Texas 2010

The CP

Thiele

K THE.............................................................................................................. 2
1NC...................................................................................................................................... 2
K THE.............................................................................................................. 4
AT: PERM DO BOTH............................................................................................................... 4
K THE.............................................................................................................. 5
AT: PERM DO CP................................................................................................................... 5
K THE.............................................................................................................. 6
AT: LX T/ - FIAT BAD/ WE ARE USFG.......................................................................................... 6
K THE.............................................................................................................. 7
AT: PICS................................................................................................................................ 7
K THE.............................................................................................................. 8
AT: WORDS FLUID.................................................................................................................... 8
K THE.............................................................................................................. 9
AT: NO SOLVENCY.................................................................................................................... 9
2NC................................................................................................................................... 9

Texas 2010
The CP

Thiele

K the
1NC

TEXT

OUR NET BENEFIT IS CRITICAL GEOPOLITICS

THE WORD THE IN FRONT OF USFG IS A VIOLENT ACT OF GEOPOWER
Thrift 2000
[Nigel Prof of Geography @ Univ. of Bristol. "Its's the Little Things" Geopolitical Traditions. A Century of Geopolitical
Thought: in Atkinson, D., Dodds, K. (eds) Page 383-385 Google Print] [ct]
st
<1 few sentences of paragraph inaccessible to print.google>
words function to bring about geopolitical change and it is not possible to do so as long as geopolitical forces continue to be
framed as "big" and "commanding" (with all the masculine overtones.) Some of the most potent geopolitical forces are, I suspect,
lurking in the 'little' 'details' of people's lives, what is "carried" in the specific variabilities of their activities' (Shotter and Billig
1998: 23), in the context of utterances. And these variabilities have immediate consequences. Thus,
As Bakhtin notes, and is confirmed by the work in conversational analysis, 'we sensitively catch the smallest shift in intonation,
the slightest interruption of voices in anything of importance to us in another person's practical everyday discourse. All those
verbal sideward glances, reservations, loopholes, hints, thrusts do not slip past our ear, are not foreign to our own lips' (Bakhtin
1984: 201). And we in turn show our stance to what they do or say also in fleeting bodily reactions, facial expressions, sounds of
approval or disapproval, etc. Indeed, even in the continuously responsive unfolding of non-linguistic activities between ourselves
and others - in a dance, a handshake, or even a mere collision on the street - we are actively aware of whether the other's motives
are, so to speak, 'in tune' or 'at odds' with ours. And in our sense of their attunement or lack of it, we can sense their attitude to us
as intimate or distant, friendly or hostile, deferential or arrogant, and so on. (Shotter and Billig 1998: 23).
Thus, very effective work has been done in disciplines like anthropology and discursive psychology (Billig 1995, 1997) which
attempts to provide a sense of how national identity and an accompanying geopolitical stance are inscribed through the smallest
of details. Thus, for example, national identity is not accomplished in grand displays which incite the citizen to wave the flag in a
fit of patriotic fervour. Instead, it goes on in more mundane citations:
it is done unobtrusively on the margins of conscious awareness by little words such as 'the' and 'we'. Each day we read or hear
phrases such as 'the prime minister', 'the nation', or 'the weather'. The definite article assumes deictically national borders. It
points to the homeland: but while we, the readers or listeners, understand the pointing, we do not follow it with our consciousness
- it is a 'seen but unnoticed' feature of our everyday discourse. (Shotter and Billig 1998: 20).
Such work goes some way towards understanding the deep, often unconscious aggressions which lurk behind so much
geopolitical 'reasoning', which through small details build a sense of 'us' as not like 'them', and from which political programmes
then flow as infractions are identified and made legible.
In these few brief comments, I hoped to have outlined a parallel agenda for critical geopolitics, one still based on discourse, but
on discourse understood in a broader way, and one which is less taken in by representation and more attuned to actual practices.
In turn, such an agenda leads us away from interpretation of hyperbolic written and drawn rhetorics (which, I suspect, are often
read by only a few and taken in by even fewer) towards the (I hesitate to say 'real') work of discourse, the constant hum of
practices and their attendant territorializations within whcih geopower ferments and sometimes boils over.

