Everyman is about to die, and Death wants a reckoning. Not wanting to go it alone, Everyman asks friends, relations, and others to assist in accounting for his life as he takes an allegorical journey to the grave. Who'll come along?
You should.
Saint Martin's University is currently showing a unique version of the classic medieval morality play, making the campus the stage, incorporating walkways, buildings, roads, and more. Everyman starts in a courtyard near the O'Grady Library, and ends, fittingly, in the cemetery at sunset.
The acting is solid, with the title character (played by sophomore Olivia Baumgartner), Death (Zoe Ford), Good Deeds (senior Ninalynn Benitez), and God (Olympia veteran Josh Anderson, no relation) standing out. The marching band accompanying the trek does fine work, adding levity and solemnity and irony to the proceedings. The finale is poignant and unnerving, as Everyman departs with Death amid very real graves.
It runs April 20-23 and April 27-30, it's only $5, and you need to brush up on your 15th-century theater. Go see it.
It'll be the strangest, most morbid campus tour you'll ever take.
Added: Christian Carvajal of The Weekly Volcano also gives the play a thumbs-up.
Apr 18, 2011
Ondrej Smeykal, didgeridoo genius
This weekend, I was fortunate to hear--experience--the mastery of a twenty-year veteran of the didgeridoo, Ondrej Smeykal, at the Matrix Coffeehouse in Chehalis. Smeykal's music is impressionistic and multitextured, surging in volume and tempo. It echoes the sounds of crashing surf, passing trains, pulsing synthesizers. It washes over you in waves. It fills your heart and your belly with gladness.
It makes hippies dance.
It makes hippies gambol and whirligig and gyrate with abandon.
The video above is the briefest possible sampling of Smeykal's lyrical and rhythmic ingenuity, a pale shadow of his live performance. Smeykal is returning to the Northwest in August, so if you're in the area, seek him out.
And bring your hippie friends.
Apr 16, 2011
Emily Lockhart comes to CHS
Northwest author Emily Lockhart came to Capital Friday afternoon, sharing her experiences with six English classes. In a presentation that was relatable, self-deprecating, and honest, Lockhart spoke about her life as a student and as a writer--and explained how the two were intertwined. She grew up in Seattle, and first attended a "granola" and "bohemian" prep school; as she put it, "We all had to promise to never buy a car."
A loner, the sort of person others avoid in the cafeteria, Lockhart decided to transfer to Lakeside School, where she was able to reinvent herself in a surprising fashion:
Like a lot of fiction writers, Lockhart took time to get noticed. Her first attempt at publish non-fiction was rejected 70 times; her first success, a children's book, was rejected 30 times--and then, when published, "it was a lovely experience, but nobody read it." She wrote five unnoticed novels before The Boyfriend List finally caught readers' attention. Now, she's published a book a year for the last eight years. In her words, "It's not an easy way to get rich, but you can make a living."
You could sense Lockhart's palpable enthusiasm for her craft when she talked about the way she develops narrative.
And one last thing: Lockhart pointed out, "I'm on Twitter, you can come follow me." (She's @elockhart.)
A loner, the sort of person others avoid in the cafeteria, Lockhart decided to transfer to Lakeside School, where she was able to reinvent herself in a surprising fashion:
I didn't change anything about myself--how I looked, how I acted. I just showed up to see what happened. What happened was, I made friends.... I had a totally different life. I saw high school life from somewhere near the top, and somewhere near the bottom.... that's why I keep writing about it.As Lockhart explained, unlike many places in the adult world, high school throws together people of every conceivable disposition and circumstance, with no real option for escape. The conflict that results is what interests her, and her young adult books are full of italicized, capital-D Drama.
Like a lot of fiction writers, Lockhart took time to get noticed. Her first attempt at publish non-fiction was rejected 70 times; her first success, a children's book, was rejected 30 times--and then, when published, "it was a lovely experience, but nobody read it." She wrote five unnoticed novels before The Boyfriend List finally caught readers' attention. Now, she's published a book a year for the last eight years. In her words, "It's not an easy way to get rich, but you can make a living."
You could sense Lockhart's palpable enthusiasm for her craft when she talked about the way she develops narrative.
You become a little bit fond of the character. I gave Ruby traits that I like--some of them are mine. I liked Ruby. Once you create a character that you like, as a fiction writer, what you have to do is torture them. If you have a story about a happy person with a good life, and they continue to be a happy person with a good life, you don't have a story, you have a description. Your job as a writer is to ask, "What's the worst thing that could happen?"Some of Lockhart's best advice concerns her writerly motivation.
