HAYS Adrenaline Affirmative

BAD 2010-2011

Adrenaline
Adrenaline Inherency ***.....................................................................................................................................................2
Adrenaline 1AC Inherency....................................................................................................................................................3
Plan Texts/Advocacy***.......................................................................................................................................................4
Adrenaline 1AC Trauma***.................................................................................................................................................5
Adrenaline 1AC Trauma.......................................................................................................................................................6
Adrenaline 1AC Militarism***.............................................................................................................................................7
Adrenaline 1AC.................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Adrenaline 1AC Framework***...........................................................................................................................................9
Adrenaline 1AC Framework...............................................................................................................................................10

Ashtar.
1
 HAYS Adrenaline Affirmative
BAD 2010-2011

Adrenaline 1AC Inherency ***

The new struggle in the war on terror is not resources or bodies, but rather the drive to continue fighting.
This war-fighting priority is reflected in the fundamental orientation of the Combat and Operational
Stress Control program where all evacuation decisions are made.
McCloskey, 9/14/09 (Megan, staff writer “Failing the stress tests? Pentagon is treating troops for PTSD, but experts say
measurements are lacking” Stars and Stripes http://www.stripes.com/news/failing-the-stress-tests-1.94761)

But in a vast military organization obsessed with metrics and measuring every aspect of its performance, experts say there is one
glaring gap: The Pentagon has no system in place to evaluate whether its downrange crisis interventions are actually working. At the
stress clinics, or "restoration centers" as the military calls them, servicemembers experiencing acute mental trauma can get a few days’ respite away
from the war and consult with nurses, psychologists and psychiatrists. The only outcome the Army measures is what percentage of soldiers are able
to quickly return to the front lines: 97 percent. "[Downrange] the mental health professional’s primary mission is to get people back to
duty," said Dr. Mardi Horowitz, a psychiatrist and PTSD authority who helped define the disorder in the 1970s. "It’s not an
individual’s health." There are no attempts being made to count the number of soldiers who visit the combat stress clinics or track
their long-term mental health — an omission, mental health experts say, that means the military has no way of knowing about
subsequent discipline problems, violent behavior or suicide attempts that might be traced back to battlefield stress . Even at the Defense
Center for Excellence in Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury, created in 2007 to spearhead the Pentagon’s mental health efforts, no official in the research,
surveillance or program evaluation divisions was able to answer questions posed by Stars and Stripes about the efficacy of downrange mental health interventions .
"None of the folks at [the center] are well-versed enough in this area," said spokeswoman Judith Evans. Nor are there programs in
place to attempt to answer other fundamental questions about the combat stress clinics, such as the proportion of soldiers who seek
treatment who are eventually discharged from the military because of mental disabilities. Such concerns about the perceived stigma of
seeking psychological help, as well as widely-held fears among servicemembers that they will suffer adverse career repercussions if
they admit to experiencing battlefield mental trauma, remain major obstacles to treatment, military leaders have often acknowledged. "There are some institutional
policies that put a stigma in place that makes it difficult to get care," said Capt. Paul Hammer, director of the Naval Center for Combat and Operational Stress Control. The workings of the
combat stress clinics came under scrutiny in May after a soldier shot up a Baghdad clinic where he had earlier been treated, killing five fellow servicemembers in an incident that ranked as the
deadliest instance of soldier-on-soldier violence in the Iraq war. A detailed Army report about combat mental health issues, sparked by that deadly incident, is currently in the hands of
commanders at Multi-National Force Iraq headquarters and is expected to be publicly released soon .
To be sure, the majority of servicemembers who deploy
downrange do not suffer severe mental health issues or explode into violence. And Pentagon officials contend that since such a high
proportion of troops are able to return to duty soon after visiting combat stress clinics, what goes on at the centers must be working,
even if they haven’t measured it. The goal in theater is "helping people function as best you can to preserve the fighting strength of the
force … helping them deal with what they need to deal with," said Hammer. That warfighting priority is reflected in the fundamental
orientation of the Combat and Operational Stress Control program — the military’s formal name for its mental health units, including
the stress clinics. It is a commander’s program, in which mental health professionals make recommendations, but "ultimately it’s a leadership decision" whether to send a soldier back to
the front, said Lt. Col. Edward Brusher, deputy director of the Army surgeon general’s behavioral health office. Combat stress reactions are not automatically considered a medical problem.
Only when there is a severe diagnosable psychiatric condition — such as PTSD, depression or schizophrenia — does evacuation from the theater become a medical decision. Otherwise, a
The commander might
commander can overrule a recommendation to evacuate, according to Maj. Tim Carroll, the officer in charge of the Army’s mental resiliency training office.
instead agree that the servicemember "can’t go back out and kick down a door" and but can remain in theater to do administrative
functions, he said. Hammer said that often "what we’re dealing with in theater is symptoms" that many times "don’t fulfill the criteria for PTSD." Since 2003, more than 4,700
servicemembers have been evacuated from Iraq and Afghanistan because of mental disorders, according to the Defense Department’s Health Affairs Office. One-third of those evacuations
were for depression and depressive disorders; only 775 soldiers have been evacuated with a diagnosis of PTSD. Some experts criticize the military for using criteria that is too strict in
diagnosing PTSD.
A 2008 study by the RAND think tank concluded that the military could be underestimating the number of veterans who
return with the condition, suggesting that at least one in five soldiers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan suffers from PTSD. Civilian
psychiatrists who specialize in PTSD said keeping servicemembers in the field who are highly symptomatic of PTSD could put them at risk for being re-traumatized and have significant long-
term consequences. "A great deal has been learned but seems to be forgotten with each war," Horowitz said. "And not because it’s not written down but because of the people involved with
remembering." RAND found in the wide-ranging 2008 study assessing the cognitive needs of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans that quality of care was absent from the discussion within the
Department of Defense.

Ashtar.
2
 HAYS Adrenaline Affirmative
BAD 2010-2011

Adrenaline 1AC Inherency

Moreover, army psychiatrists utilize the most insidious manifestations of the Western Medical model;
zombifying drugs including anti-depressants to keep troops on the front-line.
Leveque, 2010 (Dr. Phil degrees in chemistry, biochemistry, pharmacology, toxicology and minors in physiology and
biochemistry. He was a Professor of Pharmacology and University of London, 3/28/10, “Dangerous Drugs for Combat Soldiers:
Zombies on the Attack” Salem News, http://www.salem-news.com/articles/march282010/zombie-attack-pl.php)

Anti-depressant drugs are doubly dangerous. Most of them cause a severe drug hangover which is far worse than alcohol. Their
adverse side effects are possibly/probably causing or worsening PTSD. I could NOT believe what I was seeing on ABC TV News
March 24, 2010; that the Army Shrinkologists (Psychiatrists) were prescribing zombifying drugs to frontline combat troops. I was a
Combat Infantryman, Battalion Scout, Pointman and Forward Observer in WWII. I am not only lucky but astonished that I lived
through it. I can thoroughly empathize with the frontline troops in Iraq et cetera and what they are being prescribed as some of the
most dangerous zombifying drugs – the anti-depressants such as Prozac, Zoloft and Paxil. These drugs really scramble the brain and
have caused many suicides AND accidental deaths by overdose. These drugs are supposed to be treating these Combat Soldiers for
Combat Anxiety and Stress but in many/most cases they could be doing the opposite. Near the end of WWII in Europe I was barely
existing on K-rations, getting about 3 hours of sleep a night and didn’t get any of my clothes off for 6 straight weeks. It was go, go, go.
We got so we just didn’t care about anything anymore. We were zombified by absolute fatigue. Even fear had little meaning anymore.
I see by the ABC News program that this must be what is occurring with our frontline troops today. The Shrinkologists are
psychologically wrecking these troops. Suicides and severe PTSD are wrecking a whole generation of our fighting troops. These anti-
depressant drugs are doubly dangerous. Most of them cause a severe drug hangover which is far worse than alcohol. Their adverse
side effects are possibly/probably causing or worsening PTSD. I am not guessing about this stuff. I have frontline combat induced
PTSD myself and I have been given these drugs by the VA doctors. The adverse effects are AWFUL. In addition, I have taken
medical care of about 1000 PTSD Veterans from all wars since WWII. They not only have rejected VA prescribed anti-depressants
but have taken up alcohol which though ultimately more dangerous at least is more preferable to them than the hated, repulsive anti-
depressants. I am not saying that these drugs do not work for all patients. For low level combat stress and low level PTSD they may
help some. The VA’s treatment for PTSD is a disgrace and will end up costing billions in mental disability pensions. I may be one of
the few physicians who has treated as many as 1000 PTSD Victim Veterans successfully.