Texas 2010
The CP

Thiele

GEOPOWER IS AT THE ROOT OF WAR MAKES CASE IMPACTS INEVITABLE

Tuathail 96
[Gearoid Professor, Government and International Afffairs, School of Public and International Affairs, Virginia Tech Critical
Geopolitics: the politics of writing global space Page/s 1-2 GooglePrint] [ct]
Geography is about power. Although often assumed to be innocent, the geography of the world is not a product of nature but a
product of histories of struggle between competing authorities over the power to organize, occupy, and administer space. Imperial
systems throughout history, from classical Greece and Rome to China and the Arab world, exercised their power through their
ability to impose order and meaning upon space. In sixteenth-century Europe, the centralizing states of the "new monarchs"
began organizing space around an intensified principle of royal absolutism. In regions both within and beyond the nominal
domain of the Crown, the power of royal authority over space was extended and deepened by newly powerful court bureaucracies
and armies. The results in many instances were often violent, as the jurisdictional ambitions of royal authority met the determined
resistance of certain local and regional lords. Within the context of this struggle, the cartographic and other descriptive forms of
knowledge that took the name "geography" in the earls modern period and that were written in the name of the sovereign could
hardly be anything else but political. To the opponents of the expansionist court, "geography" was a foreign imposition, a form of
knowledge conceived in imperial capitals and dedicated to the territorialization of space along lines established by royal
authority. Geography was not something already possessed by the earth but an active writing of the earth by an expanding,
centralizing imperial state. It was not a noun but a verb, a geo-graphing, an earth-writing by ambitious endocolonizing and
exocolonizing states who sought to seize space and organize it to fit their own cultural visions and material interests.
More than five hundred years later, this struggle between centralizing states and authoritative centers, on the one hand, and
rebellious margins and dissident cultures, on the other hand, is still with us. While almost all of the land of the earth has now,
been territorialized by states, the processes by which this disciplining of space by modern states occurs remain highly contested.
From Chechnya to Chiapas and from Rondonia to Kurdistan and Fast Timor, the jurisdictions of centralized nation-states strive to
eliminate the Contradictions of marginalized peoples and nations. Idealized maps from the center clash with the lived
geographies of the margin, with the controlling cartographic visions of the former frequently inducing cultural conflict, war, and
displacement. Indeed, the rise in the absolute numbers of displaced peoples in the past twenty-five years is testimony to the
persistence of struggles over space and place. In 1993 the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimated that
roughly 1 in every 130 people on earth has been forced into flight because of war and state persecution. In 1970 there were 2.5
million refugees in the world; today that figure is well over 18.2 million. In addition an estimated 24 million people are internally
displaced within their own states because of conflict. More recently, genocide in Rwanda left over 500,000 murdered and
produced an unprecedented exodus of refugees from that state into surrounding states. Refugees continue to be generated by
"ethnic cleansing" campaigns in the Balkans; economic collapse in Cuba; ethnic wars in the Caucasus; state repression in
Guatemala, Turkey, Indonesia, Iraq, and Sudan; and xenophobic terror in many other states. Struggles over the ownership,
administration, and mastery of space are an inescapable part of the dynamic of contemporary global politics.

Texas 2010
The CP

Thiele

K the
At: Perm Do Both
1.

this is no different from the plan - permutations require transposing the plan text and the counterplan text on top
of eachother not adding the word and in between them - else ban the plan is not competitive. since the
counterplan is a plan exclusive, to do both would just do the original plan.

Texas 2010
The CP

Thiele

K the
At: Perm Do CP
1.

perm is SEVERANCE they sever the word the from their plan text this is no different than severing any
other word such as china or pressure making the aff a moving target jacking all neg ground voter for fairness.

2.

perm is impossible severing the words still carries forward the implicit meaning.