I don't feel like writing a lot of the time. I make myself do it. I write junk... I set a goal. I'm going to write 500 words, and then I can have a chocolate chip cookie.... Some day it's really fun and the best job ever. My writing teacher [in her university program] thought I sucked. But I'm the only one from the class who became a published writer. Why? Because my books are finished.Lockhart's down-to-earth persona and frank advice seemed to resonate with the students in her audience. Even though YA Teen Drama isn't really my thing, I'm going to check out a couple of her books, and recommend her work to my students.
And one last thing: Lockhart pointed out, "I'm on Twitter, you can come follow me." (She's @elockhart.)
Apr 15, 2011
no mercy on an empty stomach
Is a hungry judge a merciless judge?
Still, it makes one wonder what would happen if courts instituted mandatory snack breaks.
Jonathan Levav of Columbia Business School in New York and his colleagues analyzed 1,112 parole hearings for inmates of four Israeli prisons, made by eight judges over a ten-month period.The article, as all scientific articles do, includes the appropriate dose of skepticism. And it's obviously wrong to presume that the judges are too harsh when they're hungry; after all, they might be too lenient when full.
Judges' days were divided into three sessions broken by two meal breaks -- a morning snack and lunch. Judges decided when to break, but had no control over the ordering of cases, which was determined by when a prisoner's attorney arrived.
At the beginning of a session, a prisoner had a 65% chance of being paroled, the authors found. This declined to almost zero by the end of a session, and leaped back to 65% after a break.
The severity of the crime, the time served in prison, any previous incarcerations, and the availability of rehabilitation programs were not enough to explain the effect on the probability of parole, and the nationality or sex of a prisoner made no difference. The findings are published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Still, it makes one wonder what would happen if courts instituted mandatory snack breaks.
Apr 13, 2011
Resolved: The United States has a moral obligation to promote just governance in developing nations
With North Africa and the Middle East exploding in conflict, now's a perfect time for the NCFL's LD resolution for the May championship.
First, generally, why might just governance in developing nations be important? Lots of potential reasons, each of which would require some research for warranting:
* It's just / the right thing to do, which is reason enough
* Improves lives / protects rights of citizens of those developing nations
* Reduces conflict / promotes international stability
* Economic security for nations and their trading partners
* Just governance probably better protects the environment
* Reduces the growing pains of globalization
Still, we're not yet to the level of a moral obligation; not all good things are obligatory. We have some hurdles to clear:
1. The Affirmative has to warrant the notion that nations have moral obligations.
Such obligations could arise from several places: the social contract, universal moral schemes (utilitarianism, Kantianism), or legal frameworks (the Constitution, treaties, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international law). They may be corporate (the U.S. as a government has the obligation) or aggregate (the U.S.'s government agents as a collection of independent moral actors have the obligation).
The choice of moral framework will be critical to establishing the level of the obligation as well. Even from a purely pragmatic or instrumental perspective--that the U.S.'s only moral obligation is to its own needs--if, empirically, promoting just governance is critical to the U.S.'s own security, then we vote Aff.
2. "Just governance" has to be clearly, compellingly defined
Here's where a broader contractarian perspective offers a coherent framework without demanding particulars (What kind of governmental structures? What sort of democratic institutions, if any? What kinds of civil rights?). Delving into specifics potentially makes the Aff an uphill battle. However, it's not impossible to narrow the focus to something like international legal norms, which offer a widely agreed-upon set of "best practices" for just governance.
3. What does it mean to "promote" just governance? Does mere cheerleading suffice?
On the Neg, I'd use a "fork" strategy:
a. If the obligation is mere cheerleading, it's not morally significant, and therefore no obligation.
b. If the obligation requires economic or military action, it's too costly, and therefore no obligation.
c. If the obligation is something else--diplomatic efforts? winning a war of ideas?--it's ineffectual and pointless and wasteful, and therefore no obligation.
4. Is it ever to the U.S.'s advantage to allow--or even promote--unjust governance in developing nations?
It sounds like a question a terrible person would ask, but then, political philosophers are terrible people. We can't presume that just governance provides automatic benefits for surrounding or affiliated nations, never mind the citizens of the developing nation, unless we construe "just" so broadly as to include beneficial outcomes by definition.
