Embargo Word PIC

1NC
Text: The United States Federal Government should lift its trade blockade on the Republic of Cuba. The word embargo camouflages the aggressive policy towards Cuba with a benign legal action Alfredo Puig, 1997 (AlfredoEconomic Sanctions and Development, edited by Hans
Kchler, professor of philosophy at the University of Innsbruck, Austria, and president of the International Progress Organization, a non-governmental organization in consultative status with the United Nations. Papers presented at the International Panel Discussion on "Economic Sanctions and their Impact on Development" organized by the NGO Committee on Development at the Vienna International Centre (United Nations) on 28 November 1996, http://i-po.org/sanctpap.htm#5) JN When the political and economic relationship between Cuba and the United States changed after 1959, Washington chose a bland and neutral term to camouflage its policy of aggression against Cuba. Thus, the blockade, because it cannot be considered a simple economic sanction, is made to appear as a legal measure, becoming part of the legislative framework of the Trading with the Enemy Act, which implies both a state of hostility and a declaration of war. The sanctions that have been applied are based on the fundamental legal tenets of the Cold War. For Cubans, the embargo is nothing more than a euphemism that hides the fact that the blockade's purpose is to place the island under siege. The blockade aims to exhaust Cuba's resources, in order to force the civilian population to surrender. The restraining forces of the Cold War the Soviet Union and the socialist camp have been defeated. What remains in today's unipolar world is the blockade in its crudest form, attempting to encircle a tiny Caribbean island.

Confronting the manipulation of language is the most important task even if the plan seems like a good idea, choosing the proper terminology is essential to combat the ideologies that uphold the worst aspects of the status quo. Gordon 98 [Theresa, Vice President at NO-LEAD (North Lakes Environmental Action
Defence), LEAD Action News, vol 6 no 1, http://www.lead.org.au/lanv6n1/lan004.html] Over the years, I have found myself involved in fights against corporate stratagems which manipulate language and images to win public support and approval. It is a paradox that, through the manipulation of language, greater public support for corporate ideology can be used against the public good. In public interest debates, the playing field is not level. Grassroots groups and individuals can never match the resources of major corporations in the battle to be heard. Since the important weapons are words and images, the outcomes are not always clear cut. Subtleties and time are big factors words and images can manipulate emotions, passions, instincts, dreams and a myriad of other responses in an individual, community or population. Since my first encounter with word manipulation in the watering down of an important document on lead risk reduction from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), I have found this strategy has featured in almost every battle over lead I have been involved in. I have come to see that the aim of this strategy is not just to win a particular battle but also to win a propaganda war that has, as its prize, an unthinking and accepting majority population. These points I make in an effort to examine the question of the manipulation by and conduct of our authorities and bureaucracies. It is via these government departments that the influence on the peoples perception is at its most damaging. Industry propaganda also uses similar methods. The

threat of ideology The subtlety of the manipulation of language belies the power of effect. When an initiative appears well meaning and progressive (such as the OECD initiative) supporters often look to praise the intention, not nit pick about words used. But I have found that nit picking is essential . On the surface, a battle may appear to be about, say, tightening a regulation, but the battle is but part of a war for allegiance and trust. In effect it is seeking the support for the corporate ideology. The influential thinker and social commentator Saul argues in his 1995 book Unconscious Civilisation that promotion of corporate ideology (or any ideology for that matter) and the embracing of ideology leads to passivity. Ideologies infer that those responsible for developing this ideology have the truth and should be followed without question, else you risk being seen as irrational or worse still unfashionable. Saul states: Those who have the "truth" are by definition a small minority. They are the elect. Their desire is not to convince the rest of us of their truth. It isnt a matter of democratic debate with all the compromise that involves. They have the truth. The aim of the ideologue is therefore to manipulate, trick or force the majority into acceptance. A corporate ideology is based on short-term gains for these elite. This system leaves no room for the long-term public good. Saul warns In a corporatist system, there is never any money for the public good because the society is reduced to the sum of the interests. It is therefore limited to measurable self-interest.

2NC Overview
Prefer the CP 1) The Net Benefit turns the case the term embargo is a euphemism for a destructive and far-reaching economic blockade. The language of their plan sanitizes and legitimizes the blockade, re-authorizing the root cause of Cubas marginalization thats Puig. Confronting the manipulation of language is a prerequisite to combatting ideologies of exploitation. We must nit pick over word choices to solve their advantages extend Gordon. 2) The CP solves the whole Aff we lift all of the economic barriers that subject Cuba to a blockade. We just use better terms to make sure that we dont subtly re-authorize oppression. Any risk of the net benefit means you should vote Neg.