Gendlin 91
E.T. [Thinking Beyond Patterns: Body, Language, and Situations." - University of Chiacago- http://www.focusing.org/tbp.html]
[CT]
A thing, (including a sound, or a word) is both a given pattern, and the carrying forward of a whole context that is vastly more
and different than the pattern. That is the power of speech, logic, and the power of human making in empty space, the patternmoving making of empty space.

That is why when a pattern or distinction is retracted, most of what it was and did, is left: The distinction is not just the seemingly
spatial diagram of separation; it is also its effect-the point it made-vastly more than the distinction-pattern alone. The overt
distinction can be retracted, but to the extent it could cross, it made sense and carried forward implicitly in pre-separated ways
that cannot be retracted.
For example, you struggle with a line of text, philosophy or poetry. It seems garbled, makes no sense. You recall reading a certain
theoretical framework or concept, asserted of this author or of such texts, and re-read the line with that thought in mind. Suddenly
the line makes sense-says something. Now you also recall all the reasons why that theoretical framework or concept has to be
wrong, and you decide to discard it. Does the line go back to being garbled? No, not now, nor ever. You can suppose the theory
gone, but not the effect it had on the gigantic post-and-preseparated multiplicity you bring to what you read. You can be
convinced that your interpretation of the line is still wrong, and more work may enable it to say something else. But it will never
again say nothing.

Texas 2010
The CP

Thiele

K the
At: Lx T/ - Fiat Bad/ We Are USFG
THIS IS RETARDED THEIR CHOICE TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS NOT RADICAL OR REALLY SUBVERSIVE - ASK YOURSELF WHY WOULD ONE
EVER IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS A STATE? WE HAVE TWO DISADS
1. territorialization DA our 1nc tuathail ev says the united states is not just an actor in washington dc that hands out
money but rather it implicitly involves the question of jurisdiction the control and management of TERRITORY.
the question of economic pressure sanctions involves the management of the flow of goods in and out of this
territory. their desire to position themselves as an autonomous SOVEREIGN managing the territories necessary for
economic pressure is no different that the royal SOVEREIGN managing his kingdom. this reversal of power
relations from an institution to a single person is just the reversion from biopower back to JURIDICAL power both
are forms of governmentality that must be rejected.
2. NATIONAL IDENTITY DA- THEIR IDENTIFICATION OF THEMSELVES AS THE UNITED STATES
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS OFFENSIVE WHY IDENTIFY AS A NATION HOSTAGE TO RACISM,
SEXISM, HOMOPHOBIA, AND A LONG HISTORY OF GENOCIDE WAGED AGAINST NATIVE
AMERICANS? AND THIS CANT BE STRATEGICALLY REVERSED THE VERY NOTION THAT ONE
COULD JUMP INTO COCKPIT OF THE STATE AND PRESS REVERSE IS INHERENTLY INTEGRATIONIST
THE REPUBLICAN WE YOU SEEK OUT IS THE VERY REASON THESE HORRORS CONTINUE TO
THIS DAY.
Readings 2000
[Bill, Pagans, Perverts, of Primitives? Experimental Justice in the Empire of Capital Posthumanism edited by neil badmington
Page/s 116-118] [ct]
The claim of universal humanity inherent in the republican 'we' underpins the apparent paradox that a nation like the United
States, dedicated to the to the inalienable rights of man, should be hostage to racism sexism and homophobia, with a long history
of genocide waged against Native Americans. American hatred of difference and fear of the other is so persistent and complex
precisely because Americans believe themselves to be human. Theirs is not a tolerance of difference, but of identity, of the
identity of an abstract human nature. Or, to put it less provocatively, they believe that they can say 'we', and that their 'we' will
stand for humanity, that it can mean 'we humans'. The Republic declares itself to be the citadel of freedom and religious tolerance
freed from monarchical oppression. The United States stands today indicted of enormous crimes of intolerance towards other
cultures both internally and externally, from the repression of African-Americans and the near-extermination of the indigenous
peoples of central North America through to at least the Vietnam War. How can the citadel of freedom have been built with the
stones of oppression and imperialism; cemented with the blood of victims rather than of martyrs? This is no accident. It has to do
with the way the Republic says 'we', from its inception in the phrase 'we, the people'. That 'we' has the effect of never allowing
the question 'Who are we to speak?' to arise. The American 'we' is inherently integrationist - - which is why anyone can become
an American, why all Americans (and Australians) are essentially immigrants. This is why fantasies of space travel such as Star
Trek are so compelling: the site in which the modern state elaborates the understanding of the human subject as essentially
immigrant." The Americanness of someone who says 'we' is not grounded in anything outside the act of saving 'we', which makes
America a modern country. A republic is not founded in a common tradition but in a common declaration of independence from
tradition, something which the facts of colonialism and immigration underline in the United States and Australia even more than
in Lyotard's France. So republics do not ask where they have come from (no aristocracy of blood) but where they are going. The
republic is the nation that is modern because it is going somewhere that is headed towards a 'we' that will be the 'we' of humanity
itself. Humanity in its essence, freed from an local constraints of class race creed geographic origin. Universal humanity.
Lyotard notes the paradox of the fact that the republican 'we' is self authorising in part four of his Notice on the French
Declaration of 1789. The same logic applies to the American Declaration of Independence. When we say 'we, the people' in order
to found a state, we presuppose the existence of a people who can say 'we', even though it is only the declaration of independence
that brings that people into existence as a people capable of saying 'we', a people that understands itself as a community. The
founding fathers didn't worry about this logical flaw because they understood this statement as something in the nature of a
promise. The American state is dedicated to a proposition that it will be its historical project to bring into being: the proposition
of a common humanity, the proposition that there is such a thing as a people out there waiting to come into being. Lyotard's
vigilance reminds us that it is very dangerous to assume that we know humanity in advance that humanity, or tomorrow, belong
to us. We are never so terroristic as when destiny seems manifest.