In fact, for the U.S. to maintain economic and military hegemony, perhaps it's best to let developing nations remain mired in dictatorships or muddle their own way through. As the Egyptian non-intervention and the Libyan intervention shows, getting involved isn't automatically the best option. More cynically, if developing nations gain power through just governance, they may threaten the long-term interests of the United States.
At any rate, there are no easy, knock-down arguments for either side, although it seems that the Negative, by sheer number of hurdles, has the advantage in this debate.
If you have any questions or would like any further analysis, let me know in the comments. I don't usually cover the NCFL, so I won't blog extensively on this resolution without your prompting.
Resolved: The United States has a moral obligation to promote just governance in developing nations.At a reader's prompting, here are some initial thoughts.
First, generally, why might just governance in developing nations be important? Lots of potential reasons, each of which would require some research for warranting:
* It's just / the right thing to do, which is reason enough
* Improves lives / protects rights of citizens of those developing nations
* Reduces conflict / promotes international stability
* Economic security for nations and their trading partners
* Just governance probably better protects the environment
* Reduces the growing pains of globalization
Still, we're not yet to the level of a moral obligation; not all good things are obligatory. We have some hurdles to clear:
1. The Affirmative has to warrant the notion that nations have moral obligations.
Such obligations could arise from several places: the social contract, universal moral schemes (utilitarianism, Kantianism), or legal frameworks (the Constitution, treaties, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international law). They may be corporate (the U.S. as a government has the obligation) or aggregate (the U.S.'s government agents as a collection of independent moral actors have the obligation).
The choice of moral framework will be critical to establishing the level of the obligation as well. Even from a purely pragmatic or instrumental perspective--that the U.S.'s only moral obligation is to its own needs--if, empirically, promoting just governance is critical to the U.S.'s own security, then we vote Aff.
2. "Just governance" has to be clearly, compellingly defined
Here's where a broader contractarian perspective offers a coherent framework without demanding particulars (What kind of governmental structures? What sort of democratic institutions, if any? What kinds of civil rights?). Delving into specifics potentially makes the Aff an uphill battle. However, it's not impossible to narrow the focus to something like international legal norms, which offer a widely agreed-upon set of "best practices" for just governance.
3. What does it mean to "promote" just governance? Does mere cheerleading suffice?
On the Neg, I'd use a "fork" strategy:
a. If the obligation is mere cheerleading, it's not morally significant, and therefore no obligation.
b. If the obligation requires economic or military action, it's too costly, and therefore no obligation.
c. If the obligation is something else--diplomatic efforts? winning a war of ideas?--it's ineffectual and pointless and wasteful, and therefore no obligation.
4. Is it ever to the U.S.'s advantage to allow--or even promote--unjust governance in developing nations?
It sounds like a question a terrible person would ask, but then, political philosophers are terrible people. We can't presume that just governance provides automatic benefits for surrounding or affiliated nations, never mind the citizens of the developing nation, unless we construe "just" so broadly as to include beneficial outcomes by definition.
In fact, for the U.S. to maintain economic and military hegemony, perhaps it's best to let developing nations remain mired in dictatorships or muddle their own way through. As the Egyptian non-intervention and the Libyan intervention shows, getting involved isn't automatically the best option. More cynically, if developing nations gain power through just governance, they may threaten the long-term interests of the United States.
At any rate, there are no easy, knock-down arguments for either side, although it seems that the Negative, by sheer number of hurdles, has the advantage in this debate.
If you have any questions or would like any further analysis, let me know in the comments. I don't usually cover the NCFL, so I won't blog extensively on this resolution without your prompting.
"I (heart) boobies:" will SCOTUS take the case?
Is it sad or awesome that it took a federal ruling to uphold a high school student's right to wear an awareness-generating bracelet that uses the word "boobies?"
Take the case, SCOTUS. This time, though, get the right result.
Update: The district that lost will appeal, making SCOTUS involvement a live, if distant, possibility.
Breast cancer fundraising bracelets that proclaim "I (heart) boobies!" are not lewd or vulgar and can't be banned by public school officials who find them offensive, a federal judge in Pennsylvania said Tuesday in a preliminary ruling.Since it's just an appellate decision, and students' free speech rights have been curtailed in other jurisdictions, one wonders how long it takes "I heart boobies" to become the "Bong hits 4 Jesus" of the 2010s.
The ruling is a victory for two Easton girls suspended for defying a ban on their middle school's Breast Cancer Awareness Day.
"The bracelets ... can reasonably be viewed as speech designed to raise awareness of breast cancer and to reduce stigma associated with openly discussing breast health," U.S. Judge Mary McLaughlin wrote in a 40-page ruling issued Tuesday. She added that the school district had not shown the bracelets would be disruptive in school.
Take the case, SCOTUS. This time, though, get the right result.
Update: The district that lost will appeal, making SCOTUS involvement a live, if distant, possibility.
Apr 11, 2011
do vegan androids dream of electric tomatoes?
Science brings us the sunless hyperfarm:
Also, I'm hungry. Vic's Pizza, anyone?
In their research station, strawberries, yellow peppers, basil and banana plants take on an eerie pink glow under red and blue bulbs of Light-Emitting Diodes, or LEDs. Water trickles into the pans when needed and all excess is recycled, and the temperature is kept constant. Lights go on and off, simulating day and night, but according to the rhythm of the plant - which may be better at shorter cycles than 24 hours - rather than the rotation of the Earth.At this point, why stop with "natural" plants? Using them as a template, throw together some genetic engineering and 3D printing, and you can create more efficient vascular and metabolic systems to grow foodstuffs in a sci-fi agricultural dreamscape.
In a larger "climate chamber" a few miles away, a nursery is nurturing cuttings of fittonia, a colorful house plant, in two layers of 70 square meters (750 sq. feet) each. Blasts of mist keep the room humid, and the temperature is similar to the plants' native South America. After the cuttings take root - the most sensitive stage in the growing process - they are wheeled into a greenhouse and the chamber is again used for rooting. The process cuts the required time to grow a mature plant to six weeks from 12 or more....
Meeuws says a building of 100 sq meters (1,075 sq. feet) and 14 layers of plants could provide a daily diet of 200 grams (7 ounces) of fresh fruit and vegetables to the entire population of Den Bosch, about 140,000 people. Their idea is not to grow foods that require much space, like corn or potatoes. "We are looking at the top of the pyramid where we have high value and low volume," he said.
Also, I'm hungry. Vic's Pizza, anyone?
Apr 9, 2011
the irrational creepiness of a private military firm
The other day, while attempting to answer a reader's debate question about the use of PMFs in South Korea, I came across the website of Xeros Services.
Xeros supplies men and materiel for war-making, and offers "cross-structural value," "risk mitigation," and "a nuanced approach." Take away the images of surface-to-air missiles and armored personnel carriers, and you might think you're being sold a 401K. (Take away the website, and you can't even be sure the company is real: they're barely mentioned on the Web, outside of some duplicated Wikipedia entries.)
PMFs are criticized for making conflict too convenient, and it's hard to argue when faced with a sales pitch like this:
It's conflict outsourcing, and it's more than a little creepy.
Xeros supplies men and materiel for war-making, and offers "cross-structural value," "risk mitigation," and "a nuanced approach." Take away the images of surface-to-air missiles and armored personnel carriers, and you might think you're being sold a 401K. (Take away the website, and you can't even be sure the company is real: they're barely mentioned on the Web, outside of some duplicated Wikipedia entries.)
PMFs are criticized for making conflict too convenient, and it's hard to argue when faced with a sales pitch like this:
"Our 24-7-365 guarantee means we can help you react quickly and decisively to any unexpected developments, no matter the scale. For a small premium you can have complete peace of mind - and we'll handle the paperwork."Do you want an army at your disposal? Log in with your password, charge your corporate credit card, and a platoon will be delivered to your door.
It's conflict outsourcing, and it's more than a little creepy.
Apr 6, 2011
a real American at 95
Wonder if I could ever find myself in this situation:
Oh, I remember: just sing all the words to The National Anthem.
For all his life, 95-year-old Leland Davidson had been what you might call an undocumented American.Born in Canada, of an American father and a Canadian mother, I'm an American citizen. I have a "Certificate of Birth Abroad" and a current passport, but if I were to, say, vacation in British Columbia and lose my passport--stranger things have happened--how would I prove that my citizenship is legit? (It doesn't help that "Jim Anderson" is a terribly common name.)
Until now.
Born in Canada to American parents who moved him to the United States when he was 5, Davidson grew up and lived his life like any other American. He started voting as soon as he could, obtained a Social Security number when he was 21 and served in the U.S. Navy during World War II.
Yet his U.S. citizenship, automatically derived from his parents, came into question last summer — as it has been for a growing number of Canadian-born Americans — when he was planning a trip to British Columbia and applied for an enhanced Washington driver's license.
The licenses are for U.S. citizens only — allowing re-entry into the United States from Canada. Davidson was shocked when Department of Licensing staff told him: "You're still a Canadian."
