and finally on judge variance. Pairings in the elimination rounds will be on the basis of strength versus weakness. BRACKETS WILL NOT BE BROKEN in elimination rounds, and two teams from the same school will be scheduled to meet if the bracket dictates. Lincoln- Douglas Debate: The topic to be used at the Colorado College tournament is the current year's NFA Lincoln Douglas Debate topic. Four preliminary rounds in open division will be followed by an appropriate number of elimination rounds. Advancement will be first on a win/loss record, then by adjusted speaker points, and finally by quality of competition. Entries and judging requirements will be the same as for individual events. BRACKETS WILL NOT BE BROKEN IN THE ELIMINATION ROUNDS. Time Limits are 1AC - 6 minutes, CX - 3min, 1NC - 7 min., CX - 3 min, 1AR - 6 min, NR - 6 min, 2AR - 3 min. Each Speaker has 3 minutes preparation time. Individual Events - General: The individual events offered are subject to the rules of the AFA National Individual Events Tournament except where they conflict with the following: Complete event descriptions are available on request. Two conflict patterns A & B will be offered in open division. Semi-finals where entries warrant, and finals will follow two preliminary rounds with the top twelve being advanced semifinals and the top six to finals. If fewer than 25 students enter a division of an event, that event will go directly to finals. In the occurrence of a very small number of participants in an event, that event may go to three rounds and no finals. Please watch for announcements concerning when finals for various events will take place as these will be adapted by the IE tab room for judge and room availability during the time allotted in the schedule for semifinals and finals. No speaker will be ranked lower than 4th in the preliminary rounds, but speakers will be ranked 1st through last in elimination rounds. BRACKETS WILL NOT BE BROKEN IN THE SEMI-FINAL ROUNDS. CONFLICT PATTERN "A" EVENTS: ADS, CA, DI, EXT, INF, POICONFLICT PATTERN "B" EVENTS: L-D DEBATE, DUO, IMP, PER, POE, PRO Individual Events: Top Junior Award In addition to open individual events, we will award the top junior competitor in each event an award. Ties will be broken by 1.) Advancement and place in elimination rounds, 2) Total cumulative ranks, 3) Total cumulative points. A junior participant is defined as someone in his or her first year of intercollegiate forensic competition. Please indicate on your entry, which students qualify to receive the junior award. Awards: Awards will be given for finalists and higher in individual events, octofinalists and higher in NPDA debate, semifinalists and higher in L-D debate, and semifinalists and higher in Team Debate. Additional debate awards in Team and NPDA may be awarded if entries are sufficient. Ten speakers will be awarded in each division of NPDA debate and Team Debate. Top junior competitors in individual events will also receive an award. General, Individual Events, and NPDA sweepstakes awards will be given, as well as the same awards for community colleges, although community colleges are eligible for all sweepstakes awards. A special award will be given to the top DSR-TKA school. We will also continue to award the "Bob Becker Super Cool Judge Award" to an outstanding member of the critic pool. Points are determined in individual events by 1st Place - 20 points, 2nd Place - 10 points, 3rd Place - 5 points, all other finalists - 2 points, and semifinalists failing to advance - 1 point. Five points for each preliminary round in NPDA and Team Debate. Two points for each preliminary win in L-D Debate. Ties will be broken by the most number of first places in individual events, secondly by the school qualifying the most number of persons to elimination rounds of IEs and Debate, and finally by the flip of the coin. The top five teams in each division of debate and the top five persons in each individual event will count toward sweepstakes, although the director need not designate in advance who will qualify. Fees Fees are: $60 for each NPDA debate team; $60 for each Team debate team; $10 for each individual event; and $10 for each L-D competitor. Schools cannot be guaranteed that they will be able to enter students in excess of the judges they provide, but to the extent that judges can be hired, a fee of $100 will be will be charged for each uncovered NPDA debate team; $100 will be charged for each uncovered Team Debate team, $10 will be charged for each uncovered event in individual events, and $10 will be charged for each uncovered L-D entrant. One judge covers 2 NPDA Debate Teams and 6 IE Entries. One Judge will be required for every two Team Debate teams. Team Debate judges cannot cover entries in any other event. Please note that IE judging commitments are determined as a whole and not per conflict pattern. Fees will be assessed as of Noon, Wednesday, October 26, and schools will be expected to pay fees as indicated by their entry at that time regardless of subsequent deletions. Judging Obligations Judges should expect to judge at least up to their commitment in NPDA and Team debate and may be asked to judge one round beyond their commitment in order to ensure the best possible critics. All judges are expected to be available for the first elimination round of debate and one round beyond that in which their team is eliminated. Judges in individual events should expect to judge in both conflict patterns even if they have students entered in only one conflict pattern. If your team can provide judges in excess of your commitment, we WOULD REALLY LIKE to either hire them for additional rounds or give a discount to the registration fees of the team. Consult Bonnie if you are interested in this option. Tournament Facilitation The tournament director reserves the right to make any decisions necessary to facilitate the timely and accurate completion of the tournament. _________________________________________________________________ Check out Election 2004 for up-to-date election news, plus voter tools and more! http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx From korryharvey Tue Sep 7 13:53:25 2004 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 11:53:25 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] More damn lies / daybreak in alabama Message-ID: neil writes: Posts since May 1 (including up-to-the-minute in September): Korcok--37 Parcher--27 Harvey--36 thanks for the bookkeeping neil ;-). i will add to your account by first noting that this post will even me up with mr. korcok for number of posts in september!!!! beyond that, however, i fear i pale in comparison. if one adds to neil's numbers the posts made by the three individuals in question going back to the first of the year, the numbers look like this: korcok: 37 + 26 = 63 parcher: 27 + 22 = 49 harvey: 36 + 10 = 46 anyone who has paid any attention to this list over the past couple of years knows that i am not a regular. when i do post, i tend to post in bursts, but the overall numbers are quite small. now, bob sez: "Although, you should check the archives. Mike posts a FRACTION of what Korry and Jeff have been doing, and Mike is almost always answering rather than initiating." first, i think the above numbers point to some fundamental math errors in your claim. second, to say that mike is "almost always answering rathering than initiating" makes me say haahaaaahahahaha aaawwwaww heeheehee o-o-o-o-o-ooooooo haaaaaahahaaaha ohhhh my! perhaps you shold be the one checking the archives, eh. if one actually does take a look at the archives one would notice that over the course of the past year i average about 4 posts per month (again, with the vast bulk of them coming in burts), mike posts about 7 times per month (much more evenly spread out) and you yourself post about twice per month (you, like myself, have long periods of silence). so, while i nearly double your contribution and korcok nearly doubles my contribution, i'd say that none of the three of us are controlling even a FRACTION of the discussion going on on this list. i would also add that the politics debate on this listserv (and how is that not germane?) has raged on and on for quite some time and while maike has often been near the middle of much of that, i have been a very, very wee bit player in that drama. the fact that i've chimed in a bit more lately may have something to do with the fact that an election looms two months away that, while cliched-to-death, really may be the election of our lifetimes (at least so far). i have been engaged a bit in the local political scene and edebate offers an excellent forum for (usually) thoughtful, rational and substantive discussion on these issues, thus helping me to better interact on the issues with students, colleagues, friends, neighbors, political opponents, etc. i do not begrudge those like mike that post far more regularly than myself (and there are many who post far more often than mike does) the opportunity to express their views on relevant or even irrelevant matters. that's their choice and i am not a member of the thought police. i simply know how to use the delete key. finally, do i detect a note of hypocrisy here??? after all, you were the one that 'initiated' this current "damn-silly-postgate" nonsense. i'm just 'answering'. you have, from time to time, joined in the fray, as well. ya know, bob, i don't think you and i have ever exchanged an unpleasant word until now. if this forum can't handle some politics debates i think the whole community may be in trouble. with that, get ready on the ol' delete key, because somehow i have a gut feeling that a few more silly political posts will be added to this forum over the next two months, and after. that's right, i just made the "non-unique" "inevitability" and "topicality's not a voter" arguments. tough. very willing this year to vote for the lesser of two evils, korry _________________________________________________________________ On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement From privethedge Tue Sep 7 13:59:17 2004 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 11:59:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] I guess I'm posting this in the wrong forum . . . In-Reply-To: <20040907183243.64288.qmail@web14107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040907185917.85392.qmail@web50907.mail.yahoo.com> I made this post back channel to Jeff Parcher, all of this stuff - pro Bush, anti-Bush, it's just preaching to the choir. There are, most likely, less than 100 people on this list who will vote for Bush. Nothing that gets posted to bash Bush in this forum is going to change my mind, and I can't believe it will change the minds of the others. Same with stuff posted anti-Kerry. Nothing is going to disuade the bulk of this list from voting for Kerry. A lot of what gets put here is just preaching to the respective choirs. Maybe, was it Josh, is right -we should just let E-Debate be E-Debate and start a list for debaters who like to discuss politics. I'm just as guilty as swamping the list with posts - some in response, some attacking - so I know I have guilt here too. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040907/cb5cacd0/attachment.html From alfred.snider Tue Sep 7 14:09:54 2004 From: alfred.snider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 15:09:54 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Greg Achten, please Message-ID: I looked in the edebate subscriber list and could not find your non-Pepperdine address. Please backchannel me. Tuna -- --------------------------- Alfred C. Snider, AKA Tuna Edwin W. Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont 475 Main, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA World Debate Institute; World Debate Organization 802-238-8345 mobile; 802-656-0097 office; 802-656-4275 fax http://alfred.snider.name website From icievents Tue Sep 7 14:19:57 2004 From: icievents (Patty Patchrint) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 12:19:57 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Professional Grant Proposal Writing Workshop (VARIOUS LOCATIONS) Message-ID: You can make a difference and make a tremendous income. The Grant Institute's Grants 101: Professional Grant Proposal Writing Workshop will be held at various locations in your region. This is a fast growing, recession-proof industry. Imagine making the salary you have always dreamed of while making a difference. Interested business executives, entrepreneurs, development professionals, researchers, faculty, and graduate students should register as soon as possible, as demand means that seats will fill up quickly. Please forward, post, and distribute this e-mail to your colleagues and listservs. All participants will receive certification in professional grant writing from the Institute. For more information call (888) 824 - 4424 or visit The Grant Institute website at http://www.thegrantinstitute.com. Please find the program description below: THE GRANT INSTITUTE GRANTS 101: Professional Grant Proposal Writing Workshop 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM GRANTS 101 Workshop Schedule September 13 - 15: Suffolk University (TERI) ? Boston, MA September 20 - 22: University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee ? Milwaukee, WI September 22 - 24: Hampton Inn St Louis Downtown (Gateway Arch) ? St Louis, MO September 27 - 29: University of Alaska Anchorage ? Anchorage, AK October 4 - 6: University of Vermont ? Burlington, VT October 4 - 6: Rutgers University-Camden ? Camden, NJ October 6 - 8: Spokane Falls Community College ? Spokane, WA October 11 - 13: Hinds Community College (Raymond Campus) ? Raymond, MS October 18 ? 20: University of Montana Missoula ? Missoula, MT October 25 - 27: University of Charleston ? Charleston, WV October 26 - 28: University of Indianapolis ? Indianapolis, IN November 1 - 3: University of Arkansas Little Rock ? Little Rock, AR The Grant Institute?s Grants 101 Course is an intensive and detailed introduction to the process, structure, and skill of professional proposal writing. This course is characterized by its ability to act as a thorough overview, introduction, and refresher at the same time. In this course, participants will learn the entire proposal writing process and complete the course with a solid understanding of not only the ideal proposal structure, but a holistic understanding of the essential factors, which determine whether or not a program gets funded. Through the completion of interactive exercises and activities, participants will complement expert lectures by putting proven techniques into practice. This course is designed for both the beginner looking for a thorough introduction and the intermediate looking for a refresher course that will strengthen their grant acquisition skills. This class, simply put, is designed to get results by creating professional grant proposal writers. Participants will become competent program planning and proposal writing professionals after successful completion of the Grants 101 course. In three active and informative days, students will be exposed to the art of successful grant writing practices, and led on a journey that ends with a masterful grant proposal. Grants 101 consists of three (3) courses that will be completed during the three-day workshop. FUNDAMENTALS OF PROGRAM PLANNING This course is centered on the belief that ?it?s all about the program.? This intensive course will teach professional program development essentials and program evaluation. While most grant writing ?workshops? treat program development and evaluation as separate from the writing of a proposal, this class will teach students the relationship between overall program planning and grant writing. PROFESSIONAL GRANT WRITING Designed for both the novice and experienced grant writer, this course will make each student an overall proposal writing specialist. In addition to teaching the basic components of a grant proposal, successful approaches, and the do?s and don?ts of grant writing, this course is infused with expert principles that will lead to a mastery of the process. Strategy resides at the forefront of this course?s intent to illustrate grant writing as an integrated, multidimensional, and dynamic endeavor. Each student will learn to stop writing the grant and to start writing the story. Ultimately, this class will illustrate how each component of the grant proposal represents an opportunity to use proven techniques for generating support. GRANT RESEARCH At its foundation, this course will address the basics of foundation, corporation, and government grant research. However, this course will teach a strategic funding research approach that encourages students to see research not as something they do before they write a proposal, but as an integrated part of the grant seeking process. Students will be exposed to online and database research tools, as well as publications and directories that contain information about foundation, corporation, and government grant opportunities. Focusing on funding sources and basic social science research, this course teaches students how to use research as part of a strategic grant acquisition effort. REGISTRATION $597.00 tuition includes all materials and certificates. Each student will receive: ? The Grant Institute Certificate in Professional Grant writing ? The Grant Institute?s Guide to Successful Grant Writing ? A to Z Grant Writing ? The Grant Institute Grant Writer?s Workbook with sample proposals, forms, and outlines REGISTRATION METHODS ONLINE -Visit www.thegrantinstitute.com and click on the Registration area. Fill out the online registration form completely. We?ll send your confirmation by e-mail. By Phone - Call toll free (888) 824 - 4424 to register by phone. Our friendly Program Coordinators will be happy to assist you and answer your questions. By E-mail - Send an e-mail with your name, organization, and basic contact information to info at thegrantinstitute.com and we will reserve your slot and send your Confirmation Packet. You have received this invitation due to specific educational affiliation. We respect your privacy and want to ensure that interested parties are made aware of The Grant Institute programs and schedules. This is intended to be a one-time announcement. In any event, you should not receive any more announcements unless there is a program next year in your area. To be removed from next year?s announcement, send an e-mail to remove at thegrantinstitute.com . Just write ?remove? in the subject line. _________________________________________________________________ Check out Election 2004 for up-to-date election news, plus voter tools and more! http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx From justinracette Tue Sep 7 15:40:53 2004 From: justinracette (Justin Racette) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 14:40:53 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Richard Howell or anyone with contact info please Message-ID: Richard, if you're out there could you get back to me? Or anyone who has an email address for him. Thanks, Justin From nselegzi Tue Sep 7 15:42:44 2004 From: nselegzi (Noel Selegzi) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 16:42:44 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Mini-Grants Available for Public Debates Message-ID: <1CBED6247AC65445BF49BFDD3CC5DBC6069C6FB6@osinyexch.soros.org> www.idebate.org/ThePeopleSpeak IDEA-USA is happy to announce that it is joining in an international effort to promote discussion of U.S. Foreign Policy. This international effort is backed by a nonpartisan coalition of groups including the United Nations Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institute and the Open Society Institute. >From September 13th through October 15th hundreds of student and community groups across the world will be holding discussions focusing on U.S. foreign policy. IDEA is hoping to help add at least 450 additional events to this list. The three topic areas for the 2004 The People Speak are: * American Power and Global Security * Prosperity in a Global Economy * Energy Choices and Environmental Challenges Qualifying events include public debates, panel or roundtable discussions, lectures with breakout sessions, etc. For some format suggestions, click Format Options . In order to achieve its goal of sponsoring 450 events, IDEA is offering mini-grants to organizations intended to cover the expenses involve in hosting TPS events. To qualify for a mini-grant, an organizer must propose an event which will take place between September 13th and October 15th, 2004. We will try to respond to grant applications within 48 hours of receiving them, but recommend that applications be sent at least one week before the proposed event is scheduled to take place. No applications will be accepted after October 8. To qualify for a mini-grant of $250, an organizer must commit to hosting an event that will involve 50 or more participants. To qualify for a mini-grant of $500, an organizer must commit to hosting an event that will involve 100 or more participants. IDEA is encouraging mini-grant applications from schools around the world, but its focus will be on the United States. One organization or organizer may host multiple events, but they must submit individual mini-grant applications for each event. At least 350 of the mini-grants are reserved for US schools or community organizations. 100 are reserved for non-US schools or community organizations. Those wishing to apply for a grant may apply online by clicking here or by downloading an application form and either emailing it to nwatkins at idebate.org or faxing it to +1 (212) 548-4610. Additional information on The People Speak may also be found at www.ThePeopleSpeak.org . If you have any questions about The People Speak or how to get started planning an event, please contact a member of The People Speak team at (212) 548-0185. Noel S. Selegzi International Debate Education Association Open Society Institute 400 West 59th Street New York, NY 10019 Ph: (212) 547-6938 Fx: (212) 548-4610 www.idebate.org To Join IDEA: www.idebate.org/join To Support IDEA: www.idebate.org/support -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040907/ff257f2f/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 139417 bytes Desc: thepeoplespeak-banner.jpg Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040907/ff257f2f/attachment.jpe From Freesia106 Tue Sep 7 16:03:26 2004 From: Freesia106 (Freesia106 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 17:03:26 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Texas/OU Message-ID: <1EBF6ED1.69855EE7.0B64D492@aol.com> I'm looking to buy tickets to the Texas/OU game. If you go to one of these schools or otherwise have tickets, please back channel me. Thanks! Kerry From berchnorto Tue Sep 7 16:17:31 2004 From: berchnorto (NEIL BERCH) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 17:17:31 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] a debate question! Message-ID: For at least the third time in the past two years, I've had a very bright debater come to me and say (basically), "I love everything about debate except for the actual in-round debating, which I really hate, so I'm not going to do competitive debate any more." How frequent is this experience for other directors and coaches, and how often do debaters know it to take place? And what solutions, if any, have people come up with to keep people like this involved in debate (we're contemplating several ideas)? And, does it seem that people in this situation are more often women than men? Lots of questions; I'd appreciate any thoughts that people have. --Neil Berch West Virginia University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040907/19251c20/attachment.htm From jmartin Tue Sep 7 19:59:24 2004 From: jmartin (Josh Martin) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 03:59:24 +0300 Subject: [eDebate] New LPW Message-ID: It's all new! And all at one easy to use location! http://www.lowpointwin.net/ Josh Martin From debatekorea Tue Sep 7 20:59:50 2004 From: debatekorea (Jason Jarvis) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 21:59:50 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] NE Asian Open Entries Message-ID: Spaces are filling up so if you are thinking about joining us in Seoul for a weekend of debating, beautiful fall colors and the fantastic nightlife a city of 15 million people has to offer let me know. Please note that graduate students are eligible to participate in the competition as this is the international norm! Teams Entered So Far: 1. SICAS (SALAMAT INTERNATIONAL CAMPUS FOR ADVANCED STUDIES), Pakistan, 3 teams 2. Osaka Prefecture University, Japan, 1 team 3. Western Washington University, USA, 1 team 4. U. of Alaska, USA, 1 team 5. Kyung Hee University, Korea, 3 teams 6. Ewha Womans University, Korea, 3 or 4 teams regards, Jason L. Jarvis Professor Graduate School of Journalism and Communication Kyung Hee University 1 Hoeki-dong, Dongdaemun-ku Seoul 130-701, Korea home:82-2-957-2305 mobile: 82-019-381-2305 _________________________________________________________________ Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ From hanes Tue Sep 7 21:30:38 2004 From: hanes (Russell Hanes) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:30:38 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Searching for Steve Pointer Message-ID: <413E6ECE.7040502@pdx.edu> If you've got his email address, could you backchannel me? thanks Russell From hanes Tue Sep 7 21:32:42 2004 From: hanes (Russell Hanes) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:32:42 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Looking for policy & LD college students in Portland, OR Message-ID: <413E6F4A.5000308@pdx.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040907/29658a6b/attachment.html From mroberts141 Tue Sep 7 23:10:40 2004 From: mroberts141 (Matt Roberts) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 23:10:40 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Teddy Albiniak Pls... Message-ID: <0BE90D10-014D-11D9-9048-000D93299242@cox.net> Teddy (or someone who would have his e-mail address) please backchannel me? Thanks. :) M. From jwpatt00 Wed Sep 8 09:46:51 2004 From: jwpatt00 (JW Patterson) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 10:46:51 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] HENRY CLAY ENTRIES -- UPDATE 2 (94 Teams) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Following is the latest count on the Henry Clay Entries. If you have entered and your entry does not appear below, please resend. UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY HENRY CLAY DEBATES October 9, 10, & 11 2004 (Saturday, Sunday, Monday) *Indicates eligibility for the Pre-season Novice National Championships SPECIAL AIR ARRANGEMENTS We have made special airline arrangements with Delta Airlines for the Kentucky Tournament. We are using Delta because it has almost as many flights in and out of Lexington each day as all other airlines combined. Details follow: Delta is offering a 5% discount off Delta's published round trip fares. By purchasing your ticket 60 or more days prior to your departure date, you can receive an additional 5% bonus discount. A 10% discount will be offered on Delta's domestic system for travel to the meeting based on the publishes unrestricted round-trip coach (Y06) rates. No advanced reservations or ticketing is required, but if you purchase your ticket 60 days or more prior to your departure date, you can receive and additional 5% bonus discount. No discounts apply on Delta Express flights. To take advantage of Delta's services call or have your travel agent call 1-800-241-6760 between 7:30am and 11:00 pm EST weekdays and between 8:30am and 11:00pm EST weekends. YOU MUST REFER TO FILE NUMBER: 199994A. KENTUCKY ENTRIES: ALABAMA, UNIVERSITY OF 1. Bryan Grayson and Abi Smith JUDGES 1.Jillian Marty 2. Whit Whitmore CALIFORNIA (BERKLEY), UNIVERSITY OF 1. Stacey Nathan and Criag Wickersham 2. Gaurav Reddy and Reid Shannon 3. Mike Burshteyn and Josh Garen* 4. Nick Lin and Daniel Richards JUDGES 1. Greg Achten 2. Dave Arnett CAPITOL UNIVERISTY 1. Adrian Villalobos and Kyle Schneider JUDGES 1. Stephen Koch CASE WESTERN UNIVERSITY 1. Nick Dorsey & Nick Denissen 2. Mike Riddick & Saptarshi Basu JUDGES 1. Jason Habig CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY 1. TBA 2. TBA 3. TBA JUDGES 1. TBA CONCORDIA COLLEGE 1. TBA 2. TBA 3. TBA 4. TBA JUDGES 1. Fred Sternhagen EMORY UNIVERSITY 1. TBA 2. TBA 3. TBA 4. TBA 5. TBA 6. TBA 7. TBA 8. TBA 9. TBA 10. TBA 11. TBA 12. TBA JUDGES 1. TBA FULLERRTON, UNIVERSITY OF 1. Matt Kennedy and Nader Alshiekh JUDGES 1. Cameron Ward GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY 1. Allison Harper and Matthias Bostick JUDGES 1.Jomel Angat 2. Michelle Lancaster GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 1. Brian Linder and Brett Wallace JUDGES 1. Heather Barnes GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY 1. TBA 2. TBA JUDGES 1. Justin Green GEORGIA, UNIVERSITY OF 1. Brent Culpepper and Hays Watson 2. TBA 3. TBA 4. TBA 5. TBA JUDGES 1. Ed Panetta 2. Robbie Quinn 3. Wally Eastwood GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY 1. Lori Blair & Sarah Crachiolo 2. Matt King & Chris Pozzi JUDGES 1. Joe Bellon GONZAGA UNIVERSITY 1. Colin Hahn and Charlie Hutchison JUDGES 1. Eric Slusher IOWA, UNIVERSITY OF 1. Todd Lantz and Michael Krantz 2. Brian Severson and Jordan Pomeranz 3. TBA 4. TBA JUDGES 1. David Hinstman 2. Scott Varda 3. TBA 4. TBA KANSAS, UNIVERSITY OF 1. Jordan Tinsley and Todd Jordan 2. Matt Cormack and Lindy Simonsen 3. Nate Johnson and Andrew Jennings JUDGES 1. Tom O'Toole 2. Phil Samuels 3. Scott Harris LOUISVILLE, UNIVERSITY OF 1. Ebony Floyd and Jennifer Harris 2. TBA 3. TBA 4. TBA JUDGES 1. Daryl Burch 2. Richard Boada MARY WASHINGTON UNIVERISTY 1. Clint Woods and Joseph Packer 2. TBA 3. TBA JUDGES 1. Tim O'Donnell 2. TBA MACALESTER COLLEGE 1. Travis Cram and Desiree Weber JUDGES 1. David Helwich MERCER UNIVERSITY 1. Andrew Lewis and Sarah Wright JUDGES 1. Kevin Cummings MIAMI UNIVERSITY 1. Michael Maffie and Sarah Spring JUDGES 1. Beth Voss (2 Rounds) 2. Steve Mancuso (2 Rounds) MICHIGAN, UNIVERSITY OF 1. TBA 2. TBA 3. TBA 4. TBA JUDGES 1. Josh Hoe 2. Aaron Kall NORTH TEXAS, UNIVERSITY OF 1. TBA 2. TBA 3. TBA JUDGES 1. TBA 2. TBA 3. TBA PITTSBURG, UNIVERSITY OF 1. Paul Johnson & Jane Munksgaard 2. TBA JUDGES 1. TBA REDLANDS UNIVERSITY 1. TBA 2. TBA JUDGES 1. TBA REGIS UNIVERSITY 1. Brian Schrader & John Rief JUDGES 1. John Foy SAMFORD UNIVERSITY 1. TBA 2. TBA 3. TBA JUDGES 1. TBA 2. TBA SOUTHERN ILLINOIS, UNIVERSITY OF 1. Paul Bellinger and Justin Hingtgen JUDGES 1. Todd Graham SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF 1. TBA 2. TBA 3. TBA JUDGES 1. TBA SOUTHWEST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY 1. TBA 2. TBA 3. TBA 4. TBA 5. TBA JUDGES 1. TBA 2. TBA 3. TBA TEXAS, UNIVERSITY OF AT AUSTIN 1. Claire McKinney and Chris Thiele 2. Sarah Heaton and Brian Peterson 3. Mariesa Herrmann and Jonathan Lewis 4. Alex More and TBA JUDGES 1. David Breshears 2. Jairus Grove WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY 1. Brad Hall and Jamie Carroll 2. Elizabeth Gedmark and James Morrill 3. Adam Abelkop and David Leung 4. Naomi Dale and Chris Sedelmyer 5. Jack Parker and John Patten JUDGES 1. Ross Smith 2. J.P. Lacy 3. R.J. Green 4. TBA 5. TBA WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY 1. Gabe Murrillo and Matt Farmer 2. Jen Schraeder and Frank Esposito 3. Joe Battocletti and Andy Timmons 4. Jason Pearsall and Mike Markovic JUDGES 1. Kelly Young 2. Ron Stevenson 3. George Ziegelmueller WHITMAN, UNIVERSITY OF 1. Beth Schueler and Eric Suni 2. Ben Meiches and Jeff Buntin JUDGES 1. Joe Carver WYOMING, UNIVERSITY OF 1. Chris Crowe and Brian DeLong 2. Seth Ellsworth and Aaron Lyttle 3. Will Jensen and Josh Schmerge 4. Jess Ryan and Brittany Parsons JUDGES 1. Matt Stannard 2. Eric Forslund 3. Michael ?Bear? Bryant Sincerely, JW Patterson ------ End of Forwarded Message ------ End of Forwarded Message -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040908/274a08c7/attachment.htm From ndunn1979 Wed Sep 8 09:21:28 2004 From: ndunn1979 (Nate Dunn) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 07:21:28 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Debate Fantasy Football '04 Message-ID: If you are in our Fantasy Football league please check your teams to make sure your roster is in order by 7 EST Thursday Sept 9th. The League starts at that time and your roster will be fixed for the week. Also, check if you have any trades that are pending so that you can get those squared away by the start of the season. As I said before the results are going to be posted each week, good luck! Nate Dunn Wake Law '07 _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From mrberry Wed Sep 8 10:43:21 2004 From: mrberry (Berry, Mike) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 11:43:21 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Desperate need for judges at the King's Tournament Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040908/94a40222/attachment.html From debate Wed Sep 8 10:45:47 2004 From: debate (debate at ou.edu) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 09:45:47 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Novice in the Mid-south/West Message-ID: <1966e6d04409.413ed4cb@ou.edu> Hello, I know that we have had many discussions about making novice stronger in our region. We can't expect 12-15 teams per school, but it would be nice if we could at least bring 1-3 per school. As of now, i have three, not overwhelming I know. However, if everyone would bring one, that would make it interesting for the new debaters from all schools. Our budge it not endless, we could fly to all the National Level Tournaments and not expend resources on Novice, but I do remember some regional meetings making a committment to novice debate. We wont be at Wichita, but will attend KCKCC, Emporia, SMS, and UCO. Does SMS have novice? Just wondering what the novice pool looks like from other regional schools. Adios, Jackie Massey Sooner Debate From nselegzi Wed Sep 8 11:19:43 2004 From: nselegzi (Noel Selegzi) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 12:19:43 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] The People Speak FAQ Message-ID: <1CBED6247AC65445BF49BFDD3CC5DBC6069C7007@osinyexch.soros.org> I have received a lot of questions regarding The People Speak mini-grants so ... Q. Can organizers apply for more than one grant? Yes, they can. Each application must be submitted separately, but since the application is only two pages and can be submitted electronically, we didn't think this would be too much trouble. Q. Does the event have to be a debate? No, it doesn't. Panel discussions, public forums, classroom lectures with breakouts, are all acceptable. We would encourage you to be creative. The goal is to get as many people critically discussing America's role in the world as possible during this month. Q. Can we do online events? Yes, we would encourage people who would like to try videoconferences and/or streaming debates to send in proposals. While we realize that $250 or $500 is not a lot of money for these events, we are hoping to prove that virtual public forums can work. Q. When do we get our money? You will receive a check and/or wire transfer after your event has been completed and we have received a sign in sheet and very brief report on the event. In the event that your event is an electronic one, we would not need a sign-up sheet. Q. Do debate touranements count? Yes, they do so long as there are 50 or more participants and the topic for at least some of the debates are issues relating to US foreign policy. What will be important is that the tournament be one in which the general public is able to view watch rounds using TPS topics. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me! Noel S. Selegzi International Debate Education Association Open Society Institute 400 West 59th Street New York, NY 10019 Ph: (212) 547-6938 Fx: (212) 548-4610 www.idebate.org To Join IDEA: www.idebate.org/join To Support IDEA: www.idebate.org/support From kels2020 Wed Sep 8 13:44:09 2004 From: kels2020 (kels2020 at uni.edu) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:44:09 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [eDebate] UNI Judging Available Message-ID: <01LEMIHR1KQA8X3WVA@uni.edu> If anyone is looking to hire a judge for the UNI tournament, I will be there the entire weekend and am not obligated for any rounds as of yet. Let me know. Michelle Kelsey ISU debate (formally UNI debate) From kendog_3 Wed Sep 8 13:33:10 2004 From: kendog_3 (kenny hanson) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 18:33:10 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Kings Judging Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040908/cc7cebcd/attachment.htm From delliott Wed Sep 8 14:11:18 2004 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:11:18 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UNI Judging Available In-Reply-To: <01LEMIHR1KQA8X3WVA@uni.edu> References: <01LEMIHR1KQA8X3WVA@uni.edu> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040908141027.01f8d440@kckcc.toto.net> The sign that the apocalypse is upon us! Next thing you know Eric Short will be judging! Oh the activity.... : ) chief At 01:44 PM 9/8/2004, kels2020 at uni.edu wrote: >If anyone is looking to hire a judge for the UNI tournament, I will be >there the entire weekend and am not obligated for any rounds as of >yet. Let me know. > >Michelle Kelsey >ISU debate (formally UNI >debate) > > > > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at ndtceda.com >To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: >http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From kenedebate Wed Sep 8 14:34:25 2004 From: kenedebate (Ken DeLaughder) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:34:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Emporia State - Pflaum invitation Message-ID: Online entry is up at Bruschke's site. Thanks for your patience. The block will close soon. Please make your reservations. If you are releasing rooms, PLEASE POST. Dear Community, On behalf of Emporia State University, the Department of Communication and Theatre, and Hornet Debate I would like to invite you to the George R. R. Pflaum Debate Tournament in Emporia, KS. The tournament will be held Oct 16-18, with Registration at the tournament hotel, Ramada, on October 15th. We are pleased to be offering 6 rounds of debate in Open, Junior Varisty and novice divisions. We know many prefer an 8 round format, however, we believe that a 6 round format encourages wellness (and sleep). Final round schedule will depend on entries and facilities. We will make every effort to keep divisions separate, a final schedule will be released at registration. We offer a fine slate of competition in the Midwest tradition, as well as great hospitality, as some of you who have been here before can attest. We will continue those traditions and hope your experience is the best we can make it. We do have one concern and that is hotel space. Emporia has become a favorite for regional soccer meets and several other events. Therefore hotel space is at a premium. I hope everyone takes advantage of this opportunity to grab hotel rooms early. Please make sure that you make your reservations by September 15th at the latest. There will be no quality rooms in Emporia after that date. We do hope you will join us here in October. Much success. Sincerely, Kenneth DeLaughder Director of Debate delaughk at emporia.edu (620) 341-5705 office (620) 481-0421 cell James Taylor Assistant Coach jtedebate at yahoo.com TOURNAMENT INFORMATION LODGING INFORMATION - MAKE RESERVATIONS NOW!!!!!! TOURNAMENT HOTEL - All blocks will be held until Sept 15th, then you?re on your own. Ramada Inn 2700 W 18th Ave. 620-343-2200 Rate- 69.95 + tax Need more hotels? email and ask. TOURNAMENT INFORMATION TRANSPORTATION: Emporia is located at the major highway junction of I-335 and I-35. Those of you driving will have little trouble finding the University or the hotel, as both are located within two blocks of I-35 (known as the NAFTA highway). For those of you flying, the Emporia airport does have shuttle service to KCI, but you will find flying into Kansas City International Airport the cheapest option. ESU is unable to provide shuttle service to KCI airport. If you need help with directions of travel, do not hesitate to email us. GUIDELINES: The Plfaum will abide by all relevant CEDA guidelines on sexual harassment and debater eligibility. TOPIC: We will use the 2004-05 CEDA/NDT topic on energy policy. TIMES: 9-3-6 with 10 minutes prep DIVISIONS: We will offer Novice, Junior Varisty and Open levels of competion, eligibility by CEDA guidelines. We reserve the right to collapse divisions if entries warrant. We will try to preserve novice as a primary concern. AWARDS: will be awarded to the top 5 speakers in all divisions, top 10 if entries warrant in Open. Suitable awards will be given to all elimination round participants. SMOKING: ESU is a smoke free campus, we ask your help in enforcing this policy as well as being aware of the mess smoking creates outside of buildings. ELIMINATION ROUNDS: Will be held as per the CEDA formula for point eligibility, we anticipate at least quarters in all divisions. SCHEDULE: We are a 6 round tournament with a goal to have you spend no more than 12 hours a day in competition and at the tournament site. We fundamentally believe this is a more humane schedule than a 16 hour day, and we hope you support our plan by keeping things on time. ENTRY FEES: $80 per policy team. That pays for meals for one team and one coach (3 people per entry). If you have more than one coach per team, we will ask for a $15 meal fee as well. JUDGING GUIDELINES: Each team is expected to provide one qualified judge for every two teams entered. One team will equal a half commitment (3 rounds). Fees for uncovered teams will be $100, of course we would rather have your judges than your money. We reserve the right to limit entries based on available judges from any school. We do not have any judges available locally for hire at this time. We encourage you to post to edebate to get folks to come out of the woodwork. If you have judges for hire, please let us know ASAP, and we will get them hooked up with folks. NOTE: Each judge is expected to render a decision in a timely manner, with ONE team given the win. ALL JUDGES ARE OBLIGATED THROUGH THE FIRST ELIM ROUND OR ONE ROUND PAST THE ELIMINATION OF THEIR SQUAD, Please abide by that rule. ENTRIES: Deadline for Entries is Wednesday, October 14th, please send them in or you can enter on Bruschke?s web site, www.debateresults.com. Please do this as soon as possible so we can plan food. Please send the names of all team members, division entered, and full names of all judges with commitments to: ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE Friday October 15, 2004 7 p.m. - 9 p.m. Registration, Ramada (pairings may be released at 10 p.m. or so for 1 and 2) Saturday, October 16th 8 a.m. Pairing released Ramada, if not Saturday) 9 a.m. ROUND ONE (Preset) 11:30 LUNCH (provided by us, Lakeview Cafeteria) 1 p.m. ROUND TWO (Preset) 4 p.m. ROUND THREE (Powered/Preset ? entry dependent) PM - Hospitality, PT One, TBA Sunday, October 17th 8 a.m. Pairings released (Ramada) 9 a.m. ROUND FOUR (Powered/Preset ? entry dependent) 11:30 LUNCH (on us again, Pasta Bar, Skyline Room) 1 p.m. ROUND FIVE (Powered) 4 p.m. ROUND SIX (Powered) 7 p.m. Elimination Round participants released - Ramada THAT NIGHT - Hospitality, TBA Monday, October 18th 7:30 a.m. Pairing released, Ramada 8:30 a.m. Elim Round I 10:30 or ASAP Awards Assembly. ASAP - remaining Elim rounds. _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From bbcoulte Wed Sep 8 15:09:13 2004 From: bbcoulte (Benjamin Coulter) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 15:09:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Looking to hire judging Message-ID: Samford is looking to hire 8 rounds of judging at Kentucky. We will pay in $25/round in cash. Interested parties should email me at bbcoulte at samford.edu. Thanks, Ben Coulter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040908/d44a9ca5/attachment.html From matt_moore85 Wed Sep 8 17:11:20 2004 From: matt_moore85 (Matt Moore) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:11:20 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Novices at UNI??? Message-ID: Where are the entries. Checking the Bruschke page today, there are a whole 3 entries. So where are all the novices? I seriously doubt that the teams attending don't have any. Given there is a little less than a week and a half before the tournament, it is importanyt that directors of programs in the area who plan on attending the UNI tournament make a commitment to their novice programs and get people entered in the tournament. The only real oopostion could be that there was not enough time to get teams ready, but that is a terrible argument. No novice is ever truly "ready" for their first tournament. And really people, it is not like there are ample novice opportunities later in the year for novice debate. Here in the midwest, we are a far cry from the East Coast. There are not thriving divisions. Most of the tournaments we went to last year involved small, barely functional novice divisions, and it is not good for young debaters. If you plan on attending UNI, and have a novice team that meets one or more of the following criteria, they should be there: 1. They have a pulse; 2. They have some idea of what to say on the aff and what to say on the neg, and by some idea they know how to say warming is happening, warming is not happening; 3. They are capable of getting on the van; 4. They can dress themselves, usually better than the open debaters; 5. They have pens, crayons, quills, anything that they can write with. Again, more likely than open debaters to actually remember these things; 6. They are enrolled; 7. They were told once by their mother that they are good at arguing. I could go on like this for a while, but the point is there needs to be more of a commitment to novice debate in the midwest if the activity is going to thrive. If you honestly think there will be plenty of opportunities for your teams to debate in the region later in the year, then look at the results from last year and the size of the tournaments. Any argument about them not being ready is overcome by the fact that a few rounds with other teams and other judges helping out will be more beneficial than a weekend that they spend at home doing non-debate. You will be at the tournament, do you honestly think they will be doing as much "getting ready" for the next tournament on their own? It is time to think like Chicago Democrats here people: Debate early, debate often. Matt _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From Greg.Achten Wed Sep 8 18:09:42 2004 From: Greg.Achten (Achten, Greg) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 16:09:42 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] CSU Northridge Invitiation Message-ID: <003601c495f8$ecd0ee40$07fa7944@OFFICE> Posted on behalf of Becky Opsata. Please reply to her at becky.opsata at csun.edu 2004 California State University at Northridge Speech and Debate Tournament Dear Forensics Colleagues: On behalf of the CSUN Forensics Society and the Department of Communication Studies at CSU-Northridge, we would like to invite you to participate in our 2004 tournament. Competition will be held from November 5-7, 2004 on our campus. California State University at Northridge is located in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles. It is easily (and inexpensively) served by both Los Angeles International Airport and Burbank International Airport. Travel times from either airport to our campus are usually under 30 minutes. We have a new tournament hotel, the Woodland Hills Hilton, which is offering an excellent rate for Los Angeles for our event. This hotel is a mile from the one we used last year and is offering a better rate. It service and amenities are top-notch. This will be a full service tournament offering three preliminary rounds in all 11 AFA individual events (both novice and open when possible), two divisions of NPDA Parliamentary Debate, and three divisions of policy debate. We will have six debate prelims and the appropriate number of out-rounds. In the past, we have had strong regional and national representation in all three events. Last year open division of NPDA went to doubles and novice went to octa-finals, most individual events went to semis in both divisions, and open policy went to octa-finals. This year we will be using the same schedule as last year with the A and B individual events on separate days with the overall goal of having a workable schedule that allows for as many rounds as we have and yet allows everyone to get on the road home as soon as possible. We have assembled a top-notch tabulation staff with decades of tabulation experience among them. Dr. Jeanine Congalton of CSU-Fullerton, Erick Roebuck of BIOLA, Dawn Jacobs of the College of the Canyons, and Voiza Green of Azusa Pacific will be administering the individual events tab. The debate tab room will be Dr. Matt Taylor of CSU-Long Beach, Dr. Jon Bruschke of CSU-Fullerton, Lisa Kawamura of Cal Poly SLO, and Greg Achten of UC Berkeley. We are committed to and will uphold the ethical standards outlined in the CEDA Statement on Discrimination and Sexual Harassment and the AFA Code of Ethics. If you have students who may be interested in attending CSUN's Masters Program in Communication Studies, Dr. Ben Attias, Director of the Graduate Program, will be here on Saturday afternoon to answer any questions they may have. Please direct your students to contact any one of the coaching staff so we can set up a meeting. Please contact us with any questions you may have about our tournament. November is a great time to visit Los Angeles and we are confident we will host excellent competition. . Breakfasts are provided, lunch is provided on Saturday, and slices of pizza are sold for Sunday lunch at our cost. We have always run on time and we do our best to make the event fun and healthy for competitors and coaches. Please contact me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Dr. Becky Opsata Jason Baumwrit Director of Forensics Erica Llerena Sherana Polk Libby Simas Christina Tallungan Assistant Coaches Hotel Information The Warner Center Hilton in Woodland Hills will serve as the tournament hotel. It is a deluxe, business class hotel that is full of amenities, including high speed Internet. The rate for 1-4 people per room is $75.00 a night plus tax, plus $10.00 a night parking per vehicle. This hotel is about one mile from the one we used last year. It is cheaper and every bit as nice. It is also next door to the Cheesecake Factor and BJ's Pizza, good food options! Reservations should be made directly with the hotel at (818) 595-1090. Be sure to request the "CSUN Debate Tournament Rate" to get this very good rate. The cut-off date for the block of rooms is October 22th, so please make your reservations now. After this date, no guarantee can be made for the rate or availability. So you can Mapquest yourself directions, the hotel is located at 6360 Canoga Avenue, Woodland Hills, CA, 91367. Directions * To the Hotel From Highway 101 going West: exit on Canoga Boulevard, head north (right). The hotel will be on your right about 8 blocks off the highway. From 101 going East: exit on Topanga Boulevard. Go left (north) on Topanga to Oxnard. Go right on Oxnard about 6 blocks to Canoga. Go left on Canoga and the hotel will be on your right in about 3 blocks. * To CSUN From Interstate 405: Exit at Nordhoff and go west. About 5 miles down Nordhoff the school will be on your right. Tournament HQ is in Manzanita Hall on the southwestern corner of campus. Park in lot B1 or B3. From Highway 101: Exit on Reseda. Go North. About 5 miles you will come to Nordhoff, go right (east). Campus is in 1 block, take a quick left for parking into B1 or B3. * From the Hotel to CSUN Go out the front of the hotel and turn right (north) on Canoga. At the next street, go right on Victory. About 4 miles down Victory, turn left on Reseda. Take Reseda about 3 miles to Nordhoff, turn right on Nordhoff and campus is immediately on your left. Park in B1, the first lot you come to as you get to campus. Parking on Campus You will want to park in student lot B1. It is located at the corner of Nordhoff and Darby - on the very southwest corner of campus. Buy a one-day pass from the yellow automatic vending machine at the entry to B1 lot on Darby Street or buy one from the visitor's booth. CSUN is now ticketing people without passes every day of the week. This is a change, parking used to be free on the weekend. Now, you must buy a $4 pass every day. They will ticket you. Events Team Policy Debate: We will have six preliminary rounds on the 2004-2005 CEDA resolution with appropriate numbers of elimination rounds per division. There will be three divisions (Novice/Junior/Open). We will follow CEDA rules for eligibility. If collapsing of divisions is warranted, it will be our priority to maintain a pure novice division first. Time limits will be 9-3-6 with 10 minutes of prep. Rounds 1 and 2 will be preset, 3 and 4 will be lagged off 1 and 2, and 5 and 6 will be powered separately. Teams will advance to elimination rounds based on the following criteria: win/loss, total speaker points, adjusted speaker points, double-adjusted speaker points, and ranks. Brackets will not be broken. Policy debaters will not be able to participate in individual events. CSUN students may compete, but will not be eligible to clear or for speaker awards, except in Novice division. In Novice, CSUN students will compete and will be eligible for awards and advancing to elimination rounds. One critic covers two debate teams. A policy critic cannot judge IE's or Parli, since they will be run concurrently. Policy Schedule: Friday, November 5 11:00 - 1:00 Registration, Manzanita Hall 1:30 Release pairings at Manzanita Hall 2:00 Round 1 4:30 Round 2 Saturday, November 6 8:00 Release pairings at hotel and school. Light breakfast at school. 9:00 Round 3 11:30 Round 4 1:00 - 2:00 Lunch (provided) 3:00 Round 5 6:00 Round 6 10:00 Posting of teams clearing at hotel and Coaches function at hotel in Opsata Suite Sunday, November 7 8:00 First elim pairing released at hotel and school. Light breakfast at school. 9:00 First elimination round Immediately following 1st elim: Policy awards ceremony Other rounds to follow as appropriate Team Parliamentary Debate - NPDA: We will offer two divisions (novice/open), following NPDA eligibility rules. There will be six preliminary rounds, followed by the appropriate number of elimination rounds. Teams will use the 7-8-8-8-4-5 format, with 20 minutes of prep time, beginning at the end of the topic announcement. The first two rounds will be preset and then rounds 3 and 4 will be powered off 1 and 2. Rounds 5 and 6 will not be lagged. Teams will advance to elimination rounds based on the following criteria: win/loss, total speaker points, adjusted speaker points, double-adjusted speaker points, and ranks. Brackets will not be broken. Parli debaters will be able to participate in individual events. CSUN students may compete, but will not be eligible to clear or for speaker awards. One critic covers two debate teams. A parli judge can also cover IE slots, but cannot judge policy debate since they will run concurrently. All resolutions will be announced to the group outside of Manzanita Hall following the schedule below. You are allowed to consult materials and coaches during the 20-minute preparation period. Judges are allowed, but not required, to disclose their decisions but are limited to no more than 5-minute discussions with debaters after each round. Individual Events: There will be THREE preliminary rounds followed by the appropriate number of elimination rounds. We will offer two divisions (novice/open) in each event, but reserve the right to collapse divisions if necessary. For novice division, contestants must be in their first year of competition in either high school or college. Students may be novice for new event areas, even if they are open in others (example: a student did interp in high school but no limited prep. They can go novice in the limited prep, but the must go open in the interp). We will have all 11 AFA events, and AFA rules will govern each event. Pattern groups will be as follows: A: Extemp, Prose, Duo, Informative, POI, CA B: Impromptu, Poetry, Persuasive, ADS, DI Novice competitors cannot double enter in the same pattern. Varsity competitors may enter up to three events in each pattern, but be warned: the tournament will make NO special accommodations for triple entered students who are late to a round. If you miss the judge because you are tripled entered you will NOT be able to make it up. We are nice people, but if a student is triple-entered they do so at their own risk and they should not expect us to help them out in any way. Important note about triple-entries: the computer system will not take a third event per student - it only takes two. If you have students who are going to do three, you need to email me directly the students name, school, and third event. Students may compete in two duos with two different partners. Competitors may not use selections used in competition prior to September 1, 2004. CSUN students may compete and will be allowed to advance to elimination rounds. One critic covers five IE slots per pattern. An IE judge can also cover parli debate, but cannot judge policy debate since they will run concurrently. I.E. and Parli Schedule Friday, November 5 11:00 - 1:00 Registration, Manzanita Hall 1:30 Release parli pairings at Manzanita Hall 1:40 Topic One Announcement at Manzanita Hall 2:00 Parli Round 1 3:00 Topic Two Announcement at Manzanita Hall 3:20 Parli Round 2 4:30 Light snacks will be provided at Manzanita Hall 5:00 Topic Three Announcement at Manzanita Hall 5:20 Parli Round 3 6:20 Topic Four Announcement at Manzanita Hall 6:40 Parli Round 4 Saturday, November 6 7:45 IE Pairings released at Manzanita Hall. Light breakfast provided at school 8:15 Extemp Draw 8:30 Pattern A, Round 1 (Extemp, Prose, Duo, Informative, POI, CA) 9:45 Extemp Draw 10:00 Pattern A, Round 2 11:20 Topic Five Announcement at Manzanita Hall 11:40 Parli Round 5 12:00 - 2:00 Lunch provided at Manzanita 12:45 Extemp Draw 1:00 Pattern A, Round 3 2:20 Topic Six Announcement at Manzanita Hall 2:40 Parli Round 6 3:45 Pattern A Semi's (and A events that go straight to finals) 4:45 Topic Double-Octa's Announcement at Manzanita Hall 5:05 Parli Double-Octa finals 6:15 Pattern A Finals 7:30 Topic Octa's Announcement at Manzanita Hall 7:50 Parli Octa-finals 10:00 Coaches gathering at hotel, Opsata Suite Sunday, November 7 7:45 IE Pairings released at MZ. Light breakfast provided at school. 8:00 Pattern B, Round 1 (Impromptu, Poetry, Persuasive, ADS, DI) 9:30 Pattern B, Round 2 10:45 Topic Quarters Announcement at Manzanita Hall 11:05 Parli Quarters 12:15 Pattern B, Round 3 1:00 - 2:00 Pizza slices for sale at MZ 1:20 Topic Semi's Announcement at Manzanita Hall 1:40 Parli Semi's 2:45 Pattern B Semi's (and B events that go straight to finals) 4:15 Pattern B Finals 4:45 Topic Finals Announcement at Manzanita Hall 5:05 Parli Finals (The open finals will be held in the Nordhoff Theater) 6:15 Awards Ceremony in Nordhoff Theatre Fees Each debate team entry is $75.00 and each individual events slot is $10.00 ($12.00 for duo). Each uncovered parli debate team will be $80.00 and policy debate team will be $100.00. Each uncovered IE slot will be $10.00. Each critic will cover two debate teams. Each IE critic will cover five slots per pattern. Policy judges cannot judge IE slots or parli teams (or vice versa) since policy will run independently and concurrently with parli and IE's. (If you have one parli team and one policy team: one judge can cover both for fee assesment purposes, but will have to choose which pool they want to be placed in). One judge can cover both IE's and Parli, but they will be tired! Fees will be set at Noon on Thursday, November 4; schools should expect to pay the set fee amount at registration regardless of subsequent drops to the setting of fees. Sweepstakes Awards Sweepstakes trophies will be awarded to (1) the top three debate schools; (2) the top three IE schools; (3) the top three community colleges and (4) to the top three schools overall. The following formula will be used for sweepstakes calculation: IE: (top 3 competitors per school per event) 1st = 10 pts 2nd = 8 pts 3rd = 6pts finalist = 3 pts semi's = 1 pt Debate: (top 3 teams in each division per school) 3 points for each prelim win plus 2 points for each team that clears. Entry Procedure: Entries will only be accepted on-line. If you have not used the on-line system yet, it is easy to do. It will take you a few minutes to set up your school's account, but once that is done the system is a breeze. Plus, the system will remember all your judges and competitors - so for the next tournament you attend that uses this system you will not have to type them again. Last year there were some bugs in the IE entry that have since been resolved. To enter go to http://www.debateresults.com/ Do not use Netscape. If you are new to the online system, you will need to first "Set up a new account" for your school. After the account is set up, go to "View Tournament Calendar" and it will let you click on "Entry." Please note: enter the CSUN college tournament, not the high school one. The system will accept entries and changes until NOON on Thursday, November 4th. If you have drops or adds, you need to go to the webpage and make them yourself. As of noon on Nov. 4th, fees will be set and changes will not be allowed on-line. If you have drops after that date, please email them to me at becky.opsata at csun.edu. Please note that drops after fees assessment will be charged. We look forward to hosting you in November. Please feel free to contact me with questions! Dr. Becky Opsata Director of Forensics (818) 677-3043 (0) becky.opsata at csun.edu (email) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040908/da936bd1/attachment.htm From ryan.sullivan Wed Sep 8 20:30:37 2004 From: ryan.sullivan (Sullivan, R. x62188 H3) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 21:30:37 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] West Point Tournament Invite Message-ID: <85C25057B612B542BC1B9389EE0B66F4B8AC58@usmasvgdoim106.usma.ds.army.edu> _____________________________________________________________ I am pleased to invite you to the 37th annual West Point Debate Tournament from 29 October to 31 October, 2004. This year's tournament will feature six preliminary rounds, two on Friday and four on Saturday, with elimination rounds on Sunday in open, junior varsity and novice divisions. Tournament entries must be received by October 24, 2004. Entries after that date are subject to room availability. By tradition we will host the awards brunch on Sunday morning at the West Point club overlooking the Hudson River. Entry fees will cover continental breakfast and lunch on Saturday and brunch on Sunday. Tournament fees: $75 per team. Meal fee for judges (to cover breakfast, lunch, brunch and snacks) is $15. Additionally, new programs with limited budgets may submit a request for their fees to be lowered or waived for the tournament. Our tournament is ADA and CEDA sanctioned and we already have entries from many out of district schools. This tournament will comply with the underlying principles of CEDA's Statement on Sexual Harassment and Discrimination and the Statement of Ethical Principles. If you have any questions, please call me at (845) 938-3738. Hope to see you at West Point. Sincerely, Tino Perez Tournament Director ### West Point Debate Tournament October 29 - October 31, 2004 USMA West Point, NY Format: The debate resolution is Resolved: the United States federal government should establish an energy policy requiring a substantial reduction in the total non-governmental consumption of fossil fuels in the United States. Time limits for speeches are 9-3-6 with ten minutes of preparation time. There will be six preliminary rounds. Rounds one and two will be pre-set. Rounds three through six will be power matched. Three divisions of debate will be offered: novice, junior varsity, and varsity. We will use random judging . An appropriate number of elimination rounds will be offered in accordance with applicable rules and based on the size of the tournament. Entries: Enter as many teams as you like in each of the three divisions. If entries exceed room availability, latecomers may be restricted. Eligibility for participation in the division is governed by the ADA and CEDA rules. 1. Novice division: open to debaters who have no more than a total of 24 rounds of team policy or Lincoln-Douglas debate at any level (high school or college) or college LD debate prior to the academic year, or to persons who have competed in the novice division in a previous year but have not advanced into the elimination rounds at two tournaments or to those who meet the prior qualifications and have not advanced to the final round of three novice, JV or varsity tournaments where there are 20 or more teams in the division. 2. Junior Varsity division: (1) Open only to students who are competing in their first two academic years of intercollegiate debate beyond the novice level; (2) Progression during the year. Debaters competing in JV must progress to open or varsity debate: a. if they advance to the final round of three JV, open, or varsity tournaments (no matter where), or b. if they qualify to attend the National Debate Tournament. (3) ADA Nationals. The aforementioned progression requirement based on winning the final rounds of three junior varsity, open, or varsity tournaments does not apply to ADA Nationals. 3. Varsity division: open to all students. Please enter the tournament by October 23, 2004 by email. Entries after this date are subject to campus room availability. Enter early as our room space may be limited by construction. Judging: Each school should provide a qualified judge for each one or two teams entered in the tournament. A judge will be responsible to cover three preliminary rounds and at least one elimination round for each team entered. All judges will be required to judge through the octafinal elimination round or one round after your last team is eliminated whichever occurs later. Awards: Awards will be awarded for the top sixteen teams in each division and for the top ten speakers in each division. The first place varsity team will also take home the traveling trophy (saber) for one year. Fees: Entry fees are $75 per team, $15.00 per judge. Make checks payable to Directorate of Cadet Activities. Fees include trophies, food, and the awards brunch on Sunday for all team participants, coaches, and judges. Hotel information: Note -- West Point is "geographically challenged." The best selection of hotels is in the Newburgh area, approximately 40 minutes from post. If you'd prefer a closer hotel, the new Holiday Inn Express is 10 minutes away. Rooms fill up in the fall due to weddings at the post chapel, so book early. 1) Comfort Inn Newburgh Approximately 40 minute drive from USMA, close to diners and other "cheap eats." 1-845-567-0567 Continental Breakfast Included Approximate Rate: $90 a night, quad occupancy smoking and nonsmoking Sept 30 release date 2) Hampton Inn Newburgh Approximately 40 min drive, close to diners and other "cheap eats." 1-845-567-9100 Approximate Rate: $134.10 quad occupancy, mix of smoking and non-smoking September 30 release date 3) Holiday Inn Express, Fort Montgomery (mention **West Point debate**) Approximately 10 minute drive from USMA 1-845-446-4277 Rate: $110.00 quad occupancy September 30 release date Airport information: The closest airport is Stewart International Airport in Newburgh New York. Other airports in the region include Newark (1.5 - 2 hours), LaGuardia and JFK (1.5 - 2 hours depending on traffic). Consult your travel agent and MapQuest for driving directions. Entry Deadlines: Please enter the tournament by October 23, 2004. Be sure to phone or e-mail late entries or any last minute changes. Teams dropped after October 29 at noon may still be assessed the entry fee. Additionally, judges covering dropped teams after October 29 at noon will still be expected to judge the rounds committed for the dropped team. Please enter the tournament via email to je1997 at usma.edu <<<>>> or phone 845-938-3738. Directions: To West Point: West Point is in the Hudson Valley approximately one hour north of NYC. Access via the NY Thruway (84) to 9W South, exit at 218 and follow signs to West Point or, the New Jersey Turnpike (I-95) to the Palisades Parkway to Bear Mountain Bridge then follow the signs to West Point. * Enter through Thayer Gate. To the Ramada Inn: Follow Interstate 29 to the Odd Fellows Road Exit. Tournament Registration: Registration will be held in Thayer Hall Friday afternoon from 1:00 pm to 4:00 p.m. Off load tubs and evidence on Thayer Roof. Parking will be in the parking lots around the ball field. Public Transportation: The closest train is Garrison (approx. 11 miles across the river). Special Announcement: Smoking is only permitted outside the academic buildings. Please do not smoke in the public lounges or classrooms. Post security is in effect. Please ensure that all debaters carry a photo ID with them at all times. Vans will be subject to a routine search at the gate (plan on an extra 10 minutes). Enter post at Thayer Gate. TOURNAMENT SCHEDULE ** We're using military time to indicate that we will start promptly. Friday, 29 October Upon Arrival Team Registration Thayer Hall 1615-1815 Round 1 Thayer Hall 1830-2030 Round 2 Thayer Hall Saturday, 30 October 0700-0800 Continental Breakfast Thayer Rotunda 0800-1000 Round 3 Thayer Hall 1000-1200 Round 4 Thayer Hall 1200-1300 Lunch and District Coaches' Meeting (LOC TBA) Thayer Rotunda 1300-1500 Round 5 Thayer Hall 1600-1800 Round 6 Thayer Hall Sunday, 31 October 0700-0800 Coffee and Juice Thayer Rotunda 0800-1000 Octafinals Thayer Hall 1000-1130 Brunch and Awards Thayer Hall 1200-1430 Quarterfinals Thayer Hall 1430-1700 Semifinals Thayer Hall 1800-2030 Final Round Thayer Hall WEST POINT DEBATE TOURNAMENT 2004 ENTRY FORM School__________________________________________________________________ ____ _______________________________ Address ________________________________________________________________________ ____ ________________________ Person Submitting Entry ________________________________________________________________________ ____ __________ Office Phone (______)______________________ Home Phone (______)_____________________ Please include the full name of each debater entered. Varsity Debate: Team #1 _______________________________________ Team #1 ________________________________________ Team #2 _______________________________________ Team #2 ________________________________________ Team #3 _______________________________________ Team #3 ________________________________________ Team #4 _______________________________________ Team #4 ________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________ Jr. Varsity Debate: Team #1 _______________________________________ Team #1 ________________________________________ Team #2 _______________________________________ Team #2 ________________________________________ Team #3 _______________________________________ Team #3 ________________________________________ Team #4 _______________________________________ Team #4 ________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________ NOVICE Team #1 _______________________________________ Team #1 ________________________________________ Team #2 _______________________________________ Team #2 ________________________________________ Team #3 _______________________________________ Team #3 ________________________________________ Team #4 _______________________________________ Team #4 ________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________ Judges: Judges _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ Total number of Vegetarians __________ Of Vegans________ $75 per team ____________________ $15 per judge (food fee) ____________________ Uncovered teams ($100 or $25 per round) ____________________ EMAIL to jc3150 at usma.edu <<<>>> . From trond Thu Sep 9 00:19:47 2004 From: trond (trond at umich.edu) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 01:19:47 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] WARNING: Politics Post Message-ID: <1094707187.413fe7f3cd57a@web.mail.umich.edu> New evidence puts the lie to Bush's claims about his National Guard service. New Bush AWOL ads out: http://www.texansfortruth.com/ Rather amateurish compared to the high-production value of the SBVT ads, but asks an intriguing question nevertheless: If you were in Alabama can you tell us what you did and you who worked with? Bush hasn't and presumably can't. One explanation is that his memory is shot. The more plausible explanation is that he did not show up so providing details likely later countered would prove devastating. So play dumb; not too hard. The new records release is the second time this year the Bush people have attempted to bury this story with irrelevent evidence that does not speak to the periods in question. But like syphilis it keeps coming back. How many times are they going to find another cache of documents after claiming no more existed before people wake up and conclude Bush is a fraud of the highest order whose policies are making us less safe? And now the Globe has uncovered new evidence of Bush failing to meet legal obligations he willingly assumed. What about this record is cause for the pride in his service he claims? What would Bush say of a National Guard member today who, fearing the war in Iraq, choose to avoid reporting as required? The new evidence relates to Bush failure to meet training obligations to which he agreed as a condition of his being allowed to enter Harvard Business School (where, it would seem, he did not learn much judging by his record of business failures). Boston Globe, 9/8/2004 "In February, when the White House made public hundreds of pages of President Bush's military records, White House officials repeatedly insisted that the records prove that Bush fulfilled his military commitment in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. But Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation, a Globe reexamination of the records shows: Twice during his Guard service -- first when he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out of his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School -- Bush signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty. He didn't meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records show. The 1973 document has been overlooked in news media accounts. The 1968 document has received scant notice. On July 30, 1973, shortly before he moved from Houston to Cambridge, Bush signed a document that declared, ''It is my responsibility to locate and be assigned to another Reserve forces unit or mobilization augmentation position. If I fail to do so, I am subject to involuntary order to active duty for up to 24 months... " Under Guard regulations, Bush had 60 days to locate a new unit. But Bush never signed up with a Boston-area unit. In 1999, Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Washington Post that Bush finished his six-year commitment at a Boston area Air Force Reserve unit after he left Houston. Not so, Bartlett now concedes. ''I must have misspoke," Bartlett, who is now the White House communications director, said in a recent interview. [I think you lied like a good handler, but that may be just my cynicism shining through] And early in his Guard service, on May 27, 1968, Bush signed a ''statement of understanding" pledging to achieve ''satisfactory participation" that included attendance at 24 days of annual weekend duty -- usually involving two weekend days each month -- and 15 days of annual active duty. ''I understand that I may be ordered to active duty for a period not to exceed 24 months for unsatisfactory participation," the statement reads. Yet Bush, a fighter-interceptor pilot, performed no service for one six-month period in 1972 and for another period of almost three months in 1973, the records show. The reexamination of Bush's records by the Globe, along with interviews with military specialists who have reviewed regulations from that era, show that Bush's attendance at required training drills was so irregular that his superiors could have disciplined him or ordered him to active duty in 1972, 1973, or 1974. But they did neither. In fact, Bush's unit certified in late 1973 that his service had been ''satisfactory" -- just four months after Bush's commanding officer wrote that Bush had not been seen at his unit for the previous 12 months. Bartlett, in a statement to the Globe last night, sidestepped questions about Bush's record. In the statement, Bartlett asserted again that Bush would not have been honorably discharged if he had not ''met all his requirements." In a follow-up e-mail, Bartlett declared: ''And if he hadn't met his requirements you point to, they would have called him up for active duty for up to two years." That assertion by the White House spokesman infuriates retired Army Colonel Gerald A. Lechliter, one of a number of retired military officers who have studied Bush's records and old National Guard regulations, and reached different conclusions. ''He broke his contract with the United States government -- without any adverse consequences. And the Texas Air National Guard was complicit in allowing this to happen," Lechliter said in an interview yesterday. ''He was a pilot. It cost the government a million dollars to train him to fly. So he should have been held to an even higher standard." Even retired Lieutenant Colonel Albert C. Lloyd Jr., a former Texas Air National Guard personnel chief who vouched for Bush at the White House's request in February, agreed that Bush walked away from his obligation to join a reserve unit in the Boston area when he moved to Cambridge in September 1973. By not joining a unit in Massachusetts, Lloyd said in an interview last month, Bush ''took a chance that he could be called up for active duty. But the war was winding down, and he probably knew that the Air Force was not enforcing the penalty." But Lloyd said that singling out Bush for criticism is unfair. ''There were hundreds of guys like him who did the same thing," he said. Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense for manpower and reserve affairs in the Reagan administration, said after studying many of the documents that it is clear to him that Bush ''gamed the system." And he agreed with Lloyd that Bush was not alone in doing so. ''If I cheat on my income tax and don't get caught, I'm still cheating on my income tax," Korb said. After his own review, Korb said Bush could have been ordered to active duty for missing more than 10 percent of his required drills in any given year. Bush, according to the records, fell shy of that obligation in two successive fiscal years. Korb said Bush also made a commitment to complete his six-year obligation when he moved to Cambridge, a transfer the Guard often allowed to accommodate Guardsmen who had to move elsewhere. ''He had a responsibility to find a unit in Boston and attend drills," said Korb, who is now affiliated with a liberal Washington think tank. ''I see no evidence or indication in the documents that he was given permission to forgo training before the end of his obligation. If he signed that document, he should have fulfilled his obligation." The documents Bush signed only add to evidence that the future president -- then the son of Houston's congressman -- received favorable treatment when he joined the Guard after graduating from Yale in 1968. Ben Barnes, who was speaker of the Texas House of Representatives in 1968, said in a deposition in 2000 that he placed a call to get young Bush a coveted slot in the Guard at the request of a Bush family friend. Bush was given an automatic commission as a second lieutenant, and dispatched to flight school in Georgia for 13 months. In June 1970, after five additional months of specialized training in F-102 fighter-interceptor, Bush began what should have been a four-year assignment with the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. In May 1972, Bush was given permission to move to Alabama temporarily to work on a US Senate campaign, with the provision that he do equivalent training with a unit in Montgomery. But Bush's service records do not show him logging any service in Alabama until October of that year. And even that service is in doubt. Since the Globe first reported Bush's spotty attendance record in May 2000, no one has come forward with any credible recollection of having witnessed Bush performing guard service in Alabama or after he returned to Houston in 1973. While Bush was in Alabama, he was removed from flight status for failing to take his annual flight physical in July 1972. On May 1, 1973, Bush's superior officers wrote that they could not complete his annual performance review because he had not been observed at the Houston base during the prior 12 months. Although the records of Bush's service in 1973 are contradictory, some of them suggest that he did a flurry of drills in 1973 in Houston -- a weekend in April and then 38 days of training crammed into May, June, and July. But Lechliter, the retired colonel, concluded after reviewing National Guard regulations that Bush should not have received credit -- or pay -- for many of those days either. The regulations, Lechliter and others said, required that any scheduled drills that Bush missed be made up either within 15 days before or 30 days after the date of the drill. Lechliter said the records push him to conclude that Bush had little interest in fulfilling his obligation, and his superiors preferred to look the other way. Others agree. ''It appears that no one wanted to hold him accountable," said retired Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr., who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon's director of the Air National Guard." --- Finally, I encourage people to track down and listen to Terri Gross' interview with Wayne Slater, Austin Bureau Chief of the Dallas Morning News about Karl Rove and the Bush family: http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?display=day&todayDate=09/08/2004 I think he makes a compelling case, fairly argued, that the SBVT are perhaps the product of the Bush campaign, a crime under current law, given the pattern of both Bush and especially Rove (the only bad part of the story is Slater's fawning over Rove). Happy reading. Trond E. Jacobsen From parcherj Thu Sep 9 09:26:46 2004 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 10:26:46 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [eDebate] CO2 Message-ID: <22895969.1094740007090.JavaMail.root@wamui01.slb.atl.earthlink.net> Bush backpedals on environment ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR. GUEST COLUMNIST Seattle PI Editor's note: In the second of four excerpts from "Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy" -- being published this week on this page -- Robert F. Kennedy Jr. tells about Bush administration disregard for international agreements on global warming. During his presidential campaign, George W. Bush threw a bone to environmentalists. Global warming, he said in his second debate with Al Gore, "needs to be taken very seriously." While Bush opposed the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to slow down global warming, he proclaimed that under his leadership, the United States would tackle the problem by strictly regulating carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas. Barely three months into office, Bush walked away from his pledge to regulate CO{-2}. The move revealed the depth of industry clout at the White House. But as Bush and his advisers would learn, backpedaling on the environment doesn't play well. The first major international attempt to tackle global warming was the Rio Climate Treaty, signed by the first President Bush in 1992 and ratified by the U.S. Senate that year. In 1997, the Rio participants proposed a more detailed set of actions, the Kyoto Protocol, which requires that developed nations reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases 5 percent below the 1990 level during the period of 2008-12. President Bush's campaign promise to regulate CO{-2} would have been a big step toward meeting the pledges that the United States made in the Rio treaty. Thanks to industry lobbying, CO{-2} was not listed as a pollutant in the original Clean Air Act of 1970. The act, however, authorized the federal government to regulate all air pollutants, even those not specifically listed in the original legislation. The Environmental Protection Administration had used this authority to develop regulations for toxic pollutants such as lead. Bush's promise indicated that he would add CO{-2} to that list. After Bush took office, his newly minted EPA director, Christine Todd Whitman, put global warming at the top of her agenda. The White House had sold the former New Jersey governor to the American public as an environmental moderate. Still, Whitman was not part of the president's inner circle, according to Ron Suskind in "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill." A month into her appointment, Whitman was still trying to clarify the president's views on U.S. environmental policy. Whitman was unsure what message she should bring to her first major international meeting, in Trieste, Italy, in March 2001, intended to prepare the leading eight industrialized nations for the official Kyoto Protocol meetings that summer. Whitman recognized greenhouse warming as a global crisis and chose this issue to cultivate a reputation as an environmental steward. Whitman turned to Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. O'Neill, in his former job as Alcoa CEO, had succeeded in eliminating two potent greenhouse gases from the aluminum smelting process. O'Neill told me that he regards himself as an environmentalist. "I once told my board, 'we are environmentalists first and industrialists second,' " he said. O'Neill had given a major speech on global warming to the aluminum industry in 1998. His overall message was that global warming, along with nuclear holocaust, must be taken more seriously than any other political issue. Try as they might, however, neither O'Neill nor Whitman could engage the president on the topic. According to Suskind, Whitman finally met with Andrew Card, White House chief of staff, and Condoleezza Rice, national security adviser, to prepare a strategy on global warming. They agreed with Whitman's suggestions on what to say in Trieste: The White House was preparing to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. That would make it appear that the United States, which emits 25 percent of global CO{-2}, was taking global warming seriously without committing the administration to the Kyoto Protocol. Whitman, confident that she had the White House's blessing, stated this position on CNN's "Crossfire" and in news conferences. Days later, four right-wing Republican senators with strong industry ties -- Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Larry Craig of Idaho, Jesse Helms of North Carolina and Pat Roberts of Kansas -- sent a letter to the president, complaining about Whitman's media appearances and demanding a "clarification of your administration's policy on climate change." O'Neill told Suskind that he was almost certain the senators' letter had been prompted and possibly even written by Dick Cheney. Whitman, furious that she was being outmaneuvered, scrambled to schedule a meeting with the president. But the moment she arrived in the Oval Office, before she could even launch into her speech, Bush said, "Christie, I've already made my decision." Bush held up a letter -- also written by Cheney, both O'Neill and Whitman believe -- all ready to send back to the Republican senators, and began reading from it. The president would oppose Kyoto, the letter said, because it exempted 80 percent of the world, including China and India, and it was an "unfair and ineffective means of addressing global climate change concerns." As for his campaign promise to regulate CO{-2} in the United States, the letter explained that he had changed his mind. He argued that the Kyoto agreement would "cause serious harm to the U.S. economy" and emphasized the importance of energy development. After Bush read the letter, he signaled her to leave. In a few moments, the letter would be sent to the senators and released to the world. Whitman was stunned and shattered. By March 2001, the president had officially walked away from the Kyoto Protocol. He had jettisoned his campaign pledge to control CO{-2} emissions from power plants. The United States had pulled out of all debate and negotiations with the rest of the world on global warming. From parcherj Thu Sep 9 09:34:18 2004 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 10:34:18 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [eDebate] Voter Suppression Message-ID: <14896863.1094740459098.JavaMail.root@wamui01.slb.atl.earthlink.net> Suppress the Vote? By BOB HERBERT The New York Times The big story out of Florida over the weekend was the tragic devastation caused by Hurricane Charley. But there's another story from Florida that deserves our attention. State police officers have gone into the homes of elderly black voters in Orlando and interrogated them as part of an odd "investigation" that has frightened many voters, intimidated elderly volunteers and thrown a chill over efforts to get out the black vote in November. The officers, from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which reports to Gov. Jeb Bush, say they are investigating allegations of voter fraud that came up during the Orlando mayoral election in March. Officials refused to discuss details of the investigation, other than to say that absentee ballots are involved. They said they had no idea when the investigation might end, and acknowledged that it may continue right through the presidential election. "We did a preliminary inquiry into those allegations and then we concluded that there was enough evidence to follow through with a full criminal investigation," said Geo Morales, a spokesman for the Department of Law Enforcement. The state police officers, armed and in plain clothes, have questioned dozens of voters in their homes. Some of those questioned have been volunteers in get-out-the-vote campaigns. I asked Mr. Morales in a telephone conversation to tell me what criminal activity had taken place. "I can't talk about that," he said. I asked if all the people interrogated were black. "Well, mainly it was a black neighborhood we were looking at - yes,'' he said. He also said, "Most of them were elderly." When I asked why, he said, "That's just the people we selected out of a random sample to interview." Back in the bad old days, some decades ago, when Southern whites used every imaginable form of chicanery to prevent blacks from voting, blacks often fought back by creating voters leagues, which were organizations that helped to register, educate and encourage black voters. It became a tradition that continues in many places, including Florida, today. Not surprisingly, many of the elderly black voters who found themselves face to face with state police officers in Orlando are members of the Orlando League of Voters, which has been very successful in mobilizing the city's black vote. The president of the Orlando League of Voters is Ezzie Thomas, who is 73 years old. With his demonstrated ability to deliver the black vote in Orlando, Mr. Thomas is a tempting target for supporters of George W. Bush in a state in which the black vote may well spell the difference between victory and defeat. The vile smell of voter suppression is all over this so-called investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Joseph Egan, an Orlando lawyer who represents Mr. Thomas, said: "The Voters League has workers who go into the community to do voter registration, drive people to the polls and help with absentee ballots. They are elderly women mostly. They get paid like $100 for four or five months' work, just to offset things like the cost of their gas. They see this political activity as an important contribution to their community. Some of the people in the community had never cast a ballot until the league came to their door and encouraged them to vote." Now, said Mr. Egan, the fear generated by state police officers going into people's homes as part of an ongoing criminal investigation related to voting is threatening to undo much of the good work of the league. He said, "One woman asked me, 'Am I going to go to jail now because I voted by absentee ballot?' " According to Mr. Egan, "People who have voted by absentee ballot for years are refusing to allow campaign workers to come to their homes. And volunteers who have participated for years in assisting people, particularly the elderly or handicapped, are scared and don't want to risk a criminal investigation." Florida is a state that's very much in play in the presidential election, with some polls showing John Kerry in the lead. A heavy-handed state police investigation that throws a blanket of fear over thousands of black voters can only help President Bush. The long and ugly tradition of suppressing the black vote is alive and thriving in the Sunshine State. From nselegzi Thu Sep 9 09:56:31 2004 From: nselegzi (Noel Selegzi) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 10:56:31 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] The People Speak FAQ (cont.) - Who can organize a TPS event? Message-ID: <1CBED6247AC65445BF49BFDD3CC5DBC60472A726@osinyexch.soros.org> Q. Who can organize a TPS event? While IDEA primarily works with debate clubs, TPS mini-grants are available to high schools, universities, community groups and other organizations wishing to put on a TPS event. The only restriction we have is that we cannot give grants to individuals. Q. Can a debate association receive money for local clubs that wish to host events? Yes. While we need a separate proposal for each event, there are no restrictions on how many events one organization can sponsor. If, for instance, a university debate program that works with an Urban Debate League wants to assist multiple schools in putting on TPS events, the university can act as a fiscal agent in this case (i.e. the university can be the grantee for all the events). Similarly, a debate organization that is itself a membership organization can receive grants to support TPS events organized by its members. Again, however, for each proposed event we need to receive a separate application. Noel S. Selegzi International Debate Education Association Open Society Institute 400 West 59th Street New York, NY 10019 Ph: (212) 547-6938 Fx: (212) 548-4610 www.idebate.org To Join IDEA: www.idebate.org/join To Support IDEA: www.idebate.org/support From scottelliott Thu Sep 9 11:58:35 2004 From: scottelliott (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 11:58:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Bush's Service Record--Setting the Record straight. Message-ID: <1094749115.41408bbb5d222@webmail.grandecom.net> Bush?s National Guard years Before you fall for Dems? spin, here are the facts What do you really know about George W. Bush?s time in the Air National Guard? That he didn?t show up for duty in Alabama? That he missed a physical? That his daddy got him in? News coverage of the president?s years in the Guard has tended to focus on one brief portion of that time ? to the exclusion of virtually everything else. So just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush did: The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training. That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years. Not two years of weekends. Two years. After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation. According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis). Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that? That brings the story to May 1972 ? the time that has been the focus of so many news reports ? when Bush ?deserted? (according to anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore) or went ?AWOL? (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee). Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren?t unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971. ?In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,? Campenni says. ?The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ?72 or ?73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.? So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points ? not much, but enough to meet his requirement. Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently. In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year. Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service. During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot. A 1970 evaluation said Bush ?clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot? and was ?a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership.? A 1971 evaluation called Bush ?an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot? who ?continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further.? And a 1972 evaluation called Bush ?an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer.? Now, it is only natural that news reports questioning Bush?s service ? in The Boston Globe and The New York Times, on CBS and in other outlets ? would come out now. Democrats are spitting mad over attacks on John Kerry?s record by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. And, as it is with Kerry, it?s reasonable to look at a candidate?s entire record, including his military service ? or lack of it. Voters are perfectly able to decide whether it?s important or not in November. The Kerry camp blames Bush for the Swift boat veterans? attack, but anyone who has spent much time talking to the Swifties gets the sense that they are doing it entirely for their own reasons. And it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bush?s service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry?s. In April ? before the Swift boat veterans had said a word ? Kerry said Bush ?has yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth, about whether he showed up for duty.? Earlier, Kerry said, ?Just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question.? Now, after the Swift boat episode, the spotlight has returned to Bush. That?s fine. We should know as much as we can. And perhaps someday Kerry will release more of his military records as well. Byron York is a White House correspondent for National Review. From privethedge Thu Sep 9 12:57:38 2004 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 10:57:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Bush's Service Record--Setting the Record straight. In-Reply-To: <1094749115.41408bbb5d222@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: <20040909175738.51541.qmail@web50903.mail.yahoo.com> There was another spin on Bush's record in the guard today on a local talk show on WMAL (I don't know hte host, his show airs from 9am to 11:45pm) here in DC. The host, a conservative, who none the less concluded that Bush has some explaining to do about his Guard days, and that, given the evidence, there are reasons to question his claims, did point this out: Bush has never said "Vote for me because of my service in the Air National Guard." What he has said is "Vote for me for my leadership on and after 9/11." Kerry is the one who is saying "Vote for me becasue of my Vietnam Service." There are differences in the two claims. Only one candidate has based their entire campaign on their military service, and it wasn't W. Should we look at Bush's Guard service? Sure. Does it mean anything in context today, Post 9-11? No. Should we look at Kerry's service in Vietnam? No. I mean, he went, he served, it was 30 years ago..it should be done. Frankly, if I hear one more thing about Vietnam out of either side, I may vote Libertarian this year...It's disgusting that a Presidential election in 2004 should dwell on the events of the early and mid 70's. Let's talk about the issues today...Please? (Wow, Oh my God, I'm channelling Carville in '92 and '96 when Clinton's Vietnam record was the issue - well, I guess what he said might be true) Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040909/7c4299c0/attachment.html From mrberry Thu Sep 9 13:03:27 2004 From: mrberry (Berry, Mike) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 14:03:27 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Room block at the Holiday Inn Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040909/0ce2b7d9/attachment.htm From bk2nocal Thu Sep 9 13:35:48 2004 From: bk2nocal (Sue Peterson) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 11:35:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Pepperdine Tournament Hotel - Make your reservations! Message-ID: <20040909183548.93943.qmail@web80308.mail.yahoo.com> Note: forwarded message attached. Sue Peterson Director of Forensics Pepperdine University "Stand before the people you fear and speak your mind - even if your voice shakes." --Maggie Kuhn, Gray Panther Leader -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040909/832c702a/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Sue Peterson Subject: Pepperdine Tournament Hotel - Make your reservations! Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 11:34:24 -0700 (PDT) Size: 5719 Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040909/832c702a/attachment.mht From trond Thu Sep 9 17:15:08 2004 From: trond (trond at umich.edu) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 18:15:08 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Bush's Service Record--Setting the Record straight. In-Reply-To: <1094749115.41408bbb5d222@webmail.grandecom.net> References: <1094749115.41408bbb5d222@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: <1094768108.4140d5ec9ff9a@web.mail.umich.edu> I am afraid this reprint from the National Review is their typical obfuscatory drivel. 1. Parrots the Bush line: "Sir what did you do from May 1972-1973?" Answer: "Well, from 1968 to April 1972 I flew a great deal." Not germane. 2. Silent on the new evidence of nepotism highlighted by Lt. Gov Barnes. 3. Silent on new revelations of dereliction of duty in Cambridge, MA. 4. Silent on the devastating new evidence from Bush's squadron commander Col. Jerry Killian as repored in 60 minutes. These are contemporaneous accounts recorded by Bush's supervisor in Alabama. These accounts are just crushing and no dated National Review opinion piece without a single source cited specifically is up to the task of rebutting them. The new evidence proves: a) he went missing; b) the commander wanted to punish him for failure to complete required duties beyond flying. To date Bush's argument has been that his plane was not in use to explain why he missed his physical and failed to register his flying hours. This is actually a lie as his original unit continued flying the dated planes until 1974, but no matter, this new evidence says he should have been disciplined for a range of offenses and failures. Not to mention that the way the service works is that you don't get to decide yourself whether or not your service is needed. Not to mention, as well, that this says nothing about his written, legally binding promise to complete duties in Cambridge from July 1973 and never completed, Bartlett's 1999 lie nothwithstanding. c) most importantly the released files, written at the time, talk of the strong efforts to shield Bush from the consequences of his dereliction by powerful friends. For example, memo of August 18, 1972 records that Col. Killian felt pressure "from higher ups in the Guard to gloss over Bush's poor performance and to 'sugarcoat' his evaluation" (not quotes from memo but assesment of Rainey in LA Times as carried in Ann Arbor News today; 'sugarcoat' is acutal quote from memo) and that, this time quoting from memo, "I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job." Please realize that this evidence is devastating for the Bush line, as reiterated in FactCheck.org, and today by Bartlett (hack, not West Wing President) that the Guard would have disciplined him if he'd failed to do his duty. Well, no, daddy's friends got him in the Guard and they or other benefactors protected him from the consequences of his dereliction and attempted to 'sugarcoat' his evaluations. Mr. Elliot, your putative evidence relates to non-issues and does not address the most recent and detailed and pertinent evidence available. Better luck in the pages of the New American. Also, typical that it does not bother a NR reader that this piece is little more than a reprinting of Bush press releases. Sloppy. Trond E. Jacobsen Quoting scottelliott at grandecom.net: > Bush?s National Guard years > Before you fall for Dems? spin, here are the facts > > What do you really know about George W. Bush?s time in the Air National > Guard? > That he didn?t show up for duty in Alabama? That he missed a physical? That > his > daddy got him in? > > News coverage of the president?s years in the Guard has tended to focus on > one > brief portion of that time ? to the exclusion of virtually everything else. > So > just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush did: > > The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he > began > an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three > weeks > of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training. > > That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown > in > as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served > nearly > two years. > > Not two years of weekends. Two years. > > After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. > As > he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. > At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to > meet their yearly obligation. > > According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in > his > first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service > thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis). > > Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And > he > earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four > years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that? > > That brings the story to May 1972 ? the time that has been the focus of so > many > news reports ? when Bush ?deserted? (according to anti-Bush filmmaker Michael > Moore) or went ?AWOL? (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the > Democratic > National Committee). > > Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His > superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren?t unusual, says retired > Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971. > > ?In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,? Campenni says. ?The Vietnam > War > was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ?72 > or > ?73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and > wanted > to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.? > > So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points ? > not much, but enough to meet his requirement. > > Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard > Business > School, he again started showing up frequently. > > In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the > minimum > requirement for the 1973-1974 year. > > Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an > honorable > discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original > six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points > in > each year to cover six years of service. > > During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot. > > A 1970 evaluation said Bush ?clearly stands out as a top notch fighter > interceptor pilot? and was ?a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to > for leadership.? > > A 1971 evaluation called Bush ?an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot? > who ?continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his > proficiency even further.? And a 1972 evaluation called Bush ?an exceptional > fighter interceptor pilot and officer.? > > Now, it is only natural that news reports questioning Bush?s service ? in The > Boston Globe and The New York Times, on CBS and in other outlets ? would come > out now. Democrats are spitting mad over attacks on John Kerry?s record by > the > group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. > > And, as it is with Kerry, it?s reasonable to look at a candidate?s entire > record, including his military service ? or lack of it. Voters are perfectly > able to decide whether it?s important or not in November. > > The Kerry camp blames Bush for the Swift boat veterans? attack, but anyone > who > has spent much time talking to the Swifties gets the sense that they are > doing > it entirely for their own reasons. > > And it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bush?s > service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry?s. > > In April ? before the Swift boat veterans had said a word ? Kerry said Bush > ?has > yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth, about whether > he > showed up for duty.? Earlier, Kerry said, ?Just because you get an honorable > discharge does not, in fact, answer that question.? > > Now, after the Swift boat episode, the spotlight has returned to Bush. > > That?s fine. We should know as much as we can. > > And perhaps someday Kerry will release more of his military records as well. > > > Byron York is a White House correspondent for National Review. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > Trond E. Jacobsen M.S.I. 2005 School of Information University of Michigan From trond Thu Sep 9 17:26:55 2004 From: trond (trond at umich.edu) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 18:26:55 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Bush's Service Record--Setting the Record straight. In-Reply-To: <20040909175738.51541.qmail@web50903.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040909175738.51541.qmail@web50903.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1094768815.4140d8af9c552@web.mail.umich.edu> > Bush has never said "Vote for me because of my service in the Air National > Guard." What he has said is "Vote for me for my leadership on and after > 9/11." Kerry is the one who is saying "Vote for me becasue of my Vietnam > Service." No, but he did lie about his service and did say he served "honorably" when he did not. He does claim to be a patriot, but the new and old evidence suggests he was a self-interested gamer ducking his responsibility. I realize the preceding claims are open to debate, but if they are true, surely Duane you are not saying they are irrelevent under those conditions? > There are differences in the two claims. Only one candidate has > based their entire campaign on their military service, and it wasn't W. > Should we look at Bush's Guard service? Sure. Does it mean anything in > context today, Post 9-11? No. Should we look at Kerry's service in Vietnam? > No. I mean, he went, he served, it was 30 years ago..it should be done. Look, you have the delete key. Morover, after the mostly baseless charges levelled against fink Kerry in August, for a Bush fan to now say, gee, can't we get along? is unseemly at best. And if you disagree, well, tough. Finally, Kerry has emphasized Vietnam too much for my taste in some ways but it is not true that he has made the this the basis of his "entire" campaign. Morover, even making it the basis of his campaign would not make baseless smears true. He did lie about Cambodia on Christmas Eve; at no point have I ever taken another stance on that issue. I do think he likely did, along with many others (including O'Neill), intervene in Cambodia in early 1969. Cement walls is a joke and not a funny one. > Frankly, if I hear one more thing about Vietnam out of either side, I may > vote Libertarian this year...It's disgusting that a Presidential election in > 2004 should dwell on the events of the early and mid 70's. Let's talk about > the issues today... You do realize this provides a direct and material incentive for me to continue to push these issues, right? > Duane All in the spirit of robust but civil debate my friend. Trond E. Jacobsen > > > > > > "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" > > "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the > contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person > that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind If the opinion > is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; > if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer > perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with > error." John S. Mill > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! From db8coach Thu Sep 9 20:03:52 2004 From: db8coach (db8coach at cox.net) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 21:03:52 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Bush's Service Record--Setting the Record straight. Message-ID: <20040910010350.RHWO11703.fed1rmmtao09.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net> Hello kettle, you're a kitchen utensil. >>>>>>>>>> No, but he did lie about his service and did say he served "honorably" when he did not. >>>>>>>>>> And is the standard you have set for this "lie" different than the standard for the Swift Boat Veterans? I think it is a very different standard. And I think that questions from some people who may or may not have even been in a position to know whether he served or not is hardly the standard for honorable service. And paraphrasing some on this list (referencing Kerry and whether or not he should have been given the Purple Hearts or tried for war crimes), if he didn't serve honorably, they should not have given him an honorable discharge. It's a little late now to charge him based on old memories. >>>>>>>>>> He does claim to be a patriot, but the new and old evidence suggests he was a self-interested gamer ducking his responsibility. >>>>>>>>>> And you don't think putting yourself up for Purple Hearts which were likely NOT under enemy fire and for minor scratches so you can get your 3 and out of Vietnam in 4 months suggests self-interest and ducking his responsibilities? And where was your outrage when Clinton refused ALL forms of military service. I think there is a very big double standard at work here. >>>>>>>>>> Morover, after the mostly baseless charges levelled against fink Kerry in August, for a Bush fan to now say, gee, can't we get along? is unseemly at best. >>>>>>>>>> Well, "baseless" is certainly open for debate. LOTS of charges, none disproven that I have heard about. Some questioned, sure, long time ago, memories, etc. However, these Bush charges are going to be questioned in the coming days. Already the typographical experts have come out to say that it is very likely the documents are forgeries. The font on the documents was not available in the 70's and the superscript used was not available on typewriters. They are saying that it is more than likely that these documents were done on a computer. Also, Gary Killian, son of Lt. Col. Killian (who served with his father in the Guard) said that he doubted his father would have written those memos. In fact, he said "It just wouldn't happen". So, now that there are questions cast on this ad campaign, can I assume that the denizens of this list will cry out for Kerry to denounce these ads as they did for Bush to denounce the SBV ads??? I didn't think so. Bob Lechtreck From korryharvey Thu Sep 9 20:47:27 2004 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 18:47:27 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] some pretty good oil/energy articles... and a politics take-out ;-) Message-ID: http://greatchange.org/othervoices.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5945678/ "But with a surge to record oil prices in recent weeks and gasoline consistently selling in the $2 a gallon range for most of the summer, energy issues have played a surprisingly low profile in the presidential campaign. The reason, experts say, are clear: There are no simple solutions. ?The presidential candidates aren?t going to stand up and say ?I?ve got bad news.? said Deffeyes. ?They don?t want to promise you blood, sweat and tears. So it?s not being debated as an issue on the presidential campaign.? (the msnbc article) _________________________________________________________________ Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MSNBC - How long will the world's oil last.url Type: application/octet-stream Size: 148 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040909/dd11fcfc/attachment.obj From aculpedebate Thu Sep 9 21:23:53 2004 From: aculpedebate (Andrew Culp) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 21:23:53 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Bush's Service Record--Setting the Record straight. Message-ID: > >>>>>>>>>> >Morover, after the mostly baseless charges levelled against fink Kerry in >August, for a Bush fan to now say, gee, can't we get along? is unseemly at >best. > >>>>>>>>>> > >Well, "baseless" is certainly open for debate. LOTS of charges, none >disproven that I have heard about. Some questioned, sure, long time ago, >memories, etc. > >However, these Bush charges are going to be questioned in the coming days. >Already the typographical experts have come out to say that it is very >likely the documents are forgeries. The font on the documents was not >available in the 70's and the superscript used was not available on >typewriters. They are saying that it is more than likely that these >documents were done on a computer. > >Also, Gary Killian, son of Lt. Col. Killian (who served with his father in >the Guard) said that he doubted his father would have written those memos. >In fact, he said "It just wouldn't happen". > >So, now that there are questions cast on this ad campaign, can I assume >that the denizens of this list will cry out for Kerry to denounce these ads >as they did for Bush to denounce the SBV ads??? I didn't think so. > > Bob Lechtreck http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/bush.national.ap/index.html the documents were released by the DOD and the White House. so, if the documents are forgeries, they are being forged by the Bush Administration, no? _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From privethedge Thu Sep 9 21:55:43 2004 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 19:55:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Bush's Service Record--Setting the Record straight. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040910025543.78691.qmail@web50909.mail.yahoo.com> Look..I'm not saying "let's let bygones be bygones." Kerry wants me to vote for him because he served in Vietnam and "he'll stand up for me." Of course he'll also probably tax the stuffing out of me, and I'm not confident he'll stand up effectively to Osama and company - but he's going to "stand up for me." OK... Bush wants me to vote for him despite the fact that he's a moron because he'll not hesitate to wipe out Osama and his ilk (I mean terrorists not anything else)...this I believe. It's an easy choice. People can natter about jobs, health care and the rest of it - and they should (I wish Bush and Kerry would) - but this election is about terror, it's about preventing what just happened in Russia from happening here. I think Bush does a better job of that, and I can't trust Kerry to do the same because he has 20 years of evidence saying he won't - Even if I thought Bush was a moron and the worst president ever, I'd have to say he's done a good job since 9/11 with one issue - keeping me and my wife alive, and that's all I really give a damm about when you boil it right down. I know people will jump on me for saying that, but I'd rather be living than dead, and I think Bush gives me a better chance at the former, while Kerry's record indicates far worse. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040909/f3518569/attachment.htm From doyle Thu Sep 9 22:17:23 2004 From: doyle (Doyle Srader) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 22:17:23 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Bush's Service Record--Setting the Record straight. Message-ID: <01LEOGSTAVYS003LYC@TITAN.SFASU.EDU> Bob writes: "The font on the documents was not available in the 70's and the superscript used was not available on typewriters." BZZZZT! Try again. Andrew's point that the White House distributed the memos ... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5952048/ ... and didn't question their authenticity is well taken. As for the font not being available in the 70s, the claim is that proportional fonts were not available until the seventies. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C2 00409%5CPOL20040909d.html In fact, they've been around since the forties. http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/history/year_1941.html A web of unashamed lies is unraveling at a very opportune moment. SMELL the desperation! Doyle Srader, Ph.D. Lecturer, Speech Communication Stephen F. Austin State University http://www.faculty.sfasu.edu/f_sraderdw/ "Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." -- George W. Bush, September 6, 2004 http://mywebpages.comcast.net/atrios/bushlove.wmv From gordonm+ Thu Sep 9 22:20:25 2004 From: gordonm+ (gordonm+ at pitt.edu) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 23:20:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [eDebate] Top Gun for Dorks . . . ahem Geeks Message-ID: <01LEOIZYKYQ0002ARP@mb2i1.ns.pitt.edu> Dear Kevin: On what seems to be your main riposte regarding my article, I'll point you to MJAFT!: http://www.mjaft.org/en/index1.htm I think this organization presents a brilliant, hybrid juxtaposition of competitive tournament debating and public debating that is clearly making a difference. In Albanian, "mjaft" means "enough" - this expression is used often in local contexts where families get really fed up with things like municipal authorities not providing electricity or sewage. Albanian debaters have taken the vernacular phrase and hoisted it as the slogan of a resurgent pro-debate movement that has been recognized recently (e.g. see Erion Veliaj's testimony before the Helsinki Commission) as a vanguard force in Albanian society. In the Albanian debate context, "mjaft" means "enough government graft - enough unaccountable leadership" . . . The Albanian debaters are very smart in using debate to impact politics - for example last October, MJAFT! convened public debates in each of the key Albainian municipalities holding elections (my notes indicate there were 16 areas). Key feature - student debaters sat at the back with a laptop computer, listening carefully for any promises made by candidates. They transcribed each promise, then, before the crowd left, approached the stage and asked the candidates to SIGN a page that contained the promises! This document was then CO-SIGNED by a citizen in the audience. Next week (October 2004 - one year after the public debates) - MJAFT! is poised to return to select towns where each of these debates took place, to highlight cases where candidates balked on their debate commitments by posting large REPRODUCTIONS of the CONTRACTS the candidates signed during the public debates last year! In a more general sense, it seems like you might recharge your batteries by visiting Paul Loeb's site at http://www.soulofacitizen.org. Loeb's concepts of "chains of concern," the "cynical smirk" and "the perfect standard" jump out at me when I think of your post - there are lucid explanations of each of these notions in his book SOUL OF CITIZEN. I respect your ruminations, and have read or skimmed virtually every post you have made here over the past decade. You are good at going negative. My instinct is to press you by asking whether you get the same "comprehendsibility" willies from this article, which proceeds from a very similar point of high-falutin' academic abstraction to laud the very tangible and concrete activist work of Kembrew McLeod, Phaedra Pezzullo and Maxwell Schnurer: http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/JPubs/PubArg.html Best, Gordon * * * Gordon R. Mitchell President, American Forensic Association Associate Professor of Communication / Director of Debate University of Pittsburgh CL 1117, 4200 Fifth Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15260 Phone: (412) 624-8531 Fax: (412) 624-1878 http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/ From db8coach Fri Sep 10 00:24:09 2004 From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 22:24:09 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Bush's Service Record--Setting the Record straight. In-Reply-To: <01LEOGSTAVYS003LYC@TITAN.SFASU.EDU> Message-ID: <001a01c496f6$66447460$6400a8c0@uservlilswviez> >>>>>>>>>> BZZZZT! Try again. Andrew's point that the White House distributed the memos ... >>>>>>>>>> Reading is fundamental Doyle. The White House released the memos that they obtained FROM CBS news. Please tell me you understand the distinction......... Now I wonder where CBS news magically found 4 memos that neither the Pentagon NOR the Texas Air National Guard could find??? >>>>>>>>>> ... and didn't question their authenticity is well taken. >>>>>>>>>> YET!!!!! >>>>>>>>>> As for the font not being available in the 70s, the claim is that proportional fonts were not available until the seventies. >>>>>>>>>> No, ONE claim is proportional spacing. And while it did exist in the 70's it was very rare on typewriters. Especially typewriters available to military personnel in the ANG. The military rarely buys top of the line office equipment. Another claim hinges on the font itself. The experts say it is identical to Times New Roman, a font not listed in the Haas Atlas - the definitive encyclopedia on typewriter fonts. Another claim deals with the apostrophes. And IMHO, the worst hit is the superscript. The typing of the 111th Fighter Squadron has the "th" in superscript which was "theoretically possible" but "highly unlikely". This was simply VERY rare on typewriters in the 70's. And I still ain't seeing anyone call for Kerry to denounce these negative attacks. Hello Kettle........ Bob Lechtreck From aculpedebate Thu Sep 9 23:58:34 2004 From: aculpedebate (Andrew Culp) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 23:58:34 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Bush's Service Record--Setting the Record straight. Message-ID: >From: "Bob Lechtreck" >To: "'Doyle Srader'" , >Subject: RE: Re: [eDebate] Bush's Service Record--Setting the Record >straight. >Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 22:24:09 -0700 > > >>>>>>>>>> >BZZZZT! Try again. Andrew's point that the White House distributed the >memos ... > >>>>>>>>>> > >Reading is fundamental Doyle. The White House released the memos that >they obtained FROM CBS news. Please tell me you understand the >distinction......... Now I wonder where CBS news magically found 4 memos >that neither the Pentagon NOR the Texas Air National Guard could find??? so what? they still decided to release them. to shed some light: "Yet, it was the White House - not Kerry's campaign - that distributed four memos from 1972 and 1973 from Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, now deceased, who was the commander of the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron in Houston where Bush served. The White House obtained the memos from CBS News, which said it was convinced of their authenticity, and the White House did not question their accuracy. There was no explanation why the Pentagon was unable to find the documents on its own. " http://www.thebatt.com/news/2004/09/10/News/New-Documents.Shed.Some.Light.On.Bush.Military.Record-715188.shtml _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From db8coach Fri Sep 10 01:40:37 2004 From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 23:40:37 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Bush's Service Record--Setting the Record straight. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001f01c49701$151b2b00$6400a8c0@uservlilswviez> >>>>>>>>>> so what? they still decided to release them. to shed some light: >>>>>>>>>> You make me laugh. And what would the left have been saying if the White House, after getting these memos from CBS news had decided to hold them and NOT release them??? Cover-up? Conspiracy? Bush is hiding something? Once CBS news gave the memos to the WH, they were required to make them public. And the fact that the WH released AFTER getting them from CBS news does NOT mean that they didn't come from the Kerry campaign originally. ABC is now getting into the act. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/bush_documents_040909-1 .html Bob Lechtreck From alexander.h.berger.02 Fri Sep 10 00:35:49 2004 From: alexander.h.berger.02 (Alex Berger) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 22:35:49 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Nationally ranked debater??? Message-ID: Okay - there's a dude on THE APPRENTICE (Andy from Harvard) who claims he's a Nationally Ranked Debater. Anyone know what his deal is, or is he just making this up? Alex. From mardigras23 Fri Sep 10 00:51:20 2004 From: mardigras23 (Aaron Kall) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:51:20 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Nationally ranked debater??? Message-ID: >From Google and Lexis- In 1999, he utilized those verbal skills to win the U.S. National Debate Championship in Commentary Speaking. I think he attended Pine Crest high school in Ft. Lauderdale. Extemp commentary seems to be a NFL high school event. Aaron _________________________________________________________________ Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ From brandymariejohnson Fri Sep 10 01:16:27 2004 From: brandymariejohnson (Brandy Johnson) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 23:16:27 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Re: Nationally ranked debater??? Message-ID: John-G and I were wondering the same thing...so we looked him up...Apparently he won "the U.S. National Debate Championship in Commentary Speaking" in 1999, according to nbc.com -- very weird...I guess NBC has a loose definition of "debater" Brandy Alex wrote: Okay - there's a dude on THE APPRENTICE (Andy from Harvard) who claims he's a Nationally Ranked Debater. Anyone know what his deal is, or is he just making this up? Alex. _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From nselegzi Thu Sep 9 09:56:31 2004 From: nselegzi (Noel Selegzi) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 10:56:31 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] [debate-l] The People Speak FAQ (cont.) - Who can organize a TPS event? Message-ID: <1CBED6247AC65445BF49BFDD3CC5DBC60472A726@osinyexch.soros.org> Q. Who can organize a TPS event? While IDEA primarily works with debate clubs, TPS mini-grants are available to high schools, universities, community groups and other organizations wishing to put on a TPS event. The only restriction we have is that we cannot give grants to individuals. Q. Can a debate association receive money for local clubs that wish to host events? Yes. While we need a separate proposal for each event, there are no restrictions on how many events one organization can sponsor. If, for instance, a university debate program that works with an Urban Debate League wants to assist multiple schools in putting on TPS events, the university can act as a fiscal agent in this case (i.e. the university can be the grantee for all the events). Similarly, a debate organization that is itself a membership organization can receive grants to support TPS events organized by its members. Again, however, for each proposed event we need to receive a separate application. Noel S. Selegzi International Debate Education Association Open Society Institute 400 West 59th Street New York, NY 10019 Ph: (212) 547-6938 Fx: (212) 548-4610 www.idebate.org To Join IDEA: www.idebate.org/join To Support IDEA: www.idebate.org/support From nselegzi Wed Sep 8 11:19:43 2004 From: nselegzi (Noel Selegzi) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 12:19:43 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] [debate-l] The People Speak FAQ Message-ID: <1CBED6247AC65445BF49BFDD3CC5DBC6069C7007@osinyexch.soros.org> I have received a lot of questions regarding The People Speak mini-grants so ... Q. Can organizers apply for more than one grant? Yes, they can. Each application must be submitted separately, but since the application is only two pages and can be submitted electronically, we didn't think this would be too much trouble. Q. Does the event have to be a debate? No, it doesn't. Panel discussions, public forums, classroom lectures with breakouts, are all acceptable. We would encourage you to be creative. The goal is to get as many people critically discussing America's role in the world as possible during this month. Q. Can we do online events? Yes, we would encourage people who would like to try videoconferences and/or streaming debates to send in proposals. While we realize that $250 or $500 is not a lot of money for these events, we are hoping to prove that virtual public forums can work. Q. When do we get our money? You will receive a check and/or wire transfer after your event has been completed and we have received a sign in sheet and very brief report on the event. In the event that your event is an electronic one, we would not need a sign-up sheet. Q. Do debate touranements count? Yes, they do so long as there are 50 or more participants and the topic for at least some of the debates are issues relating to US foreign policy. What will be important is that the tournament be one in which the general public is able to view watch rounds using TPS topics. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me! Noel S. Selegzi International Debate Education Association Open Society Institute 400 West 59th Street New York, NY 10019 Ph: (212) 547-6938 Fx: (212) 548-4610 www.idebate.org To Join IDEA: www.idebate.org/join To Support IDEA: www.idebate.org/support From nselegzi Tue Sep 7 15:42:44 2004 From: nselegzi (Noel Selegzi) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 16:42:44 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] [debate-l] Mini-Grants Available for Public Debates Message-ID: <1CBED6247AC65445BF49BFDD3CC5DBC6069C6FB6@osinyexch.soros.org> www.idebate.org/ThePeopleSpeak IDEA-USA is happy to announce that it is joining in an international effort to promote discussion of U.S. Foreign Policy. This international effort is backed by a nonpartisan coalition of groups including the United Nations Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institute and the Open Society Institute. >From September 13th through October 15th hundreds of student and community groups across the world will be holding discussions focusing on U.S. foreign policy. IDEA is hoping to help add at least 450 additional events to this list. The three topic areas for the 2004 The People Speak are: * American Power and Global Security * Prosperity in a Global Economy * Energy Choices and Environmental Challenges Qualifying events include public debates, panel or roundtable discussions, lectures with breakout sessions, etc. For some format suggestions, click Format Options . In order to achieve its goal of sponsoring 450 events, IDEA is offering mini-grants to organizations intended to cover the expenses involve in hosting TPS events. To qualify for a mini-grant, an organizer must propose an event which will take place between September 13th and October 15th, 2004. We will try to respond to grant applications within 48 hours of receiving them, but recommend that applications be sent at least one week before the proposed event is scheduled to take place. No applications will be accepted after October 8. To qualify for a mini-grant of $250, an organizer must commit to hosting an event that will involve 50 or more participants. To qualify for a mini-grant of $500, an organizer must commit to hosting an event that will involve 100 or more participants. IDEA is encouraging mini-grant applications from schools around the world, but its focus will be on the United States. One organization or organizer may host multiple events, but they must submit individual mini-grant applications for each event. At least 350 of the mini-grants are reserved for US schools or community organizations. 100 are reserved for non-US schools or community organizations. Those wishing to apply for a grant may apply online by clicking here or by downloading an application form and either emailing it to nwatkins at idebate.org or faxing it to +1 (212) 548-4610. Additional information on The People Speak may also be found at www.ThePeopleSpeak.org . If you have any questions about The People Speak or how to get started planning an event, please contact a member of The People Speak team at (212) 548-0185. Noel S. Selegzi International Debate Education Association Open Society Institute 400 West 59th Street New York, NY 10019 Ph: (212) 547-6938 Fx: (212) 548-4610 www.idebate.org To Join IDEA: www.idebate.org/join To Support IDEA: www.idebate.org/support -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040907/ff257f2f/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 139417 bytes Desc: thepeoplespeak-banner.jpg Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040907/ff257f2f/attachment-0001.jpe From luvmarissa Fri Sep 10 01:41:21 2004 From: luvmarissa (Marissa Silber) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 06:41:21 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Judge for hire at Georgia State Message-ID: I am heading up to Georgia State to coach University of Florida but since our judging commitment is already covered, I was hoping to make some extra money judging. I am more than willing to judge a full commitment (in other words, poor college student needs money) I hope everyone had a great summer - I look forward to seeing you all tournaments this year. But for now, I am off to Vegas to start my long and scary career as a judge/coach! If you are interested in hiring me as a judge, you can backchannel me at luvmarissa at hotmail.com Thanks! Marissa Silber _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From trond Fri Sep 10 07:33:48 2004 From: trond (trond at umich.edu) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:33:48 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Bush's Service Record--Setting the Record straight. Message-ID: <1094819628.41419f2cbaf48@web.mail.umich.edu> There are multiple credible challenges to the documents obtained by 60 Minutes purporting to come from Lt Col Killian's personnel files and which, if authentic, would add damning evidence of Bush walking away from his obligations. If they are fakes they prove no such thing and surely such a conclusion would harm Kerry far more than 60 Minutes, to put it mildly. Lest one think, however, those challenging their authenticity, which include Killian's son and widow, are the last word on the topic, people should realize there are those who support their authenticity, including the independent reviewers contracted by 60 Minutes. Outright fraud by major news organization is rare but not unheard of. In my research thus far, the most compelling evidence for the documents' authenticity is from today's Washington Post. "Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush," Wash Post, Sept 10, 2004, Page A01. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9967-2004Sep9.html "CBS News released a statement yesterday standing by its reporting, saying that each of the documents "was thoroughly vetted by independent experts and we are convinced of their authenticity." The statement added that CBS reporters had verified the documents by talking to unidentified people who saw them "at the time they were written." CBS spokeswoman Kelli Edwards declined to respond to questions raised by experts who examined copies of the papers at the request of The Washington Post, or to provide the names of the experts CBS consulted. Experts interviewed by The Post pointed to a series of telltale signs suggesting that the documents were generated by a computer or word processor rather than the typewriters in widespread use by Bush's National Guard unit. A senior CBS official, who asked not to be named because CBS managers did not want to go beyond their official statement, named one of the network's sources as retired Maj. Gen. Bobby W. Hodges, the immediate superior of the documents' alleged author, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian. He said a CBS reporter read the documents to Hodges over the phone and Hodges replied that "these are the things that Killian had expressed to me at the time." "These documents represent what Killian not only was putting in memoranda, but was telling other people," the CBS News official said. "Journalistically, we've gone several extra miles." The official said the network regarded Hodges's comments as "the trump card" on the question of authenticity, as he is a Republican who acknowledged that he did not want to hurt Bush. Hodges, who declined to grant an on-camera interview to CBS, did not respond to messages left on his home answering machine in Texas." 1. This is more compelling evidence than the son's "does not sound like his dad." He wasn't working directly above his dad at Dannelly in 1972-1973 as was Hodges. Plus, this testimonial in favor of authenticity is from a person claiming, at least, to have no axe to grind against Bush. 2. Even if the documents are fake, Hodges, in this reporting, is said to have responded that "these are the things that Killian had expressed to me at the time" which provides a measure of independent evidence for the charge as well as support for the documents' authenticity. Perhaps a solid two or three weeks of uninterrupted media coverage and probing analyses by Fox could lay this issue to rest. Finally, people should realize if these documents were forgeries, it says nothing of the new evidence relating to Bush's failures to report to a unit near Cambridge following July 1973. This is a new charge with new evidence not challenged by anyone on this list or elsewhere. The mere fact Barnes is a Democrat and Kerry supporter is not evidence his admission he helped Bush and others into the TX Air National Guard is untrue. I mean, in 1968 one could hardly hold state office in Texas without being a Democrat. Methinks Rove is afraid another pit bull is loose in the yard. It is also possible that Rove was sitting on fake documents so that when the charge resurfaced, they could be leaked then discredited, calling into doubt in the public's mind all the other charges and evidence which, by all rights, should be unaffected by such a revelation, not to mention some collateral damage on the Kerry campaign. Goodness this is fun politics. Trond E. Jacobsen From scottelliott Fri Sep 10 07:44:20 2004 From: scottelliott (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 07:44:20 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Bush's Service Record--Setting the Record straight. In-Reply-To: <1094768108.4140d5ec9ff9a@web.mail.umich.edu> References: <1094749115.41408bbb5d222@webmail.grandecom.net> <1094768108.4140d5ec9ff9a@web.mail.umich.edu> Message-ID: <1094820260.4141a1a4c3e23@webmail.grandecom.net> A few points. The "big revealer" is a key Kerry Operative in Texas. The National Review article is quoted, I cited the source at the bottom--I did not intend to have anyone believe that I wrote it. And, the article was written prior to the CBS show last night. Most importantly, there is a definitely something fishy about the "secret docuemnts." It looks like they came from the same people that brought us the "Hitler Diaries." The wife of the commanding officer who supposedly wrote the smoking gun letter specifically denies that he would have written it, he, in authentic letters commended Bush for service, and he would be "rolling in his grave" if he knew how the Kerry campaign was trying to use him to smear Bush. Quoting trond at umich.edu: > I am afraid this reprint from the National Review is their typical > obfuscatory > drivel. > > 1. Parrots the Bush line: "Sir what did you do from May 1972-1973?" > Answer: "Well, from 1968 to April 1972 I flew a great deal." > > Not germane. > > 2. Silent on the new evidence of nepotism highlighted by Lt. Gov Barnes. > > 3. Silent on new revelations of dereliction of duty in Cambridge, MA. > > 4. Silent on the devastating new evidence from Bush's squadron commander > Col. > Jerry Killian as repored in 60 minutes. These are contemporaneous accounts > recorded by Bush's supervisor in Alabama. These accounts are just crushing > and > no dated National Review opinion piece without a single source cited > specifically is up to the task of rebutting them. > > The new evidence proves: > > a) he went missing; > b) the commander wanted to punish him for failure to complete required > duties > beyond flying. To date Bush's argument has been that his plane was not in > use > to explain why he missed his physical and failed to register his flying > hours. > This is actually a lie as his original unit continued flying the dated planes > until 1974, but no matter, this new evidence says he should have been > disciplined for a range of offenses and failures. Not to mention that the > way > the service works is that you don't get to decide yourself whether or not > your > service is needed. Not to mention, as well, that this says nothing about his > written, legally binding promise to complete duties in Cambridge from July > 1973 > and never completed, Bartlett's 1999 lie nothwithstanding. > c) most importantly the released files, written at the time, talk of the > strong efforts to shield Bush from the consequences of his dereliction by > powerful friends. For example, memo of August 18, 1972 records that Col. > Killian felt pressure "from higher ups in the Guard to gloss over Bush's poor > performance and to 'sugarcoat' his evaluation" (not quotes from memo but > assesment of Rainey in LA Times as carried in Ann Arbor News today; > 'sugarcoat' > is acutal quote from memo) and that, this time quoting from memo, "I'm having > trouble running interference and doing my job." > > Please realize that this evidence is devastating for the Bush line, as > reiterated in FactCheck.org, and today by Bartlett (hack, not West Wing > President) that the Guard would have disciplined him if he'd failed to do his > duty. Well, no, daddy's friends got him in the Guard and they or other > benefactors protected him from the consequences of his dereliction and > attempted to 'sugarcoat' his evaluations. > > Mr. Elliot, your putative evidence relates to non-issues and does not address > the most recent and detailed and pertinent evidence available. Better luck > in > the pages of the New American. > > Also, typical that it does not bother a NR reader that this piece is little > more > than a reprinting of Bush press releases. Sloppy. > > Trond E. Jacobsen > > > Quoting scottelliott at grandecom.net: > > > Bush?s National Guard years > > Before you fall for Dems? spin, here are the facts > > > > What do you really know about George W. Bush?s time in the Air National > > Guard? > > That he didn?t show up for duty in Alabama? That he missed a physical? That > > his > > daddy got him in? > > > > News coverage of the president?s years in the Guard has tended to focus on > > one > > brief portion of that time ? to the exclusion of virtually everything else. > > So > > just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush did: > > > > The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he > > began > > an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three > > weeks > > of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training. > > > > That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods > thrown > > in > > as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served > > nearly > > two years. > > > > Not two years of weekends. Two years. > > > > After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 > jets. > > As > > he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service > requirements. > > At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points > to > > meet their yearly obligation. > > > > According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in > > his > > first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service > > thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis). > > > > Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And > > he > > earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four > > years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that? > > > > That brings the story to May 1972 ? the time that has been the focus of so > > many > > news reports ? when Bush ?deserted? (according to anti-Bush filmmaker > Michael > > Moore) or went ?AWOL? (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the > > Democratic > > National Committee). > > > > Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. > His > > superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren?t unusual, says retired > > Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971. > > > > ?In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,? Campenni says. ?The > Vietnam > > War > > was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ?72 > > or > > ?73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and > > wanted > > to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their > problem.? > > > > So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points > ? > > not much, but enough to meet his requirement. > > > > Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard > > Business > > School, he again started showing up frequently. > > > > In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the > > minimum > > requirement for the 1973-1974 year. > > > > Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an > > honorable > > discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his > original > > six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough > points > > in > > each year to cover six years of service. > > > > During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot. > > > > A 1970 evaluation said Bush ?clearly stands out as a top notch fighter > > interceptor pilot? and was ?a natural leader whom his contemporaries look > to > > for leadership.? > > > > A 1971 evaluation called Bush ?an exceptionally fine young officer and > pilot? > > who ?continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his > > proficiency even further.? And a 1972 evaluation called Bush ?an > exceptional > > fighter interceptor pilot and officer.? > > > > Now, it is only natural that news reports questioning Bush?s service ? in > The > > Boston Globe and The New York Times, on CBS and in other outlets ? would > come > > out now. Democrats are spitting mad over attacks on John Kerry?s record by > > the > > group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. > > > > And, as it is with Kerry, it?s reasonable to look at a candidate?s entire > > record, including his military service ? or lack of it. Voters are > perfectly > > able to decide whether it?s important or not in November. > > > > The Kerry camp blames Bush for the Swift boat veterans? attack, but anyone > > who > > has spent much time talking to the Swifties gets the sense that they are > > doing > > it entirely for their own reasons. > > > > And it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned > Bush?s > > service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry?s. > > > > In April ? before the Swift boat veterans had said a word ? Kerry said Bush > > ?has > > yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth, about whether > > he > > showed up for duty.? Earlier, Kerry said, ?Just because you get an > honorable > > discharge does not, in fact, answer that question.? > > > > Now, after the Swift boat episode, the spotlight has returned to Bush. > > > > That?s fine. We should know as much as we can. > > > > And perhaps someday Kerry will release more of his military records as > well. > > > > > > Byron York is a White House correspondent for National Review. > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at ndtceda.com > > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: > > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > > > > > > Trond E. Jacobsen > M.S.I. 2005 > School of Information > University of Michigan > > From scottelliott Fri Sep 10 07:49:42 2004 From: scottelliott (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 07:49:42 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Trond, better check your own facts In-Reply-To: <1094768108.4140d5ec9ff9a@web.mail.umich.edu> References: <1094749115.41408bbb5d222@webmail.grandecom.net> <1094768108.4140d5ec9ff9a@web.mail.umich.edu> Message-ID: <1094820582.4141a2e6106cb@webmail.grandecom.net> Trond, you sound like you personally investigated Bush's war record. You sound like you are the man in "the know." Let's face it, both of us are and will continue to cite second, third and fourth hand sources. So, its not like you have some superior claim to evidence. And, your "devastating" CBS report is now in the toilet. Last I heard--on Fax News (Snort!) Dan Rather is raising hell because he was duped into presenting forged documents as the bastion of his big swan song. It will be interesting to see whether the "forgery issue" comes to fruition. And, if it does, it will be interesting to see how you spin it. Scott Quoting trond at umich.edu: > I am afraid this reprint from the National Review is their typical > obfuscatory > drivel. > > 1. Parrots the Bush line: "Sir what did you do from May 1972-1973?" > Answer: "Well, from 1968 to April 1972 I flew a great deal." > > Not germane. > > 2. Silent on the new evidence of nepotism highlighted by Lt. Gov Barnes. > > 3. Silent on new revelations of dereliction of duty in Cambridge, MA. > > 4. Silent on the devastating new evidence from Bush's squadron commander > Col. > Jerry Killian as repored in 60 minutes. These are contemporaneous accounts > recorded by Bush's supervisor in Alabama. These accounts are just crushing > and > no dated National Review opinion piece without a single source cited > specifically is up to the task of rebutting them. > > The new evidence proves: > > a) he went missing; > b) the commander wanted to punish him for failure to complete required > duties > beyond flying. To date Bush's argument has been that his plane was not in > use > to explain why he missed his physical and failed to register his flying > hours. > This is actually a lie as his original unit continued flying the dated planes > until 1974, but no matter, this new evidence says he should have been > disciplined for a range of offenses and failures. Not to mention that the > way > the service works is that you don't get to decide yourself whether or not > your > service is needed. Not to mention, as well, that this says nothing about his > written, legally binding promise to complete duties in Cambridge from July > 1973 > and never completed, Bartlett's 1999 lie nothwithstanding. > c) most importantly the released files, written at the time, talk of the > strong efforts to shield Bush from the consequences of his dereliction by > powerful friends. For example, memo of August 18, 1972 records that Col. > Killian felt pressure "from higher ups in the Guard to gloss over Bush's poor > performance and to 'sugarcoat' his evaluation" (not quotes from memo but > assesment of Rainey in LA Times as carried in Ann Arbor News today; > 'sugarcoat' > is acutal quote from memo) and that, this time quoting from memo, "I'm having > trouble running interference and doing my job." > > Please realize that this evidence is devastating for the Bush line, as > reiterated in FactCheck.org, and today by Bartlett (hack, not West Wing > President) that the Guard would have disciplined him if he'd failed to do his > duty. Well, no, daddy's friends got him in the Guard and they or other > benefactors protected him from the consequences of his dereliction and > attempted to 'sugarcoat' his evaluations. > > Mr. Elliot, your putative evidence relates to non-issues and does not address > the most recent and detailed and pertinent evidence available. Better luck > in > the pages of the New American. > > Also, typical that it does not bother a NR reader that this piece is little > more > than a reprinting of Bush press releases. Sloppy. > > Trond E. Jacobsen > > > Quoting scottelliott at grandecom.net: > > > Bush?s National Guard years > > Before you fall for Dems? spin, here are the facts > > > > What do you really know about George W. Bush?s time in the Air National > > Guard? > > That he didn?t show up for duty in Alabama? That he missed a physical? That > > his > > daddy got him in? > > > > News coverage of the president?s years in the Guard has tended to focus on > > one > > brief portion of that time ? to the exclusion of virtually everything else. > > So > > just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush did: > > > > The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he > > began > > an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three > > weeks > > of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training. > > > > That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods > thrown > > in > > as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served > > nearly > > two years. > > > > Not two years of weekends. Two years. > > > > After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 > jets. > > As > > he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service > requirements. > > At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points > to > > meet their yearly obligation. > > > > According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in > > his > > first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service > > thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis). > > > > Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And > > he > > earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four > > years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that? > > > > That brings the story to May 1972 ? the time that has been the focus of so > > many > > news reports ? when Bush ?deserted? (according to anti-Bush filmmaker > Michael > > Moore) or went ?AWOL? (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the > > Democratic > > National Committee). > > > > Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. > His > > superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren?t unusual, says retired > > Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971. > > > > ?In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,? Campenni says. ?The > Vietnam > > War > > was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ?72 > > or > > ?73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and > > wanted > > to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their > problem.? > > > > So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points > ? > > not much, but enough to meet his requirement. > > > > Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard > > Business > > School, he again started showing up frequently. > > > > In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the > > minimum > > requirement for the 1973-1974 year. > > > > Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an > > honorable > > discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his > original > > six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough > points > > in > > each year to cover six years of service. > > > > During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot. > > > > A 1970 evaluation said Bush ?clearly stands out as a top notch fighter > > interceptor pilot? and was ?a natural leader whom his contemporaries look > to > > for leadership.? > > > > A 1971 evaluation called Bush ?an exceptionally fine young officer and > pilot? > > who ?continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his > > proficiency even further.? And a 1972 evaluation called Bush ?an > exceptional > > fighter interceptor pilot and officer.? > > > > Now, it is only natural that news reports questioning Bush?s service ? in > The > > Boston Globe and The New York Times, on CBS and in other outlets ? would > come > > out now. Democrats are spitting mad over attacks on John Kerry?s record by > > the > > group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. > > > > And, as it is with Kerry, it?s reasonable to look at a candidate?s entire > > record, including his military service ? or lack of it. Voters are > perfectly > > able to decide whether it?s important or not in November. > > > > The Kerry camp blames Bush for the Swift boat veterans? attack, but anyone > > who > > has spent much time talking to the Swifties gets the sense that they are > > doing > > it entirely for their own reasons. > > > > And it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned > Bush?s > > service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry?s. > > > > In April ? before the Swift boat veterans had said a word ? Kerry said Bush > > ?has > > yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth, about whether > > he > > showed up for duty.? Earlier, Kerry said, ?Just because you get an > honorable > > discharge does not, in fact, answer that question.? > > > > Now, after the Swift boat episode, the spotlight has returned to Bush. > > > > That?s fine. We should know as much as we can. > > > > And perhaps someday Kerry will release more of his military records as > well. > > > > > > Byron York is a White House correspondent for National Review. > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at ndtceda.com > > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: > > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > > > > > > Trond E. Jacobsen > M.S.I. 2005 > School of Information > University of Michigan > > From doyle Fri Sep 10 07:54:25 2004 From: doyle (Doyle Srader) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 07:54:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Bush's Service Record--Setting the Record straight. Message-ID: <01LEP0YA3OY6003OB0@TITAN.SFASU.EDU> I do stand chastened. The web of unashamed lies is holding together, for what it's worth. Only problem is, all of us know it's a web of lies, and I do mean all. I mean, really, not one person can confirm that Bush showed for duty in Alabama, and Bush can't remember a single detail that would confirm his account of events. Zero and zero. The difference between having a bad explanation and having "uh ... uh ... uh ..." George W. Bush used dad's connections to dodge Vietnam, ducked out of the service he was unfairly boosted into, lied about it when he started his political career, and continues to lie about it on a daily basis. The deed itself makes him less suitable to be a wartime president than his opponent, no matter how far in the past; someone who's never been at risk on a battlefield is missing one irreplaceable element of decisionmaking for ordering troops onto the battlefield when compared with someone who has faced that risk. Plus, as with most political scandals, the coverup is worse than the deed, and bears on the man's integrity right now, today. If he's dodged the bullet of smoking-gun evidence this time, he'd better breathe a sigh of relief and hope it holds up seven more weeks, or that people don't start putting together what's glaringly obvious within sneezing distance of their noses. (And have I mentioned that Congress handed him his ass yesterday on overtime pay? Y'know, jobs, the economy, those piddly little things that toppled a wartime president named Bush a while back?) (And, dammit, proportional fonts were available on typewriters going all the way back to the forties!) Doyle Srader, Ph.D. Lecturer, Speech Communication Stephen F. Austin State University http://www.faculty.sfasu.edu/f_sraderdw/ From govnt_man Fri Sep 10 08:16:44 2004 From: govnt_man (The Drake) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:16:44 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Nationally ranked debater??? Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040910/c7e390e9/attachment.html From trond Fri Sep 10 09:09:51 2004 From: trond (trond at umich.edu) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:09:51 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Trond, better check your own facts In-Reply-To: <1094820582.4141a2e6106cb@webmail.grandecom.net> References: <1094749115.41408bbb5d222@webmail.grandecom.net> <1094768108.4140d5ec9ff9a@web.mail.umich.edu> <1094820582.4141a2e6106cb@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: <1094825391.4141b5af3e864@web.mail.umich.edu> Did you read my posts? 1. The forgery issues have nothing to do with either the Barnes charge or the new HBS document reviewed in Boston Globe that I posted a couple of days ago. 2. My investigations are limited to secondary sources except where there exist pdfs posted of the primary documents, which I try to read to see if the secondary sources are credible. Many of the documents are posted in many places, and where I can get them I read them. I do not and have never claimed to do the original leg work tracking down these documents, if that is your implication. 