Extension Embargo = Euphemism

The term embargo is a euphemism deployed to legitimize Cubas systematic marginalization. Boron 9 [Atilio, Professor of Political Science at the Latin American Social Sciences Institute
and at the University of Buenos Aires, 10/23, http://www.tlaxcala.es/pp.asp?lg=en&reference=9098] Conscious that by its nature, it violates the most basic norms of international law and human rights, the empires publicists and their local spokesmen have unleashed, as on so many other occasions, a persistent semantic battle aimed at confusing and misleading worldwide public opinion. To this end they resort to a euphemism : they refer to the blockade as an embargo and present it as though it were merely a commercial matter. This is how they hide the far reaching U.S. blockade against Cuba: a blockade that is economic, commercial, financial and technological, but also international (penalizing as it does, companies in third countries who trade with Cuba, and hindering Cubas diplomatic relations with the rest of the world); informational (by preventing Cubans from gaining access to high-speed broadband internet); social (making the re-unification of Cuban families separated by emigration difficult or impossible); and cultural, by impeding the free movement of artists, writers, intellectuals and scientists between Cuba and the United States.[1]

AT: Perm Do Both

1) Still links including the plan means they still describe the blockade as an embargo. That means they still endorse the sorts of euphemistic language that provide a rationale for Cubas exploitation in the first place. 2) Prefer the CP alone theres no net benefit to including their plan. Theres only a risk that it conflates the terms embargo and blockade, making current US economic policies toward Cuba seem valid. Any residual link is enough---must reject doublethink in EVERY instance Kehl and Livingston 99 [D.G. and Howard, English at Arizona State University and Pace
University, July 1999, English Journal 88.6] Doublespeak is not a frivolous game about humorous euphemisms, such as "sanitation engineer" for one who collects garbage, or "sanitarians" (who "deroach" buildings) for pest exterminators, or "automotive technicians" for car mechanics, or "field service technicians" for repair people. Rather, doubles peak in all too many cases is an insidious practice whereby the powerful abuse language to deceive and manipulate for the purpose of controlling public behaviorthe public as consumer, as voter, as studentby depriving us of our right to make informed choices. Before teachers of English at any level are permitted to "practice" in the classroom, we should subscribe to a linguistic equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath, an Orwellian Oath perhaps, whereby we commit to (1) use language clearly and responsibly our selves; (2) combat doublespeak wherever we find it; and (3) seek effective pedagogical ways of making students sensitive to language and aware of linguistic vulnerability in all forms.

AT: Perm Do the CP

1) Severs this permutation abandons the word embargo thats in their plan. Severance is a voting issue it makes the Aff a moving target, which makes it impossible to generate any Neg strat. 2) Hold them to their plan wording A) Predictability they get to choose the words in their plan and they get a strategic benefit from using a term like embargo to concisely encapsulate a broad range of economic policies. That means they should also be accountable for the strategic cost that their word choices create during Neg prep. B) Only Non-Arbitrary standard even if the plan doesnt contain everything Congress would say when they passed a bill to do the Aff, they should have to defend at a minimum that the words in the plan are included. The only nonrandom way to interpret how the plan would be described is by looking at the words they use.

Word PICs Good

1. Word PICS are key to education The Aff should have to defend every word in the plan. Kehl and Livingston 99 [D.G. & Howard, English at Arizona State University and Pace
University, July, English Journal 88.6] Second, students own linguistic vulnerability should be demonstrated in a meaningful and convincing way. How would they react, for example, if while shopping they encounter vegetarian leather for plain, cheap vinyl; or synthetic glass for plastic; or, in place of down payment, they get customer capital cost reduction? Third, they should be made more sensitive to language and how it works, not just denotation but connotation, concrete versus abstract terms, specific versus general, adjectives as evaluative projections of a speaker or writer, slanted language, and much more. For example, they can be asked to consider how many times in a year they buy something simply on the persuasive appeal of words rather than on the genuine merits of the product, whether that product is sunglasses, clothes, vehicles, or food. Especially illuminating in developing sensitivity to language are exercises that ask students to distinguish differences in connotation among lists of so-called synonyms. For example, which of the following would they like to be calledand why: boy/girl, lad/lassie, kid, young person, youngster, tyke, juvenile, future citizen, Generation X-er, member of the rising generation? Lively discussions can be conducted on the connotative effects of the language of advertising. For example, why are certain words taboo in advertising, requiring the substitution of euphemisms: not fat but full figured, not cheap but inexpensive, not used car but preowned automobile, not smell but aroma. (A recent example of doublespeak for stink is exceed the olfactory threshold.) Fourth, students should be taught not only to read critically but also to speak and write re responsibility Wasn'tit Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch who noted that a writer should be prepared to stand cross-examination on every word ? And as for reading critically, perhaps Thomas Carlyle said it best: If we think of it, all that a university or final highest school can do for us is still but what the first school began doingteach us to read. Isnt that at least a significant part of the English teachers job description?

2. Specifically confronting euphemisms is a prerequisite to policy deliberation. Failure to scrutinize word choices constrains the possibility of effectively advocating against international violence. Mral 4 [Brigitte, professor of Rhetoric at Department of Humanities, rebro University, May,
http://www.krisberedskapsmyndigheten.se/4453.epibrw] Big events sometimes call for big words. In times of crisis, Swedish politicians are also expected to become skillful rhetoricians, to describe events so that we can understand them and lead us into the future. But Swedes are suspicious of passionate, emotional rhetoric, and sceptical of big words. We are not used to politicians coming out at all odd times of the day to speak to the people. The Prime Minister rarely appears as the interpreter of the Swedish Parliament, or the Swedish people for that matter. We usually judge the American way of handling public language as excessive, emotional and full of religious terms. And this is also why we tend to underestimate the significance of what is said. We do not take it seriously; we consider it mere rhetoric, or empty content and usually miss the real meaning and implications. Our unfamiliