[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Elitist bribery in all of its glory!

On Thu, 1 May 1997, Matt Stannard wrote:

> So the advocates of CFR are now attempting to bribe the
> debate community with promises of being "hooked up"
> with "real  policy makers."  I will ignore the ethical
> questions (such as, does this legitimize me making a
> promise--and keeping it--that if civil rights is chosen, I'll
> bring Jesse Jackson with me to nats?) concerning turning
> the topic selection process into a game of celebrity
> brinkpersonship, and concentrate on the phrases and
> assumptions of Mr. Donald and Mr. Segal.

Is that possible to bring Rev. Jackson to CEDA or NDT nationals next year?
Maybe he can judge the final round along with other folks who
traditionally judge the round like coaches and successful former
competitors...

> Oh boy!  Obviously our nipples are hardening and our hearts pounding!

Whoa, Matt!  Just because your girlfriend is not around, doesn't mean you
have to subject the rest of us to this cruelty ;)!

> Why is this
> a reason to prefer the topic itself?  

It's not.

> And what about those of us who philosophically object to the term "real"
> because
> it is couched in the kind of "objectivism" that characterizes statist,
> capitalist thinking?
> As a radical educator, I would encourage my students to attend such a
> meeting only
> for the purposes of some good old Marcusian protest.  

Or something...

> In all seriousness, meeting policymakers is fine and dandy, good for the
> connections and resumes as they say.  But "college debate" will not be
> hooked up--only a small, infintesimal portion of college debate.
> Perhaps
> a team or two.  Perhaps whoever can afford to go to Washington.
> Certainly
> not all the bread-and-butter teams who will debate the topic.

What do you mean, Matt??!?!?!  I thought that *ALL* programs had the cash
to afford to do such a thing.

>  We should be concerned with the merits of the topic itself--the
> research 
> burdens, the social significance, the fairness and division of ground,
> and its 
> aesthetic value.  We shouldn't give a rat's ass that it was written by a
> member 
> of Bracewell and Patterson who  knows (gasp) real policymakers.  (Don't
> we 
> all know a few of those anyway?) Mr. Segal was a VERY good NDT debater, 
> but his position in a law firm (and his alleged connections with the
> elite)
> matters as much as Hays and Trice's positions as coaches, or Meany's 
> or anyone else's--that is, none at all.

BTW, where does Trice coach these days?  I have heard many good things
about him.  Just out of curiosity.

> Spare me.  You can do the same thing by writing a letter to your elected
> officials.  You can march in protest against policies you detest.  You
> can
> write editorials.  Remember Jim Haefele's sarcastic dismissal of any
> chance
> of real change coming from the civil rights topic?  Where's Jim when we
> need him?  

He has better things to do than banter with us CEDA and NDT-L dorks...

> "Real change" does not happen when policymakers condescend to a
> photo-op by listening to college students have a debate round.  It
> took millions marching in the streets to make policymakers listen
> to arguments against Jim Crow laws, the Vietnam War, anti-abortion
> laws, etc.  

Come on, Matt!  Give the guy a break.  Obviously, those politicians aren't
going to listen to the special interest groups any more when an
affirmative beautifully advocates that special interest groups should be
disallowed contributions (a very good big-stick case) when they hear it.
Maybe they will decide against it because of the rist to a Clinton
position that has the chance to erupt into four asian war scenarios!!!

> Who is "us"?  What about those of us who choose to interpret the topic
> radically?  Globalistically?  Anarchistically?  Through a feminist lens?
> Do you really think those powderpuff ruling class yokels will listen to
> good debates which challenge long-held imperialistic assumptions?  In
> fact, would anyone who had a chance in hell of running radical positions
> be chosen to debate in front of these "policymakers?"  By trying to
> entice
> us with the chance of hooking up with these types, you are SELLING OUT!
> Undermining the critical possibilities of debate.  

Really???  I thought that those folks would encourage a big discourse
about how the government should be overthrown because there is a HUGE net
benefit of communitarian-style solvency.  Damn!!!  There goes the Bookchin
stuff.

> I have nothing against a CFR topic.  In fact, it is running a close
> second or
> third for me right now, because of its radical possibilities.  But stick
> to the
> very good arguments you were making earlier, Steve.  This attempt at
> building
> support for the CFR topic was weak.

Nah.  It was alright, even fun and enticing.  But then, there you were
Matt to champion the crusade of the underrepresented.

> ps Jazz vs Bulls in finals.  Malone head to head with "Sir" Charles
> any day.  

Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc, and even big, fat Jud B over the milkman,
his stockboy, and the people they carry in a large, heavy backpack (aka
the UT Jazz) anyday.  Bulls in five.  Jordan gets richer!

Michelin Massey.

PS...I wrote the comments way up top about Matt b/c he is cool; and I am
sure he can take my jokes in the vain they were presented: complete and
utter seriousness (insert sarcastic smirk)!
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page