After months untangling his status, the Centralia man Tuesday received a long-overdue recognition of his U.S. citizenship, when he and 51 others — most of them children — were granted certificates of citizenship.
Oh, I remember: just sing all the words to The National Anthem.
Apr 5, 2011
pick a sovereign, any sovereign
Don't like democracy's tyranny-of-the-majority, but can't think of an acceptable alternative? How about "choice democracy?"
There'd have to be a way to cap the number of political parties for practicality's sake, lest the solipsists and anarchists gum up the works. I'd imagine it'd also raise the stakes for voter fraud, with people appearing in multiple virtual jurisdictions. For instance, someone would claim allegiance to the Flat Tax party while signing up for free flu shots from the Universal Health Care party. And then there's the prospect of a society completely fragmented on partisan lines, with its desires, needs, and values more ephemeral than ever.
Still, it's an intriguing combination of democratic legitimacy and market efficiency, and a few years hence, when we're all avatars in a digital lifescape, it just might work.
It could work like this: before an election, each political party would lay out its governing principles - what services it will provide, how its taxes will be structured, what social policies it will pursue, and so forth. After the election, each voter pays taxes to the party they voted for, and receives that set of services - cultural and educational subsidies, for example, or unemployment benefits - until the next election. This would require doing away with secret ballots. On some things, parties may choose to band together to govern specific services - military defence, for example, or monetary systems - where economies of scale are important.It's federalism without the geographic constraints, possible only either in tiny or technologically-saturated nations. It would turn voting into a sort of game--play with the same cards, but different rules when you switch election cycles. In one sense, it's the most legitimate form of government possible. (Somewhere, a 21st-century Thomas Hobbes is having a heart attack, while his Rousseauian counterpart furiously scribbles on a napkin.)
There'd have to be a way to cap the number of political parties for practicality's sake, lest the solipsists and anarchists gum up the works. I'd imagine it'd also raise the stakes for voter fraud, with people appearing in multiple virtual jurisdictions. For instance, someone would claim allegiance to the Flat Tax party while signing up for free flu shots from the Universal Health Care party. And then there's the prospect of a society completely fragmented on partisan lines, with its desires, needs, and values more ephemeral than ever.
Still, it's an intriguing combination of democratic legitimacy and market efficiency, and a few years hence, when we're all avatars in a digital lifescape, it just might work.
Apr 4, 2011
today's flim-flam links
1. Was Steinbeck's Travels with Charley a whole lotta hooey? And, if so, why don't more scholars care? [via Jesse Walker]
2. Does every continent have its own James Randi?
3. Gandhi demythologized. [via ALDaily, although Orwell got there decades earlier.]
4. In which a con artist gets 20 to life.
5. Jackie Chan is alive and kicking.
2. Does every continent have its own James Randi?
3. Gandhi demythologized. [via ALDaily, although Orwell got there decades earlier.]
4. In which a con artist gets 20 to life.
5. Jackie Chan is alive and kicking.
Mar 31, 2011
new views
Blogger's offering interesting new ways to view content.
Check out this blog's optional formats, starting with "Flipcard," pictured above, and found at http://decorabilia.blogspot.com/view/flipcard.
Mar 29, 2011
Wye Oak brings the noise
Put Wye Oak's Jenn Wasner and Andy Stack in front of a brick wall in a wood-floored record shop, and expect some kidney-rattling, soul-shaking rock.
Wasner describes their method:
Early in their set, Civilian's "Holy Holy" was a perfect encapsulation of Stack and Wasner's dynamism, beginning with driving, distorted guitar and then settling into an aggressive, thumping groove. The chorus, the first time, sounds hymnlike--which happens now and then in Wye Oak's music--but the second time, the distortion kicks back in and, if we're still in the sanctuary, at least we're blasting out the stained glass windows.
Live, Wasner's voice is stronger, Stack's drumming more urgent. See them when you get the chance, and worship at the church of rock and/or roll.
Wasner describes their method:
We won't admit this to ourselves often, but the way we play live is based on loud-quiet breaks, like super-huge jumps in volume and distortion. Sometimes it's really important to explode with huge amounts of volume. Whether it's out of a creative impulse, or just an angry one where it's like, "Hey everyone, look over here!" We wanted to have the option of having dynamics and volume work to our advantage in certain conditions. And it's fun to absolutely dominate a room for a couple of seconds.On Monday night, dominate they did, blistering the bricks at Sonic Boom Records in Seattle, with thirty minutes of free music from Civilian and My Neighbor / My Creator.
Early in their set, Civilian's "Holy Holy" was a perfect encapsulation of Stack and Wasner's dynamism, beginning with driving, distorted guitar and then settling into an aggressive, thumping groove. The chorus, the first time, sounds hymnlike--which happens now and then in Wye Oak's music--but the second time, the distortion kicks back in and, if we're still in the sanctuary, at least we're blasting out the stained glass windows.
Live, Wasner's voice is stronger, Stack's drumming more urgent. See them when you get the chance, and worship at the church of rock and/or roll.
Mar 27, 2011
at the Washington Mock Trial state championship
At the prompting of an attorney friend, I spent a good part of Saturday afternoon observing the YMCA Mock Trial state championship at the Thurston County Courthouse. I sat in Courtroom One, which I remembered fondly from my drug trial--by which I mean, the time I was called in for jury duty, but, as so often happens, a plea bargain cut things short and I never got my chance to pay my civic dues.
Someone who blundered into the room would've figured they were interrupting a real trial. Students were competent attorneys, fielding motions and objections, making speeches, and handling incisive questions from Snohomish County Judge Bruce Weiss. Witnesses put on a great show, too, whether as the unctuous colleague of the defendant, the punctilious crime scene investigator, or the nervous garbage truck driver. Teams had been preparing since October, and it showed.
The fictional case, written by Judge William Downing, was all too timely: a police officer on trial for 2nd-degree murder, having shot a "person of interest" in an arson investigation. The case featured dark alleys, ambiguous turns of events, conflicting testimony, dubious emails, political fallout--all the hallmarks of the nightly news.
With one exception: there must be some sort of rule requiring jokey names in a mock trial. When I was in 7th grade, I tried to prove that Herschel C. Lion was responsible for the murder of a local salmon. Saturday's trial featured a Detective Josephine Viernes ("Joe Friday") and medical examiner "Dr. Kildare." (Generation gap, anyone?)
Apparently I lucked into one of the best rounds ever, at least according to Judge Weiss, who had effusive praise for the young advocates, saying that they "did better than a lot of attorneys who appear before me as a part of their job." I was also quite impressed by what I saw, which I think was my friend's intent. Is Capital going to be able to field a Mock Trial team? I don't know. It requires a lot of training and prep work, and I'm already a stretched-thin debate coach. But it's certainly worth pursuing.
Someone who blundered into the room would've figured they were interrupting a real trial. Students were competent attorneys, fielding motions and objections, making speeches, and handling incisive questions from Snohomish County Judge Bruce Weiss. Witnesses put on a great show, too, whether as the unctuous colleague of the defendant, the punctilious crime scene investigator, or the nervous garbage truck driver. Teams had been preparing since October, and it showed.
The fictional case, written by Judge William Downing, was all too timely: a police officer on trial for 2nd-degree murder, having shot a "person of interest" in an arson investigation. The case featured dark alleys, ambiguous turns of events, conflicting testimony, dubious emails, political fallout--all the hallmarks of the nightly news.
With one exception: there must be some sort of rule requiring jokey names in a mock trial. When I was in 7th grade, I tried to prove that Herschel C. Lion was responsible for the murder of a local salmon. Saturday's trial featured a Detective Josephine Viernes ("Joe Friday") and medical examiner "Dr. Kildare." (Generation gap, anyone?)
Apparently I lucked into one of the best rounds ever, at least according to Judge Weiss, who had effusive praise for the young advocates, saying that they "did better than a lot of attorneys who appear before me as a part of their job." I was also quite impressed by what I saw, which I think was my friend's intent. Is Capital going to be able to field a Mock Trial team? I don't know. It requires a lot of training and prep work, and I'm already a stretched-thin debate coach. But it's certainly worth pursuing.
Mar 23, 2011
LD mailbag: 1AR tactics and analytical warrants
Now that the postseason is winding down, it's time to focus primarily on general LD questions. The first concerns tactics in the first Affirmative rebuttal (1AR). A reader writes:
1. If you know you have a flow judge who can handle speed, go faster and hit every subpoint, even if only with a blippy argument. This may be better than the phantom "drops."
2. Effective grouping may depend on which way you're addressing your opponent's argument. Are you actually taking down the whole argument at once, logically speaking, or just claiming that you are because you think it's necessary?