3. I am a man with opinions I try to support with evidence. I try to be as careful as I can with that evidence, within the limits of my abilities. I am sure you approach the issues in the same way. 4. The CBS story has been challenged and I acknowledge that challenge. I would add, in a fit of partisan vitriol, that this is more than anyone on this list embracing the full scope of SBVT smears has been willing to do now that their credibilty has been, at least in my opinion, shredded. I wrote just this morning on edebate (http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200409/0158.html): "There are multiple credible challenges to the documents obtained by 60 Minutes purporting to come from Lt Col Killian's personnel files and which, if authentic, would add damning evidence of Bush walking away from his obligations. If they are fakes they prove no such thing and surely such a conclusion would harm Kerry far more than 60 Minutes, to put it mildly." I would add, however, that in your apparently set-in-stone pro-Bush ways, you fail to answer the reasons why the CBS charges may have some merit. It is as if once challenged by Bush supporters, then repeated in the media, voila, case closed. It is more complex than that. Do I know they are not forgeries? Of course not, but at least I consider the evidence provided by CBS to support their claim, namely that they located co-workers of Killlian from that time who had read those documents at that time and, further, that the content of the documents was consistent with the conversations they had at that time with Killian. Come on, Mr. Elliot, does all that count for nothing? I do not think such an approach could be characterized as carefully weighing the available evidence. For example, I pointed out that, according to CBS, they read the documents to Killians supervisor Hodges and, again according to CBS, he indicated they were consistent with what Killian told him about Bush. I argued that this is independent evidence of the charge even if the documents were forged. Killians supervisor said Killian told him about the events in ways consistent with the language in the uncovered documents - real or fake. Have you arguments? I think you're just miffed cause I slammed the National Review. Trond E. Jacbosen Quoting scottelliott at grandecom.net: > Trond, you sound like you personally investigated Bush's war record. You > sound > like you are the man in "the know." Let's face it, both of us are and will > continue to cite second, third and fourth hand sources. So, its not like you > have some superior claim to evidence. And, your "devastating" CBS report is > now > in the toilet. Last I heard--on Fax News (Snort!) Dan Rather is raising hell > because he was duped into presenting forged documents as the bastion of his > big > swan song. It will be interesting to see whether the "forgery issue" comes > to > fruition. And, if it does, it will be interesting to see how you spin it. > > Scott > > > Quoting trond at umich.edu: > > > I am afraid this reprint from the National Review is their typical > > obfuscatory > > drivel. > > > > 1. Parrots the Bush line: "Sir what did you do from May 1972-1973?" > > Answer: "Well, from 1968 to April 1972 I flew a great deal." > > > > Not germane. > > > > 2. Silent on the new evidence of nepotism highlighted by Lt. Gov Barnes. > > > > 3. Silent on new revelations of dereliction of duty in Cambridge, MA. > > > > 4. Silent on the devastating new evidence from Bush's squadron commander > > Col. > > Jerry Killian as repored in 60 minutes. These are contemporaneous accounts > > recorded by Bush's supervisor in Alabama. These accounts are just crushing > > and > > no dated National Review opinion piece without a single source cited > > specifically is up to the task of rebutting them. > > > > The new evidence proves: > > > > a) he went missing; > > b) the commander wanted to punish him for failure to complete required > > duties > > beyond flying. To date Bush's argument has been that his plane was not in > > use > > to explain why he missed his physical and failed to register his flying > > hours. > > This is actually a lie as his original unit continued flying the dated > planes > > until 1974, but no matter, this new evidence says he should have been > > disciplined for a range of offenses and failures. Not to mention that the > > way > > the service works is that you don't get to decide yourself whether or not > > your > > service is needed. Not to mention, as well, that this says nothing about > his > > written, legally binding promise to complete duties in Cambridge from July > > 1973 > > and never completed, Bartlett's 1999 lie nothwithstanding. > > c) most importantly the released files, written at the time, talk of the > > strong efforts to shield Bush from the consequences of his dereliction by > > powerful friends. For example, memo of August 18, 1972 records that Col. > > Killian felt pressure "from higher ups in the Guard to gloss over Bush's > poor > > performance and to 'sugarcoat' his evaluation" (not quotes from memo but > > assesment of Rainey in LA Times as carried in Ann Arbor News today; > > 'sugarcoat' > > is acutal quote from memo) and that, this time quoting from memo, "I'm > having > > trouble running interference and doing my job." > > > > Please realize that this evidence is devastating for the Bush line, as > > reiterated in FactCheck.org, and today by Bartlett (hack, not West Wing > > President) that the Guard would have disciplined him if he'd failed to do > his > > duty. Well, no, daddy's friends got him in the Guard and they or other > > benefactors protected him from the consequences of his dereliction and > > attempted to 'sugarcoat' his evaluations. > > > > Mr. Elliot, your putative evidence relates to non-issues and does not > address > > the most recent and detailed and pertinent evidence available. Better luck > > in > > the pages of the New American. > > > > Also, typical that it does not bother a NR reader that this piece is little > > more > > than a reprinting of Bush press releases. Sloppy. > > > > Trond E. Jacobsen > > > > > > Quoting scottelliott at grandecom.net: > > > > > Bush?s National Guard years > > > Before you fall for Dems? spin, here are the facts > > > > > > What do you really know about George W. Bush?s time in the Air National > > > Guard? > > > That he didn?t show up for duty in Alabama? That he missed a physical? > That > > > his > > > daddy got him in? > > > > > > News coverage of the president?s years in the Guard has tended to focus > on > > > one > > > brief portion of that time ? to the exclusion of virtually everything > else. > > > So > > > just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush did: > > > > > > The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he > > > began > > > an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three > > > weeks > > > of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training. > > > > > > That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods > > thrown > > > in > > > as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served > > > nearly > > > two years. > > > > > > Not two years of weekends. Two years. > > > > > > After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 > > jets. > > > As > > > he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service > > requirements. > > > At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points > > to > > > meet their yearly obligation. > > > > > > According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points > in > > > his > > > first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his > service > > > thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis). > > > > > > Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. > And > > > he > > > earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first > four > > > years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that? > > > > > > That brings the story to May 1972 ? the time that has been the focus of > so > > > many > > > news reports ? when Bush ?deserted? (according to anti-Bush filmmaker > > Michael > > > Moore) or went ?AWOL? (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the > > > Democratic > > > National Committee). > > > > > > Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. > > His > > > superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren?t unusual, says > retired > > > Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971. > > > > > > ?In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,? Campenni says. ?The > > Vietnam > > > War > > > was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In > ?72 > > > or > > > ?73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and > > > wanted > > > to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their > > problem.? > > > > > > So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 > points > > ? > > > not much, but enough to meet his requirement. > > > > > > Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard > > > Business > > > School, he again started showing up frequently. > > > > > > In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the > > > minimum > > > requirement for the 1973-1974 year. > > > > > > Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an > > > honorable > > > discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his > > original > > > six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough > > points > > > in > > > each year to cover six years of service. > > > > > > During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot. > > > > > > A 1970 evaluation said Bush ?clearly stands out as a top notch fighter > > > interceptor pilot? and was ?a natural leader whom his contemporaries look > > to > > > for leadership.? > > > > > > A 1971 evaluation called Bush ?an exceptionally fine young officer and > > pilot? > > > who ?continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his > > > proficiency even further.? And a 1972 evaluation called Bush ?an > > exceptional > > > fighter interceptor pilot and officer.? > > > > > > Now, it is only natural that news reports questioning Bush?s service ? in > > The > > > Boston Globe and The New York Times, on CBS and in other outlets ? would > > come > > > out now. Democrats are spitting mad over attacks on John Kerry?s record > by > > > the > > > group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. > > > > > > And, as it is with Kerry, it?s reasonable to look at a candidate?s entire > > > record, including his military service ? or lack of it. Voters are > > perfectly > > > able to decide whether it?s important or not in November. > > > > > > The Kerry camp blames Bush for the Swift boat veterans? attack, but > anyone > > > who > > > has spent much time talking to the Swifties gets the sense that they are > > > doing > > > it entirely for their own reasons. > > > > > > And it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned > > Bush?s > > > service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry?s. > > > > > > In April ? before the Swift boat veterans had said a word ? Kerry said > Bush > > > ?has > > > yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth, about > whether > > > he > > > showed up for duty.? Earlier, Kerry said, ?Just because you get an > > honorable > > > discharge does not, in fact, answer that question.? > > > > > > Now, after the Swift boat episode, the spotlight has returned to Bush. > > > > > > That?s fine. We should know as much as we can. > > > > > > And perhaps someday Kerry will release more of his military records as > > well. > > > > > > > > > Byron York is a White House correspondent for National Review. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > eDebate mailing list > > > eDebate at ndtceda.com > > > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: > > > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trond E. Jacobsen > > M.S.I. 2005 > > School of Information > > University of Michigan > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > Trond E. Jacobsen M.S.I. 2005 School of Information University of Michigan From scottelliott Fri Sep 10 10:07:06 2004 From: scottelliott (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:07:06 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Trond, better check your own facts In-Reply-To: <1094825391.4141b5af3e864@web.mail.umich.edu> References: <1094749115.41408bbb5d222@webmail.grandecom.net> <1094768108.4140d5ec9ff9a@web.mail.umich.edu> <1094820582.4141a2e6106cb@webmail.grandecom.net> <1094825391.4141b5af3e864@web.mail.umich.edu> Message-ID: <1094828826.4141c31a9ac62@webmail.grandecom.net> Actually Trond, I find the whole set of issues about what two twenty year olds did or did not do in Vietnam to be quite laughable. Given the War on Terrorism, healthcare issues, the economy, jobs, natural disasters, etc., I find this entire "debate" over "who has a better attendence record and who got how many purple hearts" to be a comic tragedy and a HUGE politcal red herring. Frankly, most people (me included) do not give a rats ass about what Bush did when he was in his twenties. I don't care if he smoked pot or snorted coke at a frat party. Frankly, I don't care if Kerry killed women and children in Vietnam. What I care about is whether Bush or Kerry will (1) kick enough terrorist ass to minimize threats against moms and dads at walmart and (2) keep the economy humming along at a modest growth rate. All of this crap about war records and dodging the draft, by BOTH parties, is really a big waste of time. But to answer your "charges," I stand by the National Review article. Because, Trond, you are the one missing the point--which is--even if your "devastating charges" are true, it means that Bush skipped out on the last couple months of pulling Guard Duty in Alabama at the end of Vietnam. It ain't like he went and stabbed his wartime comrades-in-arms in the back--oh wait that was Kerry during the now infamous Senate investigations lie-fest--but that's another issue. You and the rabid democrats make the charges of "disertion" sound like Bush cut and ran during some pitched battle at Porkchop Hill. He got a cush National Guard job flying jets, got transferred to Alabama where the jets weren't really being flown, got ready to go to Harvard Business School and slacked off for the last few months of an otherwise excellent six year stint. Thus, even if these "damning" charges are true. I and the rest of America say, so what? How does this in any way impact my life, the economy, and the War on Terrorism? You crazy democrats just don't get the point. In politics there is a concept called "staying on message." The Whole Vietnam issue has been a brilliant example of taking the opponent off his message. This news cycle--the next week's news cycle is going to focus on potential forgeries and Vietnam. Kerry has not answered a single press question in over a MONTH. This means that Kerry will lose another week (and there are only 7.5 of them left) to make a case for voting a democrat into office. What is Kerry's plan for healthcare? What is kerry's plan for solving Mid-East Peace? How would Kerry be more effective at stopping Terrorism? I have absolutely no idea because all I see is Kerry et al bitchin' about his Vietnam war record and whether Bush is a diserter. What a hoot. Meanwhile, Bush, everyday, gets to stay on message because Fox news, etc. broadcast that (1) the Economy is growing (2) the is a War going on (3) Bin Laden is a threat and we need a cowboy to kick his ass and (4) Wall street fears Kerry and his tax hikes. You must be pretty bitter at this point--how can people so obviously (to you) stupid and evil constantly beat the crap out of people that are so obviously brilliant and caring? By the way, I have seen on PDF, "official" documents stating that the U.S. has regular diplomatic visits from space aliens; that the Earth is really flat; that we never went to the moon; that JFK is really alive and on life support on a Greek Island. So, just because you read a letter on pdf on the internet does not make it real. Why, just yesterday i saw a pdf document demonstrating that John Kerry personally supported the cloning of Hitler. LOL. From Marna.Weston Fri Sep 10 10:19:25 2004 From: Marna.Weston (Weston, Marna) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:19:25 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] RE:Nationally ranked debater??? Extemp commentary is I.E.-not debate Message-ID: <23FA26BF4E76DC4E949B0D1A9E7BE123ABC83E@COMM-EX01.comm.ad.fsu.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040910/d227517d/attachment.htm From privethedge Fri Sep 10 11:14:07 2004 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:14:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Trond, better check your own facts In-Reply-To: <1094828826.4141c31a9ac62@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: <20040910161407.83869.qmail@web50902.mail.yahoo.com> What is Kerry's plan for healthcare? >> Well, whatever it might be, Mrs. Heinz-Kerry says only an idiot wouldn't support it. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040910/cef113aa/attachment.html From trond Fri Sep 10 11:34:04 2004 From: trond (trond at umich.edu) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:34:04 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Trond, better check your own facts/did that and you? In-Reply-To: <1094828826.4141c31a9ac62@webmail.grandecom.net> References: <1094749115.41408bbb5d222@webmail.grandecom.net> <1094768108.4140d5ec9ff9a@web.mail.umich.edu> <1094820582.4141a2e6106cb@webmail.grandecom.net> <1094825391.4141b5af3e864@web.mail.umich.edu> <1094828826.4141c31a9ac62@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: <4863FE0145910BE61D8CC44B@SI-DIAD-55-XP.si.umich.edu> You make some fine points Mr. Elliot. There is a contradiction in your analysis in that as a Bush supporter, you should want the debate to remain focused on Vietnam thus preventing the Kerry campaign from getting "on message" (given your analysis of this effect). Having worked in politics I am well aware of the campaign realities you describe. But it is still fun to talk about the issues and analyze them and review the evidence, etc. And I would note that while your point about the diversionary impact of the debate is prescient, it is not an answer to any of my arguments about the four documents or the other new evidence and charges. You make a good point at the cost of dropping other points. I am not a Democrat and have never, not once, voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate. I hated Clinton starting in 1992 and have the investigative articles I authored to prove it - long before the blue dress. In fact I am no strong supporter of Kerry per se, as I have said numerous times on this list and as those who know me will appreciate. Crimey, I called him a fink in public in the past 24 hours! I may be crazy but I am not a Democrat. > Actually Trond, I find the whole set of issues about what two twenty year > olds did or did not do in Vietnam to be quite laughable. Given the War on > Terrorism, healthcare issues, the economy, jobs, natural disasters, etc., > I find this entire "debate" over "who has a better attendence record and > who got how many purple hearts" to be a comic tragedy and a HUGE politcal > red herring. > Frankly, most people (me included) do not give a rats ass > about what Bush did when he was in his twenties. I don't care if he > smoked pot or snorted coke at a frat party. Frankly, I don't care if > Kerry killed women and children in Vietnam. Both of these sentiments seem problematic to me. I do care if Bush bagged his duty: it is a measure of the character of the man that he ducked and ran... after having performed rather admirably earlier in this stint. Plus he has LIED about his record repeatedly, including for example claiming to be in Air Force (yes I know lizard lady has her spin on this score), again a test of character. I do care if Bush was driving drunk risking his and other lives. I do care if Bush was snorting cocaine - you know that is a crime right? - and there is no evidence his partying ways ended in his 20's or at Skull and Bones. What I care about is whether > Bush or Kerry will (1) kick enough terrorist ass to minimize threats > against moms and dads at walmart and Bush doing a horrible job. Creating more terrorists, leaving ports undefended, sending homeland security dollars to west Texas, etc., and alienating the very allies we need to run a maximally effective war on terror, whatever we might think of their food and culture. His approach could not be better designed to undermine the prospects of success in the war on terror or to inflame world and Islamic opinion against us. (2) keep the economy humming along > at a modest growth rate. Perhaps along with structural reforms to ensure the sharing of the growth. This jobless recovery is the first in recorded history where >60% of growth is siphoned off for corporate profits rather than wages and benefits. In previous recoveries, the split is roughly 60-40 the other way. Paul Volcker, Fed Chairman under early Reagan, places the odds of a financial crisis in the next five years, owing to Bush profligacy, at 75 percent (Krugman, "The Dishonesty Thing," NYT, 9/10/04). > All of this crap about war records and dodging > the draft, by BOTH parties, is really a big waste of time. > > But to answer your "charges," I stand by the National Review article. > Because, Trond, you are the one missing the point--which is--even if your > "devastating charges" are true, it means that Bush skipped out on the > last couple months of pulling Guard Duty in Alabama at the end of > Vietnam. It ain't like he went and stabbed his wartime comrades-in-arms > in the back--oh wait that was Kerry during the now infamous Senate > investigations lie-fest--but that's another issue. > They show he did some good things and I do not deny it. I think it is fair to point out the National Review piece did not answer the arguments I was making. I was not making an argument he went AWOL from 1968 to May 1972, or even that he performed poorly. As I said it is a question of germaneness. Also, I criticized the article for failing to provide its own supporting materials by only vaguely alluding to documents. In essence it came across - to me - as a rehashing of Bush talking points. > You and the rabid democrats make the charges of "disertion" sound like > Bush cut and ran during some pitched battle at Porkchop Hill. I'm not a rabid Democrat, just terrified by the madmen in the White House. He got a > cush National Guard job flying jets, got transferred to Alabama where the > jets weren't really being flown, got ready to go to Harvard Business > School and slacked off for the last few months of an otherwise excellent > six year stint. Thus, even if these "damning" charges are true. I and the > rest of America say, so what? How does this in any way impact my life, > the economy, and the War on Terrorism? > This characterization ignores the evidence of what he was ordered to do and what he agree to do. You also ignore my point about how this shows his character: rules are for the little guy, not Poppy's boy. > You crazy democrats just don't get the point. In politics there is a > concept called "staying on message." The Whole Vietnam issue has been a > brilliant example of taking the opponent off his message. This news > cycle--the next week's news cycle is going to focus on potential > forgeries and Vietnam. If the media do their jobs a portion of this debate, rightfully the heart of this debate over the next week, will examine questions related to the Bush record, pushing HIM off message. Surely you see that this is the point of the exercise. I understand how that is something you and other Bush fans do not want to talk about. > How would Kerry be more effective at stopping Terrorism? By working with a posse instead of as the lone sheriff. > I have absolutely no idea because all I see is Kerry et al bitchin' about > his Vietnam war record and whether Bush is a diserter. What a hoot. > Meanwhile, Bush, everyday, gets to stay on message because Fox news, etc. > broadcast that (1) the Economy is growing (2) the is a War going on (3) > Bin Laden is a threat and we need a cowboy to kick his ass and (4) If the Bush plan is so strong why does Bin Laden remain such a threat? How great a threat would he have be if we had concentrated all the diplomatic, military, and intelligence resources expended in Iraq on finishing the job in Afghanistan? You do know that the Taliban and the warlords are now back in control in Afghanistan outside Kabul, right? You did read we basically have ceded control of central Iraq to those who oppose our presence, right? This is setting the bar for success pretty low, Mr. Elliot. Bush is great at building himself up and serving his ambitions. When it comes to our interests, the general population, the man has the reverse midas touch: surplus becomes record deficit, global post-9/11 empathy becomes unprecedented dislike bordering on hatred, military success in Iraq become failure during "peace," same as in Afghanistan, etc., etc., etc. I will grant you Bush sounds all tough and macho about the war on terror, but the bottom line is that the plans he has in place and is likely to pursue are at best ineffective and at worse counter-productive, and the latter is the more likely. What is a diserter? Wall > street fears Kerry and his tax hikes. You must be pretty bitter at this > point--how can people so obviously (to you) stupid and evil constantly > beat the crap out of people that are so obviously brilliant and caring? Because they have money, the incumbency, Kerry is damaged goods, Murdoch's minions - Hannity, O'Reilly, and the others - are not brilliant, they are just loaded and able to churn out endless garbage driving the news cycle in ways the NYT used to be able to do. Rove is pretty bright but trying to say he is what you just said almost made be throw up, so I had to pull back. > By the way, I have seen on PDF, "official" documents stating that the > U.S. has regular diplomatic visits from space aliens; that the Earth is > really flat; that we never went to the moon; that JFK is really alive and > on life support on a Greek Island. So, just because you read a letter on > pdf on the internet does not make it real. Why, just yesterday i saw a > pdf document demonstrating that John Kerry personally supported the > cloning of Hitler. LOL. You lament the level of attention in this campaign devoted to Vietnam yet you have time to spend examining this garbage? Maybe that time could be spent researching the issues in this campaign you claim are most important. You might also consider taking the time to educate all of us on the great plans for healthcare, the environment, etc. you see from Bush. I don't see Bush talking this stuff up much, I see a lot chest thumping and empty rhetoric about getting the evil doers. Trond E. Jacobsen From korryharvey Fri Sep 10 11:46:40 2004 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:46:40 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] real crime 3 cont'd-- retired brass calling for indpt. prison abuse probe Message-ID: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/detainees/getting_to_ground_truth.htm _________________________________________________________________ Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ From korryharvey Fri Sep 10 11:56:45 2004 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:56:45 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] 18 months later, fighting in iraq getting worse not better Message-ID: http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=25421 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5946240/ _________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee? Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From TM0JRB1 Fri Sep 10 12:25:59 2004 From: TM0JRB1 (John Butler) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:25:59 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Re: NIU Tournament Invite Message-ID: Dear Colleagues: On behalf of NIU Forensics and the Department of Communication at Northern Illinois University, we cordially invite you to the M. Jack Parker Invitational Debate Tournament to be held on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, October 8, 9, and 10, 2004. New this year: ADA Rules Will Be Used This year the tournament is ADA Sanctioned, and will, accordingly, use ADA rules. The ADA Standing Rules of Tournament Procedure can be accessed at the ADA websight (http://www2.bc.edu/~katsulas/), but the ?Rules Governing the Conduct of a Debate? and the ?Rules Governing Debater Eligibility? are attached below. Please share these rules with competitors and judges planning to attend the tournament. The members and coaches of NIU Forensics believe very strongly in promoting a healthy competitive environment, and are especially aware that most of the Novice teams that attend our tournament are new to the activity. We view the competitive rounds at our tournament as ?practice? for a competitive season that will become increasingly challenging for continuing debaters. At the Novice level, we encourage the entry of teams whose season continues in other debate arenas (parliamentary and Lincoln Douglas) as an opportunity to practice evidence-based policy debate. Also at the Novice level, judges are encouraged to provide substantive comments at the end of a round, to use the experience as a ?teaching moment,? and, if necessary, offer supportive comments to encourage especially nervous debaters to continue the use their allotted speaking time (without, of course, violating the spirit of the ADA rule regarding ?outside assistance?). The tournament will consist of six rounds of policy debate and an appropriate number of elimination rounds, in two divisions: Novice and Open. Novice eligibility will be determined by the standards set by ADA. Times are 9/6/3 for Open and 8/5/3 for Novice (8 prep for all). Awards will be presented to the top five speakers of each division, and to all teams in elimination rounds. All specific policies and procedures will be outlined in the tournament literature, to be distributed at registration. The registration fee is $55.00 per team. The standard one judge per two teams is required. A fee of $60.00 will be requested for each uncovered novice team; $90.00 per uncovered open team. Please inform us as soon as possible if you plan to pay for judging to cover for teams entered. All judges are required to be available the first elimination round, and/or one round after their team has been eliminated. A continental breakfast will be provided Saturday and Sunday morning. We request that you enter no later than Wednesday, October 6th at 5:00PM, using one of the following methods (if you need more time to know who is attending, please let us know by October 5th that you plan to attend): U.S. Mail: John Butler, Dir. of Forensics Department of Communication Northern Illinois University DeKalb, IL 60115 Fax Machine: 815.753.7109 Electronic Mail: butler at niu.edu Telephone: 815.753.7101 Hotel information, schedule, registration forms, directions, and ADA materials follow. Please feel free to provide your students with John Butler?s cell phone number in case any problems arise while on campus: 815 540 7071 Sincerely, John Butler, Ph.D., Director of Forensics Rebecca Shook, Assistant Coach of Debate Chris Carpenter, Assistant Coach of Debate Amy Lehuta, President, NIU Forensics HOTEL INFORMATION: We have arranged a block of rooms at the Best Western DeKalb Inn and Suites. These rooms may be reserved for Thursday, Friday and Saturday evening. Please do not wait to reserve rooms. The block is under ?NIU Debate.? The phone number is 815-758-8661. The Best Western will release these rooms to the public as of Friday, SEPTEMBER 27th. The rate per room is $55.00, for up to 4 people per room. Our contact person, if you have problems reserving a room, please contact us. The Best Western is located about three blocks South/West of campus (1212 W. Lincoln Hwy., in DeKalb). For a campus, walking location, some of our regular guests choose to stay in the Holmes Student Center (815-753-1444). This is typically the same price as the Best Western, approximately $55.00 per night; BUT, the rooms in the Student Center sleep only two people (you might arrange for a roll-away bed for a third, but this is not always possible). See additional hotels below if needed. Additional Hotels in DeKalb (all just off the South/West corner of campus): Baymont Inn (new): 815-748-4800 1314 W. Lincoln Hwy., in DeKalb Super 8 Motel: 815-748-4688 800 W. Fairview, in DeKalb Howard Johnson: 815-756-1451 1321 W. Lincoln Hwy., in DeKalb Additional Hotels in Sycamore (a five minute drive to campus): Country Inn and Suites: 815-895-8686 1450 S. Peace Road, in Sycamore Amerihost: 815-895-4979 1475 S. Peace Road, in Sycamore Holiday Inn Express: 815-748-7400 1935 DeKalb Ave., in Sycamore SCHEDULE: Friday, October 8, 2004 1:30 PM 3:00 PM: Registration, Front Lobby, DuSable Hall 4:00 PM: Round I 6:00 PM: Round II Saturday, October 9, 2004 8:00 AM: Continental Breakfast, DuSable Hall 9:00 AM: Round III 11:00 AM: Round IV 1:00 PM: Lunch Break 2:30 PM: Round V 4:30 PM: Round VI Sunday, October 10, 2004 8:00 AM: Continental Breakfast, DuSable Hall 9:00 AM: First Policy Break Round Begins 11:00 AM: Second Policy Break Round Begins 1:00 PM: Third Policy Break Round Begins 3:00 PM: Final Policy Break Round Begins (if necessary) REGISTRATION: Using one of the methods above, please send the following information: Name of School: Name of Director/Coach: Address: Phone/E mail: Names of Competitors (by team) and division (Novice or Varsity) Names of Judges? and Commitment (# of rounds, divisions eligible): DIRECTIONS: >From the East (Indiana/Ohio): Enter Illinois some way that can connect you to 294 (North) (most use 80 West). Take 294 N to 88 West to Aurora. You will pass through Oak Brook, Naperville/Wheaton, and Aurora before you will see signs for NIU. Take Annie Glidden Road to the campus. Once at Lincoln Highway (after going under the train bridge) proceed through the intersection and look on your right for the Field House (big ugly dome-like athletic building). Turn into the campus (Rt) onto the side street that will bring you to the Field House Parking Lot. Park your vehicle and find DuSable Hall (the busses stop at the front of DuSable Hall, after they drive around the circular drive to the east of the Field House parking lot). If going to the Days Inn, turn left on Lincoln Hwy., and find the Days Inn on your left. >From the West (Iowa): Enter Illinois from 80/88 headed East until it turns to 88. Take 88 to NIU. Take Annie Glidden Road to the campus. Once at Lincoln Highway (after going under the train bridge) proceed through the intersection and look on your right for the Field House (big ugly dome-like athletic building). Turn into the campus (Rt) onto the side street that will bring you to the Field House Parking Lot. Park your vehicle and find DuSable Hall (the busses stop at the front of DuSable Hall, after they drive around the circular drive to the east of the Field House parking lot). If going to the Days Inn, turn left on Lincoln Hwy., and find the Days Inn on your left. >From the South (Southern Illinois/St, Louis/Normal): Take 55 to 39 North, to 88 East to NIU. Take Annie Glidden Road to the campus. Once at Lincoln Highway (after going under the train bridge) proceed through the intersection and look on your right for the Field House (big ugly dome-like athletic building). Turn into the campus (Rt) onto the side street that will bring you to the Field House Parking Lot. Park your vehicle and find DuSable Hall (the busses stop at the front of DuSable Hall, after they drive around the circular drive to the east of the Field House parking lot). If going to the Days Inn, turn left on Lincoln Hwy., and find the Days Inn on your left. >From the North (Wisconsin): Take 39 South to Route 38 (Lincoln Highway) to DeKalb. Take 38 East to Annie Glidden Road. Turn Left onto Annie Glidden and look on your right for the Field House (big ugly dome-like athletic building). Turn into the campus (Rt) onto the side street that will bring you to the Field House Parking Lot. Park your vehicle and find DuSable Hall (the busses stop at the front of DuSable Hall, after they drive around the circular drive on the side of the Field House parking lot). If going to the Days Inn, find it on the right, just before Lincoln Hwy. AMERICAN DEBATE ASSOCIATION >From the STANDING RULES OF TOURNAMENT PROCEDURE: I. RULES GOVERNING THE CONDUCT OF A DEBATE 1. FORMAT--Cross-examination style debate format will be used, with two-person teams. There will be four nine-minute constructive speeches, beginning with the affirmative. After each constructive, there will be a three-minute cross-examination by a member of the opposition. There will be four six-minute rebuttals, beginning with the negative. Each team will be allocated ten minutes of preparation time to be used in between speeches and cross-examination periods. 2. TOPIC--The ADA will adopt the CEDA topic if it is worded as a proposition of policy. If the CEDA topic is not worded as a proposition of policy the ADA will adopt the topic as worded by the NDT Topic Selection Committee. 3. CONSTRAINTS ON THE AFFIRMATIVE-- The first affirmative constructive speaker is expected to present a complete case which includes a topical plan of action that is a policy option and a rationale justifying that plan. The affirmative team must present and defend through the entirety of the debate only one plan, and once presented, this plan cannot be changed, altered, or amended in any way during the debate. This does not preclude permutations. The affirmative team is not obligated to reveal their case before the debate. 4. COUNTERPLANS*Counterplans should compete with the affirmative. 5. CRITIQUES--If the negative chooses to initiate a critique it has the burden of defending a policy alternative which justifies rejection of the affirmative's proposed plan of action. The unique reason for voting must be clearly identified during the initial presentation of the criticism. The critique must be logically consistent with all other negative arguments raised in the round. If the affirmative team demonstrates that the critique fails to meet any of these criteria the judge must disregard the critique. 6. TOPICALITY*Topicality asks whether the affirmative is sufficiently within the scope of the resolution and is a voting issue. 7. CONSTRAINTS DURING REBUTTALS-- No new constructive argument or new constructive positions may be advanced in rebuttal speeches, absent arguments or positions made in the 1AR to address new 2NC constructions. This does not restrict the use of new evidence or new positions to address arguments presented in the constructive speeches. 8. MATERIALS-- Evidence presented in debates should include the following orally presented citation: the author (if any) or the source of the publication, author's qualifications, and date. Page numbers must be available upon request. This citation is expected for all pieces of evidence the first time the evidence is presented. For subsequent references to the same author or work, the citation may be abbreviated. If an evidence challenge is made premised upon intentional fabrication, distortion, or misrepresentation, then it is an ethical challenge and the burden of proof is upon the challenger. Debaters should understand that judges may choose to penalize frivolous accusations. All words inserted in evidence must be enclosed in square brackets or slash marks; all internally ellipsed parts of the evidence must be available immediately upon the request by the opponents, or at the conclusion of the round upon request by the judge. The material in the brackets or internally ellipsed ought in no way alter the original author's intent. Material presented in the debate must be accompanied by an original oral explanation justifying the introduction of that material into the debate and the material being presented must be available as a textual transcription for inspection by the opposing team. 9. OUTSIDE ASSISTANCE--Once the debate has begun, a team may not receive assistance, suggestions, or coaching from anyone while the round is in progress. This does not prevent debate partners from helping one another, but does prevent outside persons from helping a team during the course of a debate. Debaters may not receive electronic assistance from outside sources or perform electronic research during the course of a debate. 10. PROMPTING/CROSS-TALK--Only the person speaking, asking a question in cross-examination, or answering a question in cross-examination should be talking. Partners should not vocally 'prompt' the speaker during his/her speech. Cross-examination questions should be asked and answered only by the two debaters involved in the cross-examination period. MINIMAL consultation with opponents is allowed during the questioning team's preparation time. 11. DECORUM--Debaters and judges should refrain from the use of profanity during debates. Debaters and judges should treat one another with civility during debates and when debate decisions are revealed and discussed. Debaters and judges should treat one another with generosity, respect and kindness. Participants (debaters, judges, coaches, observers, etc.) may not engage in any nudity, sexually explicit or illegal behavior, or use illegal substances while at the location of the debate rounds or during a debate. 12. DELIVERY--Debaters should speak comprehensively and intelligibly while giving speeches and engaging in cross-examination. Debaters should refrain from shouting or yelling while speaking. Debaters have the burden to develop clearly all ideas presented and to do so in an oral style that recognizes and adapts to the inherent limitations on human speech production and listening, as well as any expressed preferences of the judge in the round. 13. EXPIRATION OF TIME--Debaters should cease speaking when the time expires. The debater's idea which is being presented when time expires may be finished but no new statements may be initiated after the time expires. 14. RESPONSIBILITIES OF JUDGES--Judges should listen conscientiously and in a manner designed to promote recognition and recall of positions advanced in speeches and question periods. Judges are encouraged to provide verbal and nonverbal feedback to encourage comprehensibility and to discourage violating the rules of debate. Further, judges will attempt to avoid verbal and nonverbal feedback which degrades, humiliates or otherwise belittles the efforts of the debater speaking. Judges should listen to all proofs offered by debaters and render a decision based on the clash in the debate, uninfluenced by the judge's preconceptions about the proposition or the type of proof called for in a given situation. Oral critiques by judges are encouraged for all rounds so long as the critique does not delay teams or the judge from getting to the next scheduled round before the forfeit time. Judges should refrain from long critiques when debaters need to get off campus to eat during meal breaks. Judges must render a decision in which one of the teams participating in the debate is declared the winner. 15. DEBATE DECISIONS--Judges choosing to reveal decisions will do so to both teams involved in the debate. Judges must write a critique for each preliminary round debate they are assigned to judge. Written critiques for preliminary rounds should be turned in to the tabulation room so that they can be distributed to competing teams no later than the start of the second elimination round. A school's packet of ballots and results sheets will not be released by the tab room if any judge from that school or hired by that school has not turned in a completed ballot for any preliminary round in which they judged. Judges hired by the tournament will not be paid until they have turned in a completed ballot for any preliminary round judged. Writing a statement such as 'oral critique given' on the ballot does not satisfy the expectation that judges should write a critique for each preliminary round they are assigned to judge. Written critiques presenting a judge's reasons for decision in elimination rounds are optional and completed at the judge's discretion. If completed they should be turned in so that they can be distributed no later than the conclusion of the tournament. If the judge elects not to write an elimination round critique, he/she should discuss the debate and the rationale for the decision made with both teams involved in the debate. 16. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ELIMINATION ROUND DECISIONS AT ADA TOURNAMENTS -- At ADA tournaments, the Tournament Director shall designate a Chair for all elimination round panels except for the final round in each division. Judges shall submit their ballots to the designated Chair. After all judges have voted and the original ballots have been returned to the Tournament Director or his/her designated representative, the Chair shall announce the decision of the judges in the room in which the debate was held. Decisions in the final round of each division shall be announced by the Tournament Director or his/her designee at a time and place designated by the Director. III. RULES GOVERNING DEBATER ELIGIBILITY 1. DEBATER ELIGIBILITY -- To participate in the ADA National Championship Tournament a debater must be an undergraduate student who is regularly enrolled and in good standing at the institution for which s/he is competing at the tournament. Any student in compliance with the AFA standards is eligible for competition for the ADA National Tournament. Students may attend a maximum of four ADA Nationals. A student who has debated at any intercollegiate debate tournament in more than ten semesters is ineligible to attend ADA Nationals. 2. TRANSFER STUDENTS-- Students transferring from one four year college debate program to another will be eligible for competition unless the transfer violates the rules specified in the AFA Code of Forensics Program and Forensics Tournament Standards. If a transfer student is held to have violated those provisions, he/she will be ineligible for competition in ADA until the academic year following the transfer. 3. PIRACY-- Coaches agree to refrain from acts of piracy, meaning that they will voluntarily avoid attempts to lure debaters away from active four-year college debate programs and into their own. 4. ELIGIBILITY FOR DEBATE DIVISIONS-- Tournaments will define eligibility for particular divisions of debate in the following ways: A. Varsity Debate--open to all students; B. Junior Varsity Debate 1. open only to students who are competing in their first two academic years of intercollegiate debate beyond the novice level. 2. Progression during the year. Debaters competing in JV must progress to open or varsity debate: a. if they advance to the final round of three JV, open, or varsity tournaments (no matter where), or b. if they qualify to attend the National Debate Tournament 3. ADA Nationals. The aforementioned progression requirement based on advancing to the final rounds of three junior varsity, open, or varsity tournaments does not apply to ADA Nationals and Round Robins. A. Novice Debate--This division is designed for debaters who are truly in their first year of competitive debate or who have so little previous experience that they are functionally first-year debaters. 1. Eligibility. This division is open to debaters who: a. have no more than a combined total of 50 rounds of Lincoln Douglas and policy debate prior to the current academic year. b. have competed in the novice division in a previous year but have not advanced into the elimination rounds at two tournaments. 2. Progression during the year. Debaters competing in novice must progress to junior varsity if they advance to the final round of two novice, JV, open, or varsity tournaments (no matter where) in which there are 20 or more teams in the division. 3. Forced progression into the JV division in the middle of the academic year does not count against the two years of JV eligibility ADA Nationals. The aforementioned progression requirement based on advancing to the final rounds of three novice, junior varsity, open, or varsity tournaments does not apply to ADA Nationals or Round Robins for which participants are invited based on the current year?s record of competition. B. Any program director seeking an exemption from the above standards shall submit a request to the Vice President who, in conjunction with the Executive Committee or subcommittee thereof, shall rule upon it. Appeals, once granted, may be revoked based on tournament performance. 5. ADA Nationals. For the purposes of the ADA National tournament only, a debate team is defined as the two-person team that begins the first rounds of the tournament and who debate together throughout the course of the tournament. Hybrids may debate together at the ADA National Tournament, but they may not clear to elimination rounds. If one of the debaters of a team cannot debate in any given round, that round will be forfeited. Teams that forfeit rounds will be given average speaker points, but are ineligible to clear to elimination rounds if speaker points are the determining factor for their clearing. Debaters who forfeit rounds are ineligible for speaker awards 6. Debate Teams at ADA Tournaments. For the purposes of ADA tournaments, a debate team is defined as the two-person team that begins the first round of the tournament and who debate together throughout the course of the tournament. Hybrid teams are allowed at the discretion of the tournament director, and are allowed to clear to elimination rounds at the discretion of the tournament director. A tournament's policy on hybrid teams must be indicated in the tournament invitation. If one of the debaters of a team cannot debate in any given round, that round will be forfeited. The debate may still occur for educational purposes. However, that team will still be eligible for speaker awards and elimination rounds. John Butler, Ph.D. Assistant Professor and Director of Forensics Department of Communication Northern Illinois University DeKalb, Illinois 60115 815-753-7101 From trond Fri Sep 10 12:47:14 2004 From: trond (trond at umich.edu) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 13:47:14 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] The AWOL Project Message-ID: The AWOL project () collects together a number of service documents and information important to fairly assessing the Bush service record and attempts to place them in the context in which they were written. The picture that emerges in interesting, to say the least. This guy gets huge credit in my book for at least attempting this monumental task, including scans of original materials wherever possible. Also, all of his claims stem from the very documents the Bush people released back in February. They are not the Killian files, the HBS files, etc. Basically, through extended effort and a review of the documents in the light of then prevailing statutes and practices, he is able to reach defensible conclusions where FactCheck remained perplexed; they simply did not take the time to careful review the evidence. Though artistically challenged, the site is worth a look. He has like 100x the number of original documents we have been reviewing on edebate over the past couple of months and the guidelines, protocols, and laws then in effect as well. His occasional lapses into hyperbole are defensible in light of his heavy reliance on primary documents. Here is a description of what he thinks he found: "On February 10. 2004, the White House released a number of documents[1] related to George W. Bush?s military service in the Texas Air National Guard. (TXANG). The White House claimed repeatedly that these documents proved that Bush had ?fulfilled his duty.? They even provided the press with a statement from a former Texas Air National Guard official, Albert Lloyd, who stated that the documents that were released ?proves that [Bush] completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner.? Unbeknow[n]st to the press, however, Lloyd had been personally involved in ensuring that Bush received F-102 pilot training, despite Bush?s abysmal pilot aptitude test scores. In fact, not only did those documents fail to prove that Bush had ?fulfilled his duties?, they prove the opposite. On Friday, February 13, 2004, the White House released what it described as all the documents[2] in Bush?s personnel files. But the new documents, more than four hundred pages, were something less than advertised. The Friday night ?document dump? was thoroughly disorganized, and replete with duplicate pages. In some cases, documents were illegible (and unintelligible to civilians). Of course, they came with no glossary and no guide. The mainstream press was confronted with a massive amount of information to sift through, and no expertise with which to evaluate the information contained in the documents.. The subsequent reporting on the documents consisted almost entirely of statements noting (erroneously) the lack of a ?smoking gun?, and the ?unanswered questions? that remained. But the records released by the White House contained more than a ?smoking gun?. They contained a whole arsenal of documents that, if you know the context in which they were written, establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that ?Bush was AWOL.? These documents include: 1) ?Points? records showing that for two straight years, Bush did not perform the training that was mandated by law, and which could not be excused by his superior officers. (See The Points Scam) 2) Payroll records showing that Bush requested and received pay and point credit for which he was ineligible under Air Force policy (See Fraud?The Secrets of Bush?s Payroll Records Revealed) 3) Documents related to Bush?s attempted transfer to the ?9921st Air Reserve Squadron? showing that the request was an attempt by Bush to fraudulently escape his obligations as a member of the United States Armed Forces (See The Transfer Scam) 4) Documents showing that Bush?s superior officers knew he was ?AWOL?, and eventually had to admit that they had lost track of Bush for an entire year. (See The Cover-up in Texas). 5) Documents showing that Bush intended to desert the Armed Forces with almost a year of his statutory six year participation requirement unfulfilled (See Discharge, or Desertion?) 6) Documents showing that the Air Force understood that Bush was a ?deserter?, and had taken the steps necessary to deal with someone in Bush?s position who had abandoned their commitment to the US Government. See (Deserter: Bush After TXANG) The Bush documents also reveal that Bush?s personnel files were tampered with to disguise what had occurred, and that the White House (and the Bush campaign in 2000) has consistently lied about the nature of the records, and made claims regarding Bush?s obligations as a member of the United States Armed Forces that have absolutely no basis in fact For the past four years, Bush and his supporters have done everything in their power to obscure the facts concerning Bush?s military service. This series will reveal those facts, and in the process, reveal the character of George W. Bush, and those who defend and support him." Trond E. Jacobsen From korryharvey Fri Sep 10 12:47:33 2004 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:47:33 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Climate Change Solutions -- People power Message-ID: http://www.newint.org/issue357/people.htm _________________________________________________________________ Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: THE BIG SWITCH Climate Change Solutions - NI 357 - Peoplepower.url Type: application/octet-stream Size: 158 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040910/d4e55cde/attachment.obj From korryharvey Fri Sep 10 12:48:48 2004 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:48:48 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] indigenous people and energy policy Message-ID: White House energy policy threatens indigenous people http://www.omplace.com/om_articles/BlackMesaandIndigenousPeopleThreatenedByCurrentEnergyPolicyinWhiteHouse.html warming trend will decimate arctic peoples http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=25411 "The Bush administration doesn't believe there's a problem and are behind the delay in the release of the report," said Gordon McBean, an ACIA participant from the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction at the University of Western Ontario. "They don't even think they ought to reduce their emissions, period." Arctic warming 5-10 times faster than thought http://www.nunatsiaq.com/news/nunavut/40910_01.html Dark future for white animals in warm arctic http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5931051/ Warming thaws arctic, divides nations http://www.thedailystar.net/2004/09/07/d40907011613.htm Severe thaw threatens arctic http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1092953410558&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467 warming endangers the traditions of indigenous people http://topics.developmentgateway.org/indigenous/highlights/viewHighlight.do?activeHighlightId=100540 Arctic people threatened by melting sea ice http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=1809 Global warming killing inuits http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=4304&fcategory_desc=Issues%20Related%20to%20Indigenous%20People Indigenous peoples and the complex path to global solutions http://www.climateark.org/articles/1999/negokyot.htm _________________________________________________________________ Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ From redtapemachete Fri Sep 10 13:56:48 2004 From: redtapemachete (Kelley Burd) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:56:48 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] a debate question! In-Reply-To: <6c68badb04090817467f25c734@mail.gmail.com> References: <6c68badb040908135064ea3a33@mail.gmail.com> <6c68badb040908174315c4d7d9@mail.gmail.com> <6c68badb04090817467f25c734@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6c68badb040910115675d93b4d@mail.gmail.com> Allow me to introduce myself. I'm Kelley Burd, the debater who inspired Dr. Berch's post. I would like to take this opportunity to add my perspective to these questions, and perhaps inspire some public (at least listserv public) address of these issues. I would also like to apologize to Dr. Ede Warner, whose L.E.A.D institute was the last, best hope for my continued participation in policy debate. I agree nearly completely with the debate philosophy of U of L, but unfortunately, I'm on a debate team of politics hacks, and the philosophy that Doc proposes is one that has to have the support of the entire collective in order for it to be successful. My voice has been silenced, the norms of traditional debate have won this battle, but to be honest, debate as it exists now is not the bright shining activity that everyone makes it out to be in round. It's not the best forum for discussing diverse issues, and it's certainly not the best forum for argumentative advocacy. I don't think it's as much taking arguments personally that drove me away as it is that the nature of policy debate as it currently exists rarely if ever allows for any in-round respect to be rendered between teams. You will never hear any clear coherent explanation of arguments and why they need to refute them, because in doing so, you;re practicing bad word economy. Thus, you will likely never hear the words "with all due respect" or "i understand what you're trying to say" in a round. Instead you'll hear things like "this is the stupidest argument i've ever heard" "your voice doesn't matter" and more often than not, the phrase "I don't care..." Most of the time this information doesn'tget flowed, so it in itself is bad word economy, but somehow it makes At first I attributed my distaste for debate to the reasons above. Then i went into my second year, and though i was more competitively successful, the dislike for the activity remained. It wasn't that i wasn't winning arguments, it was that the nature in which those arguments were fleshed out was fundamentally flawed to me. I'll admit: it's easy for things like "this is just stupid" to come out when you're thinking at a speed that requires gut reactions. It's why your elite debaters are most often those with experience going back to junior high. "this is stupid" gets replaced by "empirically denied" but the debaters are going so fast that this is stupid gets thrown in there too. The only difference is that the experienced debaters have more reasons why this is stupid, because they've thought of them for years and years. I really do see debate as a male-dominated activity and I believe that the sheer rudeness that happens in rounds (from Perry Mason-style Cross-exs to calling the other team racists, sexists, bigots, etc. at a point in their advocacy where it would really offend them) can be attributed to the masculine domination of the activity. People with less confrontational mindsets are not going to continue in the activity, basically because rudeness is nearly a prerequisite for competitive success. Any activity that allows you to pick up an argument 5 minutes before the round and nearly win it is not an activity that promotes any true understanding of diverse ideas. Debate tends to favor quantity over quality of arguments. It even does this in non-traditional rounds i believe. Rarely if ever do debates get a far into a topic as to discuss the true nature of the state or how best to combat racism, at least in a way that will be remembered after the tournament, or even after that round. In the end, it's always an evaluation of impacts. Whose stick is bigger? Because of the impact-oriented nature of debate, issues like civil rights, domestic budgets, sexism, etc. get silenced unless there can be some shady link to genocide or nuke war extrapolated from them. This not only makes the issue talked about seem completely unreasonable, but it truly trivializes the horrors of genocide and nuclear war. Debate isn't practical, in an academic or pragmatic sense, if we constantly talk about the same impacts tacked onto a myriad of problems. It does nothing as far as finding solutions to said problems is concerned. I have found that in my experience, debate has made me more complacent about issues than inspired me to become an activist or defend what I believe in. The three-dimensional arguments that mean so much to so many people become a and b subpoints on a legal pad. Instead of bringing issues to life, it kills the issues that affect our lives on a daily basis. The arguments are flat, there is no way to truly evaluate any normative or practical merits of them, because everything is so logical. Rarely is anything in this world (at least the world debaters talk about) ever completely logical. Come on, this is a community that practically rejoices the genocide in the Sudan because it makes for a good impact story. For me the best way to learn to defend your point is to think about it for a rather lengthy period of time. Policy debate just doesn't fit my personality any longer. I tried to make the relationship last, but in the end it was irreconcilable diffrerences that forced me away from the activity. The policy debate community has a HUGE problem on its hands. The way that debates occur and the basic assumptions, norms, and procedures of the activity are enough to scare away any prospective debater, or at least send them over to parli or LD. If programs are going to continue to obtain funding (and the favor of the deans that grant such funding), something big has to happen to make this style of debate accessible to as many people, both without and within the debate communities, as possible. Face it: Policy debate has lost its luster, and much of that can be attributed to the way it occurs. Make it understandable to the average Jane, (and allow debate that could be understood by the average Jane through ballots) and watch the activity grow. Continue down this road, and policy debate will become more obscure than it ever has been before. Kelley Burd WVU Debate From GOPAlan81 Fri Sep 10 15:15:45 2004 From: GOPAlan81 (GOPAlan81 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:15:45 EDT Subject: [eDebate] RE:Nationally ranked debater??? Extemp commentary is I.E.-not debate M Message-ID: I didn't care for some of the comments made about Andy Litinsky (the kid on the Apprentice). I competed againt him for three years in high school extemp, and let me just say he was one of the best extempers of his time whether or not you count extemp as a debate event. Even if he didn't win in his normal event wining extemp commentary is an accomplishment. In fact making it out of the Manatee District in extemp is hard enough. That district has churned out two CFL national champions in extemp the last 4 years. Before that it had some of the best extempers in the country. Andy, if I remember correctly placed at Blue Key, placed at Crestian, and he won Harvard as well I believe. Alan Rubin UF -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040910/202becc8/attachment.html From privethedge Fri Sep 10 15:33:03 2004 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 13:33:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] RE:Nationally ranked debater??? Extemp commentary is I.E.-not debate M In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040910203303.5799.qmail@web50907.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, But certainly you'd agree that the young man was not a "national debate champion." Having coached and competed both Ex Temp and Policy, I can appreciate that both take discipline and skill to succeed..but a national extemp commentary championship is not a national debate championship. I think that's what people were saying. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040910/74bd64da/attachment.htm From paul-bellus Fri Sep 10 15:55:16 2004 From: paul-bellus (Bellus, Paul ) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:55:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] RE:Nationally ranked debater??? Extemp commentary is I.E.-not debate M Message-ID: <62810F3771F64B4582303CE50C183950014F4253@IOWAEVS02.iowa.uiowa.edu> Is the complaint he was not a national champion in extemp commentary or even a terrible extemper?? Or that he was not a national debate champion?? I guess the difference between the two is nonexistent. Yes, extemp is a challenge and it develops good analytic and speaking skills. Although, I do have issues with the canned introductions that many extempers utilize (kind of defeats the notion of extemporaneous speaking). I am sure he is not selling himself as a national champion debater. Must be the station's fault. Paul Bellus (former coach of National High School Debate Champions: so, what would I care about the integrity of that title?) ________________________________ From: edebate-admin at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-admin at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of GOPAlan81 at aol.com Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 3:16 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] RE:Nationally ranked debater??? Extemp commentary is I.E.-not debate M I didn't care for some of the comments made about Andy Litinsky (the kid on the Apprentice). I competed againt him for three years in high school extemp, and let me just say he was one of the best extempers of his time whether or not you count extemp as a debate event. Even if he didn't win in his normal event wining extemp commentary is an accomplishment. In fact making it out of the Manatee District in extemp is hard enough. That district has churned out two CFL national champions in extemp the last 4 years. Before that it had some of the best extempers in the country. Andy, if I remember correctly placed at Blue Key, placed at Crestian, and he won Harvard as well I believe. Alan Rubin UF -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040910/8906290b/attachment.html From Alexander.H.Berger.02 Fri Sep 10 16:32:06 2004 From: Alexander.H.Berger.02 (Alexander H. Berger 02) Date: 10 Sep 2004 17:32:06 EDT Subject: [eDebate] RE:Nationally ranked debater??? Extemp commentary is I.E.-not debate M Message-ID: <30743254@horton.Dartmouth.ORG> My complaints are manyfold... First, he IS selling himself as a national champion debater - said so in one of the "confessional" interviews - something to the effect of "I'm a national debate champion - When I'm done in the board room, Trump will make me a sammich." (Okay the first part he did say). Second, he's not even a good contestant. He had little valuable to say during the toy-making challenge... and he got picked to go in front of Trump in the board room, placing him in the bottom of the crop. When he was there, Trump gave him the old Sammy treatment ("you're a wildcard"), which means he's sure to be kicked off by week 3 or 4. And third, "Mosaic Corporation" is a dumb name for your team, and I hold Andy responsible for this. Only Raj is exempt from blame on that one. And "Crustration Nation," which I believe was also his, is even worse. It's not a NATION!!! (Though I have to admit, Alan Rubin, that those two names are not nearly as unfortunate as "Manatee District.") That is all. Alex. From GOPAlan81 Fri Sep 10 18:46:18 2004 From: GOPAlan81 (GOPAlan81 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:46:18 EDT Subject: [eDebate] RE:Nationally ranked debater??? Extemp commentary is I.E.-not d... Message-ID: <13e.d0c926.2e7396ca@aol.com> I never claimed extemp was debate, but I think that NBC is probably unaware of the debate world, and the differences between events. Besides if he went on the show and I said I am an extemp champion or a forensics champion most viewers would say,"what the hell is that shit?" I did congress in high school, if I told someone I was a student congress champion I would get the same reaction. I always told my non-debate friends I do debate not a student congress. I understand "debater's" objections to people referring to certain events as debate events, but they must realize that their attitude is not only demeaning to others it also egotistical. I am not calling congress or extemp debate, I am just commenting that it is a waste of time to worry about other people's claims that they debate when they did extemp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040910/a339b0df/attachment.htm From korryharvey Fri Sep 10 19:34:06 2004 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:34:06 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] The AWOL Project Message-ID: the awol project site seems pretty compelling, trond. although, as you said, difficult to look at ;-). thought i'd add that the folks behind all this "those documents are fake!" stuff just happen to be the same folks who were behind the swifties' deceit. hmmmm.... http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/10/forgery/index_np.html "Upset by renewed attention to President Bush's disputed service in the Texas Air National Guard, White House communications director Dan Bartlett insists the new revelations about how strings were pulled to get Bush into the Guard, as well as to get him out, are part of "a coordinated attack by John Kerry and his surrogates on the president." There is no evidence to support that claim. But there is clear evidence confirming that the same conservative operatives who have been busily promoting the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth smears of Kerry are now engaged in pushing the story that CBS's "60 Minutes Weeknight Edition" aired forged documents in its Wednesday night report on Bush and the National Guard. Creative Response Concepts, the Arlington, Va., Republican public relations firm run by former Pat Buchanan communications director Greg Mueller, with help from former Pat Robertson communications director Mike Russell, sent out a media advisory Thursday to hawk a right-wing news dispatch: "60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake." Creative Response Concepts has played a crucial role in hyping the inaccurate, secondhand Swift Boat allegations, with Russell serving as the group's official spokesman. A company spokesman could not be reached for comment." _________________________________________________________________ Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ From debatekorea Fri Sep 10 19:44:17 2004 From: debatekorea (Jason Jarvis) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 20:44:17 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] (no subject) Message-ID: 3 large articles today on global warming/the environment: www.salon.com jj _________________________________________________________________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar ? get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ From mardigras23 Fri Sep 10 21:24:40 2004 From: mardigras23 (Aaron Kall) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:24:40 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Forward Regarding Apprentice "Debate Champion" Message-ID: Hello Aaron, Do you mind posting this for me on edebate? Thanks, Ern _________ Many other teachers came up to me to mention this alum on The Apprentice earlier today. I had no idea who this kid is, but this is only my second year at Pine Crest. I DO KNOW that in the past four or five years, the program had a VERY LD/ Extemp/ Congress bent (with a heavy bias AGAINST CX Debate) AND that the program was on the decline. Now the squad is somewhat more competitive in CX and LD. One distinction of which my debaters are acutely aware is that between a DEBATE event and a NON-DEBATE event. Congress, while encouraging a DISCUSSION of various issues among many individuals, it is NOT a debate event in the sense that it does not promote the forced SWITCH-SIDE advocacy of ONE topic of controversy that a DEBATE EVENT provides. Though helpful and beneficial, EXTEMP is an event which DEFINITELY does not provide that education. When the Pine Crest DEBATERS heard that this kid claimed he was a DEBATER, and then learned WHAT HE DID, they were shocked and appalled, as they should be, ESPECIALLY since he claimed to be a "national champion DEBATER." Truthfully, though, it's REALLY TOUGH to clarify the difference to the other faculty here at Pine Crest. They like the publicity, so who am I to burst their bubble. I know I should, but... I think it's even worse when a school's program calls itself a "debate team" without offering either of the two DEBATE events. Anyway, what irks the Pine Crest debaters, especially after having watched the CSTV program and having seen their lab leaders (Emmer and Mainiero watching Henry Liu, Extein actually shed a few tears after Scotty Gottbrecht went down) debating, is that they felt that their identity as DEBATERS and the UNIQUE ENERGY and INTENSITY required by the activity that THEY AND MANY OTHERS emulate and aspire to achieve has been HIGHJACKED by some apparently mediocre contestant who almost got fired. Ernie Querido Director of Forensics The Pine Crest School (FL) _________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee? Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From trond Fri Sep 10 21:47:36 2004 From: trond (trond at umich.edu) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 22:47:36 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] CBS throws some heat - and light Message-ID: <1094870856.41426748665f8@web.mail.umich.edu> This is another story about Bush, the ANG, and the Killian documents. Please delete now if this issue is not of interest to you. --- This story gets more and more curious by the day while the focus of critics on the four CBS documents to the exclusion of the corroborating statements, not to mention the other charges and their associated (to date unimpeached) evidence continues as well. In addition to the story below you should view the video along the left "CBS Defends Bush memos" before reaching a final conclusion on this matter. CBS fights back hard and some of these pitches look like strikes. Superscript, the strongest argument, is beaten as other earlier Bush service records released by the administration include the same feature, the owner of the font indicates it has been in use since 1931, first hand corroborative statements are given on the record, a hand writing expert is produced and interviewed, and they point again to discussions with many parties. As it stands now it appears the counter-attack may well be the fraud. "CBS Stands By Bush-Guard Memos" http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml (CBS/AP) The controversy continues over the authenticity of memos obtained by CBS News that show President Bush's National Guard commander believed Mr. Bush at times shirked his duties and used his political influence. The network is adamantly defending the authenticity of the memos, which were obtained by CBS News' "60 Minutes," saying experts who examined the memos concluded they were authentic documents produced by Mr. Bush's former commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian. In a statement, CBS News said it stands by its story. "This report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources, interviews with former Texas National Guard officials and individuals who worked closely back in the early 1970s with Colonel Jerry Killian and were well acquainted with his procedures, his character and his thinking," the statement read. "In addition, the documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but by sources familiar with their content," the statement continued. "Contrary to some rumors, no internal investigation is underway at CBS News nor is one planned." In a report on Friday night's "CBS News Evening News," Dan Rather reported that many of those raising questions about the documents have focused on something called superscript, a key that automatically types a raised "th." Critics claim typewriters didn't have that ability in the 1970s. But some models did, Rather reported. In fact, other Bush military records already released by the White House itself show the same superscript ? including one from as far back as 1968. Some analysts outside CBS say they believe the typeface on these memos is New Times Roman, which they claim was not available in the 1970s. But the owner of the company that distributes this typing style told CBS News that it has been available since 1931. Document and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley analyzed the documents for CBS News. He says he believes they are real. And he is concerned about exactly what is being examined by some of the people questioning the documents, because deterioration occurs each time a document is reproduced. And the documents being analyzed outside of CBS have been photocopied, faxed, scanned and downloaded, and are far removed from the documents CBS started with. Matley did an interview with "60 Minutes" prior to Wednesday's broadcast. He looked at the documents and the signatures of Col. Killian, comparing known documents with the colonel's signature on the newly discovered ones. "We look basically at what's called significant or insignificant features to determine whether it's the same person or not," Matley said. "I have no problem identifying them. I would say based on our available handwriting evidence, yes, this is the same person." Matley finds the signatures to be some of the most compelling evidence. Reached Friday by satellite, Matley said, "Since it is represented that some of them are definitely his, then we can conclude they are his signatures." Matley said he's not surprised that questions about the documents have come up. "I knew going in that this was dynamite one way or the other. And I knew that potentially it could do far more potential damage to me professionally than benefit me," he said. "But we seek the truth. That's what we do. You're supposed to put yourself out, to seek the truth and take what comes from it." Robert Strong was an administrative officer for the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam years. He knew Jerry Killian, the man credited with writing the documents. And paper work, like these documents, was Strong's specialty. He is standing by his judgment that the documents are real. "They are compatible with the way business was done at that time," Strong said. "They are compatible with the man I remember Jerry Killian being. I don't see anything in the documents that's discordant with what were the times, the situation or the people involved." Killian died in 1984. Strong says the highly charged political atmosphere of the National Guard at the time was perfectly represented in the new documents. "It verged on outright corruption in terms of the favors that were done, the power that was traded. And it was unconscionable from a moral and ethical standpoint. It was unconscionable," Strong said. The president's service record emerged as an issue during the 2000 race and again this winter. The Killian documents revived the issue of Mr. Bush's time in uniform after weeks in which Democratic challenger John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, has faced questions over his record as a Navy officer and an anti-war protester. The questions about Mr. Bush's service center on how Mr. Bush got into the Guard and whether he fulfilled his duties during a period from mid-1972 to mid-1973. What the Killian memos purport to show is that Mr. Bush defied a direct order to appear for a physical exam, that his performance as an officer was lacking in other ways and that Mr. Bush used family connections to try to quash any inquiry into his lapses." Trond E. Jacobsen From let_the_american_empire_burn Sat Sep 11 10:23:13 2004 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 10:23:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Top Gun for Dorks . . . ahem Geeks Message-ID: re-titled, a land of high fences ... ___ in response to : http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/JPubs/PubArg.html ___ 'action sociology' .... 'dialectical enjoinment' .... 'reflexive circulation' .... 'overconformity' .... 'flexions' .... 'discursive opposition in social controversy' .... 'monkeying around' .... all sound dandy.... yet my skepticism remains: to what extent do social movements invest meaning in a game they're set to lose?.... some tit-for-tat : #1 - "By shifting back and forth between the terrain of institutional politics and civil society, new social movements invent modes of action that can be tailored specifically to skirt the two horns of the dilemma - co-option, on one side, and political marginalization, on the other." what's so horrible about the margins? isn't there a tacit stereotype here that choosing to stay marginalized equates to lazy ivory tower-lovin'? yet the fringe, the extreme (or whatever you wish to call this space) enables maximum 'reflexivity' and, without any conscious scheming, can spread like laughter. if one wishes to underscore "the thinness of accounts that explain social movement discourse purely in instrumental terms", why surrender to a litmus test of 'political efficacy'? exactly what isn't 'social action'? "Resolute, Da-sein is *already acting*. We are purposely avoiding the term 'action.' For in the first place, it would have to be so broadly conceived that activity also encompasses the passivity of resistance. In the second place, that term suggests a misunderstanding of the ontology of Da-sein as if resoluteness were a special mode of behavior of the practical faculty as opposed to the theoretical one. But, as concern taking care of things, care includes the being of Da-sein so primordially and completely that it must be *already presupposed as a whole* when we distinguish beween theoretical and practical behavior[.]" [Being & Time, 300.] one could argue that this quotation solidifies the basis of touraine's synthesis between 'agitation' (the practical) and 'analysis' (the theoretical). but readers of chapter two, division two may wonder where 'the silent call of conscience' enters into touraine's sociological interventions? #2 - "The element that makes a social movement, according to Cathcart, is the establishment's 'reciprocating act' in providing a response to the movement's symbolic challenge to the existing order." is 'the system' so stupid? ask yourself what 'the establishment' gains by this reciprocation? for example, protestors protested the lead-up to the invasion of irak; the state then seizes higher ground: 'thank goodness we live in a country where people are free to protest.... unlike irak'. what they really mean is 'thank goodness we live in a society where protest no longer makes a bit of difference', but even this is a lie, for in today's topsy-turvy milleu, protecting the rights of minorities only further legitimates the majority's license. it's in this context that 'public controversies' constitute one more way of selling papers: 'extra! extra! read all about it! mall-goer arrested for wearing 'peace on earth' t-shirt! extra! extra!' - controversy as controversial as amitai etzioni. i mean, it's not like the boxing promoter cares who wins the big fight. #3 - "Touraine sees cultivation of this process as a political and professional imperative in an age when reflexive awareness of the capacity for social action is waning steadily, with the very idea of a 'public' anything placed at risk by a rising tide of political cynicism and apathy." mr. mitchell presents no studies to confirm these observations, and i have no way of knowing whether more or less people seem more or less interested in political matters than in previous times. left without facts, i must resort to analyzing the discursive interests at play - why does mr. mitchell want you to see cynicism and apathy as a rising tide threatening to drown all that's holy in our beloved democracy? why the ethical imperative for social action (especially when you don't do anything that doesn't qualify as social action, even in your most private moments)? here's my hunch : everywhere today leftists make this identical power move; it's the same move made by those who struggled for a revolutionary vanguard in the 19th and 20th centuries - 'let us keep alive the gears of power so that we can overtake them one day'. one sees this obvious pattern in the rhetoric surrounding the 'praxis' of academic politics, but it radiates even in the rhetoric that claims to transcend the lecture hall and the journal (rhetoric, i might add, that usually goes on in lecture halls and journal articles). in reality, there is no 'public' - there's only means of production (even of mass media), and all claims to 'hijack' or 'sabotage' or even 'disrupt' remain just another way of saying 'we could do a better job'. there's no student movement - there's only new excuses for institutions that discipline and surveil an entire people in a given age demographic; there's no pedagogy - only manipulation. and there's no president, no establishment - there's only dummies of power, televised talking heads, and they're as real as pagan idols (which is to say, they're as real as one's worship makes them). so why invent a 'public' where there is none (or at least where it's rapidly disappearing)?... simple : so 'we' (leftist, feminist vegetarians) can seize control instead of 'them' (right-wing, patriarchal meat-eaters). 