[eDebate] Totally Tangential Reply To Branson

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Wed Mar 7 08:45:13 CST 2007

Hello Whit, how is it going, interesting thread here, one point of
engagement in back channel because its not a real part of this discussion

> Andy Ellis doesn't think Khalilzad's work is academically defensible. Does
> that mean we have to not allow that evidence?

I don't doubt or really question the academic veracity of khalizads work, im
sure it is academically defensible.His foot notes match up and his
scholarship is im sure rigorous. That doesn't some how mean he is not
writing and doing that scholarship from an ideological point of
view.Likewise Whits objective standard, is a radical articulation of the
status quo and similarly is part of structuring and creating practice
through ideology. I do question the political effects of structuring our
activity around the competitive strategic khalilizad card as opposed to the
political effects of gearing our research toward it.

Im not very likely to vote against somebody just because they read "the
card" or even claimed hege good, and im not immediately going to vote neg if
the 1nc says imperialism is bad and fiat isnt real, and terror talk thats
real bad...I'm not going to vote just because someone was a nazi or someone
else was the colonial governor of Iraq....i will vote if there is a good
story about why that matters, maybe my threshold is lower than some to
accept well made arguments about the use of specific research, and those
arguments have to be made.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070307/d62f2c6b/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list