Ashtar.
3
 HAYS Adrenaline Affirmative
BAD 2010-2011

Plan Texts/Advocacy***
Plan Text: The United States federal government should remove any soldier from Afghanistan who has
visited or inquired about staying in a clinic operated by the Combat and Operational Stress Control
Program.

Plan Text: The United States federal government should remove any soldier from Afghanistan who has
visited or inquired about staying in a clinic operated by the Combat and Operational Stress Control
Program, and shut down all clinics within the topically designated countries.

Plan Text: The United States federal government should remove any soldier from Afghanistan who has
visited or inquired about staying in a clinic operated by the Combat and Operational Stress Control
Program, and shut down all clinics in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We affirm….

Need:

Terminal Impact, Story

Ashtar.
4
 HAYS Adrenaline Affirmative
BAD 2010-2011

Adrenaline 1AC Trauma***

Western rationality seeks security and certainty even in the face of an inevitable, uncertain gap between
the real and the world we know through language. This glossing over reinforces depoliticization as the
populace must submit to sovereign military rule in it's ambitions towards closure of society. We will
argue that this is the exact same move of the pentagon to disguise the trauma of war with ineffective anti-
depressants and half-baked statistics.
Edkins 2003 (Jenny Edkins, Professor of International Politics at Prifysgol Aberystwyth University, She has degrees from Oxford , where she was a Nuffield
Scholar, the City University , the Open University and the University of Wales, Trauma and the memory of politics, pg. 11-12)

Ashtar.
5
 HAYS Adrenaline Affirmative
BAD 2010-2011

Adrenaline 1AC Trauma

(card is the shit.)

The swift reinsertion of troops after being treated for stress through a medical process is a prime
example of how the state uses normalizing processes to cover up the trauma of war. Soldiers and the
population they are removed from take on the barest form of all life: a tool for state domination and a
symbol for the collective requirement for sacrifice on the altar of the largest goal, security.
Edkins 2003 (Jenny Edkins. Trauma and the memory of politics, pg. 7-9)
In both cases what has happened is beyond the possibility of communication. There is no language for it. Abuse by the state, the
fatherland, like abuse by the father within the family, cannot be spoken in language since language comes from and belongs to the
family and the community. Survivors of political abuse in the contemporary west have something compelling to say, but it is
something that is unsayable in the vocabulary of the powerful, and it is dangerous to the political institution in place . The use of the
term ‘unspeakable’ in relation to trauma is not only an excuse to avoid the need to listen to what is being said. It also reflects the view of survivors that what they have
been through cannot be communicated. Communication takes place in language and language itself is social and political, not individual. Relations of power are produced through and
reflected in language. Words get their meaning from their place in chains of meaning, through their association with other words based
on sound, metaphor and layers of usage, meaning can shift and words can be rearticulated with new associations and contexts. For
language to work at a particular time and in a particular context, it is necessary for there to be a linguistic community that shares or is
subject to something that will temporarily fix meanings. There has to be some provisional agreement, accepted ideology or central
authority structure that will halt the fluidity of terms and make language meaningful. In psychoanalytic theory it is not just language that works like this. The unconscious mind
is structured like a language; in other words, who we think we are is shifting and fluid, until fixed by a social context or dominant group. But this group does not exist
independently of the people of whom it is made up. We produce this group at the same time as becoming members of it. By assuming
a community exists we produce one. By situation ourselves as citizens of a state of political authority or as members of a family, we
reproduce the social institution at the same time as assuming our own identity as part of it. As we have seen, in what we call a
traumatic even this group betrays us. We can no longer be who we were, and the social context is not what assumed it to be. It is not
all-powerful, it does not have all the answers; in fact, its answers are flawed. As Jean Amery puts it: “Every morning when I get up AI can read the
Auschwitz number on my forearm….Every day anew I lose my trust in the world” The cause of his oppression and restlessness is society: ‘it and only it robbed me of
my trust in the world’. As a survivor of catastrophe, he lives in constant fear of its return: ‘nothing can again lull me into the slumber of security from which I awoke in
1935’. It has become plain to a survivor that the appearance of fixity and security produced by the social order is just that: an appearance. Of course, the language we
speak is part of the social order, and when the orders falls apart around our ears, so does the language. We can say no longer makes sense; what we want to say, we
can’t. There are no words for it. This is the dilemma survivors’ face. The only words that have are words of the very political
community that is the source of their suffering. This is the language of the powerful, the words of the status quo, the words that
delimit and define acceptable ways of being human within that community. What survivors seek is perhaps impossible. They seek a way of
resistance. For some, Sarah Krofman for example, this means a way of thinking ‘writing without power”. Such a writing or speech was forbidden in the concentration
camps, ‘yet also withheld, preserved, protected against all straying’ all corruption, against all violent abuse that might have exposed it to the suspicion of playing along
with boundless violence, and therefore have discredited forever’. Such a way of speaking implies a form of community that does not entail a circuit
of power between oppressors and victims, a community that does not produce forms of subjection where human beings are
indistinguishable from Giorgio Agamben calls ‘bare life. It is the form of community that is hardly found in the modern western state.
What the state attempts in contrast is a normalization or medicalisations of survivors; we shall see an example in Chapter 2. The aim is
recovery or the reinsertion of survivors into structures of power. Survivors are helped to verbalize and narrate what has happened to
them; they receive counseling to help them accommodate once more to the social order and re-form relations of trust . In the case of
the military these days, those suffering from symptoms of traumatic stress are treated swiftly with the aim of being returned to active
service within a matter of hours or days. If this fails, then the status of the victim of post-traumatic stress disorder serves to render the
survivor more or less harmless to existing power-structures. In contemporary culture victimhood offers sympathy and pity in return for
the surrender of any political voice. The concept of trauma oscillates between victimhood and protest and can be linked with or
articulated to either. Its invocation registers a movement in the boundaries of acceptability of the use and abuse of violence in relations
of power and forms of authority or political community. When there is a mismatch between expectation and event we have what is
experienced as a betrayal – or in other words, as traumatic. This is not a sufficient condition for us to call something ‘trauma’ of
course, though we soon get into difficulties if we try to probe further into the matter of scale. We end up asking impossible questions
such as ‘Can one measure trauma? Is there hierarchy of trauma? Nevertheless, when our expectations of what community is, and what
we are, are shown to be misplaced, then our views of ourselves has to be altered – or we have to fight for political change, in other
words a reformulation of community.

Ashtar.
6
 HAYS Adrenaline Affirmative
BAD 2010-2011

Adrenaline 1AC Militarism***

And, the systemic impacts of the affirmative far outweigh any manifestation of international conflict.
Prioritizing the event of war over resistance to the systemic roots of the war machine facilitates collective
complacency and distracts attention from the broader effort to redress the harms of our never ending
preparation for war. We’ll solve the terminal impact through our criticism of how the state uses security
concerns as the justification for ignoring it's responsibility to the world
Cuomo, 1996 [Chris, J. War is not just an event: Reflections on the significance of everyday violence, Hypatia, Vol. 11, no. 4, pg.
proquest]

Philosophical attention to war has typically appeared in the form of justifications for entering into war, and over appropriate activities
within war. The spatial metaphors used to refer to war as a separate, bounded sphere indicate assumptions that war is a realm of
human activity vastly removed from normal life, or a sort of happening that is appropriately conceived apart from everyday events in
peaceful times. Not surprisingly, most discussions of the political and ethical dimensions of war discuss war solely as an event—an
occurrence, or collection of occurrences, having clear beginnings and endings that are typically marked by formal, institutional declarations.
As happenings, wars and military activities can be seen as motivated by identifiable, if complex, intentions, and directly enacted by individual and
collective decision-makers and agents of states. But many of the questions about war that are of interest to feminists including how large-
scale, state-sponsored violence affects women and members of other oppressed groups; how military violence shapes gendered, raced,
and nationalistic political realities and moral imaginations; what such violence consists of and why it persists; how it is related to other
oppressive and violent institutions and hegemonies—cannot be adequately pursued by focusing on events. These issues are not merely a
matter of good or bad intentions and identifiable decisions. In "Gender and 'Postmodern' War," Robin Schott introduces some of the ways in which war is currently best
seen not as an event but as a presence (Schott 1995). Schott argues that postmodern understandings of persons, states, and politics, as well as the high-tech nature of
much contemporary warfare and the preponderance of civil and nationalist wars, render an event-based conception of war inadequate, especially insofar as gender is
taken into account. In this essay, I will expand upon her argument by showing that accounts of war that only focus on events are impoverished in a number of ways, and
therefore feminist consideration of the political, ethical, and ontological dimensions of war and the possibilities for resistance demand a
much more complicated approach. I take Schott's characterization of war as presence as a point of departure, though I am not
committed to the idea that the constancy of millions of white, western 'civilization' - although nuclear war is hardly the way to achieve
this. These considerations suggest the importance of strengthening links between peace struggles and struggles for justice, equality
and freedom from exploitation in poor countries.