'the iron law of oligarchy' goes deeper than a social movement's subsequent dilution to its very inception. and phyrrus won't stop fighting. perhaps we are in an age of cynicism. and perhaps this tide of apathy is rising. i say, let it. don't vote... and don't make a big fuss about not voting either. play the lottery instead... the odds are better, not to mention the pay-out.... be a spectator - don't supress your sense of wonder under the notion of 'getting things done'. because becoming 'janus faced' might just be too high a price for publicity. .k p.s: well i'm reading up about albanians, and i must confess to liking the whole project. my prelimary question would be whether this demonstrates the necessity of extreme measures or whether this can be considered a moderating influence on public discussion (since you didn't respond to that criticism of your first paper) - pressuring politicians to sign contracts, pointing fingers and naming names ('going negative' if you will) hardly resemebles the tame mainstream dialogue you appeared to be proposing. i've also yet to see any direct parallels in american forensics. p.p.s: i admit to being intriqued by this notion of 'overconformity', and thought you might like this quotation from baudrillard (from 'the implosion of meaning in the media') : "We are face to face with this system in a double situation and insoluble double bind - exactly like children faced with the demands of the adult world. Children are simultaneously required to constitute themselves as autonomous subjects, responsible, free and conscious, and to constitute themselves as submissive, inert, obedient, conforming objects. The child resists on all levels, and to a contradictory demand [s/]he responds with a double strategy. To the demand of being an object, he opposes all the practices of disobedience, of revolt, of emancipation; in short, a total claim to subjecthood. To the demand of being a subject he opposes, just as obstinately, and effaciously, an object's resistance, that is to say, exactly the opposite: childishness, hyperconformism, total dependence, passivity, idiocy. Neither strategy has more objective value than the other. The subject-resistance is today unilaterally valorized and viewed as positive - just as in the political sphere only the practices of freedom, emancipation, expression, and the constitution of a political subject are seen as valuable and subversive. But this is to ignore the equal, and without a doubt superior, impact of all the object practices, of the renunciation of the subject position and of meaning - precisely the practices of the masses - that we bury under the derisory terms of alienation and passivity. The liberating practices respond to one of the aspects of the system, to the constant ultimatum we are given to constitute ourselves as pure objects, but they do not respond at all to the other demand, that of constituting ourselves as subjects, of liberating ourselves, expressing ourselves at whatever cost, of voting, producing, deciding, speaking, participating, playing the game - a form of blackmail and ultimatum just as serious as the other, even more serious today. To a system whose argument is oppression and repression, the strategic resistance is the liberating claim of subjecthood. But this strategy is more reflective of the earlier phase of the system, and even if we are still confronted with it, it is no longer the strategic terrain: the current argument of the system is to maximize speech, the maximum production of meaning. Thus the strategic resistance is that of the refusal of meaning and of the spoken word - or of the hyperconformist simulation of the very mechanisms of the system, which is a form of refusal and of non-reception. It is the strategy of the masses: it is equivalent to returning the system its own logic by doubling it, to reflecting meaning, like a mirror, without absorbing it. This strategy (if one can still speak of strategy) prevails today, because it was ushered in by that phase of the system which prevails. To choose the wrong strategy is a serious matter. All the movements that only play on liberation, emancipation, on the resurrection of a subject of history, of the group, of the word based on 'consciousness raising', indeed a 'raising of the unconscious' of subjects and of the masses, do not see that they are going in the direction of the system, whose imperative today is precisely the overproduction and regeneration of meaning and of speech." [Simulacra & Simulation, 84-6.] ... in this context, i'd prefer to see the return of melville's bartleby, instead of the return of Actors, however well-meaning. p.p.p.s: you write : "I respect your ruminations, and have read or skimmed virtually every post you have made here over the past decade." that's sorta scary. i hope that one looks beyond the content of any specific post to an overall style, or process. maybe it's not a maturing process, maybe it's even a downhill spiral, but a development nevertheless. i'm seldom right, but i at least change my mind fairly often. "You are good at going negative." true. but sometimes negative things need to be written. this comes back to my point about not being afraid of the margins. who was it who said that 'the critic should never be good company'? (paul bove, i think.) so in response to your back-handed compliment, i'll offer you one in return : you are good at being well-liked. i mean, i like you, and i haven't even met you. p.p.p.p.s: i wrote that i prefer poetics, so i thought i'd depart with something from charles bukowski entitled 'hug the dark' : turmoil is the god madness is the god permanent living peace is permanent living death. agony can kill or agony can sustain life but peace is always horrifying peace is the worst thing walking talking smiling, seeming to be. don't forget the sidewalks, the whores, betrayal, the worm in the apple, the bars, the jails, the suicides of lovers. here in America we have assisinated a president and his brother, another president has quit office. people who believe in politics are like people who believe in god: they are sucking wind through bent straws. there is no god there are no politics there is no peace there is no love there is no control there is no plan stay away from god remain disturbed slide. _________________________________________________________________ Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx From kkuswa Sat Sep 11 21:51:08 2004 From: kkuswa (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 22:51:08 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Undergraduate Room Share at NCA Message-ID: <12E81F39195C00468C4DE42509951D380120BFEF@castor.richmond.edu> Anyone know one or two male undergraduates looking to share a room at the NCA in Chicago? Contact me. Thanks. kevin From Marna.Weston Sat Sep 11 22:20:05 2004 From: Marna.Weston (Weston, Marna) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 23:20:05 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] RE:Nationally ranked debater??? Extemp commentary is I.E.-not d... Message-ID: <23FA26BF4E76DC4E949B0D1A9E7BE123ABC844@COMM-EX01.comm.ad.fsu.edu> Actually....NBC is extremely aware of the "forensics world" (as opposed to debate---and once again I.E.ers should not claim to be debaters--good ones dont--as I.E. is not debate) because Jane Pauley, former co-host of the Today Show on NBC won the division that used to be called "women's extemp" in 1969. Those skills helped her career...but she never to my knowledge claims or claimed to be a debater. ROFL Marna -----Original Message----- From: edebate-admin at ndtceda.com on behalf of GOPAlan81 at aol.com Sent: Fri 9/10/2004 7:46 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Cc: Subject: Re: [eDebate] RE:Nationally ranked debater??? Extemp commentary is I.E.-not d... I never claimed extemp was debate, but I think that NBC is probably unaware of the debate world, and the differences between events. Besides if he went on the show and I said I am an extemp champion or a forensics champion most viewers would say,"what the hell is that shit?" I did congress in high school, if I told someone I was a student congress champion I would get the same reaction. I always told my non-debate friends I do debate not a student congress. I understand "debater's" objections to people referring to certain events as debate events, but they must realize that their attitude is not only demeaning to others it also egotistical. I am not calling congress or extemp debate, I am just commenting that it is a waste of time to worry about other people's claims that they debate when they did extemp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040911/c1d71986/attachment.html From GOPAlan81 Sat Sep 11 22:27:50 2004 From: GOPAlan81 (GOPAlan81 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 23:27:50 EDT Subject: [eDebate] RE:Nationally ranked debater??? Extemp commentary is I.E.-not d... Message-ID: What I meant when I referred to NBC is not that NBC may not have a grasp of debate, but Mark Burnett the creator who is not even from the U.S.. Besides Jane Pauley has nothing to do with the prouction of reality tv, and I am sure she wouldn't want to lower herself to it. Alan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040911/8eef1ab9/attachment.htm From Marna.Weston Sat Sep 11 22:34:41 2004 From: Marna.Weston (Weston, Marna) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 23:34:41 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Apprentice "Debate Champion" remarks Message-ID: <23FA26BF4E76DC4E949B0D1A9E7BE123ABC846@COMM-EX01.comm.ad.fsu.edu> Kudos to Ernie Q for noting again important differences between debate and non-debate events. One reason it is probably a little confusing even for high school students is that in order to promote competitive equity and because in the past the events were a little coser in nature, Student Congress counts as debate as far as sweepstakes and team awards at both the NFL and NCFL national...in fact teams that do little to no competitive national policy debate are frequently recognized as winning "debate sweepstakes awards' at the end of the year. Its probably a good thing for high schools, as that helps "good speakers" contribute broadly on their individual high school teams, and promotes a team chance for national awards for kids who are bright but just arent interested in carrying tubs and researching at the same high level that high school debaters must do. You can attend a Congress event or LD debate in high school with a good quote book, a dictionary and an almanac---I should know :) that being said, I must state, It would be a disasterous idea at the collegiate level to ever recognize congress or Lincoln-douglas (which both have terrific value as speaking events) as debate in the same vein as policy debate. For one its just not true and secondly. its just not cricket :) Marna -----Original Message----- From: edebate-admin at ndtceda.com on behalf of Aaron Kall Sent: Fri 9/10/2004 10:24 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Cc: Subject: [eDebate] Forward Regarding Apprentice "Debate Champion" Hello Aaron, Do you mind posting this for me on edebate? Thanks, Ern _________ Many other teachers came up to me to mention this alum on The Apprentice earlier today. I had no idea who this kid is, but this is only my second year at Pine Crest. I DO KNOW that in the past four or five years, the program had a VERY LD/ Extemp/ Congress bent (with a heavy bias AGAINST CX Debate) AND that the program was on the decline. Now the squad is somewhat more competitive in CX and LD. One distinction of which my debaters are acutely aware is that between a DEBATE event and a NON-DEBATE event. Congress, while encouraging a DISCUSSION of various issues among many individuals, it is NOT a debate event in the sense that it does not promote the forced SWITCH-SIDE advocacy of ONE topic of controversy that a DEBATE EVENT provides. Though helpful and beneficial, EXTEMP is an event which DEFINITELY does not provide that education. When the Pine Crest DEBATERS heard that this kid claimed he was a DEBATER, and then learned WHAT HE DID, they were shocked and appalled, as they should be, ESPECIALLY since he claimed to be a "national champion DEBATER." Truthfully, though, it's REALLY TOUGH to clarify the difference to the other faculty here at Pine Crest. They like the publicity, so who am I to burst their bubble. I know I should, but... I think it's even worse when a school's program calls itself a "debate team" without offering either of the two DEBATE events. Anyway, what irks the Pine Crest debaters, especially after having watched the CSTV program and having seen their lab leaders (Emmer and Mainiero watching Henry Liu, Extein actually shed a few tears after Scotty Gottbrecht went down) debating, is that they felt that their identity as DEBATERS and the UNIQUE ENERGY and INTENSITY required by the activity that THEY AND MANY OTHERS emulate and aspire to achieve has been HIGHJACKED by some apparently mediocre contestant who almost got fired. Ernie Querido Director of Forensics The Pine Crest School (FL) _________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee? Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040911/d3b3b2cd/attachment.html From stannardmatt Sat Sep 11 23:35:25 2004 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 22:35:25 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] slusher Message-ID: Hit me back, young Slush. stannard _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From kristopherwillis Sun Sep 12 11:20:28 2004 From: kristopherwillis (Kris Willis) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 09:20:28 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Apprentice "Debate Champion" remarks Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040912/881354b1/attachment.htm From laneg Sun Sep 12 16:58:56 2004 From: laneg (Lane, Gina) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 16:58:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] hired judges needed Message-ID: <6DBF7A4AFF57DE46955D7CFA65622F9C064687ED@regent.jewell.edu> Get paid to discover parli... That's right, William Jewell has joined the parli conspiracy, and we're looking for ways to suck others into its dark web...Actually, we're just looking to hire some judges for our parli tournament, and it would be great to see some of our policy friends again. If you plan to be in the Kansas City area October 1-3 and would like to make some extra money, and you have completed your undergraduate debating career, please contact me and I'll send you a schedule. Rounds will be on our campus and start Friday morning, running through Sunday evening. We are paying $15 per round (remember, parli rounds are shorter) and offering free food to our judges. And if you haven't seen a parli round and are unsure whether you must adjudicate the "I'm a little teacup" gesture, don't worry, the answer is...no. (We will teach you the secret handshake, however.) Gina Dr. Gina Lane Chair, Department of Communication Director of Debate William Jewell College From berchnorto Sun Sep 12 20:32:18 2004 From: berchnorto (NEIL BERCH) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:32:18 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] evidence read of laptops Message-ID: Hi, everyone! What is the status of community consensus (if there is one) about debaters reading evidence off their laptops without hard copy available for inspection by the other team or the judge? --Neil Berch West Virginia University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040912/4cb162eb/attachment.html From forensics Sun Sep 12 20:42:28 2004 From: forensics (LACC Forensics) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 18:42:28 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Fresno Hybrid? Message-ID: If anyone is looking for a hybrid partner in JV for Fresno, let me know. I will have a student with me and we will cover the entry. Thanks Ken Ken Sherwood Director of Forensics Los Angeles City College (323) 953-4000 xt 2962 From bdelo77 Sun Sep 12 21:16:51 2004 From: bdelo77 (Brian DeLong) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 19:16:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] evidence read of laptops Message-ID: <20040913021651.6589.qmail@web61206.mail.yahoo.com> It's aight. If I read from my laptop, you can take it and read from it. If you have a laptop, my jump drive will zap it over to you. DeLo __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Marna.Weston Mon Sep 13 07:48:23 2004 From: Marna.Weston (Weston, Marna) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:48:23 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Apprentice "Debate Champion" is no debater Message-ID: <23FA26BF4E76DC4E949B0D1A9E7BE123ABC847@COMM-EX01.comm.ad.fsu.edu> Ok...in light of Kris' comments and observations, i've got one more point. As previously mentioned, most of us in the forensics community do respect the diversity of talent and sacrifices made by IE and other non-policy debate events, we just see them as different (most notably...less demanding from an academic and research base in nature, more dependant on 'acting talent' or the ability to modulate the pitch and tone of ones voice,etc). As debaters, we respect these differences and because of our committment to our events, we don't claim to be "IEers." If this guy on the Apprentice (which I dont watch) is claiming to be a debater because he won 'extemp commentary'---a consolation event at NFL---and a terrific non-debate achievement (but not 'debate' by any reasonable or contextural definition) then anyone with connections to the show (ala 'Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon') should get the word to the makers of the Apprentice. I'm sorry to be a snob, but it DOES bother me that he is pretending to be a debater. We dont pretend to be IEers and they should not perpetrate as debaters. I believe that IEers who respect their art form would agree. Nobody likes a "poser!" So to "Andy' on the Apprentice...be proud of who you are and stop pretending. From the info we have, to paraphrase former US Senator from Texas, Lloyd Benson in his legendary Vice Presidential debate against Dan Quayle,.... "Andy, I am a debater. I know debaters. Andy...you are no debater!" Marna IOriginal Message----- From: Kris Willis [mailto:kristopherwillis at hotmail.com] Sent: Sun 9/12/2004 12:20 PM To: Weston, Marna; edebate at ndtceda.com C Subject: RE: [eDebate] Apprentice "Debate Champion" remarks I just watched the extended show last night with this guy in it. In it he claims to be a "nationally ranked debater" and the show continuously discusses his "debating" skills. Normally I could care less, but I am interested as to why he didn't claim to be a national Public Speaking Champion. I believe anyone knows what Public Speaking is and that is what he apparently won a National Tournament for. However, he has decided to claim to be a debate God and is clearly trying to use it as a way to leverage himself on the show. Simply put, he is fibbing for a gain. I do have a problem with someone fibbing in this way...besides, he was trouble in the boardroom (just not as bad as Rob). "OSB" Kris Former debater who just had to add my 2-cents (: Kristopher Willis kristopherwillis at hotmail.com >From: "Weston, Marna" >To: "Aaron Kall" , >Subject: RE: [eDebate] Apprentice "Debate Champion" remarks >Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 23:34:41 -0400 > >Kudos to Ernie Q for noting again important differences between debate and >non-debate events. One reason it is probably a little confusing even for high >school students is that in order to promote competitive equity and because in >the past the events were a little coser in nature, Student Congress counts as >debate as far as sweepstakes and team awards at both the NFL and NCFL >national...in fact teams that do little to no competitive national policy >debate are frequently recognized as winning "debate sweepstakes awards' at >the end of the year. Its probably a good thing for high schools, as that >helps "good speakers" contribute broadly on their individual high school >teams, and promotes a team chance for national awards for kids who are bright >but just arent interested in carrying tubs and researching at the same high >level that high school debaters must do. You can attend a Congress event or >LD debate in high school with a good quote book, a dictionary and an >almanac---I should know :) > >that being said, I must state, It would be a disasterous idea at the >collegiate level to ever recognize congress or Lincoln-douglas (which both >have terrific value as speaking events) as debate in the same vein as policy >debate. For one its just not true and secondly. its just not cricket :) > >Marna > > -----Original Message----- > From: edebate-admin at ndtceda.com on behalf of Aaron Kall > Sent: Fri 9/10/2004 10:24 PM > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Cc: > Subject: [eDebate] Forward Regarding Apprentice "Debate Champion" > > > > Hello Aaron, > > Do you mind posting this for me on edebate? > > Thanks, > > Ern > > _________ > > Many other teachers came up to me to mention this alum on The >Apprentice > earlier > today. I had no idea who this kid is, but this is only my second >year at > Pine > Crest. I DO KNOW that in the past four or five years, the program >had a > VERY > LD/ Extemp/ > Congress bent (with a heavy bias AGAINST CX Debate) AND that the >program was > on > the decline. Now the squad is somewhat more competitive in CX and >LD. > > One distinction of which my debaters are acutely aware is that >between a > DEBATE > event and a NON-DEBATE event. Congress, while encouraging a >DISCUSSION of > various issues among many individuals, it is NOT a debate event in >the sense > that it does not > promote the forced SWITCH-SIDE advocacy of ONE topic of controversy >that a > DEBATE EVENT provides. Though helpful and beneficial, EXTEMP is an >event > which > DEFINITELY does not provide that education. When the Pine Crest >DEBATERS > heard > that this kid > claimed he was a DEBATER, and then learned WHAT HE DID, they were >shocked > and > appalled, as they should be, ESPECIALLY since he claimed to be a >"national > champion DEBATER." > > Truthfully, though, it's REALLY TOUGH to clarify the difference to >the other > faculty here at Pine Crest. They like the publicity, so who am I to >burst > their > bubble. I know I should, but... > > I think it's even worse when a school's program calls itself a >"debate team" > without offering either of the two DEBATE events. > > Anyway, what irks the Pine Crest debaters, especially after having >watched > the > CSTV program and having seen their lab leaders (Emmer and Mainiero >watching > Henry Liu, Extein actually shed a few tears after Scotty Gottbrecht >went > down) > debating, is > that they felt that their identity as DEBATERS and the UNIQUE ENERGY >and > INTENSITY required by the activity that THEY AND MANY OTHERS emulate >and > aspire > to achieve has been HIGHJACKED by some apparently mediocre contestant >who > almost > got fired. > > Ernie Querido > Director of Forensics > The Pine Crest School (FL) > > _________________________________________________________________ > Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from >McAfee?? > Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > _____ Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040913/136e4655/attachment.htm From sarah Mon Sep 13 09:19:08 2004 From: sarah (Sarah Snider) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:19:08 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] DCUDL SEEKS JUDGES Message-ID: <200409131419.i8DEJ8802058@hsdebate.com> The DCUDL will be holding its first tournament of the year at Bell Multicultural High School this Saturday Sept 18th. Bell is conveniently located at the Columbia Heights Metro stop on the greenline. We are looking for judges for 3 rounds taking place on Saturday beginning at 9am. We will pay $15/round. 9:00-11:00 Round I 11:00-1:00 Round II 1:00-1:30- Lunch 1:30-3:30- Round III 4:00-5:00- Awards For the official announcment, directions, and information about this tournament check it out at: http://www.dcdebate.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=65 If you are interested in judging, please email me to let me know which rounds you will be available for. Thanks so much for your interest and support for the DCUDL. I hope to see many of you on Saturday! Sarah -- Sarah J. Snider Program Director- DCUDL 100 Peabody St. NW- 1st floor Washington, D.C. 20011 (703)582-2040 The DC Urban Debate League - www.dcdebate.org From eber Mon Sep 13 10:10:55 2004 From: eber (Michael Eber) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:10:55 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] NPR Coverage of CSTV Documentary Message-ID: <200409131517.i8DFHYx28009@hsdebate.com> "Speed Debaters Rap Their Points Home," September 1, 2004 Available at http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3883520 Enjoy, Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040913/8dd42ee6/attachment.html From neilsbutt Mon Sep 13 10:27:01 2004 From: neilsbutt (Neil Butt) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:27:01 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] evidence read of laptops Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040913/85deacd4/attachment.htm From Catherine.Palczewski Mon Sep 13 10:56:17 2004 From: Catherine.Palczewski (Catherine Palczewski) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:56:17 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Novice at UNI Message-ID: <4145C321.6597FB1@uni.edu> hey all, as a followup to Matt Moore extremely entertaining and persuasive post, I wanted to talk about a couple ideas for UNI's novice division. Here's the plan: Rounds 1-2: workshop on debate basics Rounds 3-6: debates (a uni team will be tossed in as well) Round 7, and maybe 8: speech reworks from the debates, more workshopping So, if anyone is interested in bringing novices who are not close to ready, we can try and help them get ready. Also, if anyone is interested in workshopping, let me know. I would love to have a vairety of folks work with the young 'uns Cate From kel1773 Mon Sep 13 11:08:33 2004 From: kel1773 (Kelly Young) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:08:33 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] NPR Coverage of CSTV Documentary Message-ID: Here's the text of the NPR review. Scott Deatherage is like Joe Torre? Do I see a career change in the future? Kelly National Public Radio (NPR) SHOW: Day to Day 4:00 AM EST NPR September 1, 2004 Wednesday LENGTH: 605 words HEADLINE: Documentary about the National Debate Tournament to air on the CSTV cable network ANCHORS: NOAH ADAMS REPORTERS: ANDREW WALLENSTEIN BODY: NOAH ADAMS, host: The new digital cable network CSTV, College Sports Television, is making quite an impact. It is to college athletics what ESPN is to pro sports. But tonight, CSTV will break from its usual diet of football and basketball and air a documentary about something that really isn't a sport at all, the national collegiate debate championships. The contest may not seem like compelling viewing, but DAY TO DAY TV critic Andrew Wallenstein says it's just as dramatic as any competition on any playing field. (Soundbite of hypersonic-speed debating) ANDREW WALLENSTEIN reporting: To the untrained ear, it might sound like a hive of mutant bees who have evolved language skills. (Soundbite of hypersonic-speed debating) WALLENSTEIN: But to the judges at this year's National Debate Tournament, it is a student making his case at a rate approaching 400 words a minute. That's the pace of the average introductory argument at this debating equivalent to college basketball's March Madness. Seventy-eight teams of two from colleges all over the country converge for the NDT every spring break. While their friends are off partying, these students spend their vacation running an intellectual marathon; debating at least eight times over three days. The contest is the culmination of hundreds of hours of research and writing on top of their regular course work. With hundreds of well-prepared competitors, the NDT is a wide-open tournament. But the competition has its favorites, like two-time defending champion Northwestern. Winners of six of the last 10 NDTs, they are the New York Yankees of debating. Scott Deatherage is their Joe Torre, a master motivator whose pregame pep talk wouldn't be out of place in a stadium locker room. (Soundbite of documentary) Mr. SCOTT DEATHERAGE (Northwestern University): Offense! Offense! Offense! Don't ask; argue. Don't ask; argue. The key to offensive argumentation is this: You must, must, must anticipate and know. WALLENSTEIN: And what would March Madness be without its Cinderella stories? Ivy League colleges like Harvard and UC-Berkeley are well-represented, but unranked upstarts like the University of Louisville and Cal State Fullerton squeak into the final 16. But these two schools are more than just underdogs; they debate in an entirely different style than the speed demons that dominate the competition. (Soundbite of documentary) Unidentified Woman: Let me captivate your mind, sit back and unwind. Let your consciousness find a calmer path in this worldwide bloodbath or wars, destruction, no freedom, no peace, police still shooting us dead in the street. WALLENSTEIN: Delivering their arguments in the slower cadences of rap music, Louisville and Fullerton aren't just trying to be different. Boasting teams of black and Hispanic students in an overwhelmingly white world, they seek to change the very nature of the competition. When these teams advance farther than anticipated, they silence the criticism that this is just a diversity ploy. But the documentary doesn't quite satisfy. The subculture of college debate is ultimately too rich. To the uninitiated, the arcane rules can be as confusing as a cricket match, and the science behind how the brain absorbs and rebuts a hyperspeed speech begs explanation. But the film instills a deep respect for the discipline required to be a champion debater. The gridiron may draw more fans than the library, but the battle seems just as fierce. ADAMS: Andrew Wallenstein covers television for the Hollywood Reporter and for DAY TO DAY. (Soundbite of music) ADAMS: DAY TO DAY is a production of NPR News and slate.com. I'm Noah Adams. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040913/364398fd/attachment.html From delliott Mon Sep 13 11:56:18 2004 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:56:18 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Why U should enter KCKCC Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040913115010.01f9a920@kckcc.toto.net> 1. It will make it easier for me to order trophies, food, and make sure we have enough rooms. 2. It will make others want to come when they see their friends are coming. 3. KC, Jazz, Barbeque...um what else is there really. 4. And someone is going home with a ready-to-mount on the wall framed Velvet Rotweiler Painting. Thats right. Something you could only find in a gas station parking lot carnival game in Texas for the going rate of $500.00 will be going home with one of your debaters. Who needs a Copeland when you can display a Lawson? (from now on anything your debaters do as a freshman that is within the realm of absurdly stupid should be called a LAWSON. As in paying $500.00 to win a velvet painting. "What a Lawson!"). thanks, chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate Kansas City Kansas C.C. From joe.gantt Mon Sep 13 11:55:40 2004 From: joe.gantt (Joe Gantt) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:55:40 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Family and Forensics Survey Message-ID: Forensic Competitors, Dr. David Williams, Dr. Patrick Hughes and I are conducting a survey to determine how forensic competition affects communication between competitors and their families. We are using an online survey to gather the data for this research. If you are currently a forensic competitor, we ask you to participate in this survey by going to the following address: http://members.cox.net/joegantt1/forensic.html This survey will take about five minutes to complete. We are looking for viewpoints from students of all experience levels and forms of forensic competition. Please note: A similar survey was conducted at AFA-NIET 2004 in Long Beach, CA. If you completed a survey at that tournament, your responses have already been submitted and do not need to be duplicated. Thank you for your time in helping us with this research. Joe Gantt Dr. David Williams Dr. Patrick Hughes Texas Tech University From db8coach Mon Sep 13 11:59:45 2004 From: db8coach (db8coach at cox.net) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:59:45 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Still waiting for Kerry to denounce Message-ID: <20040913165944.EIHZ15429.fed1rmmtao11.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net> It has been a week and I am still waiting for all the "pots" to call on Kerry to denounce this recent attack on Bush. It would seem there is is as much question about the authenticity as there was about the veracity of the SBV ads when Bear, Parcher and the rest were screaming for Bush to denounce those attacks. Oh, wait, Kerry is backing these attacks at the top of his lungs...... I guess he won't be denouncing them any time soon. I would still like to know why the "pots" are dragging their feet. They were sure quick to demand when the shoe was on the other foot. Kettle -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040913/145389bd/attachment.htm From privethedge Mon Sep 13 12:15:35 2004 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Still waiting for Kerry to denounce In-Reply-To: <20040913165944.EIHZ15429.fed1rmmtao11.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net> Message-ID: <20040913171535.41084.qmail@web50903.mail.yahoo.com> Hah..and I'm still waiting for a free Porsche and a winter home in Barbados..lol..I figure we'll both get what we want about the time that Lucifer wins the first annual Hell All Comers Ice Skating Invitational Meet...Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040913/7b50b9a5/attachment.html From delliott Mon Sep 13 12:23:38 2004 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:23:38 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Needing hired judging at KCKCC Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040913122046.02008108@kckcc.toto.net> Our tournament is Oct. 1st-3rd here at Kansas City Kansas CC. We are offering 6 rounds, 3 divisions, beginning on Friday afternoon with 2 rounds, 4 rounds on Saturday then elims on Sunday. If you are interested in being hired to judge please email me back. If you are coming already and have extra rounds and would like to be hired let me know. thanks chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate Kansas City Kansas C.C. From tweiner1 Mon Sep 13 12:09:30 2004 From: tweiner1 (tweiner1 at gmu.edu) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:09:30 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] evidence read of laptops Message-ID: <451e1468cd.468cd451e1@gmu.edu> As long as the lap top is available for inspection by the other team, I dont see as anything other than a really heavy and really expensive block. Jake ----- Original Message ----- From: NEIL BERCH Date: Sunday, September 12, 2004 9:32 pm Subject: [eDebate] evidence read of laptops > Hi, everyone! What is the status of community consensus (if there > is one) about debaters reading evidence off their laptops without > hard copy available for inspection by the other team or the judge? > > --Neil Berch > West Virginia University From wnewnam Mon Sep 13 12:45:37 2004 From: wnewnam (William Newnam) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:45:37 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Still waiting for Kerry to denounce References: <20040913165944.EIHZ15429.fed1rmmtao11.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net> Message-ID: <001a01c499b9$7a954960$91c58caa@emorycard.emory.edu> May I be the first: will happily say that CBS needs to open up its investigation to transparent coverage, but do not lose site, while you are screaming for equal treatment to the following: The Boston Globe story: Bush signed a document obtained by AP under FOIA (despite the WH and Pentagon claiming earlier that all records had been released) indicating he would report for DUTY in Massachussetts. HE failed to REPORT. I have heard Bartlett, Communications Director say two different things about this: one, he fulfilled his duty because he was honorably discharged (which must mean Kerry deserved his medals because they were awarded and he was honorably discharged), but being honorably discharged does not mean that he did so. and, two, reported only on Fox News, he did his service in Denver! No evidence, but he was honorably discharged. Finally, there is no chance that Bush did not use family friends to get him into the guard. Even his previous denial is a non-denial, his dad did not help him does not say Daddy's friends did not help him. Take out every document CBS used and you still have two conclusions, one, he used influence, as ALMOST everyone did at that time, to get into the guard AND, two he did not fulfill his obligations in Alabama or Massachussetts. Why do I care, because George and all of the others who chose not to serve in Vietnam gladly used their connections to avoid service, while supporting the war. The hypocrisy and moral cowardice is what bothers me, not the fact that they avoided service. If they opposed the war and avoided service, so be it. But if they supported sending my brothers over to die while they avoided service, I resent them for that, and try as I might, I have a difficult time forgiving people like that. BTW: My fifty-five year old brother just received a call-up ten years after he retired with 25 years credited service in the Army and Navy. Thank goodness there is no DRAFT! But CBS needs to clean up there mess without a doubt. Of course, there are those who say that Bush-Cheney helped create this crisis to take the attention off of the AP and Boston Globe stories. I doubt it, but it does seem to be working. bill n emory ----- Original Message ----- From: db8coach at cox.net To: edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 12:59 PM Subject: [eDebate] Still waiting for Kerry to denounce It has been a week and I am still waiting for all the "pots" to call on Kerry to denounce this recent attack on Bush. It would seem there is is as much question about the authenticity as there was about the veracity of the SBV ads when Bear, Parcher and the rest were screaming for Bush to denounce those attacks. Oh, wait, Kerry is backing these attacks at the top of his lungs...... I guess he won't be denouncing them any time soon. I would still like to know why the "pots" are dragging their feet. They were sure quick to demand when the shoe was on the other foot. Kettle ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I don't have an inherent objection to on-screen evidence, as long as the other team and the judge have access to it. There are potential problems though, and it can be really awkward: 1. It takes a lot more prep time to carefully pass a laptop than to grab a card. 2. Same (even more so) with jumpdrives, floppies, whatever. I know it only takes a few seconds if everything goes smoothly (and it doesn't all the time), but that's still a lot of time during a debate round. 3. If the other team wants to refer to parts of the evidence during their speech (when the laptop owner may want to flow on it), I wouldn't know how to resolve that. 4. Can you imagine the finger pointing and hostility if a laptop gets broken during one of these exchanges? "You broke my laptop!" "I wouldn't have had it in the first place if you'd been considerate enough to print out your cards!" "But you're still the one that broke it!" I REALLY don't want to be in the room when that happens (and I've already watched some near misses). Laptops are cool (mine goes with me just about everywhere, even though I can't flow on it), but PAPER IS BETTER for cards (for now). I wouldn't go so far as to disallow on screen evidence, despite the inconvenience, unless it was creating a real problem, or unless I heard some compelling arguments about it. If the other team and the judge DON'T have access to it, then that evidence wasn't presented and I'm not going to treat it as anything more than an assertion. The standing order on my team is that we make EVERY effort to print things out BEFORE the debate. That said, I know my kids have done it at least once when we had a printer problem. My main concern is that everyone be considerate of each other. -Neil Butt JCU >From: "NEIL BERCH" >To: "edebate" >Subject: [eDebate] evidence read of laptops >Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:32:18 -0400 > >Hi, everyone! What is the status of community consensus (if there is one) about debaters reading evidence off their laptops without hard copy available for inspection by the other team or the judge? > >--Neil Berch >West Virginia University ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040913/9156701b/attachment.htm From wnewnam Mon Sep 13 12:52:14 2004 From: wnewnam (William Newnam) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:52:14 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] evidence read of laptops References: Message-ID: <002101c499ba$677341b0$91c58caa@emorycard.emory.edu> I think Neil raises a couple of interesting questions, and I should warn everyone that in any conflict over how laptop evidence will be used in the debate, I will be deferring to the team that needs the evidence, rather than the team that is keeping their evidence in digital form only. for example, 1. It takes a lot more prep time to carefully pass a laptop than to grab a card. I will not let a team lose its prep time to try to get the evidence. 3. If the other team wants to refer to parts of the evidence during their speech (when the laptop owner may want to flow on it), I wouldn't know how to resolve that. The laptop owner must either give up the lap top to the speaker, or forfeit the evidence from the debate. 4. Can you imagine the finger pointing and hostility if a laptop gets broken during one of these exchanges? "You broke my laptop!" "I wouldn't have had it in the first place if you'd been considerate enough to print out your cards!" "But you're still the one that broke it!" I REALLY don't want to be in the room when that happens (and I've already watched some near misses). This seems like a personal risk that one takes to me. Again, the person who keeps their evidence digitized has to be willing to accept the risk. The standing order on my team is that we make EVERY effort to print things out BEFORE the debate. That said, I know my kids have done it at least once when we had a printer problem. My main concern is that everyone be considerate of each other. I agree with Neill, it is all about consideration which puts the onus on the laptop user who is creating the situation by not having hard copies available (for whatever reason). bill n emory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040913/e13a0294/attachment.html From taylorm Mon Sep 13 13:50:27 2004 From: taylorm (Matthew Taylor) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:50:27 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Grad Positions at the Beach Fall 05 Message-ID: Hello. CSU Long Beach anticipates several openings in our MA program for the Fall 2005. Teaching assistantships are available to all qualified candidates. Our MA program offers excellent opportunities for students interested in communication theory, rhetorical, and performance studies. At CSULB you also get an opportunity to work with a large (35 undergraduate) full service program (policy, parliamentary debate, and individual events) in one of the most beautiful parts of Southern California. A short 30 minutes south of Los Angeles, CSULB offers a chance to live and learn at the Beach. The deadlines and requirements (i.e., the GRE) for application are often more time consuming that you realize. The sooner we get moving on your application the better your chances for both completing your application by the deadline. If you are interested in our grad program please email me at wcdebate at aol.com. You can also get additional information at: http://www.csulb.edu/~acargile/graduate/graduate.html peace, matt From ndunn1979 Mon Sep 13 13:46:53 2004 From: ndunn1979 (Nate Dunn) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:46:53 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] evidence read of laptops Message-ID: Laptops are good, they are a step forward. But there are a few no-nos that we should agree upon. (Feel free to add to this list, forgive me if any of these are silly) 1. Debaters with laptops should not use any form of instant messenger during the round (a big no-no) or email other squard members to receive help. Could you imagine a situation where a person in the room watching the round was sending one of the teams answers? very, very, bad 2. Debaters with laptops shouldn't be allowed to cut more cards or access the internet for answers to a position that they came into the round unprepared for. Basically I think that debaters should be required to disconnect from the internet during rounds. Other than than I think flowing on laptops, keeping frontlines or evidence on them, or anything else is OK. but keeping evidence on laptops is a pain for eveyone involved (insert the "Dude you broke my laptop" scenario here). Nate Dunn Wake Law '07 >From: "NEIL BERCH" >To: "edebate" >Subject: [eDebate] evidence read of laptops >Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:32:18 -0400 > >Hi, everyone! What is the status of community consensus (if there is one) >about debaters reading evidence off their laptops without hard copy >available for inspection by the other team or the judge? > >--Neil Berch >West Virginia University _________________________________________________________________ On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement From kkuswa Mon Sep 13 14:18:09 2004 From: kkuswa (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:18:09 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] richmond invite Message-ID: <12E81F39195C00468C4DE42509951D3801158439@castor.richmond.edu> people have been asking for the invite. here it is. hope to see you here. kevin ************************************** Dr. Kevin Douglas Kuswa (U) Director of Debating Spide(R)bate Dept. of Rhetoric and Comm. Studies University of Richmond, VA 23173 (804) 289-8269 ************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040913/857f777d/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WEINBERG_04_INVITE.21670DEFANGED-doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 71168 bytes Desc: WEINBERG_04_INVITE.21670DEFANGED-doc Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040913/857f777d/attachment.obj From tara_l_tate Mon Sep 13 14:31:22 2004 From: tara_l_tate (Tara Tate) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:31:22 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Looking for Hired Judges for The 2004 Glenbrooks Message-ID: The debate programs of Glenbrook South and Glenbrook North are looking for hired judges for all speech and debate divisions for The 2004 Glenbrooks. The tournament will be held on November 20-22, 2004. All debate divisions will extend to Monday (we have expanded the JV and Novice divisions...semifinals and finals will be on Monday at the respective tournament hotel sites). We have contracts available for both two-day and three-day gigs. Housing will be available for our out-of-town judges at the tournament hotel. Interested parties should email me at ttate at glenbrook.k12.il.us. Please include name, events you are inquiring about, and your background. Please note that this is the Wake Forest college debate tournament weekend... We hope you can join us at the 25th Annual Glenbrooks! Tara Tate GBS Debate ttate at glenbrook.k12.il.us _________________________________________________________________ Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ From stroube Mon Sep 13 16:06:14 2004 From: stroube (Jack Stroube) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:06:14 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] "fucking crazies Message-ID: <200409132106.i8DL6El27960@hsdebate.com> http://www.ndtceda.com Phallus Jerkins Dabait League From stroube Mon Sep 13 16:07:00 2004 From: stroube (Jack Stroube) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:07:00 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] "fucking crazies" go home Message-ID: <200409132107.i8DL70m28436@hsdebate.com> back to israel where u spies belong/// http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5014153-110878,00.html http://www.ndtceda.com Phallus Jerkins Dabait League From stroube Mon Sep 13 16:05:40 2004 From: stroube (Jack Stroube) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:05:40 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] (no subject) Message-ID: <200409132105.i8DL5en27678@hsdebate.com> http://www.ndtceda.com Phallus Jerkins Dabait League From Pacedebate Mon Sep 13 16:04:24 2004 From: Pacedebate (Pacedebate at aol.com) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:04:24 EDT Subject: [eDebate] Las Vegas Round Robin semi's underway Message-ID: <88.14589507.2e776558@aol.com> George Washington LW (6-1 in the Aces division) vs Texas MM (6-1 in the Aces division) West Georgia KT (7-0 in the dueces division) vs Cal LR (6-1 in the Aces division) Also, Congratulations to Weber State SB who went 6-1 but finished 3rd in the Aces pod and didn't clear on points. Speaker Awards 5th - Lin Cal 4th - Peterson CSULB 3rd - More Texas 2nd - Koehle West Georgia 1st - Thomas West Georgia Apparently most teams, at least on the aff, are actually debating the resolution and have plans. Tradable permits and RPS seem popular. And, we have adopted a new motto. Las Vegas Round Robin "Not only does what happens in Vegas stay in Vegas you never know what might happen." Talk to Georgia State for elucidation on what might happen. Thanks to everyone who made the 5th annual LVRR a great time. In particular, Greg Achten who helps me run the tournament. Tim Mahoney Director, Las Vegas Round Robin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040913/2ae93879/attachment.htm From vandy.debate Mon Sep 13 16:09:29 2004 From: vandy.debate (M L Sandoz) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:09:29 GMT Subject: [eDebate] Needing tournament invitations Message-ID: <20040913.140934.25202.798488@webmail22.lax.untd.com> Looking for Alabama, Wash U, NYC-Columbia thanks M. L. Sandoz Vanderbilt University Director of Debate 615-322-3784 (O), 615-322-2307 (O) 615-343-7918 (F), 615-673-7340 (H) ________________________________________________________________ Get your name as your email address. Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today! From delliott Mon Sep 13 16:36:04 2004 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:36:04 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] evidence read of laptops In-Reply-To: <002101c499ba$677341b0$91c58caa@emorycard.emory.edu> References: <002101c499ba$677341b0$91c58caa@emorycard.emory.edu> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040913162619.01fa0bb8@kckcc.toto.net> Last year I had a debater who loved to keep all of his evidence on his laptop. It drove me crazy. I want my debaters to have all evidence in hard copy form. I think others should be held to the same standard. When I judge I will hold debaters to the standards Bill points out below. If the evidence is not readily available and easily accessible it is out of the debate. To me it is as annoying as prep time stealing. just my thoughts! chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate KCKCC At 12:52 PM 9/13/2004, William Newnam wrote: >I think Neil raises a couple of interesting questions, and I should warn >everyone that in any conflict over how laptop evidence will be used in the >debate, I will be deferring to the team that needs the evidence, rather >than the team that is keeping their evidence in digital form only. > >for example, >1. It takes a lot more prep time to carefully pass a laptop than to grab a >card. > > I will not let a team lose its prep time to try to get the evidence. > > > >3. If the other team wants to refer to parts of the evidence during their >speech (when the laptop owner may want to flow on it), I wouldn't know how >to resolve that. > > The laptop owner must either give up the lap top to the speaker, or > forfeit the evidence from the debate. > >4. Can you imagine the finger pointing and hostility if a laptop gets >broken during one of these exchanges? > >"You broke my laptop!" > >"I wouldn't have had it in the first place if you'd been considerate >enough to print out your cards!" > >"But you're still the one that broke it!" > >I REALLY don't want to be in the room when that happens (and I've already >watched some near misses). > > This seems like a personal risk that one takes to me. Again, the person > who keeps their evidence digitized has to be willing to accept the risk. > >The standing order on my team is that we make EVERY effort to print things >out BEFORE the debate. That said, I know my kids have done it at least >once when we had a printer problem. My main concern is that everyone be >considerate of each other. > > > >I agree with Neill, it is all about consideration which puts the onus on >the laptop user who is creating the situation by not having hard copies >available (for whatever reason). > > > >bill n > >emory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040913/eb39b0df/attachment.html From Pacedebate Mon Sep 13 16:28:22 2004 From: Pacedebate (Pacedebate at aol.com) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:28:22 EDT Subject: [eDebate] Las Vegas Round Robin Message-ID: <158.3f1e0fc4.2e776af6@aol.com> Tim wrote: > >George Washington LW (6-1 in the Aces division) vs Texas MM (6-1 in the Aces division) >West Georgia KT (7-0 in the dueces division) vs Cal LR (6-1 in the Aces division) Oops, George Wasington was in the Dueces division. Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040913/c0516312/attachment.htm From delliott Mon Sep 13 16:44:51 2004 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:44:51 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Calling Kevin Kuswa Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040913164340.01fe7940@kckcc.toto.net> Kevin, Hit me back when you get a chance. It's about NCA. thanks chief From delliott Mon Sep 13 16:45:05 2004 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:45:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Calling Andy Ellis Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040913164452.01faab40@kckcc.toto.net> Andy, Hit me back when you get a chance. It's about NCA. thanks chief From delliott Mon Sep 13 16:45:20 2004 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:45:20 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Calling Sarah Stone Watt Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040913164506.01f94ef0@kckcc.toto.net> Sarah, Hit me back when you get a chance. It's about NCA. thanks chief From delliott Mon Sep 13 16:45:43 2004 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:45:43 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Calling D Cram Helwich Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040913164528.01fde620@kckcc.toto.net> D Cram, Hit me back when you get a chance. It's about NCA. thanks chief From delliott Mon Sep 13 16:45:55 2004 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:45:55 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Calling Ken D Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040913164545.01ff5c78@kckcc.toto.net> Ken, Hit me back when you get a chance. It's about NCA. thanks chief From jbhdb8 Mon Sep 13 16:57:15 2004 From: jbhdb8 (jbhdb8 at earthlink.net) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:57:15 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [eDebate] evidence read of laptops Message-ID: <4864018.1095112635636.JavaMail.root@bert.psp.pas.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040913/e06b7b15/attachment.html From gvinedebate Mon Sep 13 17:36:32 2004 From: gvinedebate (Jane Boyd) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:36:32 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Grapevine Classic Results Message-ID: <000e01c499e2$1f0d4b00$68169384@jane> This is to certify the official results of the Grapevine Classic- the FIRST TOC bids of the year in LD and CX. Grapevine Classic is one of the best SEMIS bid tournament in the country. There were 71 schools from 9 states in attendance. CX had 73 participants The bids go to; 1 Nathan Jessica Baum Stolbach Greenhill School, Dallas, Texas 2 Nick David Miller Roosth The Kinkaid School, Houston, Texas Semis Pradeep Sam Pramanik Crichton Caddo Magnet High School, Bossier City, LA Semis Shawn Stephen Hiner-Leamon Polly Greenhill School, Dallas, Texas LD: 117 competitors The bids go to: 1 David Wolfish Greenhill School, Dallas, Texas 2 A.J. Motgi Hockaday, Dallas, Texas Semis Tanya Choudhury Taylor High School, Katy, Texas Semis Jeff Geels Southlake Carroll Senior High, Southlake, Texas Complete results can be found at www.joyoftournaments.com/tx/grapevine These are the official results, Jane Boyd Director of Forensics, Tournament Director Grapevine High School, Texas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040913/748c7648/attachment.htm From db8coach Mon Sep 13 17:38:56 2004 From: db8coach (db8coach at cox.net) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:38:56 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] evidence read of laptops Message-ID: <20040913223855.MWRM9243.fed1rmmtao07.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net> On THIS issue, Bill and I agree completely. >>>>>>>>>> I will be deferring to the team that needs the evidence, rather than the team that is keeping their evidence in digital form only. >>>>>>>>>> Bingo!!!! I have tossed evidence because the laptop died or the team with the laptop decided they needed to backflow rather than give the evidence to the other team (one case of each). The team with the laptop has ALL the risk in my mind. >>>>>>>>>> I will not let a team lose its prep time to try to get the evidence. >>>>>>>>>> If I think it is taking too much time, I will go so far as to take prep time from the team with the laptop. >>>>>>>>>> The laptop owner must either give up the lap top to the speaker, or forfeit the evidence from the debate. This seems like a personal risk that one takes to me. Again, the person who keeps their evidence digitized has to be willing to accept the risk. >>>>>>>>>> Again, I agree 100% I just think we are taking this age of laptops one step too far. Fair warning to digitized evidence carriers. Bob Lechtreck From knoelle11 Mon Sep 13 17:43:35 2004 From: knoelle11 (Kara N. Dillard) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:43:35 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Novice at UNI Message-ID: Cate, Of course, we agree with Matt that supporting novice divisions at tournaments extremely important. However, I (and I suspect others) don't want to drive my novice team 1000 miles only to debate 4 rounds. One of them went to the Wyoming Co-op this summer and is ready to debate. Her partner is someone I recruited from my public speaking class, so he feels under prepared but wants to jump in. One of our primary reasons to of our rolling out to UNI is to get our novices 8 rounds of actual debate--we we're going to bring them in JV if we had to. Our goal is to get this team debate rounds, get them in the tournament atmosphere and get them debating. That's the best way for them to learn. The more they debate the better they'll get. Considering that objective, if the novice division includes workshops and speech reworks we'll have to move our team up to junior. We can do practice debates and instructional sessions at home without having to pay for a hotel room and meal money. Please, keep the novice division the way it should be - with actual debates! Kara Dillard ENMU ----Original Message Follows---- From: Catherine Palczewski Reply-To: Catherine.Palczewski at uni.edu To: edebate Subject: [eDebate] Novice at UNI Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:56:17 -0500 hey all, as a followup to Matt Moore extremely entertaining and persuasive post, I wanted to talk about a couple ideas for UNI's novice division. Here's the plan: Rounds 1-2: workshop on debate basics Rounds 3-6: debates (a uni team will be tossed in as well) Round 7, and maybe 8: speech reworks from the debates, more workshopping So, if anyone is interested in bringing novices who are not close to ready, we can try and help them get ready. Also, if anyone is interested in workshopping, let me know. I would love to have a vairety of folks work with the young 'uns Cate _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement From Pacedebate Mon Sep 13 17:51:30 2004 From: Pacedebate (Pacedebate at aol.com) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:51:30 EDT Subject: [eDebate] evidence read of laptops Message-ID: <89.14fb1ddd.2e777e72@aol.com> In a message dated 9/13/2004 8:35:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time, neilsbutt at hotmail.com writes: 3. If the other team wants to refer to parts of the evidence during their speech (when the laptop owner may want to flow on it), I wouldn?t know how to resolve that. This is a no brainer. If you want to flow on your laptop you take your own risk when reading evidence off of it. The other teams need to see the evidence and use it to prep, if they want, overrides your need to flow on it. Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040913/304ef6cc/attachment.html From Pacedebate Mon Sep 13 18:02:05 2004 From: Pacedebate (Pacedebate at aol.com) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:02:05 EDT Subject: [eDebate] evidence read of laptops Message-ID: <12e.4b9ebee5.2e7780ed@aol.com> In a message dated 9/13/2004 12:20:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ndunn1979 at hotmail.com writes: 1. Debaters with laptops should not use any form of instant messenger during the round (a big no-no) or email other squard members to receive help. Could you imagine a situation where a person in the room watching the round was sending one of the teams answers? very, very, bad 2. Debaters with laptops shouldn't be allowed to cut more cards or access the internet for answers to a position that they came into the round unprepared for. Basically I think that debaters should be required to disconnect from the internet during rounds. #1 is a no brainer. What's the objection to number 2? If a debater can access the internet, download an article, put it into a format that can be used in a debate all within the constraints of prep time then why wouldn't we want to allow that? Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040913/2f78b1a8/attachment.htm From Pacedebate Mon Sep 13 18:05:09 2004 From: Pacedebate (Pacedebate at aol.com) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:05:09 EDT Subject: [eDebate] Las Vegas round robin Message-ID: <1ed.2aa0295c.2e7781a5@aol.com> West Georgia 2-1 over Cal Guevara, Rollins, Vega* Texas 3-0 over George Washington Achten, Arnett, Holbrook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040913/32021462/attachment.html From vandy.debate Mon Sep 13 18:57:03 2004 From: vandy.debate (M L Sandoz) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:57:03 GMT Subject: [eDebate] Questions about hand trucks Message-ID: <20040913.165749.22523.805251@webmail16.lax.untd.com> We have several that need wheel replacements. Seems a shame to throw them out and buy new ones, but can't find anyone who replaces wheels. Has anyone else had this problem? Suggestions? M. L. Sandoz ML.Sandoz at vanderbilt.edu Vanderbilt University Director of Debate 615-322-3784 (O), 615-322-2307 (O) 615-343-7918 (F), 615-673-7340 (H) ________________________________________________________________ Get your name as your email address. Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today! From dave Mon Sep 13 18:59:01 2004 From: dave (David L. Steinberg) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:59:01 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] High School Tournament Announcement Message-ID: <41463445.9080801@miami.edu> Announcing The 2004 Ibis High School Debates October 8-10, 2004 University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida http://www.miami.edu/com/debate/ Invitation ALSO available at http://www.debateresults.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040913/3640cbe6/attachment.htm From dbteam Mon Sep 13 19:04:35 2004 From: dbteam (dbteam) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:04:35 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Vegas Finals underway Message-ID: <4120E811@cliff.westga.edu> Texas wins the flip and chooses NEG. West Georgia (AFF) vs. Texas Slusher, Guevara, Blackmon From jradford Mon Sep 13 19:57:41 2004 From: jradford (JAMES E. RADFORD, JR.) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:57:41 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Rapping in Debate Message-ID: <4cd1c1f9.7f71c991.849cf00@punts2.cc.uga.edu> I started that shit. Just to let y'all know. peace jamie radford formerly of samford debate From dave Mon Sep 13 19:59:47 2004 From: dave (David L. Steinberg) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:59:47 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] High School Tournament Announcement with corrected link Message-ID: <41464283.5090703@miami.edu> Announcing The 2004 Ibis High School Debates October 8-10, 2004 University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida Announcing The 2004 Ibis High School Debates October 8-10, 2004 University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida http://www.miami.edu/com/debat e/ Invitation ALSO available at http://www.debateresults.com Invitation ALSO available at http://www.debateresults.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040913/fb6c0d13/attachment.html From GatorDebate Mon Sep 13 20:49:14 2004 From: GatorDebate (GatorDebate at aol.com) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:49:14 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Las Vegas Round Robin Final Round results Message-ID: <5666FFF7.6B4E5015.37F60172@aol.com> Hey all, West Georgia won on a 2-1 decision. Guevara and Blackmon voted for West Georgia and Slusher voted for Texas. Congrats to all. frank gator debate From mch766s Mon Sep 13 21:56:37 2004 From: mch766s (Harris, Martin C ) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:56:37 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] evidence read of laptops Message-ID: <63EF0653FAEAC446A7C6CCC4406DA48F2D825F@ruby.SPRINGFIELD.SMSU.EDU> But there are a few no-nos that we should agree upon. (Feel free to add to this list, forgive me if any of these are silly) 1. Debaters with laptops should not use any form of instant messenger during the round (a big no-no) or email other squard members to receive help. Could you imagine a situation where a person in the room watching the round was sending one of the teams answers? very, very, bad ME I really have to disagree here. I think amended to say no instant messenger with people not participating in the debate should be a given, but it really surprises me that more teams where both partners have laptops have not used instant messenging for intra-team (I mean TEAM, not Squad) communication. A private message sent across an ad-hoc wireless network, or cross-over cable from one partner to another is far less intrusive then people interrupting the other verbally while they speak. It is easier to flow, and is less likely to break a person's train of thought, and makes flowing for the judge a whole lot easier. Martin Harris From dbteam Mon Sep 13 21:31:06 2004 From: dbteam (dbteam) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:31:06 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Las Vegas, finals result Message-ID: <4120EF5B@cliff.westga.edu> West Georgia (AFF) 2-1 over Texas Guevara, Blackmon, Slusher* now on to the casinos! From parcherj Mon Sep 13 22:59:27 2004 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:59:27 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] No Doubts Message-ID: <025201c49a0f$3cde6010$2060fea9@Jeff> Commentary: The Man Without Doubt: George Bush Almost a thousand American troops have died, and no WMD have been found in Iraq; but President Bush still has "no doubt" that his war was a good idea. Sometimes doubt is a good thing. By Mick Youther Consider these statements made by the Bush Administration: . "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."-- President George W. Bush, 3/6/03 . "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."-- Dick Cheney, Speech to VFW National Convention, 8/26/02 . "We know where they [the WMDs] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat."-- Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, 3/30/03 . ".every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. ... Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent."-- Secretary of State Colin Powell, at the UN, 2/5/03 . "The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it."-- White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer, 12/5/02 . "I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming."-- Colin Powell, remarks to reporters, May 4, 2003 . "Saddam Hussein is not disarming. This is a fact. It cannot be denied."-- President Bush, News conference, 3/6/03 . "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."-- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, 1/9/03 . "We based our decisions on good, sound intelligence, and the - our people are going to find out the truth. And the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."-- President George W. Bush, 7/17/03 These statements have two things in common. First, they were presented to the American people as absolute fact. They didn't say, "we think", "we believe", or "it is possible"-they presented these statements as absolute facts. The second thing they have in common is that they now appear to be absolutely false. No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, even though soldiers' lives and millions of taxpayer dollars have been squandered searching for them. Despite that, the Bush Administration refused to admit they were wrong. All they did was modify their mis-statements of fact. "Weapons of Mass Destruction" became "Weapons programs", then, "Weapon Program Related Activities", and finally, "Saddam had bad intentions". Even though they have been wrong about almost everything in Iraq, the Bush Administration still operates under the delusion that they are always right. . "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."-- Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), British Philosopher and Essayist . "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."-- Voltaire, letter to Frederick II, 1767 . "Analysts and policy makers alike tend to interpret information to support their own viewpoints."-- Dean Rusk, "As I Saw It", 1990 . "Reality cannot be ignored except at a price; and the longer the ignorance is persisted in, the higher and the more terrible becomes the price that must be paid."-- Aldous Huxley, "Vendanta for the Western World", 1945 John Kerry has been called indecisive because he refuses to answer complex questions with "sound bite" sized statements; while Bush is considered bold and decisive because he has a simple-minded answer for everything. It is easy to be decisive when your decisions are preordained by the NeoCon agenda, because no thought or deliberation is necessary. . "From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go. Going after Saddam was topic "A" ten days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11."-- Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, CBS' 60 Minutes, 1/11/04 . "All too often.intelligence estimates tell us more about interests and foreign policy preferences of powerful groups in government than it does about what the other side's intentions and capabilities are."-- Robert Jervis, "Intelligence and Foreign Policy", International Security, Winter 86-87 There were plenty of people expressing doubts about Iraq's military capabilities, but the Bush Administration refused to listen. That is why America is in such a deadly mess in Iraq today. . "This (Bush) administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts."-- Conservative columnist George Will, Washington Post, 5/4/04 Mick Youther is an retired Instructor from Southern Illinois University in Carbondale, IL. You can email your comments to Mick at interventionmag.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040913/d9f6a7db/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 14450 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040913/d9f6a7db/attachment.jpe From parcherj Mon Sep 13 23:09:30 2004 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 00:09:30 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Opportunity Cost Message-ID: <026c01c49a10$a2a05fb0$2060fea9@Jeff> http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=171438 The Opportunity Costs of the Iraq War August 25, 2004 Download a PDF version of this report The Iraq war continues to be a drain on the American taxpayers' pocketbooks. So far, the war has cost the United States $144.4 billion, including $25 billion in the administration's FY05 defense budget signed into law earlier this month. An additional $60 billion is expected in a supplemental request after the November elections. According to the Defense Department, the cost of containing Saddam Hussein over 12 years was only $30 billion. While no one disputes the evil and oppressive nature of Saddam Hussein's regime, as the 9/11 Commission made clear in its final report, Iraq was not involved in the planning or execution of the September 11 attacks and did not have a "collaborative operational relationship," according to its final report. The September 11 attacks necessitated an increase in homeland security funding - the administration's request for the coming fiscal year is $47.5 billion. However, according to the Center for American Progress, many homeland security priorities are presently under-funded or unfunded - port security, airline cargo screening and community policing programs. More could be done to better secure or eliminate nuclear weapons, material and technology to prevent terrorists from developing and exploding nuclear or dirty bombs. While progress is being made in Afghanistan, increased aid faster will give democracy its best chance of taking hold and help eliminate the flourishing drug trade in Afghanistan that funds global terrorist activities. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken their toll on our troops. A larger Army and more special operations forces would take some of the current strain off the National Guard and reserves and improve the military's ability to eliminate actual terrorist safe havens in the future. These are just a few proposals that would have represented a better investment in America's security than the $144.4 billion Iraq "war of choice." The question lingers: Could the $144.4 billion spent on Iraq been better used to protect the American people from terrorist threats? The Center for American Progress offers this answer. $7.5 billion to safeguard our ports. The Coast Guard estimates that $7.5 billion is needed over 10 years to implement the requirements of the 2002 Maritime Transportation Security Act, which aims to protect America's ports and waterways from a terrorist attack. Since 9/11, the federal government has allocated less than $500 million to counter this threat. $4 billion to expedite upgrading the Coast Guard fleet. This investment over the next five years would cut in half the 20-year timetable for replacing and upgrading the Coast Guard's fleet of cutters, patrol aircraft, and communications equipment. $2 billion to improve cargo security. This would help cover costs associated with the Cargo Security Initiative, which deploys customs inspectors to ports around the world to screen cargo before it goes to the United States. ______________________ $10 billion to protect all U.S. commercial airliners from shoulder-fired missiles. These systems, based on existing military technology, would help reduce the danger from the estimated 100,000 shoulder-fired missiles circulating in the world's black markets. $5 billion to purchase state-of-the-art baggage screening machines. This would fulfill the Congressional mandate to install in all commercial airports new systems that integrate baggage screening and baggage handling. Only eight of the nation's 440 airports have the new machines, and the administration has requested only $250 million for equipment this year. $240 million to equip the airports with walk-through explosive detectors. According to the 9/11 commission, it's still too easy for passengers with hidden explosives to make it through airport security. ______________________ $7 billion to put 100,000 police officers the nation's streets. $7 billion would fully fund for five years the 1996 Community Oriented Policing Services program, which was designed to put 100,000 new community police officers on America's streets. The administration has cut the funding for the program to $97 million in the proposed FY05 budget. $2.5 billion to increase funding for fire departments. This would double the size of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program for each of the next five years. President Bush requested only $500 million for FY05, a drop from $750 million in FY04. Money from the program goes for trucks, protective clothing, hoses, and other equipment. $350 million for integrating emergency radio systems nationwide. Equipment to patch together existing police, fire, and other public safety radio systems throughout the country would cost $350 million. $3 billion to secure major roads and rails. $3 billion would secure all the major roads and railways in the nation's largest metropolitan areas. Improving surveillance, training railway workers, and developing new explosive detection equipment would increase passenger safety. The administration has focused its funding on aviation security, but has provided less than $200 million in last year's budget. ______________________ $30.5 billion to secure from theft the world's nuclear weapons-grade material. Securing the world's fissile material would enormously reduce the chance that lethal weapons-grade material could be made into nuclear and radiological weapons. A 10-year $30 billion program would ensure material security and weapon dismantlement in the former Soviet Union. Another $500 million would fund a "global cleanout program," aimed at removing dangerous nuclear materials from the most vulnerable nuclear sites worldwide. $2.25 billion to expedite the work of the Nunn-Lugar Threat Reduction program. Doubling this program's budget each year for the next five years would accelerate Nunn-Lugar, which has helped deactivate over 6,000 nuclear warheads in the former Soviet Union and the United States. The FY04 Defense budget provided only $450 million for the program. ______________________ $24 billion to add two divisions to the Army. With commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. Army is increasingly stretched thin. Two additional divisions could be added to the Army over the next five years at a cost of $4.8 billion a year. A larger army would help take the pressure off America's overtapped National Guardsmen and Reservists. $15.5 billion to double the number of active-duty troops in the Special Operations Forces. The United States has roughly 25,000 Special Operations Forces. These elite military fighting units played a critical role in Afghanistan and continue to be highly effective in tracking down terrorists. Doubling the 25,000 troops in the Special Operations Forces would cost $7 billion and an additional $8.5 billion would help maintain the new forces over the next five years. ______________________ $8.6 billion to rebuild Afghanistan. The government of Afghanistan has said it needs $27.6 billion for reconstruction activities over the next seven years such as rebuilding infrastructure, education, health, and disarmament programs. The country has received to date only $2.9 billion of the $19 billion pledged by the international community. $8.6 billion over the next seven years would make up this shortfall and help Afghanistan from reverting to a haven for terrorists. $11 billion to buy Afghanistan's opium crop. Afghanistan's illicit opium drug trade brings in a profit of $2.3 billion each year, much of which goes to fund terrorist activities. A five-year program to buy Afghanistan's opium crop would provide initial and continuing funding for farmers to permanently shift from growing opium to cultivating other crops or starting microenterprises. ______________________ $10 billion to increase U.S. development assistance to the neediest countries. The current foreign assistance budget is $19.27 billion, including foreign military funding and the State Department's operating budget. $13.8 billion goes to countries other than Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan. Increasing the non-military development assistance budget by $10 billion over the next five years to countries other than Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan, would help improve economic opportunities, health care, and education worldwide. $775 million to dramatically increase public diplomacy. $775 million would quadruple America's public diplomacy efforts in the Arab and Muslim world, as well as triple funding for the National Endowment for Democracy, each year for the next five years. The United States could use this funding to build bridges in Arab and Muslim communities and nations. Michael Pan, P.J. Crowley, Amanda Terkel, and Robert O. Boorstin all contributed to this report. ************************ Sources: $144.4 billion for the Iraq War: "Iraq Costs At $119.4 Billion -- And Rising," Miami Herald, June 2, 2004. In addition, the Administration signed into law an additional $25 billion for Iraq in the FY05 Defense budget. $2.5 billion per year to contain Saddam Hussein: "Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz Interview with England Cable News," March 23, 2003. Wolfowitz stated that it cost the United States roughly $30 billion for twelve years to contain Saddam Hussein before the Iraq War. $30.5 billion to secure from theft the world's nuclear weapons-grade material: "A Report Card on the Department of Energy's Nonproliferation Programs With Russia," Baker-Cutler Commission, January 10, 2001, Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, U.S. Department of Energy. The Commission estimates $3 billion per year for the next ten years for fissile material security and disposition in Russian and the NIS. "Controlling Nuclear Warheads and Materials: A Report Card and Action Plan," Matthew Bunn, Anthony Wier, and John P. Holdren, Nuclear Threat Initiative and the Project on Managing the Atom, Harvard University, March 2003. The report estimates that $50 million per year for "several years" would restructure and expedite the "global cleanout" program, removing the dangerous nuclear materials from sensitive sites worldwide. Funding this for the next ten years would cost $500 million. $24 billion to add two divisions to the Army: "Six Steps to a Safer America," by Lawrence Korb, Center for American Progress, January 29, 2004. The report estimates the cost of adding two divisions at $4.8 billion per year ($1.2 billion for additional 10,000 troops). $15.5 billion to double the number of active-duty troops in the Special Operations Forces: "U.S. Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress," Congressional Research Service, August 15, 2003. The report notes that there is a total of roughly 47,000 SOF units, in addition to the FY03 request for 2,653. The FY03 request for SOF was $6.7 billion. $11 billion to buy Afghanistan's opium crop: "Afghanistan, the other war," Houston Chronicle, June 20, 2004. The report notes that in 2003, Afghan drug farmers and traffickers earned a profit of $2.3 billion. $10 billion to protect commercial airplanes from shoulder-fired missiles. "Missile Defenses for U.S. Airliners Are Within Reach, Contractors Insist," Caitlin Harrington, Congressional Quarterly, November 13, 2003. According to Representative John Mica, chairman of the House Transportation Aviation Subcommittee, equipping every plane in the U.S. commercial fleet with missile defense systems could cost between $6 billion and $10 billion. $10 billion to dramatically increase U.S. development assistance to the neediest countries. "Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S. Programs and Policy," Congressional Research Service, April 15, 2004. According to the report, out of a total of $19.27 billion in FY04 foreign aid, $5.44 billion went to Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan. Foreign military funding made up 23.2% of the budget. $8.6 billion to rebuild Afghanistan: "Building a New Afghanistan: The Value of Success, the Cost of Failure," Center on International Cooperation, March 2004. The report notes that $7 billion had been pledged, before the March-April 2004 Berlin conference, and $2.9 had been disbursed. The report can be found at: http://www.cic.nyu.edu/pdf/Building.pdf. "Miles to go in Afghanistan," Center for Strategic and International Studies, April 2004. At the Berlin conference from March 31-April 1, 2004, Aghan president Hamid Karzai requested $27.6 billion over the next seven years to cover the cost of essential reconstruction in Afghanistan. This report also states that an additional $12 billion was pledged by the international community. The report can be found at: http://csis.org/isp/pcr/0404_milestogo.pdf. $7.5 billion to safeguard our ports: "New Security Efforts Lagging at Some Ports," Los Angeles Times, June 30, 2004. According to the article, "the Coast Guard put the total cost for implementing the regulations laid out by Congress in the 2002 Maritime Transportation Security Act at $7.5 billion over 10 years." $7 billion to put 100,000 police officers on the nation's streets: "The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program: An Overview," Congressional Research Service, April 6, 2003. President Clinton initiated the COPS program and funded it at $1.4 billion per year from 1996 to 1999. $5 billion to purchase state-of-the-art baggage screening machines. "Airport meets plans for bomb screening," The Manchester Union Leader, July 23, 2004. The cost for installing integrated systems into the nation's airports is estimated at $5 billion. The Bush administration is requesting only $250 million this year for the equipment. $4 billion to expedite modernization of the Coast Guard. "Coast Guard Fleet Upgrades Need Big Cash Anchor, Senators Tell White House," Jeremy Torobin, Congressional Quarterly, November 14, 2003. $3 billion to secure major roads and rails: Winning the War on Terror, House Select Homeland Security Committee, Democratic Staff, April 23, 2004, page 38. The report concludes that providing a baseline of passenger security to the nation's top 50 metropolitan areas would cost $2 billion. The report can be found at: http://www.house.gov/hsc/democrats/pdf/press/report2/ WinningtheWaronTerror.pdf. $2.5 billion to increase funding for fire departments. "Fire Grant Reauthorization would triple funding for big-city departments," Congressional Quarterly, May 13, 2004. President Bush requested $500 million in FY05 for the program, a drop from the $750 million in FY04. $2.25 billion to expedite the work of the Nunn-Lugar Threat Reduction program. According to Public Law 108-87, the FY04 Defense budget, provides $450 million requested for the Nunn-Lugar threat reduction program. $2 billion to improve cargo security: "Testimony of Michael O'Hanlon before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee," March 20, 2003. According to O'Hanlon, an additional $1 billion to $2 billion is needed for inspecting cargo in the United States. His testimony can be found at: http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/032003ohanlon.htm. $775 million for fighting the war of ideas. Winning the War on Terror, House Select Homeland Security Committee, Democratic Staff, April 23, 2004, pages 25 and 55. Estimates tripling the budget for NED to cost $80 million and cites the current budget for public diplomacy toward the Arab and Muslim world at $25 billion a year. $350 million for integrating emergency radio systems nationwide. "Price Tag for Emergency Radio Integration is $350 million, Says a Raytheon Chief," Alice Lipowicz, Congressional Quarterly, April 20, 2004. $240 million to equip airports with walk-through explosive detectors. "9/11 Panel Urges Firmer Security Grip," Richardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Los Angeles Times, July 29, 2004. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Paul J. Skiermont Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP Courthouse Place 54 West Hubbard Street Chicago, IL 60610 Direct: (312) 494-4442 Fax: (312) 494-4440 Mobile: (312) 371-8130 Email: paul.skiermont at bartlit-beck.com The information contained in this communication is confidential and should be considered to be attorney work product and/or attorney-client privileged. This communication is the property of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP and is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender, delete the message, and note that any distribution or copying of this message is prohibited. From trond Mon Sep 13 23:54:45 2004 From: trond (trond at umich.edu) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 00:54:45 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] RE: Still waiting for Kerry to denounce Message-ID: <1095137684.4146799502d14@web.mail.umich.edu> Why should Kerry denounce the ads against Bush? 1. There is ample evidence Bush failed to meet his legal obligations as a member of the Guard. If the 1004, 1005, 1006, and 1007 data points are suspect (the CBS documents), we still have 1003 data points. And more coming: "The service question: A review of President Bush's Guard years raises issues about the time he served," USNWR, Sept 20, 2004 http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/20guard.htm Other comprehensive examinations available at sites below: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/lechliter.pdf http://www.awolbush.com/ http://www.glcq.com/ In contrast, most data points in the SBVT ads are demonstrably false, hearsay, or contradicted by more credible accounts from people closer to the action. 2. Coach Lechtreck appeals to Kerry to denounce what exactly? Sloppy CBS journalism? He's running for President, not Editor of the Columbia Journalism Review. The Texans for Truth ads features nothing contained in the CBS documents but rather the highly detailed and plausible recollections of "Buck" Mintz, a man with 25 years of service. (http://www.memphisflyer.com/MFSearch/full_results.asp?xt_from=2&aID=2834) It is not wise nor fair to ask Kerry to denounce a man for stating his recollection of his time at Danelly. Recall that Bush can dredge up (now) one single soul with a vague recollection of Bush reading magazines...on days even the administration acknowledges he was not at Dannelly, that is, he "remembers" things the Bush people conceded could not be true. In contast, recall that Mintz gives good reasons why he would have found Bush if he had shown up, in part because HE WENT LOOKING FOR HIM. Mintz has not been impeached. 3. Everyone, including seasoned pro Safire, wants to focus on the documents again ignoring the corroborating testimony in addition to the 1003 other data points. A conservative friend tells me CBS story is shifting, but originally they claimed to have read the documents to Hodges and his response was that it was consistent with what Killian told him at the time (according to CBS). If he now says that the documents are fake, how does that affect his corrobation as to the informational content of documents, irrespective of their provenance? There has been no answer here or elsewhere. It is one thing to establish that CBS was duped on the documents. It is another to establish that all of their other, related efforts were hoaxes. Until this is established, all one gets is a CBS black eye, not proof Bush showed up. 4. What about the other people? Adminstrative Assistant Strong saying (without supporting the authenticity of the documents) that this type of document describes practices consistent with those then then prevailing at TXANG and by Killian and confirming the climate of nepotism and corruption in the TXANG? 5. What about Barnes? What about Denver? What about Cambridge? 6. What about the other earlier document in Bush file bearing the superscript? 7. Why do you not take Bush to task for claiming to have released all the documents - twice, just this year, let alone in 2000, 1998, & 1994 - only to be compelled later to release additional documents under threat of third party disclosure? 8. Bush did not denounce the SBVT ads nor did he denounce the hatchet job on McCain (don't even start with his lame anti-527 jeremiad; I don't think even Bartlett would accept those statements without breaking into laughter). To demand Kerry denounce these ads is akin to Vito Corleone asking Lansky to denounce organized crime. 9. Killian's OWN SON conceded (at one point) there is a mixture of truth and untruth contained in the documents. 10. Answer me this: If the CBS documents are fake, why does the administration continue to decline to argue they are fake? Why do they continue to accept their authenticity, as judged by their release of the records and passing on challenging their veracity? 11. For Bush backers, please define "serving honorably" in the context of the Bush Air National Guard Record? What about what he did from May 1972-August 1973 is honorable? Then prove it. I am willing to agree that the odds the CBS documents themselves are suspect is increasing, and dramatically so, though it is premature I believe to reach a 100% conclusion at this point. But the picture they paint is consistent with much other unimpeached evidence. What we need, as I have said before, is two weeks of untinterrupted media coverage, along the lines of the SBVT orgy of lies, along with a probing Fox investigative piece. Trond E. Jacobsen From johnsu01 Mon Sep 13 23:34:21 2004 From: johnsu01 (John Sullivan) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 00:34:21 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] evidence read of laptops In-Reply-To: <4864018.1095112635636.JavaMail.root@bert.psp.pas.earthlink.net> (jbhdb8@earthlink.net's message of "Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:57:15 -0400 (GMT-04:00)") References: <4864018.1095112635636.JavaMail.root@bert.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <877jqxcvua.fsf@johnsu01.isa-geek.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 188 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040914/507ca157/attachment.pgp From kel1773 Tue Sep 14 01:40:58 2004 From: kel1773 (Kelly Young) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 02:40:58 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Questions about hand trucks Message-ID: These sites and suggestions apply to larger (at least 175 lb capacity) hand trucks. If they are smaller, I don't think there are many options. Here are a few websites that sell parts-particularly new wheels and ball bearings for hand trucks. http://www.handtrucksrus.com/ http://www.handtruckstore.com/ The rub with these sites is that buying replacement wheels are fairly expensive (average $20-30 per wheel). The one site, Handtrucks R Us, offers some bulk deals. Make sure that you know the exact size of the wheel before you order, because they generally refuse to accept returns (see the Handtruck Store "Wheel" page for how to properly measure the wheel). A better option is to try Home Depot (they only have 175 lb. capacity wheels in stock online at the moment-don't know about in-store availability) or Lowe's. I believe the wheels used for hand carts are also used for some wheel barrels and similar items, so they generally have replacement wheels, axils and bearings at cheaper prices. Don't ask for hand cart wheels or parts-it's likely that they don't categorize them as "hand cart parts or accessories" in the store. You're better off taking in the part and having the employee track it down. You might refer to the two sites listed above to find the exact wheel and/or parts you need, then turn to Depot or Lowes. You also might find some options at a decent local hardware store, but my experience is that their prices aren't much better than the websites above. If none of this works, you might be able to salvage parts from some of the trucks to use on other trucks. But, if you are like us, you probably have a virtual menagerie of trucks that don't have similar parts. I took on this kind of chore many, many years ago before the advent of Lowes, Depot or for that matter widespread internet access. It was painful and fairly expensive in the end. I'm sure these options should make your task much easier than my experience. Good luck, Kelly Young Wayne State U -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040914/76e21e41/attachment.html From privethedge Tue Sep 14 06:44:33 2004 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 04:44:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] RE: Still waiting for Kerry to denounce In-Reply-To: <1095137684.4146799502d14@web.mail.umich.edu> Message-ID: <20040914114433.89492.qmail@web50906.mail.yahoo.com> Define Serving Honorably: Bush was Honorably Discharged - had he not served and met his requirements, he would have received a general discharge or a less than honorable discharge - he met the requirements, however barely, and he was honorably discharged - that should be enough. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040914/ef75f6ee/attachment.htm From dperkins Tue Sep 14 08:38:29 2004 From: dperkins (Dallas Perkins) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:38:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [eDebate] Harvard Tournament Message-ID: Greetings: The Harvard College Debate tournament will be held October 30-November 1. The arrangements are little changed from past tournaments and are outlined on Bruschke's website, where entries will be managed. dp From bratt Tue Sep 14 09:12:53 2004 From: bratt (Ron Bratt) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:12:53 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Cap City Entries to date References: <028f01c49a64$da380cd0$0400a8c0@RonBratt> Message-ID: <029c01c49a64$ed25a190$0400a8c0@RonBratt> Cap City entries are starting to come in. Below are the entries. The hotel is also starting to fill up. Below the entries is another copy of the invitation. Hotel Block open for about another 10 days. Ron Fort Hayes Open michael richardson & phil bouska paul mabrey: 2 rounds bill shanahan: 1 round University of Texas- Dallas Varsity Britt Clark and Jason Larey Trevor Andreas and Derek Denman Judges Chris Burk Scott Herndon University of Miami Open: Sarah Spring Michael Maffie Judge: Steve Mancuso (3) University of Pittsburgh Open: Paul Johnson & Jane Munksgaard Colin Esgro & Dave Weston Tony DiMattio & Guy Risko Allison Hahn & Melissa Mistretta JV: Melina Forte & Kristen Wlazelek Judges: Damien Pfister Carly Woods (no MWC) Cate Morrison (no JMU) We are pleased to invite you to the 5th Annual Cap City at Catholic University Debate Tournament on Friday, October 22, to Sunday, October 24, 2004. 2 Major Changes to Note: 1. Start on Friday Not Saturday - The feedback we received was that there was not enough turn around time between our tournament and Harvard - many preferred when we ended on Sunday to give them 5 full days before Harvard. 2. Returned back to Less Expensive Hotel upon Popular Demand - as in 2001, we will be at the Holiday Inn, Greenbelt. Great Rate of $79 a night and still only 15 minutes to D.C. It is the shopping center with a Chevy's and a couple of other good chains. To make reservations, call 301 982-7000. It is under Catholic University Debate. The rooms will be available to September 27, 2004. If you have any problems, ask for Lisa in sales. The website is www.holiday-inn.com/greenbelt-nasa So, to continue, in the great tradition of Cap City Debates, we will offer 6 rounds of preliminary competition: 2 on Friday and 4 on Saturday and elims on campus on Sunday. Our goal is to get everyone out early on both days to allow you to enjoy the cultural life of Washington, D.C.! We are also pleased to announce that we will also run a separate J.V. and Novice Tournament. This (only JV and Novice) will be an ADA tournament and run by a separate tab room. As we have in the past, Catholic University is set to provide some outstanding hospitality. Bagels/Coffee both mornings, Lunch on Saturday, a hospitality room, and a coaches/judges reception both nights. Nice awards and plenty of time to enjoy Washington, D.C. Great lowfares into Baltimore can be found through Southwest Airlines. BWI is not that far from Catholic University. They are always running internet specials. Their website is and their phone number is 1-800-IflySWA. Great Features of Tournament: We really hope that debaters and coaches have an opportunity to enjoy D.C. at night. The metro comes right onto our campus and we are only 2 stops from all the great restaurants on Capitol Hill. We will have a complete guide for you when you register. Tournament Fees: Entry fees for the tournament will be One hundred dollars $100.00 per two-person team. Please make any checks payable to "The Catholic University of America." Judges: Each school is expected to provide one judge per team. Accordingly, a coach with one team will be expected to judge three rounds. A coach with two teams is expected to judge all six rounds. In addition to his or her preliminary judging assignments, each judge is expected to stay one round past that in which their team is eliminated. Each judge is at least obligated through octo-finals in Varsity and Quarterfinals in the other 2 divisions. Judges may be hired at the cost of $200.00 for a full judge if I have sufficient notice. Please designate which judging pools you want to assign your judges to if you have multiple judges with teams in both tournaments. Format: 2 presets. Six prelims. No lag powering. All high/low within brackets. Brackets will be broken for Varsity. Elimination side determination process will itself be decided by a coin flip. Mutual Preference (goes into effect round 1 for Varsity). For Novice and JV, we will accept hybrid teams and they can debate in elimination rounds. 9-3-6 with 10 minutes preparation. Tentative Schedule: Thursday October 21 8:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. - Registration at the Holiday Inn Hospitality Suite. There will be no on-campus registration. If you do not make it the night before, you need to call in your registration to the hospitality suite. Friday October 22, 2004 NO ONCAMPUS REGISTRATION MUST BE MADE THURSDAY NIGHT - WE MIGHT EVEN RELEASE PAIRINGS THAT NIGHT IF POSSIBLE 1 p.m. Pairings Distributed at Catholic University Pryz Center 3:15. Round 1 Begins 6 p.m. Round 2 Begins 9:00 p.m. Coaches Reception at Holiday Inn Saturday, October 23, 2004 7:30 a.m. Pairings Distributed at Catholic University Bagels, Coffee and Juice Provided in Pryz 8:00 a.m. Round 3 Begins 11 a.m. Round 4 Begins 2 p.m. Lunch 3:00 p.m. Round 5 6:15 p.m. Round 6 Begins Sunday, October 24, 2004 7:30 a.m. Judging Cards and Pairings handed out 8:30 a.m. Elims begins 11:30 a.m. Awards 12:30 p.m. Elims Continues Entering: Please enter your teams and specify your judging by midnight Tuesday, October 19, 2004. Please enter via email to Ron Bratt at bratt at cua.edu. We should have enough space but if this gets larger than anticipated we might have to limit the number of entries per school, and also, on first-come,first serve basis. You can also fax information to me at (202) 319-4983. Please indicate in Subject heading Catholic University Debate Tournament Entries so that can identify it as an email I should read. Please provide the following: 1. Contact information: School name, coaches name, contact phone numbers for coaches (home and office), and email addresses. 2. Full Student Names, first and last, for each team. 3. Full Judges Names, listing conflicts for each judge and scheduling constraints. 4. Rank your teams A,B,and C for Varsity Look forward to see everyone in October!! Ronald Bratt Director of Debate Catholic University of America Bratt at cua.edu 202 319-5447 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040914/c69020b2/attachment.html From nselegzi Tue Sep 14 10:02:30 2004 From: nselegzi (Noel Selegzi) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:02:30 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] The People Speak FAQ (cont.): Do TPS events have to focus on America's role in the World? Can we resubmit? Wire Information Message-ID: <1CBED6247AC65445BF49BFDD3CC5DBC60472A75C@osinyexch.soros.org> Q. Do TPS events have to focus on America's role in the World? Yes, they do. While the two of the TPS issues (Prosperity in a global economy and American power and global security) are not necessarily about the US's role in the world, TPS event must have a narrower focus. Q. If our proposal is rejected can we submit it a second time? Yes. In most cases where we have had to reject a proposal it has been because the description was not complete or did not show how the event linked specifically to TPS themes. Q. What is complete wire information? Bank Name Bank Address Account Number / IBAN ABA / SWIFT Code Name of Beneficiary (Account holder) If you are in the UK, we also need a Sort Code. Noel S. Selegzi International Debate Education Association Open Society Institute 400 West 59th Street New York, NY 10019 Ph: (212) 547-6938 Fx: (212) 548-4610 www.idebate.org To Join IDEA: www.idebate.org/join To Support IDEA: www.idebate.org/support From Catherine.Palczewski Tue Sep 14 10:08:14 2004 From: Catherine.Palczewski (Catherine Palczewski) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:08:14 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Novice at UNI References: Message-ID: <4147095E.9463F0D9@uni.edu> Hello all, I completely understand the desire for more rounds, but it is hard to have 8 educational rounds when there are only 4 teams entered in novice, and 2 are from one school and one of them is a UNI team who will only be able to debate 4 rounds. I thought we could actually get participation up with the option of workshopping, which is an idea I borrowed from SMS who did this a few years ago. If anyone has a team they think is not ready, we can help them get ready. One of the problems with novice debate early in the season is that the division just do not make, so my attempt was to have the division make, even if only at a few rounds. If you want to move your team up to JV, that is fine with me -- I just wanted to find a way to keep a discrete novice division. Cate "Kara N. Dillard" wrote: > Cate, > > Of course, we agree with Matt that supporting novice divisions at > tournaments extremely important. However, I (and I suspect others) don't > want to drive my novice team 1000 miles only to debate 4 rounds. One of them > went to the Wyoming Co-op this summer and is ready to debate. Her partner is > someone I recruited from my public speaking class, so he feels under > prepared but wants to jump in. One of our primary reasons to of our rolling > out to UNI is to get our novices 8 rounds of actual debate--we we're going > to bring them in JV if we had to. Our goal is to get this team debate > rounds, get them in the tournament atmosphere and get them debating. That's > the best way for them to learn. The more they debate the better they'll get. > > Considering that objective, if the novice division includes workshops and > speech reworks we'll have to move our team up to junior. We can do practice > debates and instructional sessions at home without having to pay for a hotel > room and meal money. Please, keep the novice division the way it should be - > with actual debates! > > Kara Dillard > ENMU > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: Catherine Palczewski > Reply-To: Catherine.Palczewski at uni.edu > To: edebate > Subject: [eDebate] Novice at UNI > Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:56:17 -0500 > > hey all, > > as a followup to Matt Moore extremely entertaining and persuasive post, > I wanted to talk about a couple ideas for UNI's novice division. > > Here's the plan: > > Rounds 1-2: workshop on debate basics > Rounds 3-6: debates (a uni team will be tossed in as well) > Round 7, and maybe 8: speech reworks from the debates, more workshopping > > So, if anyone is interested in bringing novices who are not close to > ready, we can try and help them get ready. > > Also, if anyone is interested in workshopping, let me know. I would > love to have a vairety of folks work with the young 'uns > > Cate > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > _________________________________________________________________ > On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to > get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From cpwiii Tue Sep 14 10:23:13 2004 From: cpwiii (charles woodbury) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:23:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Pensacola="Ivan the Terrible" Hurricane Message-ID: A last note before being 'Mandatorily' evacuated. I will be at Georgia State next week, and would like to be hired for 8-plus rounds. Everyone here is going nuts (except the natives). I'm not sure this computer will still be here, but please try and hire me for Georgia State. I assume MSN will survive Ivan. >From 'Ground Zero', Tod Woodbury. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040914/b905c77a/attachment.htm From jwpatt00 Tue Sep 14 10:21:47 2004 From: jwpatt00 (JW Patterson) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:21:47 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] TOC: GRAPEVINE QUALIFIERS Message-ID: DEADLINES: BOTH FULLY-QUALIFIED AND AT-LARGE APPLICATIONS WITH FEES ARE DUE IN LEXINGTON BY MARCH 15, 2005. PLEASE NOTE, NOT POSTMARKED ON THIS DATE, BUT IN LEXINGTON BY THIS DATE. THE ROAD TO THE FOURTH TOC OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY DATES: SATURDAY, SUNDAY, MONDAY APRIL 30, MAY 1, AND 2, 2005 TOURNAMENT HOTEL: RAMADA INN (ASK FOR INTERNET ACCESSIBILITY) PHONE # - 859-299-1261 DISCLAIMER: THE RESULTS POSTED FROM EACH TOURNAMENT ARE ALWAYS SUBJECT TO CHANGE IF THE TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR REPORTS THAT A MISTAKE WAS MADE IN THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATION. IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT THE NAMES ARE SPELLED AS REPORTED BY THE TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR AND ARE SUBJECT TO CORRECTION IF A MISSPELLING HAS APPEARED. 1) TOURNAMENT DIRECTORS PLEASE NOTE: WHEN CERTIFYING THE TOC QUALIFIERS PLEASE INCLUDE FULL NAME, SCHOOL, AND STATE OF THE DEBATERS. 2) COACHES AND DEBATERS PLEASE NOTE: A DEBATER IN LD OR A TEAM IN POLICY MUST ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE IN A QUALIFYING ROUND TO RECEIVE A TOC 'BID.' IN OTHER WORDS, IF A DEBATER OR TEAM DOES NOT DEBATE THE ROUND FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY CANNOT RECEIVE A TOC 'BID' FOR THAT ROUND. THIS REQUIREMENT WAS OVERWHELMINGLY RECOMMENDED BY THE TOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE . GRAPEVINE (TX) Jane Boyd, director of the Grapevine Classic, has certified the first 2005 TOC Qualifiers. Grapevine is a TOC qualifier in both Policy and Lincoln Douglas at the semi-final level. LINCOLN-DOUGLAS David Wolfish Greenhill School (TX) A.J. Motgi Hockaday (TX) Tanya Choudhury Taylor High School (TX) Jeff Geels Southlake Carroll Senior High (TX) POLICY Nathan Baum and Jessica Stolbach Greenhill School (TX) Nick Miller and David Roosth The Kinkaid School (TX) Pradeep Pramanik and Sam Crichton Caddo Magnet High School (LA) Shawn Hiner-Leamon and Stephen Polly Greenhill School (TX) Sincerely, JW Patterson TOC Director & Founder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040914/2a7c9861/attachment.html From neilsbutt Tue Sep 14 10:24:37 2004 From: neilsbutt (Neil Butt) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:24:37 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Questions about hand trucks Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040914/cfba6794/attachment.htm From jkoch2 Tue Sep 14 12:09:44 2004 From: jkoch2 (John P. Koch) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:09:44 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Jon Bruschke ONLY Message-ID: Jon please backchannel the Capital University Debate Team at jkoch2 at capital.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040914/7fb8b3aa/attachment.html From jkoch2 Tue Sep 14 12:10:33 2004 From: jkoch2 (John P. Koch) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:10:33 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Matt Stannard ONLY Message-ID: Matt please backchannel the Capital University Debate Team at jkoch2 at capital.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040914/4726f051/attachment.htm From stroube Tue Sep 14 12:16:43 2004 From: stroube (Jack Stroube) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:16:43 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] w is a faggot--ashe affair worse than lewinsky--kerry plays too Message-ID: <200409141716.i8EHGhI24145@hsdebate.com> watch out 'boys' and girls, here cum the kelley indicts and the skolnick indicts from the right and the hate speech whines from the left or otherwise politics of the un- identifiable. the point is that w's relations are jeopardizing national security. ra ra a faggot cheerleader pansy has duped the xians into the w house....buy the new book, check out skolnick's investigative reporting, make your own decision...this is just a portal...once you determine guilt for yourself, spread the dirt everywhere across your campus, contact guiliani demanding publication of the w sodomy pictures or better break into guiliani's office and publish the pictures yourself...this is the scandal that will take down the house of bush. fuck that wimpy nat'l guard shit. this is the achilles' heel. a full scale smear campaign is in order. run your mouth on the worst president in the history of the united states.... Bush Bisexuality Asserted In Scorching New Book UPDATE New Book Further Confirms Our Independent Investigations! By Sherman H. Skolnick www.skolnicksreport.com 9-7-4 Just published "THE FAMILY - The Real Story of the Bush Dynstasty", by veteran highly controversial author, Kitty Kelley. According to book industry sources, the publisher intends to issue and market one million copies of this book that is the lowdown of the Bushies. ? The book details a number of stories long-since posted and archived, and publicly discussed by us on www.skolnicksreport.com and www.cloakanddagger.ca including stories co-authored by Sherman H. Skolnick and Lenny Bloom, as Middle-Finger News. ? Also posted and archived through www.rense.com/Datapages/skolnickdatapage.html ? Also widely discussed on radio talk shows by Skolnick and also jointly with co-host Lenny Bloom on internet radio worldwide www.cloakanddagger.ca as well as by Skolnick on numerous other radio talk shows U.S., Canada, Australia, nnd Europe, over the last five years and more. ? Mentioned in Kitty Kelley's book following the already publicized independent investigations of Skolnick and his colleagues: ? === That George W. Bush cohabited at his Texas ranch and elsewhere with the Mayor of a major city in Tennessee, says Kitty Kelley. ? Skolnick began the discussion severel years ago as a story about "The Pedophile/ Homosexual Underground". ? www.skolnicksreport.com "Overthrow of the American Republic", Part 24. ? It relates to George W. Bush's homosexual relationsip, since about puberty, with Victor Ashe, long-time Mayor of Knoxvillle. When some in Congress began inquiries in the fall of 2003, Ashe in December, 2003, gave up being Knoxville Mayor and was appointed by George W. Bush, the occupant and resident of the White House, as the U.S. Ambassador to Poland. That is, getting Ashe out of the U.S. jurisdiction, not available to nosey Congressmen. ? Bush and Ashe are both members of the satanic cult, "Skull & Bones", headquartered in a windowless building,called "The Tomb" on the campus of Yale University. Part of the initiation procedure is for the new proposed member to divulge his entire sexual history, to several other Bonesmen, so that when he is shoved up into high office, government, finance, etc., he can be blackmailed into silence. The new member has to cavort, au naturel, sometimes more than once, with another Bonesman in a double-size coffin filled with mud. ? An older Bonesman member has to also participate in such proceedings. This was done by John F. Kerry slightly older than George W. Bush. ? As mentioned in our stories and talk shows, the secret pictures of this, reportedly ended up in the possession of the picture editor of a group of magazines run by American Media, Inc., AMI, headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. That editor was Bob Stevens. Being of near-sighted vision, he took off his glasses and he opened up an envelope addressed to him, holding it close up to his face, breathing thus in spores of anthrax, from which he soon thereafter died. ? In his public statements, Skolnick carefully discussed that he usually does not discuss sordid relations EXCEPT if they involved National Security. In the Ashe/Bush matter, the Red Chinese Secret Police have used their knowledge of the matter to blackmail out of the Bush White House, U.S. MILITARY, financial, and industrial secrets, clearly warranting us publicizing the Ashe/Bush matter. Further, Skolnick contended that Ashe and Bush met for sex at a Tennessee location owned by the purported top financier of Osama bin Laden. That U.S. resident moneybags has been granted unlawful protection and immunity from exposure by the Bush White House. ? The more than 500 that worked at AMI were evacuated, the building was closed up by America's secret political police, about October 2001, shortly after the 9-11 incidents. The FBI did not permit any of the picture or text files to be removed. Stevens' widow, in a little-known lawsuit against the FBI, claimed the Bureau obstructed her from finding out what happened to her husband. ? Rudolph Guiliani, once U.S. District Attorney in New York, later Mayor of New York City, founded and owns BioOne, specializing in cleaning up places made toxic by anthrax. He bought the closed AMI building for a "song" and now has possession of the pictures that could scandalize his pal George W. Bush, and Bush's male sex-mate, U.S. Senator John F. Kerry, "laying down and playing dead" while supposedly running for president against 3rd cousin and fellow Bonesman George W. Bush. ? In her book, Kitty Kelley claims that, from her sources, Bush, facing embarrassment by the possible revelations of the pictures, arranged for secret U.S. agents to murder Bob Stevens. ? ===Skolnick in his posted and archived statements and on various radio talk shows, discussed how George H.W. Bush, that is Daddy Bush, has been in business with the co-founder of the Medelin, Colombia dope cartel, Carlos Lehder. And that the link was covered up when the Bushies arranged to secretly remove from a U.S. Jail, Lehder, who has disappeared. ? Numerous details are in the series, "The Chandra Levy Affair", www.skolnicksreport.com ? Kitty Kelley raises the issue of Bush, Sr., being in dope trafficking through South America and elsewhere. ? === Because of George W. Bush's homosexual relationships, and because his wife of convenience, Laura, was a reputed known and open lesbian since high school, and may be a dyke; that George W. Bush may not be the actual father of the twin daughters. Skolnick has raised these issues. ? Now, in her book, Kitty Kelley raises the issue of the little-known relationship between Laura and General Tommy franks. ? More coming. ? Stay tuned... ? ==================================== ? Mr. Skolnick's Reports are posted and archived at www.skolnicksreport.com Together with his co-authored The Middle-Finger News, they are posted and archived through www.rense.com/Datapages/skolnickdatapage.html also posted and archived through www.cloakanddagger.ca ? Skolnick is co-host with Lenny Bloom on a growing, popular maximum power Internet radio program, FM-quality worldwide, ON-LINE LIVE and ARCHIVED at www.cloakanddagger.ca CHECK SCHEDULE for time it is on. ? Recently published, the book, "Ahead of the Parade" by Sherman H. Skolnick, A Who's Who of Treason & High Crimes---Exclusive Details of Fraud & Corruption of the Monopoly Press, the Banks, the Bench and the Bar, & the Secret Political Police. ? Can be ordered U.S./Canada 1-800-861-7899. ? Can also supposedly be ordered through amazon.com HOWEVER recently they blockaded their own marketing and sales of this controversial book by demanding twice the listed price. ? About once a year is published a heavy packet of printed stories by Skolnick. To get a copy, send $5.00 (U.S. FUNDS ONLY) plus a stamped, self-addressed BUSINESS size envelope [ # 10 envelope, 4-1/8 x 9-1/2 ] WITH THREE U.S. FIRST CLASS STAMPS ON IT, to Citizen's Committee To Clean Up The Courts, Sherman H. Skolnick, Chairman, 9800 So. Oglesby Ave., Chicago IL 60617-4870. ? Want to get on Skolnick's e-mail list to get, soon as issued, Skolnick'S Reports, and The Middle-Finger News, or to stay on the e-mail list if you are already there? To find out how, contact skolnick at ameritech.net BE SURE TO PUT IN SUBJECT LINE OF E-MAIL, "I want to get on e-mail list". http://www.ndtceda.com Phallus Jerkins Dabait League From parcherj Tue Sep 14 12:18:34 2004 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:18:34 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Selling the Environment Message-ID: <00c501c49a7e$de7df510$2060fea9@Jeff> Published on Saturday, March 6, 2004 by the New York Times How Industry Won the Battle of Pollution Control at E.P.A. by Christopher Drew and Richard A. Oppel Jr. Just six weeks into the Bush administration, Haley Barbour, a former Republican party chairman who was a lobbyist for electric power companies, sent a memorandum to Vice President Dick Cheney laying down a challenge. "The question is whether environmental policy still prevails over energy policy with Bush-Cheney, as it did with Clinton-Gore," Mr. Barbour wrote, and called for measures to show that environmental concerns would no longer "trump good energy policy." Mr. Barbour's memo was an opening shot in a two-year fight inside the Bush administration for dominance between environmental protection and energy production on clean air policy. One camp included officials, like Mr. Cheney, who came from the energy industry. In another were enforcers of environmental policy, led by Christie Whitman, a former Republican governor of New Jersey. The battle engaged some of the nation's largest power companies, which were also among the largest donors to President Bush and other Republicans. They were represented by Mr. Barbour and another influential lobbyist, Marc Racicot, who also would later become chairman of the Republican National Committee. In an administration that puts a premium on keeping its internal disputes private, this struggle went on well out of the public's view. But interviews and documents trace the decisions in which the Bush administration changed the nation's approach to environmental controls, ultimately shifting the balance to the side of energy policy. Senior officials at the Environmental Protection Agency, including Mrs. Whitman, became isolated, former aides said, and several resigned. Thirty years after the first Earth Day, the incoming administration was still confronting power-plant smokestacks spewing fumes. The policy questions were arcane, involving strategies to control polluting particles. At stake, though, were environmental risks to human health and the nation's ability to produce cheap energy, as well as decisions about how the most polluting industries would be monitored for decades to come. For operators of some coal-fired plants, the stakes were more tangible. Dozens of plants were facing lawsuits over air pollution brought by the Clinton administration and several northeastern states - including New Jersey under Mrs. Whitman before she became head of the E.P.A. The industry, fearing billions of dollars in new costs, set about to undo the suits. One of the most important decisions was Mr. Bush's reversal of a campaign promise to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide, a gas that many scientists say contributes to global warming. The administration also has proposed looser standards for emissions of mercury - a highly toxic pollutant - than President Bill Clinton had sought. The most protracted fight concerned the administration's decision to issue new rules that substantially reduced the requirements for utilities to build pollution controls when modernizing their plants. The final policy shift may ultimately help the coal-plant operators shed the lawsuits. The struggle within the administration, in skirmishes between Cabinet officers and volleys of memorandums, showed how the White House has transformed domestic policy through regulatory revision, rather than more contentious congressional debate. Administration officials say the changes were needed to raise energy production and lift the burden of cumbersome and costly regulations on industry. They said that the approach will continue the trend of declining emissions and reduce some of the most harmful pollutants by about half in the next decade - cuts as deep if not deeper than the old measures would bring. "It's not about whether air quality will get better," said James L. Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. "It will, and it must. The question is what path you take to get there." Critics on Capitol Hill and environmental groups say the policies will slow the cleaning of the air and undercut Congress's authority, while catering to companies that are big contributors to Mr. Bush's campaigns. "Rather than work with Congress to move us forward on environmental issues, the Bush administration is working with the special interests to undermine them," said Senator James M. Jeffords, the Vermont independent who is the ranking minority member of the Senate environment committee. But both sides agree on one outcome of the struggle: The nation's approach to air pollution control shifted drastically. An Early Challenge As President Bush took office, he said he wanted to swiftly address energy shortages that had caused blackouts in California. Coming from the Texas energy industry, he was convinced that Clinton administration environmental policies were restraining energy production. And utilities geared up to press the new administration for big changes on a handful of issues that were crucial to them. Their biggest worry was Mr. Bush's campaign pledge to carry through on a Clinton administration effort to impose controls on power plant emissions of carbon dioxide. The coal-fired power companies, which are among the nation's largest sources of carbon dioxide, were alarmed when Mrs. Whitman in her first days at the agency said Mr. Bush would carry out his promise. Not long after, Mr. Barbour sent his memorandum to Vice President Cheney, who was heading a task force Mr. Bush had ordered to conduct a broad review of energy policy. Mr. Cheney had been chief executive at Halliburton, an oil-and-gas-services company. Energy corporations had been among the strongest supporters of Mr. Bush's presidential campaign: There were more executives from energy than from any other industry group among Mr. Bush's most elite fund-raisers, called "Pioneers," who each generated more than $100,000 in donations. The industry's outcry over carbon dioxide reached Mr. Bush. In March 2001, he reversed himself, saying there would be no carbon dioxide controls. "I was responding to realities," Mr. Bush said at the time, "and the reality is our nation has a real problem when it comes to energy." After that victory, the utilities moved to press their advantage, turning to Mr. Cheney for help on another issue: a set of rules requiring them to add new pollution controls when they upgraded or expanded their plants. The power companies strongly objected to the rules, which were known as "new source review," calling them arbitrary, expensive and outmoded. A small group of coal-fired utilities was especially unhappy. In 1999, the Clinton administration had sued nine companies, saying they had expanded 51 older plants without adding the required controls. Among those facing suits were the Southern Company, based in Atlanta; the Duke Energy Corporation, based in Charlotte, N.C.; and the FirstEnergy Corporation, based in Akron, Ohio. Southern, one of Mr. Barbour's biggest clients, was facing potential liabilities of hundreds of millions of dollars. The rules had not previously been vigorously enforced, and the companies contested the suits, saying the Clinton administration had focused on them unfairly and made it too costly to improve their plants. Mrs. Whitman made it clear she was willing to revise the rules and settle the lawsuits. But, former aides at the E.P.A. said, she favored old-fashioned political horse-trading: She would ease up on the old rules, but only after going to Congress with broad legislation to establish tough new controls on three important pollutants - sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury. Mrs. Whitman's orders were to "find ways to deal with" the rules "without giving away the farm to industry unilaterally," said Jeremy Symons, a former agency official who works with the National Wildlife Federation, an advocacy group. Industry lobbyists had a different strategy. C. Boyden Gray, who was White House counsel during the first Bush administration and represented some utilities, said the companies viewed the pollution lawsuits as "a gun to the head." They feared, he said, that if their bid to change the rules got caught up in a bigger battle in Congress, "they might not get anything." The industry's main lobbying group, the Edison Electric Institute, already had meetings with White House and Energy Department officials about relaxing the pollution rules. The group's president, Thomas R. Kuhn, had been a Yale classmate of President Bush, and was also a Pioneer. Yet for some companies named in the lawsuits, the institute was not forceful enough. "We needed a strategy and an organization to take a more aggressive approach," said Todd Terrell, a spokesman for Southern. So, at Mr. Barbour's urging, a handful of coal-burning utilities formed their own lobbying group. At the time, Mr. Barbour was probably Washington's most successful lobbyist. As Republican National Committee chairman from 1993 to 1997, he had helped the party gain control of Congress and had long been one of its most prodigious fund-raisers. His corporate clients included many of the party's largest donors. That added to his entree with Republican officials. The splinter group, organized by Mr. Barbour in the spring of 2001, was called the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council. Scott Segal, its executive director, said it sought a "more consistent" effort to rewrite the pollution rules. Several government officials and lobbyists said the group's underlying goal was bolder: to persuade the administration to repudiate the old rules and thus torpedo the lawsuits based on them. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the six utility companies now in the council and their employees made more than $10 million in political donations over the last five years, nearly three-fourths of that going to Republicans. Southern and its employees account for nearly $4 million of the total, with 72 percent of their donations going to Republicans. Mr. Barbour had a meeting with Mr. Cheney on May 3, 2001, just two weeks before the task force was set to unveil its energy plan, Mr. Segal said. Mr. Barbour was accompanied by Mr. Racicot, a friend of President Bush who would become the Republican chairman in January 2002 and is now chairman of Mr. Bush's campaign. Mr. Segal said that Mr. Barbour and Mr. Racicot "did not dwell" on the lawsuits, but suggested that the administration should abandon the standards that the Clinton administration had applied in bringing them. Mrs. Whitman's aides said Mr. Cheney's office did not inform her of that meeting. But the next day Mrs. Whitman, knowing the debate was reaching a climax, sent a blunt memorandum to Mr. Cheney. "We will pay a terrible political price if we undercut or walk away from" the lawsuits, she wrote. She said it would be "hard to refute the charge that we are deciding not to enforce the Clean Air Act." She warned Mr. Cheney that a "broad attack" in his final report on the pollution rules would wipe out her leverage over the industry and "permanently destroy our chance to achieve any needed legislative reforms we may seek in the future." As the task force neared its end, Southern and other utilities in Mr. Barbour's group were busy on another front. On May 15, 2001, they gave $100,000 to the Republican party. A Shift in Lobbying Efforts Mrs. Whitman's arguments succeeded in forestalling any recommendation in the Cheney task force report, issued on May 17, to rewrite the rules or cripple the lawsuits. Instead, the task force called only for the E.P.A. to review the rules with the Energy Department, whose focus is to promote energy supply, and for the Justice Department to review whether the suits were valid. In January 2002, though, Mr. Barbour and his group learned that they would get no help from the Justice Department. Its lawyers found nothing amiss with the pollution lawsuits, concluding that they were supported by "a reasonable basis in law and fact." That setback did not slow the lobbying. Soon its locus shifted, as the Energy Department, led by Spencer Abraham, became increasingly involved, setting off a fight that reverberated inside the E.P.A. as officials there said they felt outmaneuvered. Mr. Barbour and Mr. Racicot joined a parade of industry lobbyists seeking out Energy officials. Between July 2001 and November 2001, Francis S. Blake, then the deputy energy secretary, held seven meetings with industry groups about the pollution rules, attended by more than 60 executives and lobbyists, records show. During that time he met with only one lobbyist from an environmental group. In early 2002, Energy and E.P.A. officials got down to considering new rules. Environmental officials in charge of enforcement grew alarmed at the proposals emanating from Mr. Abraham's department, which often echoed the industry's demands. In one memorandum, E.P.A. officials attacked an Energy Department draft as "highly biased and loaded with emotionally charged code words" that would ultimately "vitiate" the pollution-control program. At one point, her aides said, Mrs. Whitman set up what she thought would be a private meeting with Mr. Cheney to discuss E.P.A. concerns. When she arrived at his office, though, she was disappointed to find that Mr. Abraham was already there to present counterarguments. Soon an exodus began from the E.P.A.'s enforcement branch. Eric V. Schaeffer, who joined the agency during the first Bush administration and was head of the Office of Regulatory Enforcement, sent a resignation letter to Mrs. Whitman that February. "We seem about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory," he wrote, adding that the White House "seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to enforce." Mr. Schaeffer and his boss, Sylvia K. Lowrance, then the agency's top career enforcement official, both said in interviews they repeatedly warned Mrs. Whitman that the rule changes would jeopardize the enforcement lawsuits. Their view, shared by many industry lawyers, was that judges were often reluctant to penalize companies for failing to comply with rules that had been subsequently relaxed. Mrs. Lowrance later took early retirement. A different view was held by some E.P.A. policy officials, including Jeffrey R. Holmstead, a former aide to Mr. Gray in the first Bush White House, who was now in charge of writing air-pollution regulations. Mr. Holmstead had long criticized the old rules as unmanageable and counter-productive, and he believed revising them would have no impact on the lawsuits in court. But Mr. Holmstead was uneasy with the lobbyists' participation. "This would have been so much simpler if they hadn't gotten Barbour involved, because that just created this new political intrigue," he said. In June 2002, Mr. Holmstead had a chance to see how closely the White House was watching. At a party for the 50th birthday of Mr. Abraham, Mr. Holmstead ran into Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff. Mr. Card "wanted to know how come we were having so much trouble" finishing up the rule revisions, Mr. Holmstead recalled. Shortly after, on June 13, Mrs. Whitman sent a proposal to the White House. It contained many of the changes that the Energy Department had championed, and was the foundation of the final rule revisions published in October 2003. Mrs. Whitman has never discussed the decision-making process or broken ranks in public with President Bush. But the new rules showed that the White House had thrown its weight behind energy priorities, both environment and energy officials said. The rules said utilities would not have to add new pollution-control devices if upgrades and construction projects did not cost more than 20 percent of the plant's value - a loophole all sides said was huge. Departures From E.P.A. Mrs. Whitman resigned last May, saying she hoped to spend more time with her family. Several former aides said she was frustrated that she did not have more support within the administration. She declined through a spokesman to be interviewed. In a statement, Mrs. Whitman said she had supported streamlining the pollution rules because many groups agreed that they "had grown cumbersome, unreliable and unpredictable." She said that Mr. Bush "expects the members of his cabinet to advocate forcefully on behalf of his or her agency" before making major decisions. Mr. Cheney, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Racicot and Mr. Barbour - now the governor of Mississippi - declined to comment. Late last year, top E.P.A. officials announced a new pollution enforcement policy that seemed likely to critically weaken the pending lawsuits. By year's end three more of the agency's top enforcement officials resigned. "The rug was pulled out from under us," one of them, Rich Biondi, said. The new rules evoked fierce opposition, though, as fourteen states sued to block the change. In December, a federal appeals court stayed their use, pending further arguments. E.P.A. officials said they put the new enforcement policy on hold until the court challenge is resolved. The administration's goal now is to expand the use of a more flexible "cap and trade" regulatory system created in the early 1990's that worked with notable success to combat acid rain. It lets utilities buy and sell credits that give them a pollution allowance. The number of credits available nationwide shrinks over time, creating a cap to ensure that pollution levels decline. Late last year, administration officials announced plans to move to the new cap-and-trade system by revising regulations, rather than pressing for a new pollution bill, as Mrs. Whitman had envisioned. Under the administration's plan, nationwide sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants would fall to 5.3 million tons by 2015, and nitrogen oxide emissions to 2.2 million tons, according to E.P.A. estimates. Those would be reductions of 51 and 55 percent, respectively, over levels in 2001. A recent administration move to control diesel emissions has drawn praise from environmentalists. But in December, officials set off a new controversy by proposing a cap-and-trade approach for another pollutant: emissions from coal-fired power plants of mercury, which can cause neurological damage to humans. Instead of starting to curtail the emissions by 2007, as was widely expected, the proposal would give utilities until 2018 to make significant cuts. Many environmentalists and some former E.P.A. officials said that while the proposed pollution cuts are substantial, they give industry more time to make reductions than existing law. The critics contend that it was foolish to weaken the pollution lawsuits without extracting anything in return. "They are packaging this as a pollution cut, but in fact it is a pollution delay imposed on a program that the Clean Air Act requires to go faster," said Dave Hawkins, a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington. What is clear is that the energy industry is satisfied with the way the Bush administration has gone. "Cost-effective, and effective, are reasonable ways to describe the Bush administration's clean-air policy," said Mr. Segal of the electricity lobbying group. "The administration has a lot to be proud of on its air policy." Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040914/4f9fdfeb/attachment.html From jwpatt00 Tue Sep 14 12:38:25 2004 From: jwpatt00 (JW Patterson) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:38:25 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Grapevine Classic Results In-Reply-To: <000e01c499e2$1f0d4b00$68169384@jane> Message-ID: Jane, I posted your quals, but I am not sure the LD list got it. For some reason, I have not been receiving messages. Do you know who manages the list? Thanks. JW. On 9/13/04 6:36 PM, "Jane Boyd" wrote: > This is to certify the official results of the Grapevine Classic- the FIRST > TOC bids of the year in LD and CX. Grapevine Classic is one of the best SEMIS > bid tournament in the country. > > There were 71 schools from 9 states in attendance. > > CX had 73 participants > > The bids go to; > > 1 Nathan > Jessica Baum > Stolbach Greenhill School, Dallas, Texas > 2 Nick > David Miller > Roosth The Kinkaid School, Houston, Texas > Semis Pradeep > Sam Pramanik > Crichton Caddo Magnet High School, Bossier City, LA > Semis Shawn > Stephen Hiner-Leamon > Polly Greenhill School, Dallas, Texas > > LD: 117 competitors > > The bids go to: > > 1 David Wolfish Greenhill School, Dallas, Texas > 2 A.J. Motgi Hockaday, Dallas, Texas > Semis Tanya Choudhury Taylor High School, Katy, Texas > Semis Jeff Geels Southlake Carroll Senior High, Southlake, Texas > > Complete results can be found at www.joyoftournaments.com/tx/grapevine > > > These are the official results, > > Jane Boyd > Director of Forensics, Tournament Director > Grapevine High School, Texas > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040914/a9026c90/attachment.htm From jtedebate Tue Sep 14 12:57:06 2004 From: jtedebate (J T) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:57:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] uni judging Message-ID: <20040914175706.74911.qmail@web20104.mail.yahoo.com> I can pick up two rounds if anyone needs to hire out. JT Asst. Debate Coach Emporia State University --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040914/c6e9e2dc/attachment.html From jtedebate Tue Sep 14 12:57:51 2004 From: jtedebate (J T) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:57:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Georgia State Juding for hire Message-ID: <20040914175751.77789.qmail@web20103.mail.yahoo.com> I can hire out for 4 rounds at Georgia State. backchannel JT Asst. Debate Coach Emporia State University --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040914/3830eb4a/attachment.htm From wnewnam Tue Sep 14 12:58:46 2004 From: wnewnam (William Newnam) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:58:46 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] No Doubts References: <025201c49a0f$3cde6010$2060fea9@Jeff> Message-ID: <004101c49a84$7cdac850$91c58caa@emorycard.emory.edu> These quotes remind me of a quote from Ari Fleischer that hangs on my wall: "I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are." Ari Fleischer, July 9, 2003 bill n emory ----- Original Message ----- From: Jeff Parcher To: edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 11:59 PM Subject: [eDebate] No Doubts Commentary: The Man Without Doubt: George Bush Almost a thousand American troops have died, and no WMD have been found in Iraq; but President Bush still has "no doubt" that his war was a good idea. Sometimes doubt is a good thing. By Mick Youther Consider these statements made by the Bush Administration: . "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."-- President George W. Bush, 3/6/03 . "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."-- Dick Cheney, Speech to VFW National Convention, 8/26/02 . "We know where they [the WMDs] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat."-- Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, 3/30/03 . ".every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. ... Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent."-- Secretary of State Colin Powell, at the UN, 2/5/03 . "The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it."-- White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer, 12/5/02 . "I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming."-- Colin Powell, remarks to reporters, May 4, 2003 . "Saddam Hussein is not disarming. This is a fact. It cannot be denied."-- President Bush, News conference, 3/6/03 . "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."-- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, 1/9/03 . "We based our decisions on good, sound intelligence, and the - our people are going to find out the truth. And the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."-- President George W. Bush, 7/17/03 These statements have two things in common. First, they were presented to the American people as absolute fact. They didn't say, "we think", "we believe", or "it is possible"-they presented these statements as absolute facts. The second thing they have in common is that they now appear to be absolutely false. No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, even though soldiers' lives and millions of taxpayer dollars have been squandered searching for them. Despite that, the Bush Administration refused to admit they were wrong. All they did was modify their mis-statements of fact. "Weapons of Mass Destruction" became "Weapons programs", then, "Weapon Program Related Activities", and finally, "Saddam had bad intentions". Even though they have been wrong about almost everything in Iraq, the Bush Administration still operates under the delusion that they are always right. . "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."-- Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), British Philosopher and Essayist . "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."-- Voltaire, letter to Frederick II, 1767 . "Analysts and policy makers alike tend to interpret information to support their own viewpoints."-- Dean Rusk, "As I Saw It", 1990 . "Reality cannot be ignored except at a price; and the longer the ignorance is persisted in, the higher and the more terrible becomes the price that must be paid."-- Aldous Huxley, "Vendanta for the Western World", 1945 John Kerry has been called indecisive because he refuses to answer complex questions with "sound bite" sized statements; while Bush is considered bold and decisive because he has a simple-minded answer for everything. It is easy to be decisive when your decisions are preordained by the NeoCon agenda, because no thought or deliberation is necessary. . "From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go. Going after Saddam was topic "A" ten days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11."-- Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, CBS' 60 Minutes, 1/11/04 . "All too often.intelligence estimates tell us more about interests and foreign policy preferences of powerful groups in government than it does about what the other side's intentions and capabilities are."-- Robert Jervis, "Intelligence and Foreign Policy", International Security, Winter 86-87 There were plenty of people expressing doubts about Iraq's military capabilities, but the Bush Administration refused to listen. That is why America is in such a deadly mess in Iraq today. . "This (Bush) administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts."-- Conservative columnist George Will, Washington Post, 5/4/04 Mick Youther is an retired Instructor from Southern Illinois University in Carbondale, IL. You can email your comments to Mick at interventionmag.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040914/23d451e4/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 14450 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040914/23d451e4/attachment.jpe From privethedge Tue Sep 14 13:28:53 2004 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:28:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] No Doubts In-Reply-To: <004101c49a84$7cdac850$91c58caa@emorycard.emory.edu> Message-ID: <20040914182853.63415.qmail@web50908.mail.yahoo.com> Hmmm..I'd just like to remind everyone that Kerry admitted that even knowing what we know now, he'd still have voted the way he did...and what way was that..oh, right, to give Bush the authority needed to go to war. Of course, Kerry has changed his Iraq stance about a dozen times, so who can be sure what he really believes. And this is also a man who doesn't seem to be able to answer the following question: "Senator, do you own an SUV?" Maybe he should figure that out first. Kerry Said He Owns The "Big" Suburban, And His Wife Owns A Landrover. Kerry: "I own a Dodge 600 that I?ve had for about 20 years. I own a Chrysler 300M. We have a Chrysler van, a minivan, a Chrysler PT Cruiser, I guess Chrysler?s making out here; a Suburban a Chevy big Suburban, and she has a Landrover Defender." Paula Tutman: "Now when he referred to she, he of course is talking about his wife. John Kerry made it a point to say all of the cars he personally owns and has purchased are American." (Local First News At 6 PM, WDIV-TV (NBC) Detroit, 4/28/04) Last Week, Kerry Claimed "I Don't Own An SUV." "During a conference call Thursday with reporters to discuss his upcoming jobs tour through West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, the Democratic presidential candidate was asked whether he owned a Chevrolet Suburban. 'I don't own an SUV,' said Kerry, who supports increasing existing fuel economy standards to 36 miles per gallon by 2015 in order to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil supplies." ("Kerry Says His 'Family' Owns SUV, Not He," Associated Press, 4/22/04) Which is it, on 4/28/04 he owns one, but on 4/22/04 he doesn't?? DId he buy one?? Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040914/0aec82c5/attachment.html From tlyden Tue Sep 14 13:47:58 2004 From: tlyden (Todd Lyden) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:47:58 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] No Doubts Message-ID: <9B8F25FE8E4DD4119C2A00B0D03D62A804247D1B@mcprox.methodist.edu> Monkey see, monkey do? "The '60 Minutes' report was not based solely on the recovered documents, but on a preponderance of evidence including documents that were provided by what we considered to be solid sources and interviews with former officials of the Texas National Guard." "If any definitive evidence to the contrary of our story is found, we will report it. So far there is none." Dan Rather, September 10, 2004, on the Bush National Guard documents These quotes remind me of a quote from Ari Fleischer that hangs on my wall: "I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are." Ari Fleischer, July 9, 2003 bill n emory From MWBRYANT Tue Sep 14 13:58:01 2004 From: MWBRYANT (MWBRYANT at aol.com) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:58:01 EDT Subject: [eDebate] No Doubts Message-ID: <1e5.2aad649c.2e789939@aol.com> In a message dated 9/14/04 2:42:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, privethedge at yahoo.com writes: > Hmmm..I'd just like to remind everyone that Kerry admitted that even > knowing what we know now, he'd still have voted the way he did...and what way was > that..oh, right, to give Bush the authority needed to go to war. Of course, > Kerry has changed his Iraq stance about a dozen times, so who can be sure what > he really believes. Tell a lie and keep telling it. You really ought to try to dig a little deeper, Duane. Kerry supported the war when he, like others, was lied to regarding the certainty of WMDs and when Bush was hinting that he'd rescind the tax cuts to pay for the invasion. But Bush lied on both counts. And Kerry now believes that a unilateral invasion was idiotic. Why is that a flip-flop? To me, it shows why Kerry is clearly preferable to Bush. Try hard to be substantive enough to not sidetrack us with nonsense about SUVs. Bear -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040914/45b48995/attachment.htm From wnewnam Tue Sep 14 14:16:44 2004 From: wnewnam (William Newnam) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:16:44 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] No Doubts References: <20040914182853.63415.qmail@web50908.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <007a01c49a8f$5fca70c0$91c58caa@emorycard.emory.edu> I have not been overly pleased with Kerry's nuances on Iraq, but the conservative slam that he has had over a thousand positions (according to Sean Hannity) is RIDICULOUS. What did Kerry vote for: a resolution giving the president the authority to use force to compel Iraq to comply with inspections. Then, Bush, fearing that allowing the inspectors to complete their task after ElBaradei confirmed no nuke program, and Blix pleaded for more time, said to allow the inspectors more time to verify Iraqi compliance is tantamount to appeasement that would render the UN irrelevant, proceeded to go to war against Iraq kicking the inspectors OUT himself. He told the UN to get them out. Perhaps making the UN irrelevant himself. Then, after the war commenced, he said in an interview that Saddam kicked the inspectors out (even after Saddam opened up the palaces that the US continued to say housed the stockpiles). This was either a blatant lie or a reflection of gross ignorance on the part of the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES who KICKED THE INSPECTORS OUT HIMSELF. The authority that Kerry voted for allowed inspectors back in, then Bush prevented them from completing the job because he "was running out of patience." This is what Kerry means when he says that the president misused the authority given him in the resolution, especially since Bush promised war would be the last resort, rather than soemthing he would do if he ran out of patience waiting for the inspectors to do their job. As for the famously silly, "I voted for it before I voted against it" line, that is exactly correct and his vote was the right one. Why? Because he voted for a bill that would have generated the revenue to pay for the $87 billion by sin of all sin, raising taxes on the wealthiest one percent--damn tax and spend liberal that he is. This flies in the face of Bush's promise that he would "pay for the war." NO. Our children and grandchildren will die paying for this war. The difference between Bush and Kerry on this issue is simple. Kerry voted to pay for the war, Bush voted to borrow from future generations for the war. Kerry voted against the bill that would defer payment, but voted for the one that raised the revenue. In other words, he voted against the pic that excluded funding and for the plan that included funding. This seems to be to be fiscally responsible and supportive of the troops. But you know how campaigning goes, suddenly Bush agreed to pay for the war by imposing the costs on others long after he is dead and gone. Kerry voted for the $87 billion by actually making George and Dick pay a little bit of their income for it (as well as his own and Clinton's and all those other Rich liberal elitists.) and voted against policies that have future Bush's and Cheney's pay for the war. You tell me what makes more sense. OR as John McCain noted, this is the first president in the history of the united states to try and fund two wars while cutting taxes. If Kerry loses because of this issue, I am convinced the world has gone mad. In case no one notice, there was never a vote for a declaration of war----only a vote authorizing force on the assumption that it would be used as leverage and as a last resort. We need to hold Congress accountable by reverting to the antiquated Constitution that all of those Conservatives love that requires CONGRESS to DECLARE WAR rather than President's declaring war. Now that SUV thing, that sounds important. bill n emory ----- Original Message ----- From: Duane Hyland To: William Newnam ; Jeff Parcher ; edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [eDebate] No Doubts Hmmm..I'd just like to remind everyone that Kerry admitted that even knowing what we know now, he'd still have voted the way he did...and what way was that..oh, right, to give Bush the authority needed to go to war. Of course, Kerry has changed his Iraq stance about a dozen times, so who can be sure what he really believes. And this is also a man who doesn't seem to be able to answer the following question: "Senator, do you own an SUV?" Maybe he should figure that out first. Kerry Said He Owns The "Big" Suburban, And His Wife Owns A Landrover. Kerry: "I own a Dodge 600 that I've had for about 20 years. I own a Chrysler 300M. We have a Chrysler van, a minivan, a Chrysler PT Cruiser, I guess Chrysler's making out here; a Suburban a Chevy big Suburban, and she has a Landrover Defender." Paula Tutman: "Now when he referred to she, he of course is talking about his wife. John Kerry made it a point to say all of the cars he personally owns and has purchased are American." (Local First News At 6 PM, WDIV-TV (NBC) Detroit, 4/28/04) Last Week, Kerry Claimed "I Don't Own An SUV." "During a conference call Thursday with reporters to discuss his upcoming jobs tour through West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, the Democratic presidential candidate was asked whether he owned a Chevrolet Suburban. 'I don't own an SUV,' said Kerry, who supports increasing existing fuel economy standards to 36 miles per gallon by 2015 in order to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil supplies." ("Kerry Says His 'Family' Owns SUV, Not He," Associated Press, 4/22/04) Which is it, on 4/28/04 he owns one, but on 4/22/04 he doesn't?? DId he buy one?? Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Do you Yahoo!? vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040914/73dddc01/attachment.html From parcherj Tue Sep 14 14:23:47 2004 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:23:47 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] No Doubts References: <20040914182853.63415.qmail@web50908.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <02c801c49a90$5c32ae90$2060fea9@Jeff> Duane - Do you really not know the difference between authorizing war and going to war? Have you read the speech accompanying his vote? Obviously not. The US Senate entrusted the President to make the decision about war. And part of the reason they trusted him was based on a lie. When the President said there was "no doubt" and that it was a "fact" he had presumably read the intelligence reports and knew that was a lie. Right? I mean, the only other defense is that he hadn't read them. Either way how can you vote for the man after that? JP ----- Original Message ----- From: Duane Hyland To: William Newnam ; Jeff Parcher ; edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [eDebate] No Doubts Hmmm..I'd just like to remind everyone that Kerry admitted that even knowing what we know now, he'd still have voted the way he did...and what way was that..oh, right, to give Bush the authority needed to go to war. Of course, Kerry has changed his Iraq stance about a dozen times, so who can be sure what he really believes. And this is also a man who doesn't seem to be able to answer the following question: "Senator, do you own an SUV?" Maybe he should figure that out first. Kerry Said He Owns The "Big" Suburban, And His Wife Owns A Landrover. Kerry: "I own a Dodge 600 that I've had for about 20 years. I own a Chrysler 300M. We have a Chrysler van, a minivan, a Chrysler PT Cruiser, I guess Chrysler's making out here; a Suburban a Chevy big Suburban, and she has a Landrover Defender." Paula Tutman: "Now when he referred to she, he of course is talking about his wife. John Kerry made it a point to say all of the cars he personally owns and has purchased are American." (Local First News At 6 PM, WDIV-TV (NBC) Detroit, 4/28/04) Last Week, Kerry Claimed "I Don't Own An SUV." "During a conference call Thursday with reporters to discuss his upcoming jobs tour through West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, the Democratic presidential candidate was asked whether he owned a Chevrolet Suburban. 'I don't own an SUV,' said Kerry, who supports increasing existing fuel economy standards to 36 miles per gallon by 2015 in order to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil supplies." ("Kerry Says His 'Family' Owns SUV, Not He," Associated Press, 4/22/04) Which is it, on 4/28/04 he owns one, but on 4/22/04 he doesn't?? DId he buy one?? Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Do you Yahoo!? vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040914/2704e637/attachment.htm From john Tue Sep 14 14:27:52 2004 From: john (John Willemin) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:27:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] moderated edebate? Message-ID: <20040914122509.I37099@null> Is there a demand for this? I would love a "politics free" version of edebate :) Automatically sending Stroube/Parcher/Duane/Bear to the trash bin is one overbroad option of course, but something content related would be nice. john From privethedge Tue Sep 14 14:29:09 2004 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:29:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] No Doubts In-Reply-To: <007a01c49a8f$5fca70c0$91c58caa@emorycard.emory.edu> Message-ID: <20040914192909.39278.qmail@web50902.mail.yahoo.com> HI, Come on...Poll after Poll after Poll shows that nobody believes that Kerry even knows what he thinks about Iraq...The man hasn't given a thousand positions, but I will agree with the analysis that says about 12. One day he'd have voted the way he did to give Bush the authority to use force, the next day it's the wrong war at the wrong time, the next day it's something else. Even Democratic insiders have said that his lack of a clear concise message on Iraq is killing him - or why else is he hiring all these former Clinton advisors? It's not because his campaign has a strong, easy to understand message. Poll after Poll shows Bush to be more decisive - Kerry is lost in a quagmire of his own making. My SUV point was not that it's important (even though I'm generally opposed to SUVs, unless you live a rural area, or have a real need for one) was that this is a man who can't even decide if he actually owns an SUV, if he can't get a stance on a basic question like that - how can he get a clear story on something like Iraq which is infititely more complex. Demean them as you may for not being intellectual giants, but when it comes to things like credibility and decisive and likeablity - Bush is beating the stuffing out of Kerry in the eyes of most Americans. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040914/e49678b3/attachment.html From stroube Tue Sep 14 14:43:17 2004 From: stroube (Jack Stroube) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:43:17 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] hurricane kitty Message-ID: <200409141943.i8EJhHs21079@hsdebate.com> watered-down guardian synopsis omits homosexuality charges but hey you lefties love the guardian which is a reputable source for you, right? well, then stop the GOP front- line defense attempting to control the damage of hurricane kitty available for purchase today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/ salon?0%2C14779%2C1304379%2C00.html "While Kelley is being savagely attacked as a tabloid sleaze queen, her book is more heavily researched and documented than Bush advocates allege." http://www.ndtceda.com Phallus Jerkins Dabait League From stroube Tue Sep 14 14:48:13 2004 From: stroube (Jack Stroube) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:48:13 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] war on terror turns Message-ID: <200409141948.i8EJmD825523@hsdebate.com> the "anonymous" scheuer book contains probably the best non-left critique of the war on terror straight from the mouth of a senior CIA terror analyst...WHY THE WEST IS LOSING....turn turn Why The West Is Losing By Eric Margolis Contributing Foreign Editor The Toronto Sun 9-14-4 Three years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, America's politicians and media continue to gravely deceive the public about the so-called war on terrorism. ? Now the definitive book on terrorism has appeared that should be mandatory reading for every thinking person. It's called Imperial Hubris: Why The West is Losing the War on Terror. ? The cover simply identifies the author as "Anonymous," but he's already been widely identified in the American media as Michael Scheuer, a senior terrorism analyst for the CIA. ? It is unprecedented that a serving CIA officer was allowed to publish a book, one that is clearly a dramatic rebuke to the neoconservatives who drove the U.S. into two wars. ? Scheuer's work is a goldmine of information and brilliant analysis. It breaks taboos and sweeps away the clouds of lies about al-Qaida, Iraq and Afghanistan. He says U.S. leaders refuse to accept the obvious -- "we are fighting a worldwide Islamic insurgency -- not criminality or terrorism." ? The U.S. has made only "a modest dent in enemy forces." ? None of bin Laden's reasons for waging war on the U.S., writes Scheuer, "have anything to do with our freedom, liberty, and democracy (as President George Bush claims), but everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world," notably unlimited support for Israel's repression of the Palestinians and the destruction of Iraq. ? "For cheap, easily accessible oil, Washington and the West have supported Muslim tyrannies (Osama) bin Laden and other Islamists seek to destroy," Scheuer writes. "The war has the potential to last beyond our children's lifetimes and be fought mostly on U.S. soil." ? A coup for bin Laden ? Bin Laden, argues Scheuer, is widely viewed by much of the Muslim world, infuriated by American actions in the Mideast, as neither a terrorist or madman but as a skilled warrior, the sole Muslim leader standing up to predatory western powers. ? Ironically U.S. and British military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq "are completing the radicalization of the Islamic world," a prime bin Laden goal. ? Bush's misbegotten invasion of Iraq was "icing on bin Laden's cake." ? The threat today facing America "is the defensive jihad (holy struggle), an Islamic military reaction triggered by an attack by non-Muslims on the Islamic faith, on Muslims, on Muslim territory." Muslims are increasingly fighting back. ? The Muslim world believes it is under total attack led by Bush -- a massive effort to crush all who oppose U.S. domination, destroy Islam's inherent political role, eliminate Muslim charities, impose western values on the Islamic world and maintain puppet rulers -- "spreading democracy" in Bush's lexicon. Terrorism is merely the tactics of the poor fighting the rich. ? The ultimate taboo ? "U.S. military operations in the Muslim world," he adds, "validate bin Laden's contention the U.S. is attacking Islam and supports any country willing to kill or persecute Muslims." ? Scheuer, breaking the ultimate taboo, observes of Washington's "one-way alliance" with Israel that "Israelis have succeeded in lacing tight the ropes binding the American Gulliver to the ... Jewish state and its policies." ? The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are lost causes, Scheuer concludes. The U.S. is totally unable to create legitimate governments in either chaotic nation, only puppet regimes, supported by American bayonets. ? If the U.S. stays, it will bleed endlessly; if it retreats, it faces political disaster. ? Washington, he charges, has no strategy and is merely "winging it." ? In one of his most acute insights, Scheuer explains the U.S. cannot, for all of its riches, buy its way to victory in Afghanistan or Iraq. ? "Honour is still the currency of value in the Middle East, more so than goods and services." ? Blood-links trump all other affiliations or loyalties. ? Honour is why the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden to the U.S., a man they regarded as their guest and a war hero, and why he has still not been betrayed in spite of a $25-million US reward in a nation where the annual income is $147. ? At least there is one person in Washington who understands the violence surrounding us -- and has the courage and patriotism to tell Americans the truth: Their own arrogance and ignorance are driving them into a no-win war against 1.3 billion Muslims. ? ? Eric can be reached by e-mail at: margolis at foreigncorrespondent.com Letters to the editor should be sent to: editor at tor.sunpub.com ? Copyright ? 2004, CANOE, a division of Netgraphe Inc.All rights reserved. http://www.ndtceda.com Phallus Jerkins Dabait League From pem6751 Tue Sep 14 14:52:58 2004 From: pem6751 (Paul Mabrey III) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:52:58 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] moderated edebate? Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040914/d9b683cb/attachment.htm From erm868f Tue Sep 14 15:14:08 2004 From: erm868f (Morris, Eric R) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:14:08 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] SMSU Virgina Craig Tournament, October 23-25. 2004 Message-ID: September 14, 2004 Dear Colleagues, The HOLT V. SPICER DEBATE FORUM and the Department of Communication at Southwest Missouri State University invite you and your squad to attend the 2004 SMS-Virginia Craig Tournament, Saturday - Monday, October 23-25, 2004. Reasons to attend the Craig: 1. 4 meals (2 breakfast, 2 lunch) provided 2. A steady supply of snacks throughout the weekend. 3. A generally welcoming and hospitable attitude 4. Very impressive trophies, including tea sets for 1st place in all divisions 5. Pre-sets released Friday night 6. Hotel has wireless, yet is under $65 a night 7. Hotel is committed to provide elimination rooms for as many rounds as size allows - all the way to doubles We have preserved some important features of our tournament. We will continue to use mutual preferential judging at our tournament. We will continue to provide outstanding amenities, including tea set trophies, plentiful food and drink, a TV room for those not judging, etc. We will continue to include the releasing of pairings for preset debates at registration. We will provide snack foods for debaters throughout each day. Coffee and donuts will be provided for breakfast on both Saturday and Sunday, and the inexpensive tournament fees will also provide lunch both days. Enclosed you will find various rules and regulations, a schedule of events, housing information, and an entry form. If you have any questions, feel free to contact us at (417) 836-7636 or ericmorris at smsu.edu anytime. We hope to see you in Springfield. Sincerely, Eric Morris, Director of Forensics Heather Walters, Assistant Director of Forensics Ben Warner, Graduate Assistant Randy McCoy, Graduate Assistant TOURNAMENT INFORMATION DEBATE: there will be OPEN, JUNIOR and NOVICE divisions of team debate. Divisions will be based on current CEDA rules. We plan to run open and JV 7 rounds each, with Novice using a 6 round format unless there are considerable entries. Judges will be assigned using a mutual preference system. We plan to use the Bruschke online system to facilitate judge prefs prior to arrival. Rounds 5-7 will be power matched. We will NOT use lag powering this year. All team divisions will use the 9-3-6 CX format with 10 minutes preparation The current CEDA/NDT topic will be utilized in team debates. GENERAL INFORMATION OF INTEREST TOURNAMENT HOTEL: The tournament will be housed at the Clarion Hotel, 3333 S. Glenstone Ave. They are offering an incredible flat rate of $61.95 + tax for 1-4 per room. Please be sure to mention that you are participating in the SMS-Virginia Craig Debate Tournament to get the special rate. PLEASE MAKE YOUR RESERVATIONS NOW!! This year's Craig lines up with homecoming at SMSU, and early hotel reservations will protect and expand our sizeable block. Debate registration, a coaches' reception, the awards ceremony on Monday, and all elimination rounds Monday will be held in the Clarion Hotel. We strongly encourage all schools to stay at the Clarion. The Clarion is committed to locating rooms for as many elimination rounds as the tournament size warrants, up to a full double octofinals. The Clarion has upgraded, at least partially, to high speed wireless internet. They intend to place debate participants in the appropriate section of the hotel, but confirming this when you make reservations is probably a good idea. RATES & PHONE NUMBER Flat rate: $61.95 1-417-883-6550 REGISTRATION: Debate Registration will be held at the Clarion Hotel, Friday, October 22, from 7-10 pm. If you are going to arrive after 10 pm, please let us know so we can make special arrangements. We plan to release pairings on Friday evening. JUDGES: Each school is required to provide one judge for every two (2) debate entries or portion thereof, entered. Judges covering one debate team are committed for four (4) rounds. Judges covering two debate teams are committed for all preliminary round debates. All debate judges are committed for one elimination round after the elimination of their teams. HIRED JUDGES ARE VERY LIMITED. Most of our alums have moved away. We cannot guarantee that they will be available. If you desire to hire judges, let us know ASAP. If you have judges who are willing to be hired or who will judge extra for $25.00 per round, please let us know. AWARDS: We will award trophies to all teams reaching elimination rounds in debate. In addition, the top 10 speakers in open and junior division will be recognized. Five speakers will be recognized in novice division. We also reserve the right to award "special" awards should circumstances dictate. ENTRY FEES: Entry and judging fees will be as follows: $75.00 per debate team $25.00 per uncovered debate round ENTRY DEADLINE: All entries should be in the hands of the Tournament Director no later than Wednesday, October 20, 2003 at 4 pm CDT. Drops after that time may still be assessed an entry fee. We strongly encourage you to register online using Bruschke's system . E-Mail entries are also acceptable. E-Mail entries will be accepted at EricMorris at smsu.edu and will be confirmed within 24 hours. If you fail to receive confirmation, please contact us again. The phone number is (417) 836-7636. Please be prepared to provide us with names for each entry. SOUTHWEST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY 2003 VIRGINIA CRAIG INVITATIONAL DEBATE TOURNAMENT SCHEDULE OF EVENTS Thursday, October 21 Noon: Judge preference sheets can be filled out online at: . It is important that each school finalize its entry and judging commitments prior to this time. Friday, October 22 7:00 to 10:00 pm Debate Registration, Clarion Inn PAIRINGS FOR PRESETS WILL BE RELEASED Saturday, October 23 ** Please park across National Ave, past convenience store & SW Teacher's Credit Union** 8:30am Coffee, Juice & Doughnuts, Craig Hall 9:00 am Round 1 (Preset) 11:30 am Round 2 (Preset) LUNCH 2:00 pm Round 3 (Preset) 4:30 pm Round 4 (Preset) Sunday, October 24 ** Please park in Lot 24, South of Grand Ave** 8:30 am , Juice & Doughnuts, Craig Hall 9:00 am Round 5 (High-High) 11:30 am LUNCH 1:00 pm Round 6 (High-Low) 4:30 pm Round 7 (High-High, Flip) & Novice Elims Monday, October 25 CLARION INN 8:00 am Announcement of Elimination Pairings 8:30 am First Elimination Round 10:30 am Awards Assembly 11:00 am Remaining Elimination Rounds. ALL ELIMINATION ROUNDS WILL BE HELD AT THE CLARION INN! ENTRY FORM SMS-VIRGINIA CRAIG DEBATE TOURNAMENT Oct 23-25, 2004 SCHOOL _________________________________________________________ ADDRESS ________________________________________________________ CITY/STATE/ZIP___________________________________________________ FORENSICS DIRECTOR __________________________ OFFICE PHONE _________________________________ HOME PHONE __________________________________ DEBATE ENTRY FORM SCHOOL ________________________________________________________________ Instructions: Please provide full names for debaters. Open Division Rank ______________________________ & _____________________________ ______________________________ & _____________________________ ______________________________ & _____________________________ ______________________________ & _____________________________ Junior Division Rank ______________________________ & _____________________________ ______________________________ & _____________________________ ______________________________ & _____________________________ ______________________________ & _____________________________ Novice Division Rank ______________________________ & _____________________________ ______________________________ & _____________________________ ______________________________ & _____________________________ ______________________________ & _____________________________ FEES: Debate Teams @ $75.00 _______________ Debate Judge @ $25.00 per uncovered round _______________ Total Due _______________ Please enter at . E-Mail entries will be accepted at EricMorris at smsu.edu and will be confirmed within 24 hours. Here is some additional contact information: Eric Morris (O) 417-836-7636 (H) 417-865-6866 (M) 417-496-7141 ericmorris at smsu.edu Heather Walters (O) 417-836-6564 hlw267f at smsu.edu SMSU Debate Team Squad Room (O) 417-836-4788 From marty002 Tue Sep 14 15:49:46 2004 From: marty002 (marty002 at bama.ua.edu) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:49:46 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] DP- long beach holla back Message-ID: <1095194986.4147596a69522@bamamail.ua.edu> hey D.P. get back to me Jillian bama debate -- From delliott Tue Sep 14 16:45:38 2004 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:45:38 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] SMSU Virgina Craig Tournament, October 23-25. 2004 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040914164417.01fb00b0@kckcc.toto.net> Eric forgot the greatest reason to go to Springfield whether for debate or not: 4 words for ya: CHINESE FOOD EVERY CORNER see u in springfield! : ) chief At 03:14 PM 9/14/2004, Morris, Eric R wrote: >September 14, 2004 >Dear Colleagues, >The HOLT V. SPICER DEBATE FORUM and the Department of Communication at >Southwest Missouri State University invite you and your squad to attend >the 2004 SMS-Virginia Craig Tournament, Saturday - Monday, October >23-25, 2004. > >Reasons to attend the Craig: >1. 4 meals (2 breakfast, 2 lunch) provided >2. A steady supply of snacks throughout the weekend. >3. A generally welcoming and hospitable attitude >4. Very impressive trophies, including tea sets for 1st place in >all divisions >5. Pre-sets released Friday night >6. Hotel has wireless, yet is under $65 a night >7. Hotel is committed to provide elimination rooms for as many >rounds as size allows - all the way to doubles From debate Tue Sep 14 16:41:08 2004 From: debate (debate at ou.edu) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:41:08 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Justin Green!! Message-ID: <3847dd74127a.41471114@ou.edu> Hey Justin, Could you email me! Peace, jackie From jwpatt00 Tue Sep 14 10:21:47 2004 From: jwpatt00 (JW Patterson) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:21:47 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] [CX-L] TOC: GRAPEVINE QUALIFIERS Message-ID: DEADLINES: BOTH FULLY-QUALIFIED AND AT-LARGE APPLICATIONS WITH FEES ARE DUE IN LEXINGTON BY MARCH 15, 2005. PLEASE NOTE, NOT POSTMARKED ON THIS DATE, BUT IN LEXINGTON BY THIS DATE. THE ROAD TO THE FOURTH TOC OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY DATES: SATURDAY, SUNDAY, MONDAY APRIL 30, MAY 1, AND 2, 2005 TOURNAMENT HOTEL: RAMADA INN (ASK FOR INTERNET ACCESSIBILITY) PHONE # - 859-299-1261 DISCLAIMER: THE RESULTS POSTED FROM EACH TOURNAMENT ARE ALWAYS SUBJECT TO CHANGE IF THE TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR REPORTS THAT A MISTAKE WAS MADE IN THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATION. IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT THE NAMES ARE SPELLED AS REPORTED BY THE TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR AND ARE SUBJECT TO CORRECTION IF A MISSPELLING HAS APPEARED. 1) TOURNAMENT DIRECTORS PLEASE NOTE: WHEN CERTIFYING THE TOC QUALIFIERS PLEASE INCLUDE FULL NAME, SCHOOL, AND STATE OF THE DEBATERS. 2) COACHES AND DEBATERS PLEASE NOTE: A DEBATER IN LD OR A TEAM IN POLICY MUST ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE IN A QUALIFYING ROUND TO RECEIVE A TOC 'BID.' IN OTHER WORDS, IF A DEBATER OR TEAM DOES NOT DEBATE THE ROUND FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY CANNOT RECEIVE A TOC 'BID' FOR THAT ROUND. THIS REQUIREMENT WAS OVERWHELMINGLY RECOMMENDED BY THE TOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE . GRAPEVINE (TX) Jane Boyd, director of the Grapevine Classic, has certified the first 2005 TOC Qualifiers. Grapevine is a TOC qualifier in both Policy and Lincoln Douglas at the semi-final level. LINCOLN-DOUGLAS David Wolfish Greenhill School (TX) A.J. Motgi Hockaday (TX) Tanya Choudhury Taylor High School (TX) Jeff Geels Southlake Carroll Senior High (TX) POLICY Nathan Baum and Jessica Stolbach Greenhill School (TX) Nick Miller and David Roosth The Kinkaid School (TX) Pradeep Pramanik and Sam Crichton Caddo Magnet High School (LA) Shawn Hiner-Leamon and Stephen Polly Greenhill School (TX) Sincerely, JW Patterson TOC Director & Founder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040914/2a7c9861/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ cx-l mailing list cx-l at debate.net http://total.confusion.net/mailman/listinfo/cx-l From benjamin.trussell Tue Sep 14 18:27:07 2004 From: benjamin.trussell (Ben Trussell) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:27:07 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] OT: Assistant Professor Position Message-ID: <1095204427.7571.60.camel@grwf2.la.asu.edu> Please see the attached HTML file for information regarding an available position at the ASU Hugh Downs School of Human Communication: Assistant Professor specializing in rhetoric and/or political communication. For more information on the ASU Hugh Downs School of Human Communication and the available position, please visit: http://hdshc.asu.edu/jobs/ad_asst_prof_2004/ Thank you. -- ---------------------------------------- Benjamin Trussell Arizona State University Hugh Downs School of Human Communication Email: benjamin.trussell at asu.edu ---------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AD_Asst_Prof_2004.10006DEFANGED-html Type: application/defanged Size: 4597 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040914/bcae992a/attachment.bin From arsenalgunners2 Tue Sep 14 18:53:39 2004 From: arsenalgunners2 (Mick Souders) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:53:39 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Matt Moore Message-ID: this is enmu folks. hit us back for brief conversation. mick enmu _________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee? Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From ryan.sullivan Tue Sep 14 19:48:02 2004 From: ryan.sullivan (Sullivan, R. x62188 H3) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:48:02 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Questions about hand trucks Message-ID: <85C25057B612B542BC1B9389EE0B66F4D667D7@usmasvgdoim106.usma.ds.army.edu> If anyone is planning on paying $20-30 dollars for a wheel replacement, I would highly suggest at least looking into this website that sells carts for less than that. I know it's a painful idea to toss a otherwise perfectly healthy cart, but if you require function ability in the meantime it might just be best to buy another. http://www.northerntool.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?cat alogId=4006970&storeId=6970&productId=47425&langId=-1&CMID=osclrp1131 http://www.northerntool.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?sto reId=6970&langId=-1&catalogId=4006970&PHOTOS=on&productId=18957 Additionally, I just talked to the Northern Tool people on the phone and they said that it would probably be about $15 or so for replacement wheels, but it would depend on the particular model of the cart - it might be tedious to get a correct match up. Hope this is helpful. Respectfully, Ryan Sullivan Army Debate "Suffering to the Conquered" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040914/ccabbabc/attachment.html From Catherine.Palczewski Tue Sep 14 19:55:16 2004 From: Catherine.Palczewski (Catherine Palczewski) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:55:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UNI tourny Message-ID: <414792F6.10B69C6E@uni.edu> Hey all, just a reminder. If you are going to enter the UNI tournament, you need to do so by Wednesday, September 15 4:00pm, cst. I will be downloading all the entry stuff Weds evening -- so any changes, additions, or drops need to be sent directly to me (Cate) either via email or phone. Weather predictions are for a lovely fall weekend, with temperatures in the 70s and lots of blue skies. Thanks Cate From forensics Tue Sep 14 23:18:35 2004 From: forensics (Forensics) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:18:35 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Is anyone going to Fresno? Message-ID: <3DF1E2ECB281BD44AD9CBB9235C9B4F24BDE1D@LACCEX2003.laccmail.lacitycollege.lacc> Haven't seen much discussion since I posted a request for information. Is anyone planning to attend the tournament at Fresno this weekend? Ken Sherwood -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040914/84294321/attachment.htm From whit_whitmore Wed Sep 15 00:13:09 2004 From: whit_whitmore (Whit Whitmore) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 01:13:09 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Georgia State Judging Available... Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040915/390d2b8e/attachment.html From kenedebate Wed Sep 15 01:22:52 2004 From: kenedebate (Ken DeLaughder) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 01:22:52 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Pflaum reservations - hotel.. Message-ID: The block technically ended today. If you want rooms, I'd call them before 9 am in the morning and get them. If you are releasing rooms, PLEASE let us and edebate know, in case someone wants them. here is the info again. Please enter the tournament so I can get an idea of entries, we have folks in the block not on the list, thanks a bunch! THE BLOCK WILL BE RELEASED SEPT 15TH, there are 4 other major events in emporia that weekend, hotel space is at a premium for this town the entire fall season (in the center of it all... so we get conventions). Literally I get a call every 3 days begging me to release rooms. The number to the Ramada Inn is 620-343-2200 make sure you ask for the Emporia State Debate Tournament block. If you are releasing rooms. Please post to the list and let some folks take them before you cancel out, because once you make that call, someone else WILL take them. _________________________________________________________________ Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ From tiggy_piggy Tue Sep 14 14:44:00 2004 From: tiggy_piggy (Nicholas Russell) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:44:00 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] w is a faggot--ashe affair worse than lewinsky--kerry plays too Message-ID: It has nothing to do with "political correctness" and everything with strategies for combating homophobia or imperialism. I think that saying bush is a hypocrite is one thing, launching a smear campaign which brands him a "faggot" (your language) and employs the homophobic tactics of right-wing Christian conservatives (outing, emasculation, graphic photography of the "true lives" of lgbt folks) isn't the best solution. One of the big problems of parody (even people who think its sweet say it has its drawbacks--read Judith Butler's later work) is that oftentimes instead of subverting the dominant order, it reinstates it and confirms its hegemony. I hate to break the news, but that seems to be exactly where your little parodic political contrivances are headed--towards a more homophobic left. Nick -----Original Message----- From: Jack Stroube [mailto:stroube at ndtceda.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 11:31 AM To: Nicholas Russell Subject: RE: [eDebate] w is a faggot--ashe affair worse than lewinsky--kerry plays too cum on, parody of conservative language regarding queers. the point is that if the allegations are proven, then the xian facade will breakdown and w will go down on hypocrisy. since you guys strategies are failing and kerry numbers are diving, you should consider what worked for w in 2000 against mccain. i didn't know that lgbt voters were so PC... >Why is it that you think the best smear campaign against Bush is spreading >rumors of his sexual indiscretion as a (god forbid) faggot? Not only do you >find it necessary to launch a smear campaign because Bush might or might >not have had sex that most of popular culture (including him and his >administration) deems as wholly unacceptable, immoral, even unspeakable, >but your arguments are founded upon the feminization of Bush as a "whimpy >national guard" who gets fucked in the ass by other guys--the ultimate >transgression of hetero-masucline patriarchal patriotism. If anything, >calling Bush a faggot will do little if anything to help your cause, >alienating lgbt voters and allies in an attempt to drum up more votes. >It?s a question of methodology--don't fight neo-imperial racism with >homophobia--it only ensures structures of privilege and bigotry will >continue unchecked. We cannot engage in a dialogue on politics, especially >one as central as the election of a president, when a starting point is >founded on homophobia. > >"The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house." --Audre Lorde > >Nick > > >-----Original Message----- >From: edebate-admin at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-admin at ndtceda.com] On >Behalf Of Jack Stroube >Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 9:17 AM >To: edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: [eDebate] w is a faggot--ashe affair worse than lewinsky--kerry >plays too > >watch out 'boys' and girls, here cum the kelley indicts and the skolnick >indicts from the right and the hate speech whines from the left or >otherwise politics of the un- >identifiable. the point is that w's relations are jeopardizing >national security. ra ra a faggot cheerleader pansy has duped the xians >into the w house....buy the >new book, check out skolnick's investigative reporting, make your own >decision...this is just a portal...once you determine guilt for yourself, >spread the dirt >everywhere across your campus, contact guiliani demanding publication of >the w sodomy pictures >or better break into guiliani's office and publish the pictures >yourself...this is >the scandal that will take down the house of bush. fuck that wimpy nat'l >guard shit. this >is the achilles' heel. a full scale smear campaign is in order. run your >mouth on the >worst president in the history of the united states.... > >Bush Bisexuality Asserted In Scorching New Book UPDATE New Book >Further Confirms Our Independent Investigations! > By Sherman H. Skolnick > www.skolnicksreport.com > 9-7-4 > Just published "THE FAMILY - The Real Story of the Bush Dynstasty", by >veteran highly >controversial author, Kitty Kelley. According to book industry >sources, the publisher >intends to issue and market one million copies of this book that is the >lowdown of the Bushies. ? The book details a number of stories >long-since posted and archived, and publicly discussed by us on >www.skolnicksreport.com and www.cloakanddagger.ca including >stories co-authored by Sherman H. Skolnick and Lenny Bloom, as >Middle-Finger News. ? Also posted and archived through >www.rense.com/Datapages/skolnickdatapage.html ? Also widely >discussed on radio talk shows by Skolnick and also jointly with co-host >Lenny Bloom on internet radio worldwide www.cloakanddagger.ca as well as by >Skolnick >on numerous other radio talk shows U.S., Canada, Australia, nnd Europe, >over the last five years and more. ? Mentioned in Kitty Kelley's >book following the already publicized independent >investigations of Skolnick and his colleagues: ? === That George W. >Bush cohabited at his Texas ranch and elsewhere with the Mayor of >a major city in Tennessee, says Kitty Kelley. ? Skolnick began the >discussion severel years ago as a story about "The Pedophile/ >Homosexual Underground". ? www.skolnicksreport.com "Overthrow of >the American Republic", Part 24. > >? It relates to George W. Bush's homosexual relationsip, since about >puberty, with Victor Ashe, long-time Mayor of Knoxvillle. When some in >Congress began inquiries in the fall >of 2003, Ashe in December, 2003, gave up being Knoxville Mayor and was >appointed by George W. Bush, the occupant and resident of the White House, >as the >U.S. Ambassador to Poland. That is, getting Ashe out of the U.S. >jurisdiction, not available to nosey Congressmen. ? Bush and >Ashe are both members of the satanic cult, "Skull & Bones", headquartered >in a windowless building,called "The Tomb" on the campus of Yale >University. Part of the >initiation procedure is for the new proposed member to divulge his >entire sexual history, to several other Bonesmen, so that when he is shoved >up into >high office, government, finance, etc., he can be blackmailed into >silence. The new >member has to cavort, au naturel, sometimes more than once, with another >Bonesman in a >double-size coffin filled with mud. ? An older Bonesman member has >to also participate in such proceedings. This was done >by John F. Kerry slightly older than George W. Bush. ? As mentioned >in our stories and talk shows, the secret pictures of this, reportedly >ended up in the possession of the picture editor of a group of magazines >run by American >Media, Inc., AMI, headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. That editor was >Bob Stevens. Being of near-sighted vision, he took off his glasses and he >opened up >an envelope addressed to him, holding it close up to his face, breathing >thus in >spores of anthrax, from which he soon thereafter died. ? In his >public statements, Skolnick carefully discussed that he usually does not >discuss sordid relations EXCEPT if they involved National Security. In the >Ashe/Bush matter, the >Red Chinese Secret Police have used their knowledge of the matter to >blackmail out of the Bush White House, U.S. MILITARY, financial, and >industrial secrets, >clearly warranting us publicizing the Ashe/Bush matter. Further, >Skolnick contended that >Ashe and Bush met for sex at a Tennessee location owned by the purported >top >financier of Osama bin Laden. That U.S. resident moneybags has been granted >unlawful protection >and immunity from exposure by the Bush White House. ? The more than >500 that worked at AMI were evacuated, the building was closed up by >America's secret political police, about October 2001, shortly after the >9-11 >incidents. The FBI did not permit any of the picture or text files to be >removed. Stevens' widow, in a little-known lawsuit against the FBI, claimed >the >Bureau obstructed her from finding out what happened to her husband. ? > Rudolph Guiliani, once U.S. District Attorney in New York, later Mayor >of New York City, founded and owns BioOne, specializing in cleaning up >places made toxic by >anthrax. He bought the closed AMI building for a "song" and now has >possession of the pictures that could scandalize his pal George W. Bush, >and Bush's >male sex-mate, U.S. Senator John F. Kerry, "laying down and playing dead" >while >supposedly running for president against 3rd cousin and fellow Bonesman >George W. >Bush. ? In her book, Kitty Kelley claims that, from her sources, >Bush, facing embarrassment by the possible revelations of the pictures, >arranged for secret U.S. agents to murder >Bob Stevens. ? ===Skolnick in his posted and archived statements >and on various radio talk shows, discussed how George H.W. Bush, that is >Daddy Bush, has been in business with the >co-founder of the Medelin, Colombia dope cartel, Carlos Lehder. And that >the link was covered up when the Bushies arranged to secretly remove from a >U.S. >Jail, Lehder, who has disappeared. ? Numerous details are in the >series, "The Chandra Levy Affair", www.skolnicksreport.com ? Kitty >Kelley raises the issue of Bush, Sr., being in dope trafficking through >South >America and elsewhere. ? === Because of George W. Bush's >homosexual relationships, and because his wife of convenience, Laura, was a >reputed known and open lesbian since high school, and >may be a dyke; that George W. Bush may not be the actual father of the >twin daughters. Skolnick has raised these issues. ? Now, in her >book, Kitty Kelley raises the issue of the little-known relationship >between Laura and General Tommy franks. ? More coming. ? >Stay tuned... ? ==================================== ? Mr. >Skolnick's Reports are posted and archived at >www.skolnicksreport.com Together with his co-authored The >Middle-Finger News, they are posted and >archived through www.rense.com/Datapages/skolnickdatapage.html also >posted and archived through www.cloakanddagger.ca ? Skolnick is >co-host with Lenny Bloom on a growing, popular maximum >power Internet radio program, FM-quality worldwide, ON-LINE LIVE and >ARCHIVED at www.cloakanddagger.ca CHECK SCHEDULE for time it is on. ? > Recently published, the book, "Ahead of the Parade" by Sherman H. >Skolnick, A Who's Who of Treason & High Crimes---Exclusive Details of Fraud >& Corruption of the >Monopoly Press, the Banks, the Bench and the Bar, & the Secret Political >Police. ? Can be ordered U.S./Canada 1-800-861-7899. ? Can >also supposedly be ordered through amazon.com HOWEVER recently >they blockaded their own marketing and sales of this controversial book >by demanding twice the listed price. ? About once a year is >published a heavy packet of printed stories by >Skolnick. To get a copy, send $5.00 (U.S. FUNDS ONLY) plus a stamped, >self-addressed >BUSINESS size envelope [ # 10 envelope, 4-1/8 x 9-1/2 ] WITH THREE U.S. >FIRST >CLASS STAMPS ON IT, to Citizen's Committee To Clean Up The Courts, >Sherman H. >Skolnick, Chairman, 9800 So. Oglesby Ave., Chicago IL 60617-4870. ? > Want to get on Skolnick's e-mail list to get, soon as issued, >Skolnick'S Reports, and The Middle-Finger News, or to stay on the >e-mail list if you are >already there? To find out how, contact skolnick at ameritech.net BE SURE >TO PUT IN SUBJECT >LINE OF E-MAIL, "I want to get on e-mail list". >http://www.ndtceda.com >Phallus Jerkins Dabait League > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at ndtceda.com >To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: >http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > http://www.ndtceda.com Phallus Jerkins Dabait League From katsulas Wed Sep 15 07:59:33 2004 From: katsulas (katsulas) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:59:33 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] ADA Novice Rule Clarification Message-ID: <41464BFA@netfin6.bc.edu> To all ADA members and interested parties, The Executive Committee of the ADA has voted to approve new language clarifying the eligiblity for novice debate. The new language reads as follows: 1. Eligibility: This division is open to debaters who: a. have no more than 18 rounds of policy debate or 50 rounds of Lincoln Douglas or a combined total of 50 rounds of Lincoln Douglas and policy debate where the student has no more than 18 rounds of policy debate, prior to the current academic year. This would prohibit anyone from starting in novice who had more than 18 rounds, it allows LD students to begin if they have less than 50 rounds, and it allows students with less than 18 rounds to go back to novice in their second year. The language of the progression rule and forced progression rule are unchanged and remain as follows: 2. Progression during the year. Debaters competing in novice must progress to junior varsity if they advance to the final round of two novice, JV, open, or varsity tournaments (no matter where) in which there are 20 or more teams in the division. 3. Forced progression into the JV division in the middle of the academic year does not count against the two years of JV eligibility ADA Nationals. The aforementioned progression requirement based on advancing to the final rounds of three novice, junior varsity, open, or varsity tournaments does not apply to ADA Nationals or Round Robins for which participants are invited based on the current year?s record of competition. Due to some problems with the mail ballot, the novice rule, without this change, would have allowed someone with up to 49 rounds of high school policy debate to compete in novice. NOBODY AT THE MEETING ARGUED FOR ALLOWING SUCH A POLICY. The exact language of the rule would have read: 1. Eligibility. This division is open to debaters who: a. have no more than a combined total of 50 rounds of Lincoln Douglas and policy debate prior to the current academic year. have competed in the novice division in a previous year but have not advanced into the elimination rounds at two tournaments While broadening the LD eligibility, the mail ballot neglected to specify a stricter limit for policy debate, and we ended up with a rule which broadened the policy debate experience up to 49 rounds. I will notify all tournament directors of this change. A mail ballot will be sent to the membership for approval of this change. I apologize for the confusion. If anyone has questions about this, please contact me. John Katsulas ADA President From parcherj Wed Sep 15 08:11:56 2004 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:11:56 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Bigotry Message-ID: <022901c49b25$9d5c1790$2060fea9@Jeff> The New York Times February 25, 2004 Putting Bias in the Constitution With his re-election campaign barely started and his conservative base already demanding tribute, President Bush proposes to radically rewrite the Constitution. The amendment he announced support for yesterday could not only keep gay couples from marrying, as he maintains, but could also threaten the basic legal protections gay Americans have won in recent years. It would inject meanspiritedness and exclusion into the document embodying our highest principles and aspirations. If Mr. Bush had been acting as a president yesterday, rather than a presidential candidate, he would have tried to guide the nation on the divisive question of what rights gay Americans have. Across the nation, elected officials and others have been weighing in on whether they believe gays should be allowed to marry, have civil unions, adopt, visit their partners in hospitals and be free from employment discrimination. Except for a throwaway line about proceeding with "kindness and good will and decency," the president's speech was a call for taking rights away from gay Americans. President Bush's studied unwillingness to talk about the rights gay people do have is particularly significant given the wording of the Federal Marriage Amendment now pending in Congress. It calls for denying same-sex couples not only marriage, but also its "legal incidents." It could well be used to deny gay couples even economic benefits, which are now widely recognized by cities, states and corporations. Such an amendment could radically roll back the rights of millions of Americans. In his remarks yesterday, President Bush tried to create a sense of crisis. He talked of the highest Massachusetts court's recognition of gay marriage, San Francisco officials' decision to grant marriage licenses to gay couples and a New Mexico county's doing the same thing. He did not say the New Mexico attorney general found that gay marriages violate state law, the California attorney general is asking the California Supreme Court to review San Francisco's actions, and Massachusetts is considering amending its State Constitution to prohibit gay marriage. The president, who believes so strongly in states' rights in other contexts, should let the states do their jobs and work out their marriage laws before resorting to a constitutional amendment. The Constitution has been amended over the years to bring women, blacks and young people into fuller citizenship. President Bush's amendment would be the first adopted to stigmatize and exclude a group of Americans. Polls show that while a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, many would prefer to allow the states to resolve the issue rather than adopting a constitutional amendment. They understand what President Bush does not: the Constitution is too important to be folded, spindled or mutilated for political gain. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040915/e6e06b26/attachment.htm From wnewnam Wed Sep 15 08:39:31 2004 From: wnewnam (William Newnam) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:39:31 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] No Doubts/delete if uninterested References: <20040914192909.39278.qmail@web50902.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001401c49b29$6e4904a0$91c58caa@emorycard.emory.edu> Duane, I never said his message was clear. I never said that the public understood his message. Many democrats are frustrated by his inability to articulate his position well. THAT does NOT MEAN that it is right to falsely characterize it. None of what you said denies the fact that he authorized force to get inspectors in, the inspectors went in as a result of that (which would seem to make it a good vote by most standards), that Bush abused that authority to push for war without letting the inspectors complete their task, and that he voted to pay for the war and its cost without running up the national debt further. But you are right that as a campaign tactic, his policy choices have not been very effectively delivered. Bottom line: over ten thousand dead Iraqi civilians (by the most conservative of estimates) and over a thousand US and coalition forces are dead and two to three American soldiers DYING EVERY DAY, because George Bush lost his patience and abused his authority and lied about the cost (to the point of firing Larry Lindsay his CEA because he said it would cost $200 billion and forcing out the General who said it would take several hundred thousand troops). As a political campaign goes, you might be right. Time will tell. That does not mean he has had at least twelve positions on the war only that talk shows and the "liberal" media keep reiterating this idea. Me, I don't vote for my government based on how well they run their campaign, I vote based upon the choices they make. One of the few democrats in Georgia who never cast a single vote for Zell Miller, bill n emory ----- Original Message ----- From: Duane Hyland To: William Newnam ; Jeff Parcher ; edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 3:29 PM Subject: Re: [eDebate] No Doubts HI, Come on...Poll after Poll after Poll shows that nobody believes that Kerry even knows what he thinks about Iraq...The man hasn't given a thousand positions, but I will agree with the analysis that says about 12. One day he'd have voted the way he did to give Bush the authority to use force, the next day it's the wrong war at the wrong time, the next day it's something else. Even Democratic insiders have said that his lack of a clear concise message on Iraq is killing him - or why else is he hiring all these former Clinton advisors? It's not because his campaign has a strong, easy to understand message. Poll after Poll shows Bush to be more decisive - Kerry is lost in a quagmire of his own making. My SUV point was not that it's important (even though I'm generally opposed to SUVs, unless you live a rural area, or have a real need for one) was that this is a man who can't even decide if he actually owns an SUV, if he can't get a stance on a basic question like that - how can he get a clear story on something like Iraq which is infititely more complex. Demean them as you may for not being intellectual giants, but when it comes to things like credibility and decisive and likeablity - Bush is beating the stuffing out of Kerry in the eyes of most Americans. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Do you Yahoo!? vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040915/04a4102c/attachment.html From katsulas Wed Sep 15 08:59:05 2004 From: katsulas (katsulas) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:59:05 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] ADA Tournament schedule Message-ID: <41465AA1@netfin6.bc.edu> The American Debate Association is proud to sanction the following 15 tournaments during the coming year. We are especially happy to welcome three new additional tournaments to the ADA schedule from District V: Loyola, Chicago; Northern Illinois; and Marquette, joining Wayne and John Carroll who were previously sanctioned. Fall, ADA Tournament Schedule King?s College, September 24-26 Northern Illinois, Oct 8-10 University of Richmond, October 9-11 University of Rochester, Oct 15-17 Loyola, Chicago, Oct. 22-24 Catholic, Oct. 23-25 Wayne State, Oct 29-Oct 31 West Point, Oct 29-31 Liberty, Nov 5-7 John Carroll, Dec 3-5 Spring, ADA Tournament Schedule George Mason, Jan 14-16 Navy, Jan 28-30 West Virginia, Feb 4-6 Marquette, Feb 18-20 ADA Nationals at Univ. of Georgia, March 12-14 From jwpatt00 Wed Sep 15 09:11:17 2004 From: jwpatt00 (JW Patterson) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:11:17 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] HENRY CLAY ENTRIES -- UPDATE 3 (113 Teams) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Following is the latest count on the Henry Clay Entries. If you have entered and your entry does not appear below, please resend. UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY HENRY CLAY DEBATES October 9, 10, & 11 2004 (Saturday, Sunday, Monday) *Indicates eligibility for the Pre-season Novice National Championships SPECIAL AIR ARRANGEMENTS We have made special airline arrangements with Delta Airlines for the Kentucky Tournament. We are using Delta because it has almost as many flights in and out of Lexington each day as all other airlines combined. Details follow: Delta is offering a 5% discount off Delta's published round trip fares. By purchasing your ticket 60 or more days prior to your departure date, you can receive an additional 5% bonus discount. A 10% discount will be offered on Delta's domestic system for travel to the meeting based on the publishes unrestricted round-trip coach (Y06) rates. No advanced reservations or ticketing is required, but if you purchase your ticket 60 days or more prior to your departure date, you can receive and additional 5% bonus discount. No discounts apply on Delta Express flights. To take advantage of Delta's services call or have your travel agent call 1-800-241-6760 between 7:30am and 11:00 pm EST weekdays and between 8:30am and 11:00pm EST weekends. YOU MUST REFER TO FILE NUMBER: 199994A. KENTUCKY ENTRIES: ALABAMA, UNIVERSITY OF 1. Bryan Grayson and Abi Smith JUDGES 1.Jillian Marty 2. Whit Whitmore BOSTON COLLEGE UNIVERSTIY 1. Allen Best and Mandy Castle 2. Jeff Sullivan and Kevin Shatzkin JUDGES 1. John Katsulas 2.Naveen Ramachandrappa CALIFORNIA (BERKLEY), UNIVERSITY OF 1. Stacey Nathan and Criag Wickersham 2. Gaurav Reddy and Reid Shannon 3. Mike Burshteyn and Josh Garen* 4. Nick Lin and Daniel Richards JUDGES 1. Greg Achten 2. Dave Arnett CAPITOL UNIVERISTY 1. Adrian Villalobos and Kyle Schneider JUDGES 1. Stephen Koch CASE WESTERN UNIVERSITY 1. Nick Dorsey & Nick Denissen 2. Mike Riddick & Saptarshi Basu JUDGES 1. Jason Habig CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY 1. TBA 2. TBA 3. TBA JUDGES 1. TBA CONCORDIA COLLEGE 1. TBA 2. TBA 3. TBA 4. TBA JUDGES 1. Fred Sternhagen DARTMOUTH COLLEGE 1. Jeremy Abramowitz and Kade Olsen 2. Maggie Berthiaume and Jeremy Martin 3. Hunter Brooks and David Marks 4. Kathryn Clark and Brian Smith 5. Cameron Kistler and Josh Kernoff JUDGES 1. Adam Garen 2. Geoff Garen 3. Ken Strange 4. John Turner 5. TBA EMORY UNIVERSITY 1. TBA 2. TBA 3. TBA 4. TBA 5. TBA 6. TBA 7. TBA 8. TBA 9. TBA 10. TBA 11. TBA 12. TBA JUDGES 1. TBA FULLERRTON, UNIVERSITY OF 1. Matt Kennedy and Nader Alshiekh JUDGES 1. Cameron Ward GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY 1. Allison Harper and Matthias Bostick JUDGES 1.Jomel Angat 2. Michelle Lancaster GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 1. Brian Linder and Brett Wallace 2. Emma Kelly and TBA JUDGES 1. Heather Barnes GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY 1. TBA 2. TBA JUDGES 1. Justin Green GEORGIA, UNIVERSITY OF 1. Brent Culpepper and Hays Watson 2. TBA 3. TBA 4. TBA 5. TBA JUDGES 1. Ed Panetta 2. Robbie Quinn 3. Wally Eastwood GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY 1. Lori Blair & Sarah Crachiolo 2. Matt King & Chris Pozzi JUDGES 1. Joe Bellon GONZAGA UNIVERSITY 1. Colin Hahn and Charlie Hutchison JUDGES 1. Eric Slusher HARVARD UNIVERSITY 1. Elliot Tarloff and Mike Klinger 2. Christine Malumphy and Dan Luxemburg 3. Eli Anders and Nikhil Mirchandani 4. Maya Frommer and Alex Harris JUDGES 1. Stefan Bauschard 2. Jonah Feldman 3. Charles Olney 4. Sherry Hall 5. Dallas Perkins IOWA, UNIVERSITY OF 1. Todd Lantz and Michael Krantz 2. Brian Severson and Jordan Pomeranz 3. TBA 4. TBA JUDGES 1. David Hinstman 2. Scott Varda 3. TBA 4. TBA KANSAS, UNIVERSITY OF 1. Jordan Tinsley and Todd Jordan 2. Matt Cormack and Lindy Simonsen 3. Nate Johnson and Andrew Jennings JUDGES 1. Tom O'Toole 2. Phil Samuels 3. Scott Harris LOUISVILLE, UNIVERSITY OF 1. Ebony Floyd and Jennifer Harris 2. TBA 3. TBA 4. TBA JUDGES 1. Daryl Burch 2. Richard Boada MARY WASHINGTON UNIVERISTY 1. Clint Woods and Joseph Packer 2. TBA 3. TBA JUDGES 1. Tim O'Donnell 2. TBA MACALESTER COLLEGE 1. Travis Cram and Desiree Weber JUDGES 1. David Helwich MERCER UNIVERSITY 1. Andrew Lewis and Sarah Wright JUDGES 1. Kevin Cummings MIAMI UNIVERSITY 1. Michael Maffie and Sarah Spring JUDGES 1. Beth Voss (2 Rounds) 2. Steve Mancuso (2 Rounds) MICHIGAN, UNIVERSITY OF 1. TBA 2. TBA 3. TBA 4. TBA JUDGES 1. Josh Hoe 2. Aaron Kall NORTH TEXAS, UNIVERSITY OF 1. TBA 2. TBA 3. TBA JUDGES 1. TBA 2. TBA 3. TBA PITTSBURG, UNIVERSITY OF 1. Paul Johnson & Jane Munksgaard 2. Colin Esgro and Dave Weston JUDGES 1. Damien Pfister 2. Carly Woods REDLANDS UNIVERSITY 1. TBA 2. TBA JUDGES 1. TBA REGIS UNIVERSITY 1. Brian Schrader & John Rief JUDGES 1. John Foy SAMFORD UNIVERSITY 1. Clark Bowers and Ashley Streat 2. James Phillips and Jon Mann 3. John Wilkerson and Nick Agnello JUDGES 1. Ben Coulter 2. Steve Mancuso 3. Tod Woodbury SOUTHERN ILLINOIS, UNIVERSITY OF 1. Paul Bellinger and Justin Hingtgen JUDGES 1. Todd Graham SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF 1. TBA 2. TBA 3. TBA JUDGES 1. TBA SOUTHWEST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY 1. TBA 2. TBA 3. TBA 4. TBA 5. TBA JUDGES 1. TBA 2. TBA 3. TBA TEXAS, UNIVERSITY OF AT AUSTIN 1. Claire McKinney and Chris Thiele 2. Sarah Heaton and Brian Peterson 3. Mariesa Herrmann and Jonathan Lewis 4. Alex More and TBA JUDGES 1. David Breshears 2. Jairus Grove 3. Kevin Johnson WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY 1. Brad Hall and Jamie Carroll 2. Elizabeth Gedmark and James Morrill 3. Adam Abelkop and David Leung 4. Naomi Dale and Chris Sedelmyer 5. Jack Parker and John Patten JUDGES 1. Ross Smith 2. J.P. Lacy 3. R.J. Green 4. TBA 5. TBA WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY 1. Gabe Murrillo and Matt Farmer 2. Jen Schraeder and Frank Esposito 3. Joe Battocletti and Andy Timmons 4. Jason Pearsall and Mike Markovic 5. Don Ritchie and Dan Gainer JUDGES 1. Kelly Young 2. Ron Stevenson 3. George Ziegelmueller WHITMAN COLLEGE 1. Beth Schueler and Eric Suni 2. Ben Meiches and Jeff Buntin JUDGES 1. Joe Carver WYOMING, UNIVERSITY OF 1. Chris Crowe and Brian DeLong 2. Seth Ellsworth and Aaron Lyttle 3. Will Jensen and Josh Schmerge 4. Jess Ryan and Brittany Parsons JUDGES 1. Matt Stannard 2. Eric Forslund 3. Michael ?Bear? Bryant Sincerely, JW Patterson ------ End of Forwarded Message ------ End of Forwarded Message ------ End of Forwarded Message -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040915/db7dabb0/attachment.htm From rajdebate Wed Sep 15 10:16:04 2004 From: rajdebate (Raja Gaddipati) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:16:04 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] No Doubts Message-ID: <20040915151605.0BCA3C611D@ws7-5.us4.outblaze.com> > Kerry Said He Owns The "Big" Suburban, And His Wife Owns A Landrover. Kerry: "I own a Dodge 600 that I've had for about 20 years. I own a Chrysler 300M. We have a Chrysler van, a minivan, a Chrysler PT Cruiser, I guess Chrysler's making out here; a Suburban a Chevy big Suburban, and she has a Landrover Defender." Paula Tutman: "Now when he referred to she, he of course is talking about his wife. John Kerry made it a point to say all of the cars he personally owns and has purchased are American." (Local First News At 6 PM, WDIV-TV (NBC) Detroit, 4/28/04) > Last Week, Kerry Claimed "I Don't Own An SUV." "During a conference call Thursday with reporters to discuss his upcoming jobs tour through West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, the Democratic presidential candidate was asked whether he owned a Chevrolet Suburban. 'I don't own an SUV,' said Kerry, who supports increasing existing fuel economy standards to 36 miles per gallon by 2015 in order to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil supplies." ("Kerry Says His 'Family' Owns SUV, Not He," Associated Press, 4/22/04) > > Which is it, on 4/28/04 he owns one, but on 4/22/04 he doesn't?? DId he buy one?? Duane, This thread is about the war in Iraq. And you come back with does Kerry own an SUV or not? The last sentence of your post reads like a skit from SNL. Are you serious? Who cares if Kerry owns an SUV or not? I guess all those single issue SUV voters. Let's stay on point here. Bush said there are WMD's in Iraq. There aren't any WMD's in Iraq. Therefore, Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq. You're saying Kerry lied about SUV's so Kerry is a liar too. Little difference between the two, wouldn't you say? RG -- _______________________________________________ Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10 From privethedge Wed Sep 15 11:57:12 2004 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:57:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] No Doubts In-Reply-To: <20040915151605.0BCA3C611D@ws7-5.us4.outblaze.com> Message-ID: <20040915165712.62105.qmail@web50902.mail.yahoo.com> I don't know, Raja (by the way, long time no talk to or see - not since that outround at Wake many, many years ago when you were still coming up in the world) - I tend to think a lie is a lie is a lie. What I think you're quibbling over is the size of the lie. But I would quibble over if Bush lied....stretch the truth? Yes. See what he wanted to see and ignored other things, perhaps? But lied? To lie you have to knowledge that what you are saying is in fact false, when you say it is true. A lie requires thought before you speak. You need to know you are saying the wrong thing - if he was saying "we'll find WMD" because the CIA, DIA and others were telling him that it was a "slam dunk" then he wasn't telling falsehoods...he was citing bad intelligence. If you are talking about the "16 Words" well Spinsanity.com had this to say at http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_07_13_archive.html#105838742341447749 << The DNC doesn't quote the President in full, however. What he said was: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." While it is true that many intelligence analysts in the CIA, State Department and elsewhere did not believe this evidence, the British government still stands behind it. >> The article goes on to say that Bush did practice a depception there, but that his crediting the source to Britian makes it a bit more complex than the simple "Bush Lied..." chant. But, even a complex lie, I guess, is still a lie. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040915/ef04f92b/attachment.html From JHESS Wed Sep 15 12:31:34 2004 From: JHESS (HESS, JEFFREY T) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:31:34 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Jacksonville, Florida IE & Debate Tournament Message-ID: Florida Community College at Jacksonville will be hosting the 6th Annual Star Invitational Forensics Tournament November 11-13th. We'll be offering IE, PARLI, CEDA, LD and Readers Theatre. The invitation with all the particulars is available for download here: http://www1.fccj.edu/jhess/The%20Star%20Invite%202004.doc Please send any questions to me at jhess at fccj.edu. Jeff Hess, Instructional Officer Florida Community College 501 W. State Street Jacksonville, FL 32202 www.fccj.edu P.S. - Hurricane Season is over by November! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040915/9b9e1675/attachment.htm From mrberry Wed Sep 15 12:54:24 2004 From: mrberry (Berry, Mike) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:54:24 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] King's Tournament Hotel Block Closing on the 16th. Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040915/4e33ade4/attachment.html From wnewnam Wed Sep 15 12:55:43 2004 From: wnewnam (William Newnam) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:55:43 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] No Doubts References: <20040915165712.62105.qmail@web50902.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000801c49b4d$3a4194a0$91c58caa@emorycard.emory.edu> I thought I gave you a pretty good example. Saddam kicked the inspectors out said George. But it was George who kicked the inspectors out. This is a blatant lie. I tried to be kind and say it could be ignorance, but its his own actions he lied about. bill n emory ----- Original Message ----- From: Duane Hyland To: Raja Gaddipati ; edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 12:57 PM Subject: Re: [eDebate] No Doubts I don't know, Raja (by the way, long time no talk to or see - not since that outround at Wake many, many years ago when you were still coming up in the world) - I tend to think a lie is a lie is a lie. What I think you're quibbling over is the size of the lie. But I would quibble over if Bush lied....stretch the truth? Yes. See what he wanted to see and ignored other things, perhaps? But lied? To lie you have to knowledge that what you are saying is in fact false, when you say it is true. A lie requires thought before you speak. You need to know you are saying the wrong thing - if he was saying "we'll find WMD" because the CIA, DIA and others were telling him that it was a "slam dunk" then he wasn't telling falsehoods...he was citing bad intelligence. If you are talking about the "16 Words" well Spinsanity.com had this to say at http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_07_13_archive.html#105838742341447749 << The DNC doesn't quote the President in full, however. What he said was: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." While it is true that many intelligence analysts in the CIA, State Department and elsewhere did not believe this evidence, the British government still stands behind it. >> The article goes on to say that Bush did practice a depception there, but that his crediting the source to Britian makes it a bit more complex than the simple "Bush Lied..." chant. But, even a complex lie, I guess, is still a lie. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040915/11459394/attachment.htm From db8coach Wed Sep 15 12:59:13 2004 From: db8coach (db8coach at cox.net) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:59:13 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] No Doubts Message-ID: <20040915175913.GTIC8590.fed1rmmtao12.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net> Wow, it's a wonder this community wins any debates. Of course, politics makes for much uglier arguments than debate rounds. No line-by-line on Trond, Bill, and JP, just some ramblings. But I will post this to Raja. >>>>>>>>>> Let's stay on point here. Bush said there are WMD's in Iraq. There aren't any WMD's in Iraq. Therefore, Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq. >>>>>>>>>> Well, technically YOU just lied. WMDs were found in Iraq and proof of their use has been made many times. There were no "nuclear" devices found, but there is ample proof that SH had used chemical and biological agents on numerous occasions (those are still WMD, no?) And you are correct, there is a difference between the lies. What Bush did was take a LOT of intel and decide that some was more believable than others. This isn't a lie, it's something we ALL do everyday. Ever been in a debate round where there was conflicting evidence??? What would you do if the preponderence of the ev pointed in one direction? A couple of people saying they didn't think SH had nuclear materials is a LOT different from the British Gov't and hundreds reports saying he does have them. You vote for Idso much? Kerry, on the other hand, should actually have a pretty good idea whether or not he owns an SUV. He has driven it, held the keys, maybe even had his staff wash it a time or two. Not much grey area here. Okay, enough about that. Now, Trond, respectfully, you are simply WRONG. There is zero evidence that Bush was AWOL or that he never completed his service. ZERO. A guy who did not see him (no matter how hard he tried) is NOT proof that he wasn't there. It just doesn't work that way. No lack of documents proving he was there can ever be proof that he wasn't. Especially when this was over 30 years ago and the filing systems housing the BILLIONS of documents the military puts out every year have been changed, rearranged, and literally been lost in a sea of red. Besides, this is like a replay in football. The ruling on the field is that he was honorably discharged (meaning he served his time fully and honorably). It should be up to the challenger to prove he didn't, and that proof must be POSITIVE rather than negative. And just as a little anecdote, let me tell you about govenment service (from someone who has worked for the government for 29 years). Not everything is documented. Shocked??? It is not uncommon for supervisors to allow substitutions that are not documented. An example would be when a newbie gets sick but has not accrued any sick leave yet, a supervisor may let them miss wednesday and thursday, but come in on saturday and sunday so they don't lose any time. This isn't documented, and the supervisor signs the time sheet saying the employee was there the whole week (all 40 hours were worked). But 30 years later a co-worker swears that the person wasn't there on thursday because there was a staff meeting and "I know they weren't at it". Well, the employee did work the 40 hours they were paid for, just not when they were said to have done it. And this type of thing goes on ALL THE TIME in a day when record keeping is anal retentive. 30 years ago when it was less so (especially in the military) this was a common practice. The point of this is you got NOTHING. There is no proof that he did NOT fullfill his commitment, only a lack of supporting proof that he DID (the proof that he did is his discharge). And finally, to Bill Newnam, you are simply WRONG. After you made your claim, I made it a point to talk to every Vietnam Vet I could find. Most denied that "everyone" was razing and burning villiages or shooting everything that moved. They all said that these things happened, but it was certainly not the norm nor were "everyone" doing it. In fact, most of them said they were offended by your claim that it was. Vietnam had it's bad folks, but it was not "everyone" doing doing it. Kerry admitted that he was one of the ones doing it. Kerry admitted to war crimes. Most di NOT commit them. He gets no free pass on this. Enough for now. Bob Lechtreck From umdebatecoach Wed Sep 15 12:58:44 2004 From: umdebatecoach (UMass) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:58:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Please Help Message-ID: <20040915175844.81736.qmail@web52010.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, I recently had a new person express interest in our team that is visually impaired and I am wondering two things: 1. What to do in this situation to make sure this person is able to debate and 2. If anyone has encountered this and what they have done to help an individual like this debate. Thanks, Cailin Campbell UMass Policy Debate __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040915/16a53975/attachment.html From privethedge Wed Sep 15 14:05:02 2004 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 12:05:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Please Help In-Reply-To: <20040915175844.81736.qmail@web52010.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040915190502.93544.qmail@web50903.mail.yahoo.com> Before he started posting anti-Bush stuff to web, Jeff Parcher, as part of his qualities of mind speech (the single best inspirational speech I've ever heard, and I can't believe I didn't tape it) used to talk about a blind debater he had known (or at least judged several times) who flowed on a braille computer or typewriter, and then was able to debate, so I know it can be done. Is the person totally blind? I know that something can be done to allow them to debate. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040915/a1289318/attachment.htm From gsudebate Wed Sep 15 14:21:56 2004 From: gsudebate (Joe Bellon) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:21:56 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] GSU Tournament Announcements & Reminders Message-ID: <81DE1706-074C-11D9-9644-000A95CF483E@mindspring.com> Just a few quick notes... *** The JV division looks like it is going to make, especially if everyone who has e-mailed me saying they are going to bring JV debaters actually does. *** Please make checks payable to "National Debate Project." *** Please remember to e-mail me your 1AC outline, complete with plan text. If you can't do that before Friday, please bring a copy with you at registration in some format we can read via computer. If there is more than one team competing from your school, please let us know which team(s) the outline is applicable for. *** We are going to cut registration off Tuesday night so that we can start on-line preference entry. Please try to have your judges sorted out by then. *** For those judges who wish to hire out the rest of their commitment but don't have a sponsor, please make sure the Brushke site has you down as willing to hire out additional rounds. It looks like we will need all of you. We are looking forward to hosting all of you and would like to ask the people in Florida to please, please stop sending their hurricanes in our direction. We are simple mountain folk and do not understand how to deal with rain and wind. Dr. Joe Bellon Director of Debate Georgia State University From slusher Wed Sep 15 16:49:56 2004 From: slusher (Eric Slusher) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:49:56 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] On-line pref entry for Gonzaga Message-ID: ...is now ready. Go to www.debateresults.com to enter your judge prefs. You have until 7pm PDT Thursday. If you have questions email me at "slusher at gmail.com" From ikimbrell Wed Sep 15 18:23:08 2004 From: ikimbrell (Ian Kimbrell) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:23:08 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Need to buy 4 rounds at Georgia In-Reply-To: <20040915190502.93544.qmail@web50903.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200409152327.i8FNRFx03981@hsdebate.com> Can anyone sell me four rounds for the Georgia State Tournament? Ian Kimbrell Case Debate 216-905-8100 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040915/ca5b5bf3/attachment.html From kenedebate Wed Sep 15 18:25:37 2004 From: kenedebate (Ken DeLaughder) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:25:37 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Paging Cat, Jake or the Panther crew... Message-ID: I deleted that.. where to call for changes email.. so I'm dumb :) you can call my cell 620-481-0421 I thought youd be in your offices slaving over the computer! Ken D. ESU _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From marty002 Wed Sep 15 19:07:51 2004 From: marty002 (marty002 at bama.ua.edu) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:07:51 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] GSU judging Message-ID: <1095293271.4148d95709830@bamamail.ua.edu> -- Hey I got 6 rounds available for sale. Let me know, Jillian Bama From ikimbrell Wed Sep 15 19:34:15 2004 From: ikimbrell (Ian Kimbrell) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:34:15 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Need to buy 12 rounds at King's In-Reply-To: <200409152327.i8FNRFx03981@hsdebate.com> Message-ID: <200409160038.i8G0cRx20046@hsdebate.com> Can anyone sell me some rounds at King's college? I need as many as I can get to cover my teams. Ian Kimbrell Case Debate 216-905-8100 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040915/c153cc91/attachment.htm From delliott Wed Sep 15 19:47:30 2004 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:47:30 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Please Help In-Reply-To: <20040915175844.81736.qmail@web52010.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040915175844.81736.qmail@web52010.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040915194335.01fab800@kckcc.toto.net> Depending on how visually impaired they are there is at least one option. Two summers ago at camp I had a visually impaired student in my lab. She was self-described as legally blind. Though she didnt use any walking device to assist her she did have to be right next to you to see you for the most part. We copied all of her ev. not on 8 1/2 x 11 paper but instead on oversized paper and increased the size to about 175%. She was able to read the blocks and ev that way. It makes filing more of a challenge of course but it was certainly worth it to her. Obviously teams she encountered didnt have evidence she could read very well but a colleague can address that in-round. chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate KCKCC At 12:58 PM 9/15/2004, UMass wrote: >Hi, > >I recently had a new person express interest in our team that is visually >impaired and I am wondering two things: 1. What to do in this situation to >make sure this person is able to debate and 2. If anyone has encountered >this and what they have done to help an individual like this debate. > >Thanks, > >Cailin Campbell >UMass Policy Debate > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com From hansonjb Wed Sep 15 20:21:27 2004 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:21:27 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Please Help References: <20040915175844.81736.qmail@web52010.mail.yahoo.com> <6.0.1.1.1.20040915194335.01fab800@kckcc.toto.net> Message-ID: <003001c49b8b$a5d69740$e736b944@home> another idea: a large magnifying glass (some even have lights). one of our debaters who was also legally blind used this method back in the mid 90s and was quite speedy. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Darren Elliott" To: "UMass" ; Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 5:47 PM Subject: Re: [eDebate] Please Help Depending on how visually impaired they are there is at least one option. Two summers ago at camp I had a visually impaired student in my lab. She was self-described as legally blind. Though she didnt use any walking device to assist her she did have to be right next to you to see you for the most part. We copied all of her ev. not on 8 1/2 x 11 paper but instead on oversized paper and increased the size to about 175%. She was able to read the blocks and ev that way. It makes filing more of a challenge of course but it was certainly worth it to her. Obviously teams she encountered didnt have evidence she could read very well but a colleague can address that in-round. chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate KCKCC At 12:58 PM 9/15/2004, UMass wrote: >Hi, > >I recently had a new person express interest in our team that is visually >impaired and I am wondering two things: 1. What to do in this situation to >make sure this person is able to debate and 2. If anyone has encountered >this and what they have done to help an individual like this debate. > >Thanks, > >Cailin Campbell >UMass Policy Debate > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From kenedebate Wed Sep 15 18:14:30 2004 From: kenedebate (Ken DeLaughder) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:14:30 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] GSU questions Message-ID: Joe or anyone who can help, We don't have a rental vehicle so I need to know a couple of things for logistics. Anyone know how much an airport shuttle to the hotel is? (or approximate mileage) Availability of public (taxi) transportation to and from the hotel and the tournament? (if someone has some numbers, that would be great) Mileage or approximate costs of that type of thing in the Atlanta area. (so I can budget for the tax back and forth) We're trying to avoid renting a vehicle, since I'm not going with my credit card. Thanks a bunch, we're first timers to the GSU tourney. Ken DeLaughder ESU Debate _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From korryharvey Wed Sep 15 23:48:56 2004 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:48:56 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Secret U.S. Analysis Points to Iraq Civil War Message-ID: http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3503856 _________________________________________________________________ Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Scotsman.com News - Latest News - Secret U.S. AnalysisPoints to Iraq Civil War.url Type: application/octet-stream Size: 168 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040915/95d676a7/attachment.obj From korryharvey Thu Sep 16 00:04:40 2004 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:04:40 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] even top GOP senators slam admin on Iraq Message-ID: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-09-15-sens-iraq_x.htm _________________________________________________________________ Check out Election 2004 for up-to-date election news, plus voter tools and more! http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: USATODAY.com - Senators slam administration on Iraq.url Type: application/octet-stream Size: 208 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040915/932dc000/attachment.obj From korryharvey Wed Sep 15 23:52:00 2004 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:52:00 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] annan says invasion of iraq was illegal Message-ID: http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=ak9cwSeVNZmQ&refer=top_world_news _________________________________________________________________ Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Bloomberg.com Top Worldwide.url Type: application/octet-stream Size: 250 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040915/97463221/attachment.obj From neilsbutt Wed Sep 15 22:49:15 2004 From: neilsbutt (Neil Butt) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:49:15 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Please Help Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040915/81240a2a/attachment.htm From stephenheidt Wed Sep 15 20:00:39 2004 From: stephenheidt (Stephen Heidt) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:00:39 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Parcher Style Bomb Dropping Message-ID: The truly die hard (read: Duane, Lechtrek, et. al.) should read two articles (available free online) from the latest International Security. The first: Occupational Hazards: Why Military Occupations Succeed or Fail by David Edelstein http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/isec_29_1_49_0.pdf The second (and perhaps more relevant to the current discussion): Threat Inflation and the Failure of the Marketplace of Ideas: The Selling of the Iraq War by Chaim Kauffman http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/isec_29_1_5_0.pdf I think you'll find expert testimony more informed than your handy Weekly Standard. Cheers, Stephen www.SportsFiends.com Bringing Sports to the People _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From mardigras23 Wed Sep 15 18:40:03 2004 From: mardigras23 (Aaron Kall) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:40:03 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] "Enemy Combatant" released without being charged Message-ID: Out of the Brig ?Enemy combatant? Yaser Hamdi will soon be released from a military prison without facing any charges. PLUS, Did North Korea explode a nuke?WEB EXCLUSIVE By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball Newsweek Updated: 4:58 p.m. ET Sept. 15, 2004Sept. 15 - The first U.S. government-declared "enemy combatant" in the war on terror will soon be released from a military prison in South Carolina under an agreement that will allow him to fly home to Saudi Arabia as a free man, administration officials tell NEWSWEEK. The agreement to free Yaser Esam Hamdi represents a stunning reversal for the Bush administration, which argued for more than two years that the former Taliban fighter was potentially so dangerous that he had to be detained indefinitely in solitary confinement with no access to counsel and no right to trial. But in a landmark ruling last June, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered that Hamdi, an American citizen, be allowed to consult with his lawyer and challenge the basis for his imprisonment. This pushed the case back into federal court and forced the Justice Department to mount a hasty retreat. The result, officials say, is a highly detailed agreement that is expected to be made public later this week. It will result in Hamdi being flown back to Saudi Arabia on a U.S. military aircraft without ever being charged with any terror-related activity?a symbolic victory for critics who have long pointed to the case as a prime example of what they see as the Bush administration's overreaching in combating the terrorist threat. Still, Justice Department officials said today the agreement contains important provisions to protect U.S. interests, including requirements that Hamdi renounce his U.S. citizenship, agree not to return to the United States and consent not to travel to an extensive list of countries, including Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq or Syria, where he could be presumably be recruited for terrorist activity. Hamdi is also supposed to keep Saudi authorities notified of his whereabouts?a requirement that even government officials say will do little, if anything, to restrict his movements in the country. A senior Justice Department official insisted to NEWSWEEK that Hamdi was never considered anything more than a "low-level terrorist" and that his release is in keeping with "standard" practice during earlier conflicts?in which prisoners of war were eventually returned home. "When an individual is no longer considered to be a threat and their intelligence value is exhausted, it is common to release them," said the official. Frank Dunham, the federal public defender who took on Hamdi's cause after reading about him in the newspaper and argued his case right up to the Supreme Court, declined to comment on the agreement until it was finalized. But he was expected to obtain Hamdi's signature on the document by today, paving away for the Justice Department to publicly release it and file it in court. One crucial question is when and if Hamdi will himself will go public with his version of the events that unwittingly thrust him into the forefront of the debate over the constitutional protections that should be afforded to those suspected of terrorism. Hamdi has never been permitted to speak publicly, and Dunham, his lawyer, was not allowed to argue in court about the particulars of Hamdi's odyssey that took him to Afghanistan. But once Hamdi does return to Saudi Arabia?probably in the next few weeks?he may well wish to finally speak out. Hamdi was born in Louisiana while his father was working there for an oil company; his family returned to Saudi Arabia when he was 3 years old and he grew up in that country. U.S. Officials say that in November 2001 he was fighting as part of a Taliban unit and was carrying a Kalashnikov assault rifle when he was captured by pro-U.S. Northern Alliance forces in northern Afghanistan. His captors turned him over to the U.S. military. His family has maintained that he had gone to Afghanistan on a humanitarian mission and was forced to fight for the Taliban there. Whatever the precise circumstances, Hamdi's case became noteworthy when U.S. officials realized that, because of his Louisiana birth, he was a U.S. citizen?thereby raising concerns that if he was held with other suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, his family could file a habeas corpus petition challenging his incarceration. This prompted U.S. officials to fly him to Charleston, S.C., where he was held in a Navy brig. When Dunham read about his case and, as the federal public defender for the region, sought access to him, Justice Department officials refused on the grounds that he was an "enemy combatant" and didn't have a right to counsel. The same claim was made several months later about Chicago-born Jose Padilla, who is accused of coming to the United States to set off a radiological "dirty" bomb. Padilla is being held in the same military brig in Charleston from which Hamdi is to be released. Although the Supreme Court said that Padilla also has the right to challenge his detention, it ruled in June that Padilla needs to refile his habeas petition in South Carolina rather than New York _________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee? Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From sarah Thu Sep 16 10:37:16 2004 From: sarah (Sarah Snider) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:37:16 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] DCUDL Seeks Judges Message-ID: <200409161537.i8GFbGS03533@hsdebate.com> I am looking for several judges for ROUND TWO of this tournament beginning at 11am on Saturday. If anyone is interested, let me know. Official announcement below: ______________________________________________ The DCUDL will be holding its first tournament of the year at Bell Multicultural High School this Saturday Sept 18th. Bell is conveniently located at the Columbia Heights Metro stop on the greenline. We are looking for judges for 3 rounds taking place on Saturday beginning at 9am. We will pay $15/round. 