For instance, consider an opponent who argues:
If you group and try to argue that PMFs are both morally abhorrent and that overstretch is good because it limits US military foreign adventuring, now you have two reasons to dismiss the entirety of the contention without even addressing its warrants--first, that moral considerations trump practical considerations, and secondly, a retort or "turn" that actually provides you with offense.
3. The problem with drops is asymmetric, since you lack the time in the 1AR to dismiss your drops as irrelevant or insignificant (if you're taking the "bigger picture" approach), yet your opponent has time to extend and impact those drops. So, if you're in front of a flow judge, you might try this: at the end of your 1AR, say something to effect of, "In her next speech the Neg is going to point out that I've dropped several inconsequential subpoints. In my closing, I'll crystallize the round and explain exactly why those drops don't matter." In that way, you've prepared the judge for your approach.
It may be risky, but it's better than leaving the drops for the judge to deal with in the absence of any direction from you--and with plenty of prompting by your opponent!
Let's move on to a couple of questions about evidence.
When writing your own case, use direct quotations whenever feasible.
If your opponent is doing something genuinely abusive, and you're sure you can convince the judge on this point, then make it a voting issue.
Debaters are encouraged to submit their examples, tactics, or questions regarding the above scenarios.
On the negative, all the reading I've done suggests limiting a case to 1-2 contentions. Some of my opponents, though, have negative cases with 3 contentions, 3-4 subpoints apiece. I understand the idea of prioritizing arguments when I'm aff, but when I don't address all of the subpoints explicitly in the 1AR, flow judges extend the individual subpoints and often vote on these "dropped" arguments. One thing I've tried is grouping subpoints under a main idea (e.g. group his contention 1 subpoints because they all pertain to how PMFs aren't accountable), but this is often too general a response. How can I avoid this dilemma in the 1AR?There are a few ways to handle this.
1. If you know you have a flow judge who can handle speed, go faster and hit every subpoint, even if only with a blippy argument. This may be better than the phantom "drops."
2. Effective grouping may depend on which way you're addressing your opponent's argument. Are you actually taking down the whole argument at once, logically speaking, or just claiming that you are because you think it's necessary?
For instance, consider an opponent who argues:
C1: Private Military Firms (PMFs) are necessary for military operationsIf you group and try to argue that PMFs aren't necessary because we could always institute a draft, in a way you've taken out the whole contention, but you haven't really addressed its logic. A draft defeats warrant (c), but doesn't compete with (a), (b), or (d). So your opponent could legitimately argue that you've dropped 3 out of 4 warrants, and her point still stands.
a) Speed
b) Flexibility
c) Staffing
d) Superior Resources
If you group and try to argue that PMFs are both morally abhorrent and that overstretch is good because it limits US military foreign adventuring, now you have two reasons to dismiss the entirety of the contention without even addressing its warrants--first, that moral considerations trump practical considerations, and secondly, a retort or "turn" that actually provides you with offense.
3. The problem with drops is asymmetric, since you lack the time in the 1AR to dismiss your drops as irrelevant or insignificant (if you're taking the "bigger picture" approach), yet your opponent has time to extend and impact those drops. So, if you're in front of a flow judge, you might try this: at the end of your 1AR, say something to effect of, "In her next speech the Neg is going to point out that I've dropped several inconsequential subpoints. In my closing, I'll crystallize the round and explain exactly why those drops don't matter." In that way, you've prepared the judge for your approach.
It may be risky, but it's better than leaving the drops for the judge to deal with in the absence of any direction from you--and with plenty of prompting by your opponent!
Let's move on to a couple of questions about evidence.
My second question is regarding the justifications behind a source. I've found that judges in my state often respond much better to studies/statistics over analysis from a professor/expert, but I know that expert analysis is definitely valuable. How do I respond to claims that "just because a professor says it, it isn't true"? Do I just need to better understand my evidence, or is there some argument I can make to save my analytical warrants?Your opponent may be correct about the potential dubiousness of expert opinion--but if a professor's expertise and analysis are dubious, what about the analysis of a high school student? Ad hominem is a nonstarter. Instead, argue that your opponent hasn't actually addressed the logic of the analysis, which stands or falls on its own. (Decry the "ad hominem" attack and call it out as a fallacy if necessary.) And besides, the so's-your-old-man to the statistical card is "Figures lie and liars figure." Evidence battles, unless there are good reasons to doubt the evidence, are pretty boring and obnoxious to most judges.