Ashtar.
7
 HAYS Adrenaline Affirmative
BAD 2010-2011

Adrenaline 1AC Militarism

The specific manifestation of militarism inherent in commander's decisions to send soldiers back to the
front line presumes that the populace is merely a passive recipient of power and control, guaranteeing life
as perpetual warfare
Giroux 4 [Henry A., PhD, Professor of Education at Boston Univesrity, "War on Terror, The Militarising of Public Space and the
Culture in the United States, Third Text, Vol. 18, Issue 4, 2004. 211-221]

Militarism in both its old and new forms views life as a form of permanent warfare, and in doing so subordinates society to the
military rather than subordinating the military to the needs of a democratic social order . It diminishes both the legitimate reasons for a
military presence in society and the necessary struggle for the promise of democracy itself. As Umberto Eco points out, under the
rubric of its aggressive militarism, ‘there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle’.39 The ideology of militarism is
central to any understanding of its appeals to a form of irrationality that is at odds with any viable notion of democracy. For instance,
it uses fear to drive human behaviour, and the values it promotes are mainly distrust, patriarchy, and intolerance. Within this ideology,
masculinity is associated with violence, and action is often substituted for the democratic processes of deliberation and debate.
Militarism as an ideology is about the rule of force and the expansion of repressive state power. Democracy appears as an excess in
this logic and is often condemned as being a weak system of government. Echoes of this anti-democratic sentiment can be found in the
passage of the PATRIOT Act with its violation of civil liberties, in the rancorous patriotism that equates dissent with treason, and in
the discourse of public commentators who in the fervour of a militarised culture fan the flames of hatred and intolerance. One example
that has become all too typical emerged after the September 11 attacks. Columnist Ann Coulter, in calling for a holy war on Muslims,
wrote: We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and
punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war. 40 While
this statement does not reflect the mainstream of American opinion, the uncritical and chauvinistic patriotism and intolerance that
informs it has not only become standard fare among many conservative radio hosts in the United States but increasingly is produced
and legitimised in a wide number of cultural venues. As militarisation spreads through the culture, it produces policies that rely more
on force than on dialogue and compassion; it offers up modes of identification that undermine democratic values and tarnish civil
liberties; and it makes the production of both symbolic and material violence a central feature of everyday life. As Kevin Baker
remarks, we are quickly becoming a nation that ‘substitutes military solutions for almost everything, including international alliances,
diplomacy, effective intelligence agencies, democratic institutions – even national security’.41 By blurring the lines between military
and civilian functions, militarisation deforms our language, debases democratic values, celebrates fascist modes of control , defines
citizens as soldiers, and diminishes our ability as a nation to uphold international law and support a democratic global public sphere.
Unless it is systemically exposed and resisted at every place where it appears in the culture, militarisation will undermine the meaning
of critical citizenship and do great harm to those institutions that are central to a democratic society . The demise of democracy fuelled
by the spread of militarisation is also revealed in a policy of anti-terrorism practiced by the Bush administration that mimics the very
terrorism it wishes to eliminate. Not only does this policy of all-embracing anti-terrorism exhaust itself in a discourse of moral
absolutes, militarism, revenge, and public acts of denunciation, it also strips community of democratic values by configuring politics
in religious terms and defining every citizen and inhabitant of the United States as a potential terrorist. Politics becomes empty as it
reduces citizens to obedient recipients of power, content to follow orders, while shaming those who make power accountable. Under
the dictates of a pseudo-patriotism, dissent is stifled in the face of a growing racism that condems Arabs and people of colour as less
than civilized. The recent refusal of the American government to address with any degree of selfcriticism or humanity the torture and
violation of human rights exercised by American soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq offers a case in point. In light of the relevation
of the most grotesque brutality, racisim, and inhumanity exhibited by American soldiers against Arab prisoners 220 captured on
camera and video, powerful right-wing politicians and pundits such as Rush Limbaugh and Cal Thomas defend such actions as either
a way for young men to ‘blow some steam off’, engage in a form of harmless frat hazing, or give Muslim prisoners what they deserve.
It gets worse. Commentators such as Newt Gingrich and Republican Senator James Inhofe have gone so far as to suggest that calling
attention to such crimes not only undermines troop morale in Iraq, but is also unpatriotic. Defending torture and gross sexual
humiliations by US troops in Saddam’s old jails is not merely insensitive political posturing, it is, more tellingly, indicative of how far
the leadership of this country has strayed from any real semblance of democracy