Texas 2010
The CP

Thiele

K the
At: PICS

1. pics are good

A. all counterplans are textually pics all counterplans contain atleast one word of the plan.
B. counterplans good only way to level the playing field checking aff infinite prep and the only way to avoid racism good
debates.
2. counter-interpretation textually competitive plan exclusive counterplans okay - reasons to prefer
a. predictability you chose those 8 words of your plan text means you should be prepared to debate them. functional
competition leads to plan minus a penny for jerries kids which is unpredictable.
b. 2ac specification no team except west georgia reads a 9 minute long plan text on implementation. their ground is TENUOUS
at best.
c. critique education functional competition is useless against teams who dont defend fiat and irrelevant for discursive
investigations because it only textual competition focuses on words used instead of implied meaning.
3. ban the plan can be worded differently and is distinct from this debate ban the plan is always competitive textual
competition applies to everything else.
4. Links to the critique pics assumes notions of authenticity which explicitly create territories of geopolitics thats tauthail.
5. vague texts are inevitable
a. functional competition encourages vague plan writing to avoid implementation counterplans - scotty phillips is living proof.
b. TOPICALITY & vagueness checks affs must specify the united states federal government or else they lose on t.
6. Not a Voter
a. They make up time allocation with 8 minutes of the 1AC they get to weigh against the disad.
b. PICS dont prove why the rest of the 1NC is bad, jusT that the CP goes away.

Texas 2010
The CP

Thiele

K the
At: Words Fluid
1.

some words have meaning even though words like victory or fag have a multiplicity of meanings, simpler
words like is can not mean is not and up can never mean down. in this same way the definite article the
only implies national identity it can not have other meaning.