9:00-11:00 Round I 11:00-1:00 Round II 1:00-1:30- Lunch 1:30-3:30- Round III 4:00-5:00- Awards For the official announcment, directions, and information about this tournament check it out at: http://www.dcdebate.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=65 If you are interested in judging, please email me to let me know which rounds you will be available for. Thanks so much for your interest and support for the DCUDL. I hope to see many of you on Saturday! Sarah -- Sarah J. Snider Program Director- DCUDL 100 Peabody St. NW- 1st floor Washington, D.C. 20011 (703)582-2040 The DC Urban Debate League - www.dcdebate.org From mmdoggett Thu Sep 16 10:28:38 2004 From: mmdoggett (Matthew Doggett) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:28:38 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] MTSU Message-ID: I was just wondering if anyone other than App State and Vandy were planning to attend the MTSU Tournament. If your team hasn't thought about it, I would like to make a plea. As a coach of a small program with all novice debaters, it is very hard to find tournaments close by in the Southeast that offer novice divisions. I know of at least two schools in the past year that have dropped or haven't even considered policy debate for their schools. If this rate continues, I will have to consider dropping my policy program. My program can't afford more than 2 plane trips a year, and right now the closest tournament that I drive to is MTSU. Additionally, my students aren't going to compete week after week if they know they are going to be crushed. Therefore, I hope if you haven't considered going to MTSU that you do, and that more tournaments in the SE offer novice divisions. Thank you, Matthew Doggett Director of Debate Appalachian State University _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From parcherj Thu Sep 16 11:15:30 2004 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:15:30 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Lying About Intelligence Again Message-ID: <00db01c49c08$63ab5220$2060fea9@Jeff> CIA's Bleak Outlook On Iraq WASHINGTON, Sept. 16, 2004 (CBS/AP) The National Intelligence Council presented President Bush this summer with several pessimistic scenarios regarding the security situation in Iraq, including the possibility of a civil war there before the end of 2005. In a highly classified National Intelligence Estimate, the council looked at the political, economic and security situation in the war-torn country and determined that - at best - stability in Iraq would be tenuous, a U.S. official said late Wednesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity. At worst, the official said, were "trend lines that would point to a civil war." The official said it "would be fair" to call the document "pessimistic." The intelligence estimate, which was prepared for Mr. Bush, considered the window of time between July and the end of 2005. But the official noted that the document draws on intelligence community assessments from January 2003, before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the subsequent deteriorating security situation there. This latest assessment was performed by the National Intelligence Council, a group of senior intelligence officials that provides long-term strategic thinking for the entire U.S. intelligence community. Acting CIA Director John McLaughlin and the leaders of the other intelligence agencies approved the intelligence document, which runs about 50 pages. The estimate appears to differ from the public comments of Mr. Bush and his senior aides who speak more optimistically about the prospects for a peaceful and free Iraq. "We're making progress on the ground," Mr. Bush said at his Texas ranch late last month. But there have been ample signs in recent weeks that the security situation might be deteriorating: a.. Kidnappers seems to be growing more brazen. On Thursday, gunmen abducted two Americans and a Briton on Thursday in a brazen attack on a house in an upscale Baghdad neighborhood where many embassies and foreign companies are based. Two Italian women were abducted Sept. 7 by armed men from their offices in central Baghdad. a.. The number of Americans killed in Iraq passed the symbolic threshold of 1,000 this month, and now stand at 1,016. More than 800 have died since Mr. Bush declared the end of major combat operations on May 1, 2003, and more than 760 have died as a result of hostile action. a.. More than 200 U.S. troops were wounded in Iraq in the past week, the Pentagon said Tuesday, and the total since the invasion was launched in March 2003 is now 7,245. a.. The number of Iraqi security forces is at 95,000 - far from the 200,000 U.S. officials had said were providing security as of March. Those forces have exhibited weaknesses during some clashes, including a high level of desertions during a surge of violence in April. a.. Numerous press reports have the estimated number of Iraq insurgent fighters rising from 5,000 to 20,000. a.. There are indications that diplomatic tension over the war has not eased. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said in a BBC interview that the Bush Administration's decision to go to war in Iraq was "illegal" because it didn't have U.N. Security Council approval. European Union external affairs commissioner Chris Patten said Wednesday that, "American neo-conservative unilateralism had clearly failed to establish an empire of peace, liberty and democracy." a.. U.S. military commanders have acknowledged there are "no-go" areas controlled by insurgents that they are not prepared to retake until Iraqi forces are up and running, which may not be until December. Elections are due in January. A CIA spokesman declined to comment Wednesday night. The document was first reported by The New York Times on its Web site Wednesday night. It is the first formal assessment of Iraq since the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on the threat posed by fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. A scathing review of that estimate released this summer by the Senate Intelligence Committee found widespread intelligence failures that led to faulty assumptions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Disclosure of the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq came the same day that Senate Republicans and Democrats denounced the Mr. Bush administration's slow progress in rebuilding Iraq, saying the risks of failure are great if it doesn't act with greater urgency. "It's beyond pitiful, it's beyond embarrassing, it's now in the zone of dangerous," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., referring to figures showing only about 6 percent of the reconstruction money approved by Congress last year has been spent. Senate Foreign Relations Committee members vented their frustrations at a hearing during which State Department officials explained the administration's request to divert $3.46 billion in reconstruction funds to security and economic development. The money was part of the $18.4 billion approved by Congress last year, mostly for public works projects. The request comes as heavy fighting continues between U.S.-led forces and Iraqi insurgents, endangering prospects for elections scheduled for January. "We know that the provision of adequate security up front is requisite to rapid progress on all other fronts," Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Ron Schlicher said. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said circumstances in Iraq have changed since last year. "It's important that you have some flexibility." Hagel, Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and other committee members have long argued - even before the war - that administration plans for rebuilding Iraq were inadequate and based on overly optimistic assumptions that Americans would be greeted as liberators. But the criticism from the panel's top Republicans had an extra sting coming less than seven weeks before the U.S. presidential election in which Mr. Bush's handling of the war is a top issue. "Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration prior to the war and people outside the administration - what I call the 'dancing in the street crowd' - that we just simply will be greeted with open arms," Lugar said. "The nonsense of all of that is apparent. The lack of planning is apparent." He said the need to shift the reconstruction funds was clear in July, but the administration was slow to make the request. Before the war, Defense Department officials said the reconstruction of Iraq could be funded out of oil revenues. Civilian Pentagon leaders also disparaged then-Army chief of staff Gen. Eric Shinseki when he said several hundred thousand troops would be needed to secure Iraq after the invasion. State Department officials stressed areas of progress in Iraq since the United States turned over political control of Iraq to an interim government on June 28. They cited advances in generating electricity, producing oil and creating jobs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040916/797de2ad/attachment.html From dromane Thu Sep 16 11:36:31 2004 From: dromane (David Romanelli) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:36:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Loyola invite Message-ID: We invite you to join us for the Loyola Rambler Tournament Friday, October 22th Saturday, October 23th and Sunday October 24th. We will have six rounds of varsity and novice debate(using the CEDA definition) with the appropriate numbers of elims. THIS YEAR WE WILL FOLLOW THE ADA RULES! FEES: Entry fee will cover awards, refreshments, some meals, room use and tournament administrative expenses. Fees are $80 for each team. *WE CANNOT ACCET CHECKS MADE OUT TO LOYOLA DEBATE. WE WOULD PREFER CASH OR IF YOU MUST A CHECK MADE PAYABLE TO DAVID ROMANELLI. TOPIC: We will use the current CEDA/NDT topic. JUDGING: Each school must supply three rounds of judging per two person team. A limited number of judges may be hired for $100 per uncovered team. If you would like to judge additional rounds or have judges for hire please let us know. All judges will be committed to one round past your team's elimination. HOUSING: the following hotels are within walking distance to campus: The Cass Hotel: 640 North Wabash, 1-800-227-7850 Millennium Knickerbocker Hotel: (312) 751-8100 (request the Loyola rate). The hotels are within walking distance to the Water Tower and many popular bars/restaurants. PARKING: There are several parking garages near campus. We recommend dropping your evidence off at Lewis Towers first. *This tournament will adhere to the CEDA policy on sexual harassment and discrimination. ENTRIES: Entries will be accepted until 5:00p.m., Tuesday, October 19st. You may e-mail them to dromane at luc.edu,phone (773) 508-3808 (talk slow), or fax to (773)508-8821. Please be sure to include first and last names, division, and names of judges. SCHEDULE OF EVENTS Friday 2:00-3:00 Registration 9th floor Lewis Towers 3:30-5:30 Round I 5:30-7:30 Round II Saturday 8:00 Transfer evidence to 25 East Peirson 8:30-9:00 Coffee and donuts 9:00-11:00 Round III 11:00-1:00 Round IV 1:00-2:30 Lunch (on your own) 2:30-4:30 Round V 4:30-6:30 Round VI (return evidence to Lewis Towers) Sunday 7:30 Coffee and donuts 8:00 Elims start followed by awards DIRECTIONS: From O'Hare and Northwest: Take I 90 to I 90/94east and exit at Ohio Street. Turn left on State and continue to Pearson. Lewis Towers is two blocks down on the right >From West: Take I 88 east into 290 east. Continue until 290 ends at Congress Boulevard. Take Congress past Michigan Ave for one stoplight. Turn left into semicircle which will lead to Michigan Ave north. Take Michigan to Chicago and turn left. Take Chicago to State Street and turn right. Turn right onto Pearson. Lewis Towers will be two blocks down # We are also pleased to announce that Dr. Patrick Jablonski has agreed to run the tab. From delliott Thu Sep 16 12:26:16 2004 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:26:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] A needed discussion on Novice and JV Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040916120913.01c32190@kckcc.toto.net> Recent posts to the list serv and other conversations have led me to request a discussion be started regarding Novice and JV divisions. People will likely fall on one of 3 sides: 1. Those who actively cultivate and promote those divisions 2. Those who will travel Novices and JV debaters if they seek the coach out but the program does not actively recruit them. 3. Those who choose to not really cater to anyone other than those with experience and open-ready. Define those terms how you choose to. There is a disturbing trend this year, and maybe it is too early to sound the alarms. But we should at least do the drill. Novice divisions don't make unless you are in the East. Kudos to that region yet again. JV often makes but Quarters is a stretch sometimes and Octos is not heard of anymore. The trickle up effect is, there usually isnt one. No place for Novices and JV debaters to hone their skills they wont move up. Those that do trickle up prematurely get beaten down and quit. We go back to square one. One thing I think coaches in Regions where JV is dropping in numbers is to think about where they put their teams. I applaud coaches who take their JV eligible debaters who kick ass and put them in Open. But after much reflection, I agree with Martin Harris on one thing. Putting good JV eligible debaters in JV some of the time helps the divisions make and also helps make those other JV debaters better. JV divisions used to be large and good in the Midwest. Makes more sense to have a couple rounds against good JV debaters then to kill someone's self-esteem day in and day out by putting them in Open. At UNI this weekend Open will make Octos, JV will only make Semis--2-3 teams short of Quarters where I am sure there are some JV eligible debaters lurking in Open. Novice wont make at all. How sad. If some coaches would take note of this then putting a team in JV can help those divisions make as well. Otherwise I fear people will continue to "vote with their feet" when it comes to travel or policy debate period. They already are. The same remarks above can extend to Novices and their struggles. As a community I think there needs to be dialogue on how to make these divisions competitive and divisions that actually make. I truly think this should be an initiative of CEDA. Some criticize that all CEDA does is host a National Tournament. I know its more than that and I know we have a lot of good people serving the organization and the community. It's time however to take on the challenges that are more difficult. This is one of them I think. Hopefully the ball can start rolling... chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate KCKCC From hunt Thu Sep 16 12:51:21 2004 From: hunt (hunt at lclark.edu) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:51:21 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] A needed discussion on Novice and JV In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040916120913.01c32190@kckcc.toto.net> References: <6.0.1.1.1.20040916120913.01c32190@kckcc.toto.net> Message-ID: <2147483647.1095331881@biopsy-22-216.lclark.edu> In the Northwest and Rocky Mountains partially in the whole WEST , the US West of Kansas and West of Texas, the problem about novices and juniors happened some years ago. Novice divisions dried up meaning new people could not reasonably get into policy because there were no "peer" groups to compete against esp. locally at reasonable prices. Junior divisions dried up or got small, again meaning no local reasonably priced competition. Even some experienced high school policy folks didn't liked getting their butts kicked in open continuously even with the promises of "you are learning" "things will get better." Ways to potentially solve the problem #1 run cheap or cooperative learning workshops in late summer working on policy theory/strategy and researching the topic #2 Make special efforts (like Northeast) to promote foster encourage novice Take people from debate classes and have them compete against others at local nearby tournies and or watch. #3 Make special efforts to enter folks in reasonable junior divisions foster encourage at least some junior competition. #4 BOTH #2 AND 3 demand cooperative efforts to foster/encourage allow regional/district tournies and enough critical mass at these tournies and enough critical mass of these tournies to keep going These ideas AND OTHERS were out there in the Rockies, NW, and West but have not always succeeded. If the "novice junior" blight is now effecting the Midwest, I urge forensics educators to be concerned and to seek cooperative efforts to do what they can to reverse a bad "trend." Steve Hunt Lewis & Clark From stroube Thu Sep 16 15:10:22 2004 From: stroube (Jack Stroube) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:10:22 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] pollardites in the pentagon! Message-ID: <200409162010.i8GKAMf27610@hsdebate.com> anti-semitism, of course, if you are among the faithful but please answer the facts on the ground regarding perle, wolfy, feith and wurmser... Pollardites In The Pentagon? By Patrick J. Buchanan 9-16-4 In 1987, Jonathan Pollard, U.S. Navy intelligence analyst, was imprisoned for life for selling a roomful of U.S. secret documents to Israel. Tel Aviv refused to return them. At the Clinton-Netanyahu summit at Wye River, Pollard became a subject of contention. "Bibi" Netanyahu wanted to fly the American traitor back to Israel where he is a hero. Clinton balked. CIA's George Tenet would resign, Clinton told Netanyahu, if he pardoned Pollard. This history is recalled for a reason. Washington today is rife with reports the FBI has been investigating whether or not a nest of Pollardites inside the Pentagon has been funneling secrets, through the Israeli lobby AIPAC, to the Reno Road embassy and on to Sharon. Suspected mole Larry Franklin, a Pentagon Iranian analyst, was reportedly sighted trying to hand over to an AIPAC official a draft copy of a National Security Presidential Directive on Iran. With the mullahs apparently pursuing atomic bombs, Israel wants the United States to attack, denuclearize and bring down its No. 1 enemy, the regime in Tehran. Franklin popped up on FBI radar when he joined a breakfast meeting between an AIPAC man and an Israeli diplomat. AIPAC had been under FBI surveillance for over two years as a probable conduit to Israel of the fruits of espionage against the United States. Franklin, a devout Catholic and hawk on Iran, is now said to be cooperating with the FBI. His boss, William Luti, is the deputy to the Pentagon's No. 3, Douglas Feith, who has close ties to Likud. According to The Washington Post, the FBI is now interviewing present and ex-officials from Cheney's office and the Pentagon as to whether Feith, Richard Perle, David Wurmser and Paul Wolfowitz might have leaked U.S. security secrets to Israel, AIPAC or Ahmed Chalabi. Chalabi, once the Pentagon's candidate to succeed Saddam, has lately fallen from favor. Reportedly, he was caught telling Iran's intelligence station chief in Baghdad that friends in the Pentagon informed him they had broken Iran's code and were listening in on Iran's secret communications between Baghdad and Tehran. AIPAC and the Israelis deny any spying. Cooperation between the Bush and Sharon governments is so close, they insist, there is no need to commit espionage or thieve U.S. documents. Perhaps, but the men about whom the FBI is inquiring have old, deep and questionable ties to Israel and the Likud Party of Ariel Sharon. In 1970, Perle was picked up on an FBI wiretap discussing NSC secrets with the Israeli embassy. In 1981, as assistant secretary of defense, Perle got a top-secret security clearance for his chosen deputy Stephen Bryen, who is said to have narrowly eluded indictment for offering top- secret documents to Mossad's man in Washington. In 1982, Feith was the object of an inquiry as to whether he had given secret documents to the Israeli embassy. Fired from the NSC, he was hired by Perle. Feith left the Pentagon in 1986 to form a law firm - in Israel. Hired by Rumsfeld in 2001, Feith set up the Office of Special Plans, which cherry-picked the intelligence to the White House that turned out to be false, but facilitated the war on Iraq. In 1996, Perle, Feith and Wurmser co-authored a paper for Netanyahu calling for ditching Oslo, reoccupying the West Bank and overthrowing Saddam as "an important Israeli strategic objective." In 1998, Wolfowitz and Perle signed an open letter from the neoconservative front group PNAC to Clinton, urging him to ditch diplomacy and wage war on Iraq, and pledging their full support. On Jan. 1, 2001, eight months before 9/11, Wurmser, at AEI, called for joint U.S.-Israeli air strikes on Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya. According to White House anti-terror chief Richard Clarke, Wolfowitz, in April 2001, wanted Osama put on a back burner and for us to go after Iraq. In the first hours after 9/11, according to Bob Woodward and Clarke, Wolfowitz wanted Iraq invaded, not Afghanistan. For his role in steering us into war, Wolfowitz was named Man of the Year - by the Jerusalem Post. In my new book, Where the Right Went Wrong, there is a line that now appears prophetic: "America needs a Middle East policy made in the USA, not in Tel Aviv, or at AIPAC or AEI." Having promised him a cakewalk to Baghdad and a rose garden thereafter, neoconservatives misled President Bush. He should have fired the lot of them. Having failed to do so, he ought now, in his own interests, as well as our nation's, name Patrick "Bulldog" Fitzgerald, now heading up the investigation into the Valerie Plame leak, to head up the investigation of Israeli espionage, and possible treason, against the United States. If there has been a recurrence of Pollardism at the Pentagon, we need to know and the president needs to act, as Truman did not with Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White. http://www.ndtceda.com Phallus Jerkins Dabait League From dave Thu Sep 16 16:18:24 2004 From: dave (David Steinberg) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:18:24 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] A needed discussion on Novice and JV References: <6.0.1.1.1.20040916120913.01c32190@kckcc.toto.net> <2147483647.1095331881@biopsy-22-216.lclark.edu> Message-ID: <000d01c49c32$b6214cb0$d1c1ab81@com.nb> I totally agree with Steve! First, I believe that promoting Novice Debate is the most important thing I do. I believe that all debate experience is good, but that during the first year or so, the learning curve is steep, and that after that, it levels off considerably. And, I believe that my job is first and foremost to be an educator. And so I am frustrated by the limited number of opportunities for novice debaters to compete, and also frustrated by the challenge to recruit and retain novice debaters. One problem is that the available models of debate are unappealing to many potential debaters. And the marketplace is more competitive than ever. Mock trial, Model UN, Parliamentary debate and other competitive speaking activities are far more developed now than when I debated in college. And they tend to be better attended. So I am trying, in my corner of the world, with the help of some wonderful people, to create a safe space for developing novice policy debaters. Along with Nicole Colston at Miami Dade College-Wolfson, and Bill Todd and George Mencia at MDC-Kendall, we have started a modest program to develop a low cost, comfortable and supportive local league for novice policy debate. This fall we will host 3 developmental tournaments, organized to be competitive but also instrutional, low cost, and fun. A couple of other nearby institutions with interested students but no established or funded debate programs will be joining us. We hope to grow incrementally, and are off to a great start so far. Will we succeed? Only time will tell. There is great potential for growth of novice debate in the Southeast, with our wealth of weathy programs. I hope more folks will accept the responsibility to promote the growth of our activity through support and development of novice debate in their own programs and in their communities. Here is our initial document, which was well recieved by administrators at all three participating institutions: Sunshine Intercollegiate Debate Cooperative Proposing a cooperative venture designed to develop, promote, and facilitate evidence based intercollegiate policy debate in South Florida. The ultimate goal is to foster self- perpetuating CEDA based intercollegiate debate in South Florida (i.e., sufficient participation, support and expertise to enable viable local tournaments) and to enable and promote participation by group member programs in regional and national debate competition. In addition, once the group is viable, it will develop and promote an urban debate league for High School debate in South Florida. The University of Miami Debate Team under the director of David Steinberg will organize the following: 1. Training Modules. A series of training modules designed for prepare students, coaches and judges during Fall, 2004. A. Training sessions will be conducted during UM debate team meetings on Wednesdays from 5:00 pm until 7:40 pm on the UM Coral Gables campus. Participation will be open. Each session will be based on a training module to be made available through various media possibly including video tapes, workbooks, web based materials, and print handouts and texts. Additional sessions will be organized to facilitate alternative schedules and locations. B. Research assignments will be organized, collected and disseminated by the directors (David, Nicole and George). 2. Developmental Tournaments. A parallel series of developmental tournaments will be held in conjuction with the training sessions. The tournaments will be free. Judges will be experienced undergraduate debaters, staff and faculty. All participants will receive recognition, with as many as possible receiving awards and participating in elimination debates. Rounds will be shortened (6-2-3), with lots of time for post round interaction with judges. Debate experts will offer seminars, lectures, and interactive sessions with participants between debates. As possible, locations will be rotated. 3. Recruiting and Development. Professor Steinberg will visit students, faculty, administrators, and other leaders to promote development of CEDA debate programs at area institutions. Visits of additional representatives of CEDA will be arranged as would benefit development of local programs. 4. Mentoring. For students and program directors, to be organized and facilitated through the UM Debate program. 5. Intercollegiate competition. In cooperation with other program directors, Steinberg will coordinate entry and competition in regional and national debate tournaments by local students through: A. Coordination of entry and travel to select tournaments so as to maximize cost efficiency by participants. B. Coordination of swing teams and shared tournament preparation. C. Coordination of shared tournament coaching and logistics. 6. Development. Group leaders will actively pursue grants and external funding for group activities including local tournaments, travel, scholarships, support of coaching and administrative positions and urban debate. Suggested (Tentative) Fall, 2004 schedule training and developmental tournaments: 09/01 Training module 1 (at UM) 09/08 Training module 2 (at MDC-Kendall) 09/15 Training module 3 (at MDC-Wolfson) 09/22 Training module 4 (at UM) 09/29 Training module 5 10/01 - 10/02 Developmental Tournament #1 (at MDC-Kendall) 10/06 Training module 6 10/13 Training module 7 10/20 Training module 8 10/27 Training module 9 10/29-10/30 Developmental Tournament #2 (at Wolfson) 11/03 Training module 10 11/10 Training module 11 11/17 Training module 12 12/01 Training module 13 12/03-12/04 Developmental Tournament #3 (at UM) 01/07-01/09 University of Miami Hurricane Debates David L. Steinberg, Director of Debate University of Miami PO Box 248127 Coral Gables, FL 33124 Wolfson Building #3015 305-284-5553 (office) 305-284-5216 (fax) dave at miami.edu From jgingeri Thu Sep 16 17:31:57 2004 From: jgingeri (J Gingerich) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:31:57 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] T Howard Message-ID: T Ho--could you please backchannel me? Jonathan jdg29 (at) georgetown.edu _________________________________________________________________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar ? get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ From parcherj Thu Sep 16 10:06:56 2004 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:06:56 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Memos Message-ID: <005701c49bfe$fcb40070$2060fea9@Jeff> Frankly, I have always thought that this National Guard stuff is overblown. But last night I happened to watch the 60 minutes interview with Marian Carr Knox - the 86 year old former secretary of Killian, Bush's former commander and the supposed author of the memos in question. I found her devastatingly credible. Some excerpts from the story: Knox says she didn't type these memos, but she says she did type ones that contained the same information. "I know that I didn't type them," says Knox. "However, the information in those is correct." "Bush seemed to be having a good time. He didn't seem to be having any problem with the other pilots," says Knox. "But, his time there, it seemed that the other fellows were, I'm going to say this, sort of resentful of him because of his attitude . that he really didn't have to go by the rules." "These memos were not memos that you typed, and you don't think they came directly out of his files," Rather asked Knox. "The information, yes," says Knox. "It seems that somebody did see those memos, and then tried to reproduce and maybe changed them enough so that he wouldn't get in trouble over it." Knox says that working in a senate campaign in 1972 became more important to Mr. Bush than flying for the Guard. "I think it is plain and simple. Bush didn't think that he had to go by the rules that others did," says Knox. "He had this campaign to take care of, and that's what he was going to do -- and that's what he did do." full text here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/15/60II/main643768.shtml full video here: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/videoplayer/newVid/small_player/cbsnews_videoplayer.shtml?clip=/media/2004/09/15/video643791.wmv&sec=3475&vidId=3415&title=Questioning$@$Memos$@$Accuracy$@$&hitboxMLC=60minutes -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040916/b41ad6e4/attachment.htm From kel1773 Thu Sep 16 20:29:08 2004 From: kel1773 (Kelly Young) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:29:08 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Wayne State Motor City Classic Invitation -Oct 30-Nov 1 Message-ID: Hello, Here's the invite for the 2004 Wayne State Motor City Classic tournament. We are happy to announce that we have secured very affordable rates at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, in Dearborn (if you were at Districts last year or the NDT in Detroit, it is the same hotel). The Hyatt is a wonderful hotel with excellent accommodations, located 9 miles from the airport and a short drive to campus. The hotel also offers free modem/data port connections in all rooms. The tournament is ADA, CEDA and AFA/NDT Sanctioned. See the invite for specifics. In the past, we have had the pleasure to host teams from as far away as Texas, Kansas and California, plus a wide range of regional teams. We hope to have similar diversity and excellent competition this year. To register, you have three options: (1) Most preferred option: go to www.debateresults.com and register; (2) email Ron Stevenson rj_stevenson at hotmail.com; or fax/phone (see numbers on the invite). Hope to see you on Halloween weekend in Detroit! The Wayne State University Debate Team ___________________________________________________________ September 16, 2004 Dear Colleague: We invite you to join us for the Motor City Debate Tournament hosted by Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan. This year's tournament will be held on the weekend of October 30-November 1, 2004. Registration will take place on Friday evening, October 29, 2004, in the lobby of the Hyatt Regency Hotel. We look forward once again to welcoming many of you to our campus. We promise to do our best to make your visit to Detroit a pleasant one. Last year's tournament attracted teams from as far away as Kansas and Texas as well as many teams from the northeast and midwest. Our tournament is sanctioned for ADA, NDT and CEDA sweepstakes points and offers competition in three divisions: varsity, junior varsity, and novice. The varsity and junior varsity divisions will offer eight preliminary rounds (4 on Saturday, 4 on Sunday) with all elimination rounds in these divisions on Monday. We will adhere to all ADA rules, which can be found at www2.bc.edu/~katsulas/welcome.html. Room availability may affect the number of teams clearing. Additionally, the tournament also agrees to comply with the underlying principles of CEDA's Statement on Sexual Harassment and Discrimination and the Statement of Ethical Principles. The novice division will consist of six preliminary rounds on Saturday and Sunday with two elimination rounds Sunday afternoon. Novice debaters are expected to debate both sides of the topic. According to the ADA rules, the novice division is open to debaters who have no more than 18 rounds of policy debate or 50 rounds of Lincoln Douglas or a combined total of 50 rounds of Lincoln Douglas and policy debate where the student has no more than 18 rounds of policy debate, prior to the current academic year. This would prohibit anyone from starting in novice who had more than 18 rounds, it allows LD students to begin if they have less than 50 rounds, and it allows students with less than 18 rounds to go back to novice in their second year. This definition will be strictly enforced to ensure the integrity of the division. Further, to ease novice anxiety, we are again asking that outlines of novice affirmative cases be provided at registration. A casebook containing the outlines will be distributed at the ballot table prior to round one. We have a very limited number of judges for hire. If you need judges, please contact us immediately, as we cannot guarantee the availability of judges as we near the tournament weekend. We hope that you will be able to visit us this fall. We will try to provide an enjoyable time for you in Detroit along with excellent rounds of debate. Enclosed is a description of tournament procedures, our schedule, fees and housing. If you have any questions, please call (313) 577-2950 or email rj_Stevenson at hotmail.com Sincerely, George Ziegelmueller, Director of Forensics Ron Stevenson, Associate Director of Forensics James Dutcher, Graduate Assistant Katie Lavelle, Graduate Assistant Kelly Young, Graduate Assistant WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY MOTOR CITY COLLEGE DEBATE TOURNAMENT October 30 - November 1, 2004 ENTRIES: Schools may enter as many teams in each division as they wish. Teams in all divisions will be expected to engage in switch-side debating. FEES: Entry fees will cover awards, 2 continental breakfasts, 2 lunches, room use, and tournament administrative expenses. Fees are $80.00 for each Varsity and Junior Varsity team and $65.00 for each Novice team. TOPIC: This year's NDT/CEDA debate topic will be used in all three divisions. JUDGING: Each school must supply four rounds of judging per two-person team entered. All judges must remain to judge one round beyond the elimination of their teams. Judges may be hired at $20 per round. Please make requests for judges as early as possible. HOUSING: A block of rooms has been reserved at the Hyatt Regency Dearborn in the Fairlane Town Center, 600 Town Center Drive, Dearborn, MI 48126, phone 313-593-1234 or the toll free number is 1-800-233-1234. A flat fee of $65.00 for a double-double has been arranged, provided that your reservations are made before the deadline: October 14, 2003. Please ask for the Motor City Debate rate when you make your reservations. DIRECTIONS: Manoogian Hall is on the northeast corner of Warren Ave. and the John C. Lodge Service Drive. The street address is 906 W. Warren Ave, Detroit, MI 48201. PARKING: Please use parking LOT #52 on Warren Avenue across from Manoogian Hall on Saturday and Sunday. Instructions for Monday parking will be announced. SCHEDULE OF EVENTS FRIDAY, OCTOBER 29 8 p.m. - 11 p.m. Tournament Registration Hyatt Regency Lobby If you are arriving Saturday morning, please confirm your registration by calling WSU (313) 577-2946 before 5 p.m. on Friday or the Hampton Inn Dearborn (313) 436-9600 between 8 - 11 p.m. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 30 8:30 a.m. Continental Breakfast, 530 Manoogian Hall 9 a.m. Round I 11 a.m. Round II 1:00 p.m. Lunch, Italian Room - General Lectures Building 2 p.m. Round III 4 p.m. Round IV SUNDAY, OCTOBER 31 8:00 a.m. Continental Breakfast, 91 Manoogian, African-American Room 8:30 a.m. Round V 10:30 a.m. Round VI (Varsity and JV) 12:30 p.m. Lunch, 91 Manoogian, African-American Room Coaches/Judges Luncheon/District 5 Meeting, Room 595 2 p.m. Round VII (Varsity and JV) Novice Elimination Rounds 4:00 p.m. Round VIII (Varsity and JV) MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1 8:00 a.m. Varsity and JV Elimination Round Pairings in Hillberry A in the Student Center 8:30 a.m. Rounds Start -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040916/40e32f70/attachment.html From trond Thu Sep 16 21:19:02 2004 From: trond (trond at umich.edu) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:19:02 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Pew Poll: Bush 46% Kerry 46% Message-ID: <1095387542.414a4996c1cec@web.mail.umich.edu> http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=224 "Voter opinion in the presidential race has seesawed dramatically in the first two weeks of September. Following a successful nominating convention, George W. Bush broke open a deadlocked contest and jumped out to a big lead over John Kerry. However, polling this past week finds that Bush's edge over his Democratic rival has eroded. Reflecting this new volatility in the race, the size of the swing vote has increased slightly since the summer, rather than contracting as it typically does as the election approaches. The latest national survey of 1,972 registered voters by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted in two waves over a seven-day period, finds that the president's large margin of support in the initial period (Sept. 8-10) dissipated in the polling conducted Sept. 11-14. Among all registered voters Bush initially led Kerry by 52%-40%. However, the second wave of interviewing shows the race even among registered voters, at 46%-46%. When the sample is narrowed to likely voters, Bush holds a statistically insignificant lead of 47%-46% in the second wave, down from a huge 54%-38% advantage he held in the first wave of interviews." Trond E. Jacobsen From jfoy Thu Sep 16 23:07:59 2004 From: jfoy (Foy, John A.) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:07:59 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] calum matheson Message-ID: hey calum, I've got something i need to ask you. hit me back glue -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040916/d6eb2a4a/attachment.htm From privethedge Fri Sep 17 02:27:25 2004 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:27:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Pew Poll: Bush 46% Kerry 46% - Dueling Polls In-Reply-To: <1095387542.414a4996c1cec@web.mail.umich.edu> Message-ID: <20040917072725.41651.qmail@web50901.mail.yahoo.com> And here's one out today that says Bush is up 55% 45%....who knows...Duane http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=7&u=/nm/20040917/pl_nm/campaign_poll_dc "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040917/b4d066d3/attachment.html From dave Fri Sep 17 05:13:11 2004 From: dave (David L. Steinberg) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 06:13:11 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] A needed discussion on Novice and JV In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040916120913.01c32190@kckcc.toto.net> References: <6.0.1.1.1.20040916120913.01c32190@kckcc.toto.net> Message-ID: <414AB8B7.2040705@miami.edu> Chief is right on. I think my program is a #1, I am guessing there are more #3s. I agree that CEDA should find ways to make developing new blood and promotion of novice debate a higher priority across the commuity. However, I have two initial thoughts: 1. Individuals make a differnce, it doesn't have to be top down. We who do prioritize opening the activity to new debaters can individually take initiative. We are trying to South Florida. Mike Davis did so in Georgia last year. It was individual program action that strengthened novice in Districts 7 and 8 years ago. Some of this is informal, like the attention Tuna gives to novices when he runs an awards assembly, etc.... Some is formal, like the group that built ADA with rules to protect the novice division. Darren Elliott leads the charge in his community. Partly out of necessity, we are working to get a local, developmentatl league going this fall in South Florida (results not yet in.....) 2. Some of the institutional work of CEDA may belong in Professional Development. My bias is that as a profession, we should be developing directors with broad educational philosophies: Debate Educators. We are doing a good job of producting elite, technically skilled, competitively oriented Coaches, but not so much the pedagogically oriented scholar Teacher. I have been lucky to work for and with some wonderful and dedicated debate educators (David Thomas, Jim Brooks, Larry Underberg, Warren Decker, Brenda Logue...) One of the most important and meaningful experiences I ever had was a course in "Directing Forensics" with Norma Cook at Tennessee. She challenged us to self-evaluate the value of each of our program decisions, to develop and articulate a Philosophy of Forensics, to be accountable to the academy and ourselves for our program management choices, and especially, to care about and nurture the skills, knowledge, talent and personal development of every student. With such an approach, I do not know how one can fail to support novice debate. But this takes leadership from program directors who think of themselves as professional debate educators and teachers, career professionals bound to the academy. Anyway, thats my take, or at least part of it. dave Darren Elliott wrote: > > Recent posts to the list serv and other conversations have led me to > request a discussion be started regarding Novice and JV divisions. > > People will likely fall on one of 3 sides: > 1. Those who actively cultivate and promote those divisions > 2. Those who will travel Novices and JV debaters if they seek the > coach out but the program does not actively recruit them. > 3. Those who choose to not really cater to anyone other than those > with experience and open-ready. Define those terms how you choose to. > > There is a disturbing trend this year, and maybe it is too early to > sound the alarms. But we should at least do the drill. > > Novice divisions don't make unless you are in the East. Kudos to that > region yet again. JV often makes but Quarters is a stretch sometimes > and Octos is not heard of anymore. The trickle up effect is, there > usually isnt one. No place for Novices and JV debaters to hone their > skills they wont move up. Those that do trickle up prematurely get > beaten down and quit. We go back to square one. > > One thing I think coaches in Regions where JV is dropping in numbers > is to think about where they put their teams. I applaud coaches who > take their JV eligible debaters who kick ass and put them in Open. > But after much reflection, I agree with Martin Harris on one thing. > Putting good JV eligible debaters in JV some of the time helps the > divisions make and also helps make those other JV debaters better. JV > divisions used to be large and good in the Midwest. Makes more sense > to have a couple rounds against good JV debaters then to kill > someone's self-esteem day in and day out by putting them in Open. > > At UNI this weekend Open will make Octos, JV will only make Semis--2-3 > teams short of Quarters where I am sure there are some JV eligible > debaters lurking in Open. Novice wont make at all. How sad. If some > coaches would take note of this then putting a team in JV can help > those divisions make as well. Otherwise I fear people will continue > to "vote with their feet" when it comes to travel or policy debate > period. They already are. > > The same remarks above can extend to Novices and their struggles. > > As a community I think there needs to be dialogue on how to make these > divisions competitive and divisions that actually make. > > I truly think this should be an initiative of CEDA. Some criticize > that all CEDA does is host a National Tournament. I know its more > than that and I know we have a lot of good people serving the > organization and the community. It's time however to take on the > challenges that are more difficult. This is one of them I think. > > Hopefully the ball can start rolling... > > chief > > Darren Elliott > Director of Debate > KCKCC > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From dperkins Fri Sep 17 10:03:57 2004 From: dperkins (Dallas Perkins) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 11:03:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [eDebate] GSU Hotel space Message-ID: I need a room, or at the very least half a room, at the tournament hotel, for Georgia State. If anybody is about to cancel anything, please let me have one. Thanks, dp From dromane Fri Sep 17 11:29:32 2004 From: dromane (David Romanelli) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 11:29:32 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Loyola Hotel Message-ID: For those who didn't book in July the Cass is sold out of doubles. You can still get a room with on double bed for $64. Call soon 1-800-227-7850 and ask for the Loyola rate. From smithr Fri Sep 17 12:37:59 2004 From: smithr (ross smith) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:37:59 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Wake Forest Shirley tournament entry rules Message-ID: <414B20F7.8060106@wfu.edu> The tournament dates are Nov. 20-22. The tournament size is limited by the number of classrooms, and we lost some from last year due to violations of the "no food and drinks in the rooms" policy under which most departments lend us use of rooms. The last few years have also seen a number of schools get shut out entirely even though they tried to enter in time. We reviewed data from last year and based on the numbers, we will use the following entry procedure (subject to minor modification in case of lack of clarity in explanation or other kinds of "Doh" events). 1) Every school that wants to enter can AUTOMATICALLY receive TWO entry slots as long as they enter by Nov. 1. 2) After that, as space permits, we will then take additional teams, up to a total of four teams per school, as long as ALL FOUR teams have cleared to elims in TWO varsity tournaments this fall. (This rule would have put us at 144 teams last year and would not have shut out any schools). 3) After that, as space permits, we will take additional teams up to a total of three teams per school as long as ALL THREE teams have cleared to elims in at least one varsity tournament this fall. 4) After that, as space permits, we will take additional teams up to a total of four teams per school as long as ALL FOUR teams have cleared to elims in at least one varsity tournament this fall. (This rule would have put us at 173 teams last year without shutting out any schools, but we would not have had space for 173). Note: clearing at a varsity tournament means clearing withing the defined rules of CEDA regarding how many teams are allowed to clear at a tournament. In other words, if a ten team tourrnament cleared 8 teams, all 8 would not have cleared according to the rules. From blackmon47 Fri Sep 17 14:01:25 2004 From: blackmon47 (Neil Blackmon) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:01:25 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] gsu judging available Message-ID: Neil Blackmon Director of Debate, pace university _________________________________________________________________ On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement From debate Fri Sep 17 14:43:31 2004 From: debate (debate at ou.edu) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:43:31 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Wake Entry Restrictions Message-ID: <9269b0953c07.414aea03@ou.edu> Just for clarity. If i have a student that is saving eligibility, and will only attend one tournament before Wake, there is zero possibility this student could be a one of a schools three teams? Is that how this rule would read? Massey From parcherj Fri Sep 17 12:02:52 2004 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:02:52 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Advice from God Message-ID: <009901c49cd8$367569f0$2060fea9@Jeff> As many of you know, Bush gave Bob Woodward full access to write a book about the run up to the war. The White House even promoted sales of the book. This is an excerpt of Woodwards interview with CBS: Did Mr. Bush ask his father for any advice? "I asked the president about this. And President Bush said, 'Well, no,' and then he got defensive about it," says Woodward. "Then he said something that really struck me. He said of his father, 'He is the wrong father to appeal to for advice. The wrong father to go to, to appeal to in terms of strength.' And then he said, 'There's a higher Father that I appeal to.'" Beyond not asking his father about going to war, Woodward was startled to learn that the president did not ask key cabinet members either. "The president, in making the decision to go to war, did not ask his secretary of defense for an overall recommendation, did not ask his secretary of state, Colin Powell, for his recommendation," says Woodward. Full transcript here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main612067.shtml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040917/a9bb6284/attachment.htm From stroube Fri Sep 17 15:29:25 2004 From: stroube (Jack Stroube) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:29:25 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] judge orders DOD to find ng records of wealthy president Message-ID: <200409172029.i8HKTPd32146@hsdebate.com> better turn up osama cuz the RNC bounce gonna fade quickly. wait til you see w's confabulations in the presidential dabaits. rich boy used his family connections to avoid fighting on the frontlines and couldn't even get that right. the embarassments are going to multiply rapidly in the days and weeks to cum. the guy got moved to two-seaters so ashe could give 'em blowjobs a mile high. nice to be part of the club of preferential treatment that allows idiocy to rise to the top. http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091804Z.shtml Judge Orders U.S. to Find Bush Records By the Associated Press Friday 17 September 2004 WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal judge has ordered the Pentagon to find and make public by next week any unreleased files about President Bush's Vietnam-era Air National Guard service to resolve a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by The Associated Press. U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr. handed down the order late Wednesday in New York. The AP lawsuit already has led to the disclosure of previously unreleased flight logs from Bush's days piloting F-102A fighters and other jets. Pentagon officials told Baer they plan to have their search complete by Monday. Baer ordered the Pentagon to hand over the records to the AP by Sept. 24 and provide a written statement by Sept. 29 detailing the search for more records. ``We're hopeful the Department of Defense will provide a full accounting of the steps it has taken, as the judge ordered, so the public can have some assurance that there are no documents being withheld,'' said AP lawyer David Schulz. White House officials have said Bush ordered the Pentagon earlier this year to conduct a thorough search for the president's records, and officials allowed reporters to review everything that was gathered back in February. Through a series of requests under the federal open records law and a subsequent suit, the AP uncovered the flight logs, which were not part of the records the White House released earlier this year. Both Bush's and John Kerry's service records in Vietnam have become a major issue in the presidential race. New records that have surfaced in recent weeks have raised more questions. Bush's critics say Bush got preferential treatment as the son of a congressman and U.N. ambassador. Critics also question why Bush skipped a required medical examination in 1972 and failed to show up for drills during a six-month period that year. Bush has repeatedly said he fulfilled all of his Air National Guard obligations. The future president joined the Texas Air National Guard in 1968, when he graduated from Yale. He spent more than a year on active duty learning how to fly and then mostly flew in the one-seat F-102A fighters until April 1972. The pilot logs show a shift to flights in two-seat trainer jets in March 1972, shortly before Bush quit flying. Former Air National Guard officials say that could have been because F-102A jets were not available for Bush to fly or because of other reasons, such as concerns about Bush's flight performance. Bush skipped his required yearly medical exam in 1972 in the months after he stopped flying in April. Bush has said he moved to Alabama to work on the unsuccessful Senate campaign of a family friend. Bush never showed up for Guard service between late April and mid- October 1972. He won approval to train with an Alabama Air National Guard unit during September, October and November 1972, but more than a dozen members of the unit at that time say they never saw him there. The only direct record of Bush appearing at the Alabama unit's base is a January 1973 dental exam performed at that base. Bush's Texas commanders wrote in May 1973 they never saw him between May 1972 and April 1973, a time when his pay records show he trained on 14 days. Although military regulations allowed commanders to order two years of active duty for guardsmen who missed more than three straight months of drills, that never happened to Bush. Commanders had leeway at the time to allow guardsmen to make up for missed drills. http://www.ndtceda.com Phallus Jerkins Dabait League From oldmanwaterman Fri Sep 17 15:50:36 2004 From: oldmanwaterman (Old Man Waterman) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:50:36 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] The concentration of debate power (AKA pick the first-rounds??) Message-ID: Looking over the likely first-rounds for this coming year I can't help but notice that ever since the NDT-CEDA merger (at least) there has been a slow and mostly steady trend toward the concentration of talent in a ever-smaller number of schools. In 95-96, 96-97, and 97-98 there were about 2 or 3 schools per year that had 2 or more first-round quality teams. The last few years have seen 4 or 5 schools with 2 or more of the top 16 teams. This year's bid-quality teams seem likely to be Emory A, B, & C; Dartmouth A & B; Northwestern A & B; Harvard A, B, & maybe C, Berkeley A & probably B; Texas A & maybe B; MSU A & maybe B; Wake Forest A; West Georgia A; George Mason A; maybe Redlands A . . . with NYU A, Wake Forest B, and a couple others as potential dark horses. Which means there will almost certainly be 5 schools with two or more bid-quality teams, probably 6 schools, and maybe even 7 schools. I don't think we can escape the conclusion that high-level policy debate is becoming more and more inaccesible to people who don't attend the top debate schools. This seems bad as it (a) forces high school debaters who want to do college debate to only have maybe 15-20 colleges they can attend and be competitive at, out of several thousand US colleges, (b) makes being a top debater less and less meaningful--it's more and more about school resources & less about talent/work, and (c) runs counter to the professed anti-elitist, pro-accessibility beliefs of many debaters. (To a lesser extent this problem is occuring at the high school level. But is seems to be worse at the college level and worsening faster at the college level.) Is it time to re-consider the proposal for open sharing of full texts of evidence once it has been read (or perhaps after it has been used at one tournament, before the next tournament the team that used it must make it available)? Or are there other solutions? Does this solution really address the problem? (Incidentally, anyone who doesn't like my bid predictions and wants to put their money where their mouth is . . .) -omw _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From kel1773 Fri Sep 17 17:52:28 2004 From: kel1773 (Kelly Young) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:52:28 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] RE: The concentration of debate power... Message-ID: OMW says: I don't think we can escape the conclusion that high-level policy debate is becoming more and more inaccesible to people who don't attend the top debate schools. This seems bad as it (a) forces high school debaters who want to do college debate to only have maybe 15-20 colleges they can attend and be competitive at, out of several thousand US colleges, (b) makes being a top debater less and less meaningful--it's more and more about school resources & less about talent/work, and (c) runs counter to the professed anti-elitist, pro-accessibility beliefs of many debaters. _______________________ 1) perhaps elitism is more a problem in your method of analysis than the actual state of debate. I find it hard to believe that receiving a prebid is the only indicator you'd look at to determine "high-level" policy debate. If you think the health of "high-level" debate is the best indicator of the quality of debate as a whole, then you're the problem. 2) by my accounts, there are about 40 or so teams that I would consider nationally competitive, year in and year out. They may not receive prebids at all or every year, but they clear quite frequently at many national tournaments or are consistently in late break rounds. I could be off on my guesstimations, but that would make about 30% of the CEDA/NDT debate programs nationally competitive. 3) I also find the conclusion that this "makes being a top debater less and less meaningful" somewhat surprising as well. I am sure that the last few years' crop of prebid appreciate that. In addition, a "high-level" debater that isn't at one of the premier schools you list is probably MORE motivated to take down prebid teams. Just ask Lincoln Bisbee if he thought being a top debater was meaningless because he debated for Miami-Ohio instead of a larger program. 4) Finally, a better way to assess the health of competitiveness is to examine the brutal competition at Districts and for 2nd round bids. Right at the time of the merger, you could get a 2nd bid just by applying for one. Now, your bid application has to be pretty damn good just to get consideration. You're right to an extent--the top schools are getting better and deeper every year. But those of us groveling for the scraps underneath aren't that far behind and are competitive both nationally and regionally. Kelly Young -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040917/72ceb772/attachment.html From jasonlrussell Fri Sep 17 18:21:18 2004 From: jasonlrussell (jason russell) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:21:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [eDebate] Concentration of Power Message-ID: <20040917232118.619211E439@xprdmailfe25.nwk.excite.com> Even your own list doesn't prove a lot about concentration of power. Berkeley is a relatively new addition to the list (their first first round in a long time was 2000 I believe). West Georgia is not exactly a paragon on resources or academic prestige. Redlands is a one coach and a director program. NYU is brand new and part of the coalition. GMU hasn't been in the ranks in a long time. The concentration you speak of does happen because debaters do make choices to go to schools that are in fact awesome -- with a wealth of talented debaters. The trickle down effect that results from getting 1-2 good recruits (or coaches) explains a lot about why the best schools stya good and do so for years. Other students want to be around talented debaters. Seriously, sharing full texts of evidence is not ever going to make some mediocre debater as good as Shalmon. And we already do this to a lesser extent by freely sharing cites and even cites from debates you were never in are on the internet in case lists. And people will e-mail them to you if they aren't up. In the end, evidence isn't why these schools are good -- it is talent, plain and simple. Every few years we bandy about on this silly listserv about correcting some problem with the big and small schools, or the access gap, or some other such garbage, but we seem to misidentify the problem or find a problem where there is none -- some debaters are better than others and the middle to upper area debaters tend to like each other and want to go to the same variety of schools. This full text evidence sharing sounds like a bath for tournament hosts and another thing that will make already unbearable long debate tournaments even longer. That will suck. And if we put the onus on the teams, then we only punish small school with less able bodies to upload all of their shit to the internet even more so than we do now. And, small schools are more likely to get by because their arguments are tricky and unpredicted by their opponents than by running straight inbetween the tackles. Openly sharing all of their arguments is more likely to generate pre-round attention to them by coaches (of which there are more at large schools). Can you deal with this! Russell _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! From bamadebate Fri Sep 17 21:25:59 2004 From: bamadebate (ed lee) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:25:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Crimson Classis - Oct 22-24 Message-ID: <20040918022559.8820.qmail@web13124.mail.yahoo.com> 6 rounds of Novice, JV and Open. Food on Sat and Sunday mornings. Dirt Cheap entry fees and Hotel cost. Rounds start and end at a humane time all 3 days. Hope to see you in T-Town Offiial Invite is attached Peace e __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CRIMCLAS04.6677DEFANGED-doc Type: application/defanged Size: 35328 bytes Desc: CRIMCLAS04.doc Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040917/08df503d/attachment.bin From marty002 Fri Sep 17 23:40:40 2004 From: marty002 (marty002 at bama.ua.edu) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:40:40 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Anita from West Georgia Message-ID: <1095482440.414bbc4870cea@bamamail.ua.edu> hey anita or anyone who knows how to get in touch with anita, I need to speak to her, so please tell her to email me back. Jillian -- From berchnorto Sat Sep 18 11:12:45 2004 From: berchnorto (NEIL BERCH) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 12:12:45 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Wake Forest Shirley tournament entry rules Message-ID: A few thoughts on what this policy might mean (and let me start by indicating that I think it's a very good policy): 1. The community will now be on notice that there are consequences that come from trashing other people's campuses. We lose rooms. Maybe people will stop trashing other people's campuses. 2. Ross and Allan have done a tremendous service to regional debate. If you want to get 3 or 4 teams into the field at Wake (remember, everyone who wants can send two teams), you may send your 3rd and 4th (and possibly 1st and 2nd) teams to King's or Wichita instead of Georgia State, to Richmond instead of Kentucky, to Wayne State or West Point instead of Harvard. This will improve the quantity and quality of the fields at those tournaments, as well as at UCO, Northridge, Rochester, Buffalo, SMSU, Northern Illinois and many others. This is a good thing. It's an even better thing if some take this as an opportunity to add novice debaters to go to those regional tournaments as well. 3. If you decide that your schedule for fall must start with GSU, Kentucky, Harvard, and nothing else, you may not qualify 3 or 4 teams for Wake. This is also a good thing, as it means more and better teams for Columbia and Appalachian State that same weekend. Let me preempt the "this smacks of elitism argument". First, everyone gets two slots at Wake if they want them. Second, improving the quality and quantity of teams at regional tournaments improves the quality of competition for teams that can only afford to go to those regional tournaments, so it provides better debate for more people. Finally, it's not nearly as harmful to the teams that might otherwise have gone to national circuit tournaments but end up in regional tournaments. Instead of going 3-5 at Harvard, you get to go 5-3 or 6-2 at Wayne State, you spend most of your rounds debating teams of similar quality to you (just like at Harvard, except for that one preset where you lose to a first round) plus you get a serious chance to debate in multiple outrounds. Wake was on our original schedule. We were going to enter the previous maximum of 4 teams, take everyone else to flow rounds, etc., and hope that everyone won at least one round and someone managed to go 4-4. But, prior to Ross's post, I was having second thoughts about this. Indeed, on Thursday night, I exchanged a series of emails with another coach, and we agreed to (after checking with our squads) take all or most of our teams to Appalachian State instead (WVU can't go to Columbia due to the fact that our Risk Management Officer banned us from taking vans to NYC after last year's two-accident debacle on the way to and from NYU by one of our graduate assistants--as an ex-NYC cab driver, I was so embarrassed). With the announcement that Ross made, we will certainly do this, as we have a very strong presumption in our team ethos that we don't give more opportunities to our better debaters than we do to our less-skilled but equally hard-working debaters. Let me be clear that we love the Wake coaching staff and the Wake tournament. Our teams have enjoyed the losses they've suffered at Wake in previous years tremendously, but it's better for both our team and the community that we go to App. State instead (and if I'm right above, the competition there will be better than it would have been prior to Wake's policy announcement). I'm sure there are others who will see disadvantages to Wake's policy, but I hope that many will look as well to the opportunities with which I think it presents us. --Neil Berch West Virginia University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040918/11b132a5/attachment.html From neilsbutt Sat Sep 18 12:48:32 2004 From: neilsbutt (Neil Butt) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 13:48:32 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Ellipses and Full Cites Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040918/1825be6b/attachment.htm From privethedge Sat Sep 18 21:47:38 2004 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 19:47:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Ohio Valley Tournament Dates? Message-ID: <20040919024738.40041.qmail@web50902.mail.yahoo.com> HI, Can someone tell me when the Univerrsity of Kentucky/Ohio Valley High School tournament is this year? Any information would be much welcome. Thanks so much, Duane ===== "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From jgingeri Sat Sep 18 21:50:51 2004 From: jgingeri (J Gingerich) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 20:50:51 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Ride from the airport at Georgia State Message-ID: If anyone could potentially give a couple of debaters and their tubs a ride to the tournament hotel this Friday around 5:30 PM, please backchannel me. Jonathan jdg29 (at) georgetown.edu _________________________________________________________________ Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx From jakethompsondebate Sat Sep 18 22:00:42 2004 From: jakethompsondebate (jacob thompson) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 03:00:42 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] uni caselists Message-ID: I have attached the aff and neg UNI caselists from rounds 1-4... more updates will follow. Jake Thompson UNI _________________________________________________________________ Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UNI Case Neg 04.21082DEFANGED-doc Type: application/defanged Size: 97280 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040919/b1dd5272/attachment.bin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: casebook-aff.21082DEFANGED-doc Type: application/defanged Size: 186880 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040919/b1dd5272/attachment-0001.bin From Zompetti Sat Sep 18 23:36:26 2004 From: Zompetti (Zompetti at aol.com) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 00:36:26 EDT Subject: [eDebate] Caselists Message-ID: UNI posted a caselist so far....will Georgia State and Gonzaga being doing the same??? just wanting help for my novices, zomp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040919/8c4fbffa/attachment.html From hansonjb Sun Sep 19 01:16:21 2004 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 23:16:21 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Wake Forest Shirley tournament entry rules References: Message-ID: <005d01c49e10$fd455020$2aed480c@whitman.edu> i respect what neil is saying. i also respect what ross and al are trying to do. for our squad--except for 2 teams, we can only afford to send our teams to two tournaments prior to wake--our budget has been stretched to the breaking point because there are only 2 tournaments in the northwest this year and we now have to fly to virtually every tournament we go to--there aren't regional tournaments for us to turn to. our second tournament is pepperdine, some 1200ish miles away. our teams have to break at both tournaments they attend in order to go wake. that is kind of harsh and an unfortunate consequence of the new qualifying procedure for going to wake. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: NEIL BERCH To: edebate Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 9:12 AM Subject: Re: [eDebate] Wake Forest Shirley tournament entry rules A few thoughts on what this policy might mean (and let me start by indicating that I think it's a very good policy): 1. The community will now be on notice that there are consequences that come from trashing other people's campuses. We lose rooms. Maybe people will stop trashing other people's campuses. 2. Ross and Allan have done a tremendous service to regional debate. If you want to get 3 or 4 teams into the field at Wake (remember, everyone who wants can send two teams), you may send your 3rd and 4th (and possibly 1st and 2nd) teams to King's or Wichita instead of Georgia State, to Richmond instead of Kentucky, to Wayne State or West Point instead of Harvard. This will improve the quantity and quality of the fields at those tournaments, as well as at UCO, Northridge, Rochester, Buffalo, SMSU, Northern Illinois and many others. This is a good thing. It's an even better thing if some take this as an opportunity to add novice debaters to go to those regional tournaments as well. 3. If you decide that your schedule for fall must start with GSU, Kentucky, Harvard, and nothing else, you may not qualify 3 or 4 teams for Wake. This is also a good thing, as it means more and better teams for Columbia and Appalachian State that same weekend. Let me preempt the "this smacks of elitism argument". First, everyone gets two slots at Wake if they want them. Second, improving the quality and quantity of teams at regional tournaments improves the quality of competition for teams that can only afford to go to those regional tournaments, so it provides better debate for more people. Finally, it's not nearly as harmful to the teams that might otherwise have gone to national circuit tournaments but end up in regional tournaments. Instead of going 3-5 at Harvard, you get to go 5-3 or 6-2 at Wayne State, you spend most of your rounds debating teams of similar quality to you (just like at Harvard, except for that one preset where you lose to a first round) plus you get a serious chance to debate in multiple outrounds. Wake was on our original schedule. We were going to enter the previous maximum of 4 teams, take everyone else to flow rounds, etc., and hope that everyone won at least one round and someone managed to go 4-4. But, prior to Ross's post, I was having second thoughts about this. Indeed, on Thursday night, I exchanged a series of emails with another coach, and we agreed to (after checking with our squads) take all or most of our teams to Appalachian State instead (WVU can't go to Columbia due to the fact that our Risk Management Officer banned us from taking vans to NYC after last year's two-accident debacle on the way to and from NYU by one of our graduate assistants--as an ex-NYC cab driver, I was so embarrassed). With the announcement that Ross made, we will certainly do this, as we have a very strong presumption in our team ethos that we don't give more opportunities to our better debaters than we do to our less-skilled but equally hard-working debaters. Let me be clear that we love the Wake coaching staff and the Wake tournament. Our teams have enjoyed the losses they've suffered at Wake in previous years tremendously, but it's better for both our team and the community that we go to App. State instead (and if I'm right above, the competition there will be better than it would have been prior to Wake's policy announcement). I'm sure there are others who will see disadvantages to Wake's policy, but I hope that many will look as well to the opportunities with which I think it presents us. --Neil Berch West Virginia University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040918/05c95737/attachment.htm From dedevelopment Sun Sep 19 03:27:15 2004 From: dedevelopment (Jeremy Peterson) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 01:27:15 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] David Wells Contact Info Message-ID: If anyone has contact information for David Wells of CSUB fame, please backchannel me. Thanx in advance. Jeremy P _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From Bill_Southworth Sun Sep 19 06:51:42 2004 From: Bill_Southworth (Southworth, Bill) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 04:51:42 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Wake Forest Shirley tournament entry rules Message-ID: <30D0F22BE0464E4F98580F12FD65D7A83EBF8D@exch.redlands.edu> I have to agree with Jim. We suffer a similar budget and option restriction. Our first tournament is Gonzaga, some 1200ish miles away and our first local tournament is Pepperdine. Our second local tournament is Northridge about one week before Wake Forest. Admittedly it is a problem we bring upon ourselves by having so few local tournaments, that is until Spring, but it does make such standards impossible to achieve for many deserving teams. Having said that, we also bring it upon ourselves. Our students, and coaches, treat facilities at visiting campuses the same way we treat our squad rooms and dorm rooms. All too many of us dress like trash, talk like trash and seem to feel quite comfortable surrounding ourselves with trash! -----Original Message----- From: Jim Hanson To: edebate Sent: 9/18/2004 11:16 PM Subject: Re: [eDebate] Wake Forest Shirley tournament entry rules Importance: Low i respect what neil is saying. i also respect what ross and al are trying to do. for our squad--except for 2 teams, we can only afford to send our teams to two tournaments prior to wake--our budget has been stretched to the breaking point because there are only 2 tournaments in the northwest this year and we now have to fly to virtually every tournament we go to--there aren't regional tournaments for us to turn to. our second tournament is pepperdine, some 1200ish miles away. our teams have to break at both tournaments they attend in order to go wake. that is kind of harsh and an unfortunate consequence of the new qualifying procedure for going to wake. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: NEIL BERCH To: edebate Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 9:12 AM Subject: Re: [eDebate] Wake Forest Shirley tournament entry rules A few thoughts on what this policy might mean (and let me start by indicating that I think it's a very good policy): 1. The community will now be on notice that there are consequences that come from trashing other people's campuses. We lose rooms. Maybe people will stop trashing other people's campuses. 2. Ross and Allan have done a tremendous service to regional debate. If you want to get 3 or 4 teams into the field at Wake (remember, everyone who wants can send two teams), you may send your 3rd and 4th (and possibly 1st and 2nd) teams to King's or Wichita instead of Georgia State, to Richmond instead of Kentucky, to Wayne State or West Point instead of Harvard. This will improve the quantity and quality of the fields at those tournaments, as well as at UCO, Northridge, Rochester, Buffalo, SMSU, Northern Illinois and many others. This is a good thing. It's an even better thing if some take this as an opportunity to add novice debaters to go to those regional tournaments as well. 3. If you decide that your schedule for fall must start with GSU, Kentucky, Harvard, and nothing else, you may not qualify 3 or 4 teams for Wake. This is also a good thing, as it means more and better teams for Columbia and Appalachian State that same weekend. Let me preempt the "this smacks of elitism argument". First, everyone gets two slots at Wake if they want them. Second, improving the quality and quantity of teams at regional tournaments improves the quality of competition for teams that can only afford to go to those regional tournaments, so it provides better debate for more people. Finally, it's not nearly as harmful to the teams that might otherwise have gone to national circuit tournaments but end up in regional tournaments. Instead of going 3-5 at Harvard, you get to go 5-3 or 6-2 at Wayne State, you spend most of your rounds debating teams of similar quality to you (just like at Harvard, except for that one preset where you lose to a first round) plus you get a serious chance to debate in multiple outrounds. Wake was on our original schedule. We were going to enter the previous maximum of 4 teams, take everyone else to flow rounds, etc., and hope that everyone won at least one round and someone managed to go 4-4. But, prior to Ross's post, I was having second thoughts about this. Indeed, on Thursday night, I exchanged a series of emails with another coach, and we agreed to (after checking with our squads) take all or most of our teams to Appalachian State instead (WVU can't go to Columbia due to the fact that our Risk Management Officer banned us from taking vans to NYC after last year's two-accident debacle on the way to and from NYU by one of our graduate assistants--as an ex-NYC cab driver, I was so embarrassed). With the announcement that Ross made, we will certainly do this, as we have a very strong presumption in our team ethos that we don't give more opportunities to our better debaters than we do to our less-skilled but equally hard-working debaters. Let me be clear that we love the Wake coaching staff and the Wake tournament. Our teams have enjoyed the losses they've suffered at Wake in previous years tremendously, but it's better for both our team and the community that we go to App. State instead (and if I'm right above, the competition there will be better than it would have been prior to Wake's policy announcement). I'm sure there are others who will see disadvantages to Wake's policy, but I hope that many will look as well to the opportunities with which I think it presents us. --Neil Berch West Virginia University From nselegzi Sun Sep 19 07:02:26 2004 From: nselegzi (Noel) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 12:02:26 +0000 GMT Subject: [eDebate] The People Speak - Update Message-ID: <1461285287-1095595430-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-3127-@engine34> The first week of TPS is coming to a close and I'm happy to report that just over 200 mini-grant proposals have been approved. We've have received some great proposals and I encourage everyone interested in TPS to look at the event calendar at www.idebate.org/thepeoplespeak/calendar.asp. The calendar is a great place to look, too, if you're looking for ideas for your own proposals. So far, the most common reasons we've had for rejecting proposals are: 1) The topic of the event is not specified or not directly related to the basic TPS theme of America's role in the World. This has been particularly true for events proposed on environment and globalization. Please remember that these events should involve a discussion, on some level, of US foreign policy. 2) Incomplete information. Generally, we have simply rejected proposals and asked that they be re-submitted electronically with complete information. The most commonly omitted information is bank or wire information. Please make sure you completely fill out your proposals. 