I have one more question for you after going over some recent flows. One of my opponents spewed a lot of evidence at me in one of my debates, but they didn't actually READ said evidence...they paraphrased in 1-2 sentences and provided a brief citation at the end. Call I call them out on that, or is that allowed?This is a gray, foggy area. Academics do this all the time--and it's quite likely that the cards being cited by debaters in rounds are actually footnoted paraphrases themselves! But without a direct source, we have to hold it in faith that our opponent isn't cherry-picking, card-stacking, context-ripping, or improperly summarizing. That's quite a leap, and it's fair in cross-ex to ask for a direct citation for any "evidence" that sounds too good to be true. But only for evidence that sounds unreasonable or dubious. Otherwise you'll sound like a nit-picker, which is the cardinal sin of evidence-challenging.
When writing your own case, use direct quotations whenever feasible.
If your opponent is doing something genuinely abusive, and you're sure you can convince the judge on this point, then make it a voting issue.
Debaters are encouraged to submit their examples, tactics, or questions regarding the above scenarios.
Mar 21, 2011
don't fear the radioactive reaper
Yes I did.
And I'd do it again.
Mar 18, 2011
why you should learn big words
Why is your teacher encouraging, exhorting, or even nagging you to learn roots, to study vocab, and to read with an eye and ear for language?
The reasons are manifold. Augment your vocabulary...
To become a better, more engaging writer.
To better comprehend your reading.
To confuse people.
To connect subjects (math --> English --> science).
To define unknown words more easily.
To express yourself more effectively or accurately.
To feel more confident with little words.
To feel sophisticated.
To gain access to power.
To gain knowledge--to not be clueless.
To get good grades.
To get out of a bad situation.
To have deeper, more intelligent conversations.
To have fun.
To have options when choosing a word.
To impress a date.
To know what you're being accused of or charged with.
To know your rights.
To land a better job.
To learn how to say exactly--precisely--what you mean.
To learn the history of language and culture.
To make money.
To master the English language.
To not be afraid of things you don't understand.
To place more emphasis on other words.
To protect yourself from scams or risks.
To read between the lines.
To read more expressively.
To sound intelligent.
To sound professional.
To sound smart.
To succeed in a future career.
To understand difficult subjects.
To understand more knowledgeable people.
To understand ourselves and others.
To understand politics.
And, most important:
To win at Stump Mr. Anderson.
The reasons are manifold. Augment your vocabulary...
To become a better, more engaging writer.
To better comprehend your reading.
To confuse people.
To connect subjects (math --> English --> science).
To define unknown words more easily.
To express yourself more effectively or accurately.
To feel more confident with little words.
To feel sophisticated.
To gain access to power.
To gain knowledge--to not be clueless.
To get good grades.
To get out of a bad situation.
To have deeper, more intelligent conversations.
To have fun.
To have options when choosing a word.
To impress a date.
To know what you're being accused of or charged with.
To know your rights.
To land a better job.
To learn how to say exactly--precisely--what you mean.
To learn the history of language and culture.
To make money.
To master the English language.
To not be afraid of things you don't understand.
To place more emphasis on other words.
To protect yourself from scams or risks.
To read between the lines.
To read more expressively.
To sound intelligent.
To sound professional.
To sound smart.
To succeed in a future career.
To understand difficult subjects.
To understand more knowledgeable people.
To understand ourselves and others.
To understand politics.
And, most important:
To win at Stump Mr. Anderson.
Mar 16, 2011
the squishy self
If V.S. Ramachandran has a new book out, you can bet your sweet occipital lobe I'm going to link to Colin McGinn's review.
Mind-body problem solved. Wasn't that simple?
Why is neurology so fascinating? It is more fascinating than the physiology of the body--what organs perform what functions and how. I think it is because we feel the brain to be fundamentally alien in relation to the operations of mind--as we do not feel the organs of the body to be alien in relation to the actions of the body. It is precisely because we do not experience ourselves as reducible to our brain that it is so startling to discover that our mind depends so intimately on our brain. It is like finding that cheese depends on chalk--that soul depends on matter. This de facto dependence gives us a vertiginous shiver, a kind of existential spasm: How can the human mind--consciousness, the self, free will, emotion, and all the rest--completely depend on a bulbous and ugly assemblage of squishy wet parts? What has the spiking of neurons got to do with me?I disagree with McGinn: neurology isn't any more fascinating than physiology, because as Lawrence Rosenblum's See What I'm Saying compellingly argues, neurology and physiology are blissfully codependent. You are the mind your body builds, and the body your mind conceives.
Mind-body problem solved. Wasn't that simple?
Mar 14, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)