Ashtar.
8
 HAYS Adrenaline Affirmative
BAD 2010-2011

Adrenaline 1AC Framework***

We take on an ethical framework for the self – the individual’s manipulation of power relations for the
purpose of self-formation, a delimitation of his or her ethical agency through an identification and
reversal of disciplinary strategies. The soldier’s disobedience in the face of the disciplinary forces of the
military complex is a recognition and transgression of its normalizing limitations.
Bernauer and Mahon ‘05[James W, Professor of Philosophy and Boston College, and Michael, associate professor of
humanities at Boston University’s College of General Studies, “Foucault’s Ethical Imagination” in The Cambridge Companion to
Foucault Second Edition, edited by Gary Gutting]

http://books.google.com/books?id=oaYwimWy1xkC&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=Foucault
%E2%80%99s+Ethical+Imagination&source=bl&ots=nsRUX5cSck&sig=GDrNsZAAJ-hoL46Tw49GNW-
D7OY&hl=en&ei=sUYITc2VM8Sblge-
55nMAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=The
%20explicit%20ethical&f=false

Ashtar.
9
 HAYS Adrenaline Affirmative
BAD 2010-2011

Adrenaline 1AC Framework

In spite of our challenge for more ethical relationships, the state, and possibly the negative, will try to
naturalize militarism and violence by invoking its power to define reality through fear. Our responsibility
lies in combining the critical pedagogy of the affirmative with calls for concrete political action like the
plan. Only with this frame can we begin to resist the technologies of power and make the underside of
militarism visible through political engagement.
Giroux 4 [Henry A., PhD, Professor of Education at Boston Univesrity, "War on Terror, The Militarising of Public Space and the
Culture in the United States, Third Text, Vol. 18, Issue 4, 2004. 211-221]

As militarisation spreads its influence both at home and abroad, a culture of fear is mobilised in order to put into place a massive
police state intent on controlling and manipulating public speech while making each individual a terrorist suspect subject to
surveillance, fingerprinting, and other forms of ‘electronic tattooing’. But the increasing danger of militarisation is also evident in the
attempt by the corporate/military/ media complex to create those ideological and pedagogical conditions in which people e ither
become convinced that the power of the commanding institutions of the state should no longer held accountable or believe that they
are powerless to challenge the new reign of state terrorism. And as militarisation spreads its values and power throughout American
society and the globe, it works to eliminate those public spaces necessary for imagining an inclusive democratic global society.
Militarisation and the culture of fear that legitimises it have redefined the very nature of the political, and in so doing have devalued
speech and agency as central categories of democratic public life. And it is precisely as a particular ideology and cultural politics that
militarisation has to be opposed. As the forces of militarisation are ratcheted up within multiple spaces in the body politic, they
increasingly begin to produce the political currency of what begins to look like proto-fascism in the United States. To expose and
resist such an ideology should be one of the primary responsibilities of intellectuals, activists, parents, youth, community members,
and others concerned about the fate of democracy on a global scale. Working both within and outside traditional public spheres,
artists, community activists, writers, and educators can expose the ideology of militarisation in all its diversity and how it risks turning
the United States into a military state while at the same time undermining crucial social programmes, constitutional liberties, and
valuable public spaces. According to Arundhati Roy, this new politics of resistance demands: Fighting to win back the minds and
hearts of people. . . . It means keeping an eagle eye on public institutions and demanding accountability. It means putting your ear to
the ground and listening to the whispering of the truly powerless. It means giving a forum to the myriad voices from the hundreds of
resistance movements across the country which are speaking about real things – about bonded labor, marital rape, sexual preferences,
women’s wages, uranium dumping, unsustainable mining, weavers’ woes, farmers’ suicides. It means fighting displacement and
dispossession and the relentless, everyday violence of abject poverty. Fighting it also means not allowing your newspaper columns
and prime-time TV spots to be hijacked by their spurious passions and their staged theatrics, which are designed to divert attention
from everything else.42 Progressives everywhere have to reinvent the possibility of an engaged politics and real strategies of
resistance. This suggests not only working through traditional spheres of political contestation, such as elections or union struggles or
various means of education. Collective struggle must combine the tasks of a radical public pedagogy with massive acts of nonviolent,
collective disobedience. Such acts can serve to educate, mobilize, and remind people of the importance of struggles that change both
ideas and relations of power. By making militarisation visible through the force of words and peaceful resistance, politics can become
both meaningful and possible as a contested site through which people can challenge both locally and through international alliances
the obscene accumulation of power symptomatic of the increasing militarisation of public space that is spreading both throughout the
US and across the globe. Arundhati Roy is right in her incessant and courageous call to globalise dissent but if dissent is to work it
must have a focus that cuts across empires, nation states, and local spaces, to the heart of a clear and present danger posed to
democracy and social justice. Challenging militarisation in all of its expressions is a direct strike at the heart of a policy that has
exceeded democracy and now formed a dreadful pact with a creeping and dangerous authoritarianism. We find ourselves in the midst
of a war globally, not simply a war against terrorism but also a war against democratic solidarity in which a democratic future both at
home and abroad stands in the balance.