3) We have also rejected proposals from organizations that have proposed to do the same event over and over again. While we recognize that some events can easily be repeated for different audiences, we are also trying to insure that as many different grantees are supported. We have not set a specific limit on the number of events one organization can host, but we are trying to make sure that we reach many different audiences with the events. Noel Sent via BlackBerry - please excuse the typos - how do they expect people to type on these tiny keys? From jd.rollins Sun Sep 19 09:10:55 2004 From: jd.rollins (Joel Rollins) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 09:10:55 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Wake Forest Shirley tournament entry rules In-Reply-To: <30D0F22BE0464E4F98580F12FD65D7A83EBF8D@exch.redlands.edu> References: <30D0F22BE0464E4F98580F12FD65D7A83EBF8D@exch.redlands.edu> Message-ID: i would have wished that the policy had been announced earlier, before we set a travel schedule and bought non-refundable tickets to other tournaments. this does change the way that we are thinking about the schedule. joel On Sep 19, 2004, at 6:51 AM, Southworth, Bill wrote: > I have to agree with Jim. We suffer a similar budget and option > restriction. Our first tournament is Gonzaga, some > 1200ish miles away and our first local tournament is Pepperdine. Our > second > local tournament is Northridge > about one week before Wake Forest. Admittedly it is a problem we > bring upon > ourselves by having so few local > tournaments, that is until Spring, but it does make such standards > impossible to achieve for many deserving teams. > Having said that, we also bring it upon ourselves. Our students, and > coaches, treat facilities at visiting campuses > the same way we treat our squad rooms and dorm rooms. All too many of > us > dress like trash, talk like trash and > seem to feel quite comfortable surrounding ourselves with trash! > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Hanson > To: edebate > Sent: 9/18/2004 11:16 PM > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Wake Forest Shirley tournament entry rules > Importance: Low > > i respect what neil is saying. i also respect what ross and al are > trying to do. > > for our squad--except for 2 teams, we can only afford to send our teams > to two tournaments prior to wake--our budget has been stretched to the > breaking point because there are only 2 tournaments in the northwest > this year and we now have to fly to virtually every tournament we go > to--there aren't regional tournaments for us to turn to. our second > tournament is pepperdine, some 1200ish miles away. our teams have to > break at both tournaments they attend in order to go wake. that is kind > of harsh and an unfortunate consequence of the new qualifying procedure > for going to wake. > > jim :) > hansonjb at whitman.edu > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: NEIL BERCH > To: edebate > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 9:12 AM > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Wake Forest Shirley tournament entry rules > > A few thoughts on what this policy might mean (and let me start by > indicating that I think it's a very good policy): > > 1. The community will now be on notice that there are consequences > that > come from trashing other people's campuses. We lose rooms. Maybe > people will stop trashing other people's campuses. > > 2. Ross and Allan have done a tremendous service to regional debate. > If you want to get 3 or 4 teams into the field at Wake (remember, > everyone who wants can send two teams), you may send your 3rd and 4th > (and possibly 1st and 2nd) teams to King's or Wichita instead of > Georgia > State, to Richmond instead of Kentucky, to Wayne State or West Point > instead of Harvard. This will improve the quantity and quality of the > fields at those tournaments, as well as at UCO, Northridge, Rochester, > Buffalo, SMSU, Northern Illinois and many others. This is a good > thing. > It's an even better thing if some take this as an opportunity to add > novice debaters to go to those regional tournaments as well. > > 3. If you decide that your schedule for fall must start with GSU, > Kentucky, Harvard, and nothing else, you may not qualify 3 or 4 teams > for Wake. This is also a good thing, as it means more and better teams > for Columbia and Appalachian State that same weekend. > > Let me preempt the "this smacks of elitism argument". First, everyone > gets two slots at Wake if they want them. Second, improving the > quality > and quantity of teams at regional tournaments improves the quality of > competition for teams that can only afford to go to those regional > tournaments, so it provides better debate for more people. Finally, > it's not nearly as harmful to the teams that might otherwise have gone > to national circuit tournaments but end up in regional tournaments. > Instead of going 3-5 at Harvard, you get to go 5-3 or 6-2 at Wayne > State, you spend most of your rounds debating teams of similar quality > to you (just like at Harvard, except for that one preset where you lose > to a first round) plus you get a serious chance to debate in multiple > outrounds. > > Wake was on our original schedule. We were going to enter the previous > maximum of 4 teams, take everyone else to flow rounds, etc., and hope > that everyone won at least one round and someone managed to go 4-4. > But, prior to Ross's post, I was having second thoughts about this. > Indeed, on Thursday night, I exchanged a series of emails with another > coach, and we agreed to (after checking with our squads) take all or > most of our teams to Appalachian State instead (WVU can't go to > Columbia > due to the fact that our Risk Management Officer banned us from taking > vans to NYC after last year's two-accident debacle on the way to and > from NYU by one of our graduate assistants--as an ex-NYC cab driver, I > was so embarrassed). With the announcement that Ross made, we will > certainly do this, as we have a very strong presumption in our team > ethos that we don't give more opportunities to our better debaters than > we do to our less-skilled but equally hard-working debaters. Let me be > clear that we love the Wake coaching staff and the Wake tournament. > Our > teams have enjoyed the losses they've suffered at Wake in previous > years > tremendously, but it's better for both our team and the community that > we go to App. State instead (and if I'm right above, the competition > there will be better than it would have been prior to Wake's policy > announcement). > > I'm sure there are others who will see disadvantages to Wake's policy, > but I hope that many will look as well to the opportunities with which > I > think it presents us. > > --Neil Berch > West Virginia University > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > Joel D. Rollins, Ph.D. Director University of Texas National Institute of Forensics Dept. of Communication Studies CMA 7.114 One University Station A1105 Austin TX 78712 512-471-1918 (o) 512-232-1481 (f) jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu www.utdebate.com From echoifas Sun Sep 19 10:09:38 2004 From: echoifas (E Choi) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 11:09:38 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Cap Cities Judge? Message-ID: Hi: I'm going to be in D.C. the weekend of Cap Cities and would be happy to judge for some money. I'd need some place to crash, but I'll be able to get a plane ticket to DC. If you're interested, please email me here. Thanks, eyc _________________________________________________________________ On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement From katekauf Sun Sep 19 11:16:23 2004 From: katekauf (Kate Baxter-Kauf) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 12:16:23 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Buffalo Debate Tournament, October 2-3 Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040919/35504bd1/attachment.html From gsudebate Sun Sep 19 14:36:53 2004 From: gsudebate (Joe Bellon) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 15:36:53 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Caselists In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4244B175-0A73-11D9-8C2E-000A95CF483E@mindspring.com> We will, as usual, be posting a caselist. Hope life is good in Normal. -Joe On Sep 19, 2004, at 12:36 AM, Zompetti at aol.com wrote: > UNI posted a caselist so far....will Georgia State and Gonzaga being > doing the same??? > > just wanting help for my novices, > zomp -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 479 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040919/6d42aa28/attachment.bin From matt_bostick Sun Sep 19 17:36:31 2004 From: matt_bostick (Matthias Bostick) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 06:36:31 +0800 Subject: [eDebate] Colin Hahn Message-ID: <20040919223631.CD82413F15@ws5-9.us4.outblaze.com> Can you backchannel me? Thanks, matt --- You're so money and you don't even know it. -- _______________________________________________ Graffiti.net free e-mail @ www.graffiti.net Check out our value-added Premium features, such as a 1 GB mailbox for just US$9.95 per year! Powered by Outblaze From vandy.debate Sun Sep 19 19:51:11 2004 From: vandy.debate (M L Sandoz) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 00:51:11 GMT Subject: [eDebate] Help wanted in starting a new team in NC Message-ID: <20040919.175119.3601.944118@webmail03.lax.untd.com> I was asked to post the following call for help. The email for responses is in the message below. I will contact this person, but I hope others closer to her in NC will also respond. A new policy team would be great. ml PS: This initially went out to GMU alum - that's why it will sound like she is not talking to us. ______________________ I am writing to ask for assistance with a forensics related project that I have been handed. For those of you who don't know me, I was a member of the forensics team from 1997-99. I recently obtained my master's degree in communication from UNCG and having been adjuncting in the Greensboro, NC area. This fall I was hired as an instructor at North Carolina A&T University and because of my background was asked to start a debate team. Like most of you, my background is in speeches and interpretations, not debate. I'm not sure where to begin. While I am still in the initial development and proposal writing stage, I thought I would send a message out to forensic alumni for advice on where to go for research, sample teams, etc. or how to develop this team. Please feel free to offer any guidance, suggestions, words of wisdom, and ideas. All are welcomed and appreciated. Drop me an email at ssymonds at triad.rr.com or feel free to call 336-210-4069. Sarah E. Symonds Adjunct Instructor North Carolina A&T & Guilford Technical Community College M. L. Sandoz Vanderbilt University Director of Debate 615-322-3784 (O), 615-322-2307 (O) 615-343-7918 (F), 615-673-7340 (H) ________________________________________________________________ Get your name as your email address. Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today! From jeffrey.jarman Sun Sep 19 20:32:59 2004 From: jeffrey.jarman (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 20:32:59 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] If you are attending Wichita State's tournament next weekend Message-ID: <20040920013300.PHYF9826.lakermmtao12.cox.net@YOUR6DDD04B03A> Then please enter the tournament. We are making final arrangements, and I'd like to get a good count of how many people will be here next weekend. Email me your entry, or use the Bruschke site: http://commweb.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/web/index.aspx Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Jeff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040919/0b46fc59/attachment.html From colin.hahn Sun Sep 19 23:35:23 2004 From: colin.hahn (Colin Hahn) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 21:35:23 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Official Gonzaga Results Message-ID: Here are the official results from the 2004 Gonzaga Jesuit Debates. Speaker awards: 20. Colin Hahn (Gonzaga) 19. Jeff Buntin (Whitman) 18. Seth Ellsworth (Wyoming) 17. Michael Schakelford (Weber) 16. Alex Iftimie (Southern Cal) 15. Kara Borden (Oregon) 14. Josh Garen (California) 13. Eric Suni (Whitman) 12. Orion Steele (Redlands) 11. Mike Burshteyn (California) 10. Joe Koehle (West Georgia) 9. James Thomas (West Georgia) 8. Nate Tribble (Redlands) 7. Craig Wickersham (California) 6. David Peterson (Long Beach) 5. Ben Meiches (Whitman) 4. Walid Kandeel (Long Beach) 3. Stacey Nathan (California) 2. Reid Shannon (California) 1. Guarav Reddy (California) Partial Doubles (in bracket order): California RS advances California NW advances Long Beach KP advances Whitman SS advances Redlands PT advances West Georgia KT d. Whitman CM 3-0 Whitman BM d. Southern Cal FP 3-0 California BG d. Puget Sound CS 3-0 Redlands CS d. Southern Cal HK 2-1 Gonzaga HH d. Idaho State DY 3-0 Wyoming CD d. Oregon BS 2-1 Southern Cal MS d. Fullerton AK 2-1 Fort BR d. Fullerton MM 2-1 Weber BS d. Wyoming EL 3-0 Southern Cal IN d. Whitman RS 3-0 Octos: California RS d. Southern Cal IN 3-0 California NW d. Weber BS 3-0 Long Beach KP d. Fort BR 2-1 Whitman SS d. Southern Cal MS 2-1 Redlands PT d. Wyoming CD 2-1 West Georgia KT d. California LR 3-0 Whitman BM d. Gonzaga HH 2-1 California BG d. Redlands SZ 2-1 Quarters: California RS advances over California BG California NW d. Whitman BM 3-0 West Georgia KT d. Long Beach KP 2-1 Whitman SS d. Redlands PT 3-0 Semis: California RS d. Whitman SS 2-1 California NW d. West Georgia KT 2-1 Finals: California RS (1 seed) and California NW (2 seed) close out. Congratulations and thanks to everyone for coming. From mrberry Mon Sep 20 09:18:01 2004 From: mrberry (Berry, Mike) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 10:18:01 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] King's Team list as of Monday morning Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040920/1724e423/attachment.htm From parcherj Sun Sep 19 21:15:38 2004 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 22:15:38 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] War on terror Message-ID: <006701c49eb7$b969f7f0$2060fea9@Jeff> NYT C.I.A. Unit on bin Laden Is Understaffed, a Senior Official Tells Lawmakers By JAMES RISEN Published: September 15, 2004 ASHINGTON, Sept. 14 - Three years after the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency has fewer experienced case officers assigned to its headquarters unit dealing with Osama bin Laden than it did at the time of the attacks, despite repeated pleas from the unit's leaders for reinforcements, a senior C.I.A. officer with extensive counterterrorism experience has told Congress. The bin Laden unit is stretched so thin that it relies on inexperienced officers rotated in and out every 60 to 90 days, and they leave before they know enough to be able to perform any meaningful work, according to a letter the C.I.A. officer has written to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. "There has been no systematic effort to groom Al Qaeda expertise" among C.I.A. officers since Sept. 11, 2001, according to the letter, written by Michael F. Scheuer, the former chief of the agency's bin Laden unit and the author of a best-selling book that is critical of the Bush administration's handling of the war on terror. Excerpts from Mr. Scheuer's letter were read publicly by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, on Tuesday at a Senate hearing on the confirmation of Porter J. Goss as director of central intelligence. Congressional officials later provided a copy of the letter to The New York Times. A senior intelligence official who asked not to be identified strenuously disputed Mr. Scheuer's criticism about the resources assigned to the war against Al Qaeda. "The assertions are off the mark," the official said. "There are far more D.O. officers working against the Al Qaeda target both at C.I.A. headquarters and overseas than there were before Sept. 11," the official said, using the abbreviation for the Directorate of Operations, the C.I.A.'s clandestine arm. "Our knowledge of and substantive expertise on Al Qaeda has increased enormously since 9/11. The overall size of the counterterrorism center has more than doubled, and its analytic capabilities have increased dramatically." In his letter, Mr. Scheuer also described instances in the years before the Sept. 11 attacks in which he said the agency's leadership failed to act decisively in order to target Al Qaeda. "The pattern of decision making I have witnessed," he wrote, "seems to indicate a want of moral courage, an overwhelming concern for career advancement, or an abject inability to distinguish right from wrong." The intelligence official said Mr. Scheuer had made many of the same claims to independent investigators who had reviewed the C.I.A.'s performance before Sept. 11. In his letter, Mr. Scheuer the United States had many more opportunities to kill or capture Osama bin Laden before the Sept. 11 attacks than have ever been made public. >From May 1998 to May 1999, Mr. Scheuer's wrote, "The C.I.A. officers working bin Laden at headquarters and in the field gave the U.S. government about 10 chances to capture bin Laden or kill him with military means. In all instances, the decision was made that the 'intelligence was not good enough.' " Mr. Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the C.I.A., served as the first chief of the agency's bin Laden unit from 1996 until 1999. This year, with the publication of his book, "Imperial Hubris," which he wrote under the name Anonymous, Mr. Scheuer has become the C.I.A.'s leading in-house critic. After he granted news media interviews following the book's publication, the C.I.A. curbed his access to the press. He initially wrote the latest letter in May as an op-ed article. The C.I.A. refused to clear it for publication, but allowed him to send it as a letter to the Congressional oversight committees. In the letter, Mr. Scheuer provides a number of new details about the history of the C.I.A.'s counterterrorism operations before Sept. 11. For example, he said that the C.I.A.'s bin Laden unit was ordered to be disbanded in the spring of 1998, and that its operations were about to be folded into a small branch office when the C.I.A. director, George J. Tenet, found out about the proposed move. Mr. Tenet reversed the decision just before the August 1998 attacks on two American embassies in East Africa by Al Qaeda. Mr. Scheuer also said that in 1996, the C.I.A.'s bin Laden unit obtained detailed information about Al Qaeda's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. He said that an intelligence report on the matter was initially suppressed within the C.I.A., and was later distributed in an abbreviated form. "Three officers of the agency's bin Laden cadre protested this decision in writing, and forced an internal review," Mr. Scheuer wrote. "It was only after this review that this report was provided in full to community leaders, analysts and policy makers." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040919/0314f289/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 45 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040919/0314f289/attachment.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 477 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040919/0314f289/attachment-0001.gif From parcherj Sun Sep 19 21:11:59 2004 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 22:11:59 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Terror Lies Message-ID: <005401c49eb7$372d83b0$2060fea9@Jeff> You'll think I made up the headlines in the stories below. But they come from mainstream media sources and are based on independent investigations. And after the Mayfield debacle, the Kahn spectacle, with Hamdi going home, terror alert deceptions, and dismissal and acquittal after aquittal it should come as no surprise that Ashcroft is simply making most of it up. Justice Dept. lied about terror cases, says GAO Associated Press Feb. 21, 2003 WASHINGTON (AP) - In the year after the Sept. 11 attacks, federal prosecutors exaggerated their success convicting would-be terrorists by wrongly classifying three of every four cases originally labeled as international terrorism, congressional investigators said this week. Overall, almost half of 288 convictions deemed terrorism-related were wrongly classified as such for the 2002 fiscal year that began three weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, the General Accounting Office, Congress' nonpartisan watchdog agency, said Wednesday. GAO concluded that the Justice Department "does not have sufficient management oversight and internal controls in place to ensure the accuracy and reliability of terrorism-related conviction statistics included in its annual performance reports." The inaccuracies hampered "the Congress' ability to accurately assess terrorism-related performance outcomes of the U.S. criminal justice system" - information needed for Congress to make decisions on federal law enforcement budget requests - GAO said in a report requested after a December 2001 story in The Philadelphia Inquirer. The Sept. 11 attacks reshaped law enforcement's mission as federal officials from Attorney General John Ashcroft to the FBI declared that preventing future attacks would be a priority for the Justice Department and would require millions more federal dollars. And, in fact, the number of reported terror-related convictions jumped, GAO found. In five years before the attacks there were an average of 35 terrorism convictions reported annually. In the year afterward, the report said, prosecutors reported 160 terror convictions. But GAO said prosecutors wrongly classified at least 132 of 288 convictions - 46 percent - as terrorism-related for fiscal 2002. All were reclassified. One category of the reported terrorism convictions, "international terrorism," was particularly misreported. Of 174 convictions originally classified under that category, only 43 were verified as such, the GAO said. Prosecutors blamed the discrepancies on the limited time their staffs had to evaluate the data. GAO noted that the Justice Department and the prosecutors who report to it have since enacted a series of changes to correct the figures and ensure that future annual reports would be accurate. But one member of Congress said the revisions undermined the war against terrorism. "Playing shell games with numbers is counterproductive," said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. "It blurs our focus and undercuts accountability and credibility." A Justice Department spokesman did not return a call seeking comment. The GAO said the discrepancies were due in part to different definitions of terror-related cases used by the agency and the federal prosecutors whose data are included in the Justice Department's annual performance report. The Justice Department, for example, typically has reported more terrorism-related convictions than the prosecutors because it included convictions obtained in international, federal and state courts, the GAO said. In contrast, the U.S. attorneys only included federal convictions, the report said. But the statistics related to both groups were overstated nonetheless. Figures show 'hype' of terror war by Shaun Waterman, United Press International Dec. 8, 2003 WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 (UPI) -- Of the thousands of people referred by the FBI and other federal investigators to prosecutors in connection with terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001, only a handful have been convicted and sentenced to long prison terms, according to an analysis of Justice Department figures published Monday. The FBI challenged the methodology of the analysis, saying it led to "misleading and unfounded conclusions ..." The analysis, carried out by statisticians and long-time law enforcement observers at the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse based at Syracuse University, found that in the two years after the Sept. 11 attacks about 6,400 people were referred to prosecutors in connection with terrorism or terrorist offenses. But of the 2,681 cases that had been wrapped up by the end of September 2003, some 879 were convicted of a crime and less than half of those - 373 - were sent to prison. Five received sentences of 20 years or more, which was actually fewer than in the two years before Sept. 11. The figures analyzed have been repeatedly cited by administration officials to justify their contention that the government is winning the war against terror. "Our report raises serious questions," David Burnham of TRAC told United Press International, "When such large numbers of cases are declined, dismissed or acquitted, we have to ask: Is the government pursuing the right strategy (in the war on terror)? Are they targeting the right people?" Burnham pointed out that nearly half the cases sent to federal attorneys were never prosecuted at all. "What does this say about the quality of the investigators?" he asked. "This report underscores concerns that I and others have raised," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., in a statement. He said that he had written to officials earlier this year when the justice department first made the figures available, but had not received a response. The American Civil Liberties Union said the report "punctures the hype that the Justice Department and government have used to justify the Patriot Act and other measures they say are need to fight terrorism." But the FBI, in a statement issued Sunday, said the report's data was "taken out of context," because the authors used the terms "referred to prosecutors" and "recommended for prosecution" interchangeably. In fact, FBI spokesman Jim Parsell told UPI it was an administrative requirement for every case investigated to be referred to prosecutors so it could be closed, even when there was no prospect of a successful prosecution. The result of these flaws, said the FBI, was a "misleading and unfounded conclusion about federal law enforcement." The report authors acknowledge that hundreds of cases included in their overall total of 6,400 were still pending at the time of their analysis, and that - since more serious cases tend to be more complex and take longer to complete - the numbers receiving long sentences was likely to rise as time went on. Indeed, since the Sept.30, 2003, cut-off date for TRAC's data, at least four men - two members of the so-called Lackawanna Six from upstate New York, and two from Oregon - have been sentenced to more than five years in prison for terrorist crimes. Tim Edgar of the ACLU told UPI that the data showed the government was "cooking the books" on the war against terror. In a speech at the FBI academy in Quantico, Va., on Sept. 10, President Bush - ticking off a long list of continuing achievements in the war on terror - said, "More than 260 suspected terrorists have been charged in U.S. courts; more than 140 have already been convicted." "This report reveals the gap between that rhetoric and the reality," said Edgar. "These figures have been used over and over again by the president and others to make people feel safer and to stifle the debate about whether the administration's strategy and the new laws they've passed are working." Department of Justice spokesman Mark Corallo released a statement citing the case of Al Capone, a notorious gangster of the prohibition era, who was eventually imprisoned for income tax evasion. "Today," Corallo's statement went on, "in order to protect the lives of Americans ... the government may charge potential terror suspects with lesser offenses to remove them from our communities." But even with these convictions - referred to by the department as "anti-terrorism cases" - factored out, less than half of those convicted were sent to jail. The FBI said that this was because the figures included sentences for some relatively minor offenses, such as identity fraud, or failing to register as the agent of a foreign government. Edgar said that this kind of classification was "prosecutorial abuse." "The Justice Department has labeled more than 6,000 people terrorists," he said but the sentencing figures told a different story. At the sentencing stage of any trial, he explained, the prosecution is entitled to introduce evidence about the defendant unrelated to the case, and the court can take it into account even if it is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. "We see the Justice Department doing this," said Edgar, "but, as the figures show, the judges aren't buying it." Published by United Press International Justice Dept. lies about terror cases - again by Mark Fazlollah, Philadelphia Inquirer March 15, 2003 In the first two months of this year, the Justice Department filed charges against 56 people, labeling all the cases as "terrorism." But an Inquirer investigation has found that at least 41 of them had nothing to do with terrorism - a point that prosecutors of the cases themselves acknowledge. Among the cases: 28 Latinos charged with working illegally at the airport in Austin, Texas, most of them using phony Social Security numbers. Eight Puerto Ricans charged with trespassing on Navy property on the island of Vieques, long a site of civil protests of ordnance testing. A Middle Eastern man indicted in Detroit for allegedly passing bad checks who has the same name as a Hezbollah leader. A Middle Eastern college student charged in Trenton with paying a stand-in to take his college English-proficiency tests. He received a one-month jail sentence after pleading guilty. But also included in the new terrorism listings are several cases that involved suspects with ties to foreign militant groups. Six on the list are alleged members of the Abu Sayyaf Muslim group, charged with murdering two Americans and kidnapping a third in the Philippines. Several others have pleaded guilty to illegal money transactions believed to have terrorism connections. And there's Ahcene Benrekia, an Algerian living in South Philadelphia with a criminal record that should have kept him out of the United States. The problems are nothing new. In January, the General Accounting Office reported that three-fourths of all "international terrorism" convictions were wrong in fiscal 2002. The GAO audit, opened in response to a Dec. 16, 2001, Inquirer article, said the exaggeration was serious because it prevented Congress and the public from understanding how much taxpayer money was being spent to prosecute terrorism. The audit did not take into account another batch of "terrorism" cases filed last fall in New Jersey against 60 Middle Eastern men. The Inquirer, aided by Syracuse University's nonprofit Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, found that they were students and that the only charges against them were allegations that they had cheated on the English test for admission to a U.S. university. The Justice Department, which promised to fix the problem, says that some prosecutors may have misclassified cases but that the goal is to accurately report terrorism. Terrorism prosecutions from January and February show that the goal remains elusive. Puerto Ricans who have long protested the use of Vieques as a practice bombing range for the Navy were outraged to hear last week that demonstrators had been labeled as terrorists. "This wasn't terrorism. It was an act of heroism," said Manuel Rodriguez Orellana, former minority leader of the Puerto Rican Senate. The Vieques protest occurred as the Navy conducted its final live-ammunition practice in January. "The terrorism was the bombing by the Navy for 60 years," said Rodriguez Orellana, a leader in the commonwealth's Independence Party. "The terrorism was disregard for the people of Vieques that the Marines and Navy always displayed." The eight Vieques protesters pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges and were given sentences ranging from one to four months in jail. Prosecutor Sonia Torres-Pabon, who handled the eight cases, said she was unclear why they were classified as terrorism. More than 200 people have been arrested in Vieques protests since 1999, but earlier cases were not listed as terrorism. "I don't see them as any different than the other Vieques cases," she said. The largest group of "terrorism" cases this year was from Texas, where prosecutors have won guilty pleas from 20 of 28 Latinos charged with illegally working at the Austin airport. Daryl Fields, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Texas, said there was no evidence that any were linked to terrorism. The arrests were part of the Justice Department's Operation Tarmac, started after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Since then, about 1,000 airport workers have been arrested, most of them Latinos. None is known to have links to terrorism. The Justice Department says it is essential to ensure that no illegal workers have access to planes. Prosecutors in Iowa also listed four January indictments of Des Moines airport workers, all U.S. citizens, as being terrorism. The U.S. Attorney's Office in Des Moines said no court evidence linked the four to any terrorist group. Meanwhile, in Detroit, the case of Hassan Nasrallah - whose name is the same as that of the chief of the Lebanese group Hezbollah - was, like the 55 others, labeled as terrorism. His attorney, Mark Haidar, said he is charged with using six phony checks to pay his MasterCard bill. Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric M. Straus, who is prosecuting the case, said last week: "He is not the leader of Hezbollah.... This is not a terrorist case." Published by The Philadelphia Inquirer Study: Terror prosecutions jump, but fizzle Monday, December 8, 2003 Posted: 1:57 PM EST (1857 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Justice Department has sharply increased prosecution of terrorism-related cases since the September 11 attacks but many fizzled and few produced significant prison time, a new study finds. About 6,400 people were referred by investigators for criminal charges involving terror in the two years after the attacks, but fewer than one-third actually were charged and only 879 were convicted, according to government records reviewed by Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. The median prison sentence was just 14 days, said the study by clearinghouse co-directors David Burnham and Susan P. Long, released Sunday. Only five people were sentenced to 20 years or more. Critics seized on the numbers to question whether Attorney General John Ashcroft and other top law enforcement officials have been overstating the success of their anti-terrorism efforts. Nearly every time Ashcroft talks about the subject, he reads a long list of statistics on arrests and convictions to buttress his contention that great progress is being made. Sen. Charles Grassley, a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee with oversight of the FBI and Justice Department, said the report "raises questions about the accuracy of the department's claims about terrorism enforcement." "This report shows that despite the focus on terrorism-related crimes, most of the people accused of terrorism involvement are getting little jail time, if at all," said Grassley, R-Iowa. Early intervention Justice Department and FBI officials said the study is rooted in past conceptions of crime and punishment and does not reflect the reality that would-be terrorists seek to blend into society until they are ready to strike. Lack of lengthy prison terms in many cases can be explained by the effort by prosecutors to stop would-be terrorists long before they are ready to attack, often charging them with lesser offenses, such as identity theft, document fraud and immigration violations. Prosecutors feel it is better to get suspects off the streets and press them for information than wait for events that could produce harsher penalties. They also said the study makes no mention of the value of intelligence collection and the need to reward cooperation with lesser sentences. "The whole point is to disrupt terrorism at an early stage instead of letting the conspiracy fully hatch," said Viet Dinh, a former top Justice Department official under Attorney General John Ashcroft who now teaches law at Georgetown University. "We cannot take the risk of the conspiracy taking place. What you get is shorter sentences but greater prevention." In other words, for every would-be "shoe bomber" such as Richard Reid -- serving a life sentence for trying to light an explosive on a Paris-to-Miami flight last year -- there are many more suspects such as the group of Yemeni-Americans from Lackawanna, New York, who were convicted of supporting terrorism by briefly attending al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. "This administration's strategy of preventing terrorism has helped protect Americans for over two years," Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said. Light prison sentences According to the study, about 874 cases were pending as of September 30, including some that might produce longer sentences. In October, for example, two members of an Oregon group were sentenced to 18 years each in prison for attempting to travel to Afghanistan and fight U.S. forces there. Still, critics of Justice Department anti-terrorism policies say the study lifts the veil on what they consider large-scale government deception aimed at reassuring an American public fearful of more attacks. "This punches a huge hole in the hype the Justice Department has been engaged in," said Timothy Edgar, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "They are calling people terrorists, on a massive scale, who aren't terrorists." According to the study, charges were filed against 2,001 of the 6,400 people recommended for prosecution since the attacks. Authorities declined to prosecute 1,554. Some 2,845 of the referrals were pending as of September 30. Of the 879 people convicted, 373 went to prison and 506 did not. Of those sentenced to prison, 250 got less than a year, 100 got less than five years and just 23 were sentenced to five years or more. During the two years before September 11, 2001, 24 people were sentenced to five or more years in prison on comparable terror-related offenses, the study said. The study also found that: . Prosecutions of individuals suspected of ties to one category, international terrorism, jumped from 142 in the two years before September 11, 2001, to 748 in the two years after. Yet only three people in that category since the attacks have drawn sentences of five years or more, compared with six during the earlier period. . More than 260 people convicted since September 11 of terrorism-related offenses were sentenced to the time that had already spent in jail awaiting disposition of their case. . About 35 percent of criminal referrals made by investigators were declined by prosecutors because of lack of evidence or no obvious federal crime had been committed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040919/f909ab6e/attachment.htm From stroube Mon Sep 20 13:23:49 2004 From: stroube (Jack Stroube) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:23:49 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] vote to invade iran and fuck everything up Message-ID: <200409201823.i8KINnf29783@hsdebate.com> that's the secret GOP '04 ticket in alignment w the '96 clean break report. in 2000, the secret ticket was invade iraq as the clarke book and the obrien book confirm. however, if you trace back the original planning to '96, iraq is just a beachhead for knocking off jihad central. i know you all are going to suck w's dick in november but at least be honest about why you are really doing it. you believe in redrawing the middle east map and creating so-called democracies stable enough to lure foreign investment so that israel is not stuck w the conundrum of having the second largest military with a second-rate economy. land for peace is dead. the mullahs in iran are trying to create a civil war in iraq so we have to invade iran to stabilize iraq. oh and they are not in compliance with the IAEA. shortly after the election this rhetoric will emerge and the war will happen but oh no it's not part of the official GOP platform b/c that's the platform of a bunch of fucking crazies leading their nation down the toilet to martial law... http://www.ndtceda.com Phallus Jerkins Dabait League6 From dperkins Mon Sep 20 09:09:29 2004 From: dperkins (Dallas Perkins) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 10:09:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [eDebate] Wake Forest Shirley tournament entry rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have 4 questions about the rules for entry into the Franklin R. Shirley Di_ie Classic Tournament: If more than the permissible number of teams qualify under Rule 3 or (more likely) Rule 4, how will teams be selected? Since it seems likely that the third teams clearing once will not quite fill the tournament, but the fourth teams clearing once will substantially oversubscribe the tournament, it seems important to know if the fourth teams can do anything to improve their chances. Specifically: --will it matter who clears in their varsity tournament first? Will Kings count for more than Cap City Debates, etc? --will any provision be made for teams who host a tournament and are thus denied the opportunity to clear there? --the rules speak explicitly to the case of tournaments which allow more than the CEDA-mandated number of teams to clear; will special provisions be made for the tournaments which allow LESS than the CEDA-maximum to clear? For example, would a strong tournament with 65 high quality teams be allowed to count 32 of them even if the tournament only cut to octafinals? --does it matter what tournament? If my good friend John Katsulas announces a tournament at BC on Wednesday, and only four teams show up, two from his debate class and my third and fourth teams, and we win our debate(s?), do we get a ticket to Winston-Salem? If we lose, as seems likely with John assigning the judges, can we have another tournament at Harvard the next Wednesday night, fly John's old debate partner Bill Shanahan in to judge, K 'em up, and try again? Thanks for any possible clarifications. I understand this is a difficult situation. dp From frappier Mon Sep 20 05:35:30 2004 From: frappier (Frappier, Glen) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 03:35:30 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Gonzaga Results Message-ID: <36AE85DCADCA72409DD873C729D1AB9706F2FEED@gem.gonzaga.edu> Here are the official results from the 2004 Gonzaga Jesuit Debates. Speaker awards: 20. Colin Hahn (Gonzaga) 19. Jeff Buntin (Whitman) 18. Seth Ellsworth (Wyoming) 17. Michael Schakelford (Weber) 16. Alex Iftimie (Southern Cal) 15. Kara Borden (Oregon) 14. Josh Garen (California) 13. Eric Suni (Whitman) 12. Orion Steele (Redlands) 11. Mike Burshteyn (California) 10. Joe Koehle (West Georgia) 9. James Thomas (West Georgia) 8. Nate Tribble (Redlands) 7. Craig Wickersham (California) 6. David Peterson (Long Beach) 5. Ben Meiches (Whitman) 4. Walid Kandeel (Long Beach) 3. Stacey Nathan (California) 2. Reid Shannon (California) 1. Guarav Reddy (California) Partial Doubles (in bracket order): California RS advances California NW advances Long Beach KP advances Whitman SS advances Redlands PT advances West Georgia KT d. Whitman CM 3-0 Whitman BM d. Southern Cal FP 3-0 California BG d. Puget Sound CS 3-0 Redlands CS d. Southern Cal HK 2-1 Gonzaga HH d. Idaho State DY 3-0 Wyoming CD d. Oregon BS 2-1 Southern Cal MS d. Fullerton AK 2-1 Fort BR d. Fullerton MM 2-1 Weber BS d. Wyoming EL 3-0 Southern Cal IN d. Whitman RS 3-0 Octos: California RS d. Southern Cal IN 3-0 California NW d. Weber BS 3-0 Long Beach KP d. Fort BR 2-1 Whitman SS d. Southern Cal MS 2-1 Redlands PT d. Wyoming CD 2-1 West Georgia KT d. California LR 3-0 Whitman BM d. Gonzaga HH 2-1 California BG d. Redlands SZ 2-1 Quarters: California RS advances over California BG California NW d. Whitman BM 3-0 West Georgia KT d. Long Beach KP 2-1 Whitman SS d. Redlands PT 3-0 Semis: California RS d. Whitman SS 2-1 California NW d. West Georgia KT 2-1 Finals: California RS (1 seed) and California NW (2 seed) close out. Congrats to Stacy, Reid, Craig, Guarav and the entire Cal crew on an outstanding tournament. Finally, the results of the 2nd Annual Tejinder Singh Poker Tournament. 1) Aaron Klemz 2) James Thomas 3) Shawn Powers Glen From carbenz Mon Sep 20 13:42:18 2004 From: carbenz (carbenz at ksu.edu) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:42:18 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Debate Assistantships at Kansas State Message-ID: <1095705738.414f248a29007@webmail.ksu.edu> K-State is accepting applications for graduate debate assistants for both spring and fall 2005. Let me know if you're interested. Casey Arbenz From nselegzi Mon Sep 20 06:05:19 2004 From: nselegzi (Noel Selegzi) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 07:05:19 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] DebateWatch! and The People Speak Message-ID: <1CBED6247AC65445BF49BFDD3CC5DBC60472A796@osinyexch.soros.org> The Bush and Kerry campaigns have agreed to debate US Foreign Policy on October 13th, which is within the TPS timeframe. Hosting a DebateWatch! event is relatively simple (for information see www.idebate.org/debatewatch). We would encourage people to apply for mini-grants to host DebateWatch! events on October 13th. To apply for a mini-grant, go to www.idebate.org/thepeoplespeak. Noel From hansonjb Sun Sep 19 22:01:49 2004 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 20:01:49 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] thanks to glen, slush and gonz Message-ID: <000b01c49eef$720fffc0$39061b0a@whitman.edu> last year, glen and slush set out to create a class act tournament that would bring in a quality draw of teams. they have really succeeded. this year's tournament featured 54 teams from places all across the nation. great hospitality and glen and slush run the tournament very well. i want to thank them for all the hard work they have done. kudos! jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From alfred.snider Mon Sep 20 08:25:12 2004 From: alfred.snider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:25:12 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Eric Marlow, please Message-ID: I am not sure I have your current email address. Please contact me. Tuna -- --------------------------- Alfred C. Snider, AKA Tuna Edwin W. Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont 475 Main, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA World Debate Institute; World Debate Organization 802-238-8345 mobile; 802-656-0097 office; 802-656-4275 fax http://alfred.snider.name website From stroube Mon Sep 20 13:36:55 2004 From: stroube (Jack Stroube) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:36:55 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] today's pentagon papers Message-ID: <200409201836.i8KIatV32192@hsdebate.com> dabaiters, don't hop on the bandwagon. you know, secrecy is good so you can trick your opponent like karl rove and planet dabait can bank on your subconscious hard-ons for fascism. Whistleblowers Call For Disclosure Of Govt's Iraq Deceit Daniel Ellsberg, Former CIA, FBI Officials Say Americans Need Full Disclosure of Lies, Cover-ups, and War's Projected Costs in Lives & Dollars For Immediate Release Contact: Kawana Lloyd, Jessica Smith or Steve Smith Fenton Communications (202) 822-5200 9-20-4 Washington, DC - Daniel Ellsberg, joined today by ten former employees of the FBI, CIA, State and Defense Departments, issued a call to current government officials to disclose classified information that is being wrongly withheld, about plans for and estimated costs of the war in Iraq, and other documents that contradict government lies. ? The "call," in the form of an open memo to current government employees, says "It is time for unauthorized truth-telling." Drawing the clear parallel to Vietnam, the group urges that ongoing silence about government deceptions and cover-ups and reluctance to publicize information about the war's costs and projected casualties carries with it a significant price in human life and national security. ? The group released a list of existing documents wrongly withheld within the government as examples of the kind that the public has a right to see (see below). These include background on Army Staff estimates before the war that the Iraq effort would require several hundred thousand troops. Similarly, current estimates of potential casualty rates as the insurgency in Iraq continues to grow as well as the likely cost of waging war over the next few years almost surely exist, and should be disclosed now. ? To current government officials, Ellsberg says: "If you have documentary evidence that our country has been lied into an unnecessary, wrongful, endless war -- as I had during Vietnam -- I urge you to consider doing right now what I wish I had done years earlier than I did: give the truth to Congress and the press, with copies of those documents. The personal costs you risk are great, but you may save many Americans from being lied to death." ? Ray McGovern adds: "Truth. Never in the past 50 years has it been in such short supply in the U.S. defense/intelligence community. Yet it is the truth- -- once known -- that will keep us free. Truth-tellers, arise!" ? Ellsberg, best known for releasing the Pentagon Papers to Congress and the press in 1971, was joined at a Washington press conference by Ray McGovern, formerly an analyst for 27 years at the CIA, who provided several presidential staffs with their daily morning security briefings; Sibel Edmonds, former FBI translator who was fired for revealing security lapses at the FBI; and Coleen Rowley, one of Time magazine's Persons of the Year as a Whistleblower, currently a Special Agent in the FBI's Minneapolis field office. ? The Call and press conference are part of Ellsberg's ongoing work with the Truth Telling Project: ? http://www.truthtellingproject.org/ ? The conference is also sponsored by the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence, which has given its annual Award to Colleen Rowley and Katharine Gun (who will also be present at the conference) and, last night at American University, to Sibel Edmonds. ? Gun, a former translator with the British equivalent of the NSA, was fired after leaking sensitive information to the British press about efforts to "surge" intercept capability against members of the UN Security Council. Gun was acquitted of charges of violating England's Official Secrets Act. Another participant is Major Frank Grevil, of the Danish Intelligence Service, who faces trial for releasing his estimates that revealed lack of evidence of WMDs in Iraq, contradicting his country's involvement in efforts to distort intelligence in order to support the war. ? Other signers of the Call-including Mary Ann Wright, who resigned as Deputy Chief of Mission in Mongolia over the war-- will also be present, along with Ann Beeson of the ACLU and Beth Daly of the Project on Government Oversight (POGO). ? For more information contact: Kawana Lloyd, Jessica Smith, or Steve Smith Fenton Communications (202) 822-5200 ? http://www.fenton.com/ ? ? Call To Patriotic Whistleblowing Of Bush Administration's Widespread Corruption ? The Truth-Telling Project Washington, DC 9-20-4 ? It is time for unauthorized truth-telling. Citizens cannot make informed choices if they do not have the facts -- for example, the facts that have been wrongly concealed about the ongoing war in Iraq: the real reasons behind it, the prospective costs in blood and treasure, and the setback it has dealt to efforts to stem terrorism. ? Administration deception and cover-up on these vital matters has so far been all too successful in misleading the public. Many Americans are too young to remember Vietnam. Then, as now, senior government officials did not tell the American people the truth. Now, as then, insiders who know better have kept their silence, as the country was misled into the most serious foreign policy disaster since Vietnam. ? Some of you have documentation of wrongly concealed facts and analyses that -- if brought to light -- would impact heavily on public debate regarding crucial matters of national security, both foreign and domestic. We urge you to provide that information now, both to Congress and, through the media, to the public. ? Thanks to our First Amendment, there is in America no broad Officials Secrets Act, nor even a statutory basis for the classification system. Only very rarely would it be appropriate to reveal information of the three types whose disclosure has been expressly criminalized by Congress: ? communications intelligence, nuclear data, and the identity of U.S. intelligence operatives. However, this administration has stretched existing criminal laws to cover other disclosures in ways never contemplated by Congress. ? There is a growing network of support for whistleblowers. In particular, for anyone who wishes to know the legal implications of disclosures they may be contemplating, the ACLU stands ready to provide pro bono legal counsel, with lawyer-client privilege. The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) will offer advice on whistleblowing, dissemination and relations with the media. ? Needless to say, any unauthorized disclosure that exposes your superiors to embarrassment entails personal risk. Should you be identified as the source, the price could be considerable, including loss of career and possibly even prosecution. Some of us know from experience how difficult it is to countenance such costs. But continued silence brings an even more terrible cost, as our leaders persist in a disastrous course and young Americans come home in coffins or with missing limbs. ? This is precisely what happened at this comparable stage in the Vietnam War. Some of us live with profound regret that we did not at that point expose the administration's dishonesty and perhaps prevent the needless slaughter of 50,000 more American troops and some 2 to 3 million Vietnamese over the next ten years. We know how misplaced loyalty to bosses, agencies, and careers can obscure the higher allegiance all government officials owe the Constitution, the sovereign public, and the young men and women put in harm's way. We urge you to act on those higher loyalties. ? A hundred forty thousand young Americans are risking their lives every day in Iraq for dubious purpose. Our country has urgent need of comparable moral courage from its public officials. Truth-telling is a patriotic and effective way to serve the nation. The time for speaking out is now. ? SIGNATORIES: ? ? Edward Costello, Former Special Agent (Counterintelligence), Federal Bureau of Investigation ? ? Sibel Edmonds, Former Language Specialist, Federal Bureau of Investigation ? Daniel Ellsberg, Former official, U.S. Departments of Defense and State ? ? John D. Heinberg, Former Economist, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor ? ? Larry C. Johnson, Former Deputy Director for Anti-Terrorism Assistance, Transportation Security, and Special Operations, Department of State, Office of the Coordinator for Counter Terrorism ? ? John Brady Kiesling, Former Political Counselor, U.S. Embassy, Athens, Department of State ? ? David MacMichael, Former Senior Estimates Officer, National Intelligence Council, Central Intelligence Agency ? ? Ray McGovern, Former Analyst, Central Intelligence Agency ? ? Philip G. Vargas, Ph.D., J.D., Dir. Privacy & Confidentiality Study, Commission on Federal Paperwork (Author/Director: "The Vargas Report on Government Secrecy"- CENSORED) ? ? Ann Wright, Retired U.S. Army Reserve Colonel and U.S. Foreign Service Officer ? ? Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatowski, recently retired from service in the Pentagon's Office of Near East planning ? SELECTED SIGNATORY BIOS: ? * Daniel Ellsberg is a lecturer, writer and activist on the dangers of the nuclear era and unlawful interventions. He is best known for releasing publicly the Pentagon Papers, the 7,000-page Top Secret McNamara study of U.S. Decision-making in Vietnam, to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1969 and to the New York Times, Washington Post and 17 other newspapers in 1971. ? His trial, on twelve felony counts posing a possible sentence of 115 years, was dismissed in 1973 on grounds of governmental misconduct against him, which led to the convictions of several White House aides and figured in the impeachment proceedings against President Nixon. ? Ellsberg joined the Defense Department in 1964 as Special Assistant to Assistant Secretary of Defense (International Security Affairs) John McNaughton, working on Vietnam. He transferred to the State Department in 1965 to serve two years at the U.S. Embassy in Saigon. He started his career as a strategic analyst at the RAND Corporation, and consultant to the Department of Defense and the White House, specializing in problems of the command and control of nuclear weapons, nuclear war plans, and crisis decision-making and returned there in 1967. ? * Ray McGovern worked for 27years as a career analyst in the CIA spanning administrations from John F. Kennedy to George H. W. Bush. Ray is now co-director of the Servant Leadership School, which provides training and other support for those seeking ways to be in relationship with the marginalized poor. ? In January 2003, Ray, along with other intelligence community alumni/ae, created Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Through VIPS, Ray has written and spoken extensively about intelligence-related issues and appeared in several documentaries-notably, "Uncovered: the Whole Truth About the Iraq War" (Robert Greenwald) and "Break the Silence: Truth and Lies in the War on Terror" (John Pilger). ? Ray's duties at CIA included chairing National Intelligence Estimates and preparing the President' Daily Brief (PDB). These, the most authoritative genres of intelligence reporting, have been the focus of press reporting on "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq and on what the president was told before 9/11. During the mid-eighties, Ray was one of the senior analysts conducting early morning briefings of the PDB one- on-one with the Vice President, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. ? * Sibel Edmonds worked as a language specialist for the FBI's Washington Field Office. During her work with the bureau, she discovered and reported serious acts of security breaches, cover-ups, and intentional blocking of intelligence that had national security implications. After she reported these acts to FBI management, she was fired in March 2002. ? Since then, court proceedings on her issues have been blocked by the assertion of "State Secret Privilege" by Attorney General Ashcroft; the Congress of the United States has been gagged and prevented from any discussion of her case through retroactive re-classification by the Department of Justice; and the report on her case issued by the Department of Justice Inspector General has been entirely classified. ? TWELVE EXAMPLES OF EXISTING DOCUMENTS THAT DESERVE UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE ? Each of these -- wrongly withheld up till now -- could and should be released almost in their entirety, perhaps with minor deletions for genuine security reasons. (In many cases, official promises to release declassified versions have not been honored.) ? 1. Reports by International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on Guantanamo, Abu Ghrab and other prisons (ships, prisons in other countries) that hold prisoners from the "war on terrorism." (These reports have been provided to the US government but have not been made public.) ? 2. 28 pages redacted from the report of the Joint House-Senate Inquiry on Intelligence Activities before and after 9/11, concerning the ties between the 9/11 terrorists and the government of Saudi Arabia. ? 3. 800 pages of the United Nations Report on Weapons of Mass Destruction that were taken by the United States during unauthorized Xeroxing and never given to the Security Council members. (The original report was 1200 pages in length but has never been published in its entirety) ? 4. Membership, advisors, consultants to Vice President Cheney's Energy Task Force, and any minutes from meetings (January - December, 2001). ? 5. Documents and photographs concerning/produced by military doctors or medical personnel that document abuses toward prisoners condoned by medical personnel. ? 6. Documents produced by military lawyers and legal staff that challenge the political policy makers decision to undercut the Geneva Conventions and any other extra-legal procedures. ? 7. The missing sections of the U.S. Army General Taguba report on prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan. ? 8. Department of Justice-Inspector General (DOJ-IG) Report: RE: Sibel Edmonds vs. FBI, completed, classified ? 9. DOJ-IG Report: RE: FBI Translation Department (security breaches, intentional mistranslations, espionage charges), completed, classified ? 10. DOJ-IG Report: RE:FBI & Foreknowledge of 9/11, completed, classified ? 11. Full staff backup to General Shinseki's 2002 estimate that "several hundred thousand troops" would be required for effective occupation of Iraq. ? 12. The full 2002 State Department studies on requirements for the postwar occupation and restoration of civil government in Iraq. ? ? RELATED LINKS ? Project on Government Oversight http://www.pogo.org ? Government Accountability Project http://www.whistleblower.org/ ? National Whistleblower Center http://www.whistleblowers.org/ ? OpenTheGovernment.org http://www.openthegovernment.org/ ? National Security Archive http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/index.html ? Daniel Ellsberg's Website http://www.ellsberg.net ? Project on Government Secrecy http://www.fas.org/sgp/index.html ? http://www.ndtceda.com Phallus Jerkins Dabait League From kkuswa Mon Sep 20 14:14:31 2004 From: kkuswa (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:14:31 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Wake Forest Shirley tournament entry rules Message-ID: <12E81F39195C00468C4DE42509951D380115849D@castor.richmond.edu> These are good questions: we are particularly interested in the question regarding hosting a tournament. If we put our third and fourth varsity teams into the pool at Richmond and they go 5-3 or better (making them eligible for out-rounds even though they will not compete in out-rounds), does that count for a qualification? I hope so. :) Thanks for all the hard work and innovation to Ross and Al. kevin richmond -----Original Message----- From: Dallas Perkins [mailto:dperkins at fas.harvard.edu] Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 10:09 AM To: NEIL BERCH Cc: edebate Subject: Re: [eDebate] Wake Forest Shirley tournament entry rules I have 4 questions about the rules for entry into the Franklin R. Shirley Di_ie Classic Tournament: If more than the permissible number of teams qualify under Rule 3 or (more likely) Rule 4, how will teams be selected? Since it seems likely that the third teams clearing once will not quite fill the tournament, but the fourth teams clearing once will substantially oversubscribe the tournament, it seems important to know if the fourth teams can do anything to improve their chances. Specifically: --will it matter who clears in their varsity tournament first? Will Kings count for more than Cap City Debates, etc? --will any provision be made for teams who host a tournament and are thus denied the opportunity to clear there? --the rules speak explicitly to the case of tournaments which allow more than the CEDA-mandated number of teams to clear; will special provisions be made for the tournaments which allow LESS than the CEDA-maximum to clear? For example, would a strong tournament with 65 high quality teams be allowed to count 32 of them even if the tournament only cut to octafinals? --does it matter what tournament? If my good friend John Katsulas announces a tournament at BC on Wednesday, and only four teams show up, two from his debate class and my third and fourth teams, and we win our debate(s?), do we get a ticket to Winston-Salem? If we lose, as seems likely with John assigning the judges, can we have another tournament at Harvard the next Wednesday night, fly John's old debate partner Bill Shanahan in to judge, K 'em up, and try again? Thanks for any possible clarifications. I understand this is a difficult situation. dp _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From colin.hahn Mon Sep 20 13:37:02 2004 From: colin.hahn (Colin Hahn) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:37:02 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Official Gonzaga Results Message-ID: Sorry if this is a repeat - I don't think the message went through the first time. Here are the official results from the 2004 Gonzaga Jesuit Debates. Speaker awards: 20. Colin Hahn (Gonzaga) 19. Jeff Buntin (Whitman) 18. Seth Ellsworth (Wyoming) 17. Michael Schakelford (Weber) 16. Alex Iftimie (Southern Cal) 15. Kara Borden (Oregon) 14. Josh Garen (California) 13. Eric Suni (Whitman) 12. Orion Steele (Redlands) 11. Mike Burshteyn (California) 10. Joe Koehle (West Georgia) 9. James Thomas (West Georgia) 8. Nate Tribble (Redlands) 7. Craig Wickersham (California) 6. David Peterson (Long Beach) 5. Ben Meiches (Whitman) 4. Walid Kandeel (Long Beach) 3. Stacey Nathan (California) 2. Reid Shannon (California) 1. Guarav Reddy (California) Partial Doubles (in bracket order): California RS advances California NW advances Long Beach KP advances Whitman SS advances Redlands PT advances West Georgia KT d. Whitman CM 3-0 Whitman BM d. Southern Cal FP 3-0 California BG d. Puget Sound CS 3-0 Redlands CS d. Southern Cal HK 2-1 Gonzaga HH d. Idaho State DY 3-0 Wyoming CD d. Oregon BS 2-1 Southern Cal MS d. Fullerton AK 2-1 Fort BR d. Fullerton MM 2-1 Weber BS d. Wyoming EL 3-0 Southern Cal IN d. Whitman RS 3-0 Octos: California RS d. Southern Cal IN 3-0 California NW d. Weber BS 3-0 Long Beach KP d. Fort BR 2-1 Whitman SS d. Southern Cal MS 2-1 Redlands PT d. Wyoming CD 2-1 West Georgia KT d. California LR 3-0 Whitman BM d. Gonzaga HH 2-1 California BG d. Redlands SZ 2-1 Quarters: California RS advances over California BG California NW d. Whitman BM 3-0 West Georgia KT d. Long Beach KP 2-1 Whitman SS d. Redlands PT 3-0 Semis: California RS d. Whitman SS 2-1 California NW d. West Georgia KT 2-1 Finals: California RS (1 seed) and California NW (2 seed) close out. Congratulations and thanks to everyone for coming. From alexander.is Sun Sep 19 23:09:26 2004 From: alexander.is (Alexander Berger) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 22:09:26 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] my (mom's) religion Message-ID: I was at church today (catholic, unfortunately) and they were handing out these pamphlets entitled "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics." I grabbed one off the table and started reading it because the alternative was paying attention to mass. The pamphlet identifies 5 issues which are non-negotiable- ie if a candidate has the wrong oppinion you can't vote for them. Herer is the text of the 5 issues: 1. Abortion The Church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is "never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it" (EV 73). Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide. The unborn child is always an innocent party, and no law may permit the taking of his life. Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the child's, who should not suffer death for others' sins. 2. Euthanasia Often disguised by the name "mercy killing," euthanasia also is a form of homicide. No person has a right to take his own life, and no one has the right to take the life of any innocent person. In euthanasia, the ill or elderly are killed, by action or omission, out of a misplaced sense of compassion, but true compassion cannot include intentionally doing something intrinsically evil to another person (cf. EV 73). 3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research Human embryos are human beings. "Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo" (CRF 4b). Recent scientific advances show that often medical treatments that researchers hope to develop from experimentation on embryonic stem cells can be developed by using adult stem cells instead. Adult stem cells can be obtained without doing harm to the adults from whom they come. Thus there is no valid medical argument in favor of using embryonic stem cells. And even if there were benefits to be had from such experiments, they would not justify destroying innocent embryonic humans. 4. Human Cloning "Attempts . . . for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through 'twin fission,' cloning, or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union" (RHL I:6). Human cloning also involves abortion because the "rejected" or "unsuccessful" embryonic clones are destroyed, yet each clone is a human being. 5. Homosexual "Marriage" True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other union as "marriage" undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement. "When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral" (UHP 10). I almost cried after the gay marriage section. It claims "Legal recognition of any other union as "marriage" undermines true marriage" literally without any justification. Then goes on to say "legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement," which if you ont' speak catholic means that by allowing gays to marry we allow them to continue "immoral" arrangements, which will land them in hell. So by not letting them marry, we are potentially saving them from hell. I don't think ive ever heard more flawed logic in my life. Sorry if this is the wrong forum for my complaint, but I had to get it out. Peace, Alexander Berger P.S. see teh text of the pamphlet at http://www.catholic.com/library/voters_guide.asp P.P.S. I am a high school debater in CO, not the slighlty more well known Alex Berger who debated for Dartmouth From spmancuso Mon Sep 20 15:02:24 2004 From: spmancuso (Steve Mancuso) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:02:24 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Text of John Kerry's speech on Iraq today Message-ID: This election is about choices. The most important choices a president makes are about protecting America at home and around the world. A president's first obligation is to make America safer, stronger and truer to our ideals. Three years ago, the events of September 11 reminded every American of that obligation. That day brought to our shores the defining struggle of our times: the struggle between freedom and radical fundamentalism. And it made clear that our most important task is to fight and to win the war on terrorism. In fighting the war on terrorism, my principles are straight forward. The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president, I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies. But billions of people around the world yearning for a better life are open to America's ideals. We must reach them. To win, America must be strong. And America must be smart. The greatest threat we face is the possibility Al Qaeda or other terrorists will get their hands on a nuclear weapon. To prevent that from happening, we must call on the totality of America's strength -- strong alliances, to help us stop the world's most lethal weapons from falling into the most dangerous hands. A powerful military, transformed to meet the new threats of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. And all of America's power -- our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, the appeal of our values -- each of which is critical to making America more secure and preventing a new generation of terrorists from emerging. National security is a central issue in this campaign. We owe it to the American people to have a real debate about the choices President Bush has made and the choices I would make to fight and win the war on terror. That means we must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The president claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight. This month, we passed a cruel milestone: more than 1,000 Americans lost in Iraq. Their sacrifice reminds us that Iraq remains, overwhelmingly, an American burden. Nearly 90 percent of the troops -- and nearly 90 percent of the casualties -- are American. Despite the president's claims, this is not a grand coalition. Our troops have served with extraordinary bravery, skill and resolve. Their service humbles all of us. When I speak to them when I look into the eyes of their families, I know this: we owe them the truth about what we have asked them to do and what is still to be done. In June, the president declared, "The Iraqi people have their country back." Just last week, he told us: "This country is headed toward democracy. Freedom is on the march." But the administration's own official intelligence estimate, given to the president last July, tells a very different story. According to press reports, the intelligence estimate totally contradicts what the president is saying to the American people. So do the facts on the ground. Security is deteriorating, for us and for the Iraqis. 42 Americans died in Iraq in June -- the month before the handover. But 54 died in July -- 66 in August and already 54 halfway through September. And more than 1,100 Americans were wounded in August -- more than in any other month since the invasion. We are fighting a growing insurgency in an ever widening war-zone. In March, insurgents attacked our forces 700 times. In August, they attacked 2,700 times -- a 400% increase. Falluja, Ramadi, Samarra, even parts of Baghdad -- are now "no go zones" -- breeding grounds for terrorists who are free to plot and launch attacks against our soldiers. The radical Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, who is accused of complicity in the murder of Americans, holds more sway in the suburbs of Baghdad. Violence against Iraqis from bombings to kidnappings to intimidation is on the rise. Basic living conditions are also deteriorating. Residents of Baghdad are suffering electricity blackouts lasting up to 14 hours a day. Raw sewage fills the streets, rising above the hubcaps of our Humvees. Children wade through garbage on their way to school. Unemployment is over 50 percent. Insurgents are able to find plenty of people willing to take $150 for tossing grenades at passing U.S. convoys. Yes, there has been some progress, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our soldiers and civilians in Iraq. Schools, shops and hospitals have been opened. In parts of Iraq, normalcy actually prevails. But most Iraqis have lost faith in our ability to deliver meaningful improvements to their lives. So they're sitting on the fence instead of siding with us against the insurgents. That is the truth -- the truth that the commander in chief owes to our troops and the American people. It is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger. But it's essential if we want to correct our course and do what's right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again. I know this dilemma first-hand. After serving in war, I returned home to offer my own personal voice of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it those risking their lives to speak truth to power. We still do. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure. The president has said that he "miscalculated" in Iraq and that it was a "catastrophic success." In fact, the president has made a series of catastrophic decisions from the beginning in Iraq. At every fork in the road, he has taken the wrong turn and led us in the wrong direction. The first and most fundamental mistake was the president's failure to tell the truth to the American people. He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war. And he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens. By one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war. If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded. His two main rationales -- weapons of mass destruction and the Al Qaeda/September 11 connection -- have been proved false by the president's own weapons inspectors and by the 9/11 Commission. Just last week, Secretary of State Powell acknowledged the facts. Only Vice President Cheney still insists that the earth is flat. The president also failed to level with the American people about what it would take to prevail in Iraq. He didn't tell us that well over 100,000 troops would be needed, for years, not months. He didn't tell us that he wouldn't take the time to assemble a broad and strong coalition of allies. He didn't tell us that the cost would exceed $200 billion. He didn't tell us that even after paying such a heavy price, success was far from assured. And America will pay an even heavier price for the president's lack of candor. At home, the American people are less likely to trust this administration if it needs to summon their support to meet real and pressing threats to our security. Abroad, other countries will be reluctant to follow America when we seek to rally them against a common menace -- as they are today. Our credibility in the world has plummeted. In the dark days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy sent former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to Europe to build support. Acheson explained the situation to French President de Gaulle. Then he offered to show him highly classified satellite photos, as proof. De Gaulle waved the photos away, saying: "The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me." How many world leaders have that same trust in America's president, today? This president's failure to tell the truth to us before the war has been exceeded by fundamental errors of judgment during and after the war. The president now admits to "miscalculations" in Iraq. That is one of the greatest understatements in recent American history. His were not the equivalent of accounting errors. They were colossal failures of judgment -- and judgment is what we look for in a president. This is all the more stunning because we're not talking about 20/20 hindsight. Before the war, before he chose to go to war, bi-partisan Congressional hearings... major outside studies... and even some in the administration itself... predicted virtually every problem we now face in Iraq. This president was in denial. He hitched his wagon to the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military. The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible consequences. The administration told us we'd be greeted as liberators. They were wrong. They told us not to worry about looting or the sorry state of Iraq's infrastructure. They were wrong. They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots. They were wrong. They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy. They were wrong. They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country and a police force and army to secure it. They were wrong. In Iraq, this administration has consistently over-promised and under-performed. This policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. And the president has held no one accountable, including himself. In fact, the only officials who lost their jobs over Iraq were the ones who told the truth. General Shinseki said it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq. He was retired. Economic adviser Larry Lindsey said that Iraq would cost as much as $200 billion. He was fired. After the successful entry into Baghdad, George Bush was offered help from the UN -- and he rejected it. He even prohibited any nation from participating in reconstruction efforts that wasn't part of the original coalition -- pushing reluctant countries even farther away. As we continue to fight this war almost alone, it is hard to estimate how costly that arrogant decision was. Can anyone seriously say this president has handled Iraq in a way that makes us stronger in the war on terrorism? By any measure, the answer is no. Nuclear dangers have mounted across the globe. The international terrorist club has expanded. Radicalism in the Middle East is on the rise. We have divided our friends and united our enemies. And our standing in the world is at an all time low. Think about it for a minute. Consider where we were... and where we are. After the events of September 11, we had an opportunity to bring our country and the world together in the struggle against the terrorists. On September 12, headlines in newspapers abroad declared "we are all Americans now." But through his policy in Iraq, the president squandered that moment and rather than isolating the terrorists, left America isolated from the world. We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and posed no imminent threat to our security. It had not, as the vice president claimed, "reconstituted nuclear weapons." The president's policy in Iraq took our attention and resources away from other, more serious threats to America. Threats like North Korea, which actually has weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear arsenal, and is building more under this president's watch -- the emerging nuclear danger from Iran -- the tons and kilotons of unsecured chemical and nuclear weapons in Russia -- and the increasing instability in Afghanistan. Today, warlords again control much of that country, the Taliban is regrouping, opium production is at an all time high and the Al Qaeda leadership still plots and plans, not only there but in 60 other nations. Instead of using U.S. forces, we relied on the warlords to capture Osama bin Laden when he was cornered in the mountains. He slipped away. We then diverted our focus and forces from the hunt for those responsible for September 11 in order invade Iraq. We know Iraq played no part in September 11 and had no operational ties to Al Qaeda. The president's policy in Iraq precipitated the very problem he said he was trying to prevent. Secretary of State Powell admits that Iraq was not a magnet for international terrorists before the war. Now it is, and they are operating against our troops. Iraq is becoming a sanctuary for a new generation of terrorists who someday could hit the United States. We know that while Iraq was a source of friction, it was not previously a source of serious disagreement with our allies in Europe and countries in the Muslim world. The president's policy in Iraq divided our oldest alliance and sent our standing in the Muslim world into free fall. Three years after 9/11, even in many moderate Muslim countries like Jordan, Morocco, and Turkey, Osama bin Laden is more popular than the United States of America. Let me put it plainly: The president's policy in Iraq has not strengthened our national security. It has weakened it. Two years ago, Congress was right to give the president the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This president, any president would have needed the threat of force to act effectively. This president misused that authority. The power entrusted to the president gave him a strong hand to play in the international community. The idea was simple. We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam: disarm or be disarmed. A month before the war, President Bush told the nation: "If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail." He said that military action wasn't "unavoidable." Instead, the president rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted without making sure our troops had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead without understanding or preparing for the consequences of the post-war. None of which I would have done. Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no -- because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe. Now the president, in looking for a new reason, tries to hang his hat on the "capability" to acquire weapons. But that was not the reason given to the nation; it was not the reason Congress voted on; it's not a reason, it's an excuse. Thirty-five to forty countries have greater capability to build a nuclear bomb than Iraq did in 2003. Is President Bush saying we should invade them? I would have concentrated our power and resources on defeating global terrorism and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. I would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein -- who was weak and getting weaker -- so that he would pose no threat to the region or America. The president's insistence that he would do the same thing all over again in Iraq is a clear warning for the future. And it makes the choice in this election clear: more of the same with President Bush or a new direction that makes our troops and America safer. It is time, at long last, to ask the questions and insist on