meaning is not given but rather a process of interpretation this means that other people will interpret the plan as a
form of national identity even though the affirmative may not our tuathail evidence controls the direction of the
uniqueness on how people perceive the united states ensures that this perception will swamp your project.
their rejection of truth leads to political paralysis and fascism
Crowder 04
[George Senior Lecturer in the School of Political and International Studies, Flinders University, Adelaide. Are post modernists
fascists? Book Review: Richard Wolin The Seduction of Unreason: The Intellectual Romance with Fascism from Nietzsche to
Postmodernism Australian Review of Public Affairs 25 October 2004] [ct]
[http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2004/10/crowder.html]
Traditionally, the left was universalist, basing its claims on notions of reason, truth, human rights, justice and democracy. On the
postmodernist view, however, these standards themselves, indeed all norms whatsoever, merely express particular interests or
power relations that arbitrarily favour some people, cultures or outlooks over others. On this basis, progressive postmodernists
are in a position to deconstruct the norms of dominant or privileged social groups. It is, however, obvious that precisely the
same corrosive procedure can then be applied to progressive ideals too. The justice sought by indigenous people, for example, is,
on the postmodernist view, merely an expression of their will to power, no more worthy than that of the groups they are opposing.
Postmodernism leads to an ethical stand-off, and consequently to political paralysis. Indeed, the reducing of all ethical debate to
terms of power can only benefit those who possess the power already. The powerless are then stripped of their principal weapon,
the moral force of appeals to justice. Politically, the logic of postmodernism leads to conservativism.
CARD CONTINUES
Wolin does, I think, succeed in keeping these issues separate. He does expose postmodernisms incoherence, but his principal
concern is to point out its dangers. These dangers should not be overstated, as he is careful to note, since the vogue of
postmodernism has now greatly diminished, especially in France, at least for the present. Nevertheless, all postmodernists are
pro-fascist, in the sense that they can hardly avoid admitting fascism as part of the glorious spectrum of Otherness. They are not
pro-fascist in the same way as ordinary fascists, since they must also admit anti-fascist voices as legitimate. So it would be better
to say that postmodernists are simply confused, politically as well as philosophically: for the postmodernist, all positions are
moral and political equivalents, no matter how contradictory. The trouble is that this confusion is debilitating. Postmodernism
does not entail a thoroughgoing dedication to fascism, but neither is the fascism of its forerunners merely coincidental. Jefferson
owned slaves against the grain of his Enlightenment convictions; the fascism of Bataille and Blanchot is wholly consistent with
postmodernism. Postmodernism opens the door to fascism, and is unable to close it again.

Texas 2010
The CP

Thiele

K the
At: No Solvency
2NC
1.

counterplan still solves united states federal government is functionally the same without the textual
identification of it as the only usfg. until they read specific usfg without the the means brazil disads they dont
have a link to their solvency deficit.

2.

you cant access your solvency deficit this debate is about the discursive effects of the 1ac not actual policy
making means neither the plan or the counterplan actually happen. our framework has a few net benefits
A. the distinction between theory and practice their framework overidentifies with political practice at the
expense of political theorization this constrains debate into the status quo mode of thinking which created
the very geopolitical disorders the plan attempts to solve.

Brown 97
[Wendy, The Time of the Political. Theory & Event - Volume 1, Issue 1, 1997] [ct]
Political theory, in particular, runs a great risk of losing its distinctive value in intellectual life and even its offerings to political
life, if it becomes trapped by responding to events, by the time and space of events. It runs the risk of limiting its capacity as a
domain of inquiry capable of disrupting the tyranny or givenness of the present, and expanding the range of possible futures. It
runs the risk as well of substituting political positions for political thinking, thereby sacrificing its capacity to call into question
the terms of the present. This does not mean that expansive political theory requires a retreat from political life. But it does
require distinguishing the theorization of political life from acting within it; this means not only refusing the identification of
action with theory, but refusing the notion that one is superior to the other, or even more important to politics than the other.