Ashtar.
10
 HAYS Adrenaline Affirmative
BAD 2010-2011

Adrenaline 1AC Framework

The basis of the 1AC ethic is a challenge to the sovereign’s management of the populace through fear and
its articulation of subjectivity as capable of controlling and dominating alterity. We must prove that
there are cracks in today’s given ontology, which we can exploit by embracing an ethics that lacks
fullness or in other words, an ethics that can never be completed. This analysis is informed by Derrida’s
notion of infinite decision making, the iterability of always-already becoming other by refusing our place
in the symbolic order. While some may argue this process disengages us from politics and political
institutions, we posit that undermining sovereignty urgently pushes for the need to be engaged. Justice
requires this of us even though it can never be fully “solved.”
Edkins and Pin-Fat 99 (Jenny and Veronique, philosophers, Sovereignty and Subjectivity, pp. 7-10)

As we have seen, ... relationship between them.

Utnif 09 – experience “ship aff” – Lacan Oliver UTSA trauma

Edkins and Oliver shock into action. “trauma and memory politics.”

CX. search Edkins – Books/Articles

Ashtar.
11
 HAYS Adrenaline Affirmative
BAD 2010-2011

Adrenaline 1AC Solvency***

By bearing witness, we seek to constantly interpret the affects of others, even those who were once
considered objects incapable of expression through their oppression. The privatized nature of these drugs
centers and their pervasive side affects reveals the way in which oppression forecloses the subjectivity of
its victims—yet by witnessing their experience, we move beyond the objectification, we do not see their
stories ending with a static meaning that can be possessed and easily interpreted or accommodated. By
fracturing the silence surrounding domestic violence, the public sphere becomes a space in which to
challenge oppression and subordination.
Oliver, Chair of Philo. And Prof. of Women’s Studies at Vanderbilt, 2000
(Kelly, “Witnessing Subjectivity,” in Ipseity and Alterity: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Intersubjectivity, ed. Gallagher & Watson, pg. 185-189)

The stories we tell ourselves shape our identity—the same is true of our nation. As subjects who fear
contingency and flux, we attempt to maintain coherence through an adherence to a static national
identity. Against the trauma that calls our social order into question, we seek ways to enframe and
control its fragmentary effect: by enframing it, depoliticizing it, or dehumanizing its author altogether.
Edkins, Senior lecturer in international politics at the University of Wales Aberystwyth, 2003
(Jenny, Trauma and the Memory of Politics, Page 11-16)

Our methodology is prerequisite to activism --- Individuals and Policy Makers must be open to narratives
of trauma—bearing witness establishes ethical connection to other that founds impetus for activism.
Without this method discussion becomes limited to 1st world perspective and fails to challenge exclusive
notions of community that generates violence against immigrants.
Zembylas, asst. prof. of edu. @ Open University of Cyprus, 2008
(Michalinos, “Bearing Witness to the Ethics and Politics of Suffering: J. M. Coetzee’s Disgrace, Inconsolable Mourning, and the Task of Educators,”
April, Online)

Ashtar.
12