B. questions of political action put the cart in front of the horse debate is not congress you are not
president bush. belief that you can magically fiat the plans passage without ever engaging the larger
BUREAUCRATIC power structures ensures your cooption.
Schlag 91
[Pierre, Professor of Law, University of Colorado, Normativity And The Politics Of Form. 139 U. Pa. L. Rev. 801. April. L/N]
[Chris Thiele]
Many legal thinkers understand this dramatic conflict in terms of an opposition between the "realities" of practice and the "ideals"
of the legal academy. For these legal thinkers, it will seem especially urgent to ask once again: What should be done? How should
we live? What should the law be? These are the hard questions. These are the momentous questions.
[*805] And they are the wrong ones.
They are wrong because it is these very normative questions that reprieve legal thinkers from recognizing the extent to which the
cherished "ideals" of legal academic thought are implicated in the reproduction and maintenance of precisely those ugly
"realities" of legal practice the academy so routinely condemns. It is these normative questions that allow legal thinkers to shield
themselves from the recognition that their work product consists largely of the reproduction of rhetorical structures by which
human beings can be coerced into achieving ends of dubious social origin and implication. It is these very normative questions
that allow legal academics to continue to address (rather lamely) bureaucratic power structures as if they were rational, morally
competent, individual humanist subjects. It is these very normative questions that allow legal thinkers to assume blithely that -- in
a world ruled by HMOs, personnel policies, standard operating procedures, performance requirements, standard work incentives,
and productivity monitoring -- they somehow have escaped the bureaucratic power games. It is these normative questions that
enable them to represent themselves as whole and intact, as self-directing individual liberal humanist subjects at once rational,
morally competent, and in control of their own situations, the captain of their own ships, the Hercules of their own empires, the
author of their own texts.

Texas 2010
The CP

Thiele

C. attempts to separate morality from politics ensures the domination of politics over morality and results in
complacency.
Schlag 90
[Pierre, Professor of Law, University of Colorado, Normative and Nowhere to Go. 43 Stan. L. Rev. 167
.November. L/N] [Chris Thiele]
This is perhaps an unpleasant realization. One of the most important effects of normative legal thought is to intercede here so that
we, as legal academics, do not have to confront this unpleasant realization. Normative legal thought allows us to pretend that we
are preparing our students to become Atticus Finch 61 while we are in fact training people who will enter the meta-insurance
adjustment business.
For our students, this role-confusion is unlikely to be very funny. It will get even less so upon their graduation -- when they learn
that Atticus Finch has been written out of the script. For us, of course, it is a pleasant fantasy to think we are teaching Atticus
Finch. When the fantasy is over, it becomes one hell of a category mistake. And in the rude transition from the one to the other,
Atticus Finch can quickly turn into Dan Quayle. In fact, if you train your students to become Atticus Finch, they will likely end
up as Dan Quayle -- cognitively defenseless against the regimenting and monitoring practices of bureaucratic institutions. Atticus
Finch, as admirable as he may be, has none of the cognitive or critical resources necessary to understand the duplicities of the
bureaucratic networks within which we operate. Apart from the fantasies of the legal academy, there is no longer a place in
America for a lawyer like Atticus Finch. There is nothing for him to do here -- nothing he can do. He is a moral character in a
world where the role of moral thought has become at best highly ambivalent, a normative thinker in a world where normative
legal thought is already largely the bureaucratic logic of institutions.

10

Texas 2010
The CP

Thiele

K the
AT - Impact Inevitable

1.
2.
3.
4.

so is the affs impact.

this argument is equivalent to "people will still be racists, so why should i bother"
this is linear defense at best, not independently winnable.
CP creates uniqueness, much like how the K alt "vote here to start something" works

11

Texas 2010
The CP

Thiele

K the
AT - Solvency Deficit - which USFG?

1.
2.

3.

99.9999% same functional one, there's one in DC (and also others) and this one affects same area. The difference is
"the" is totalizing while "a" or "one" still signifies that there are others too.
Words do matter - That .9999% may have zero effect relating to the mechanics of your advantages BUT it does have a
huge functional effect on how the plan gets implemented. The best example is you have two presidential candidates
arguing for ban nuclear testing, one "as a step for disarm" and one to "prevent those dirty arabs from getting them too".
While both plans are functionally the same, the words and motivations behind the plan matter a lot to what actually
happens.
They're a Critical affs - ,fiat, grammar, or even a solvency deficit does matter because its impossible to quantify? Same
message, one less word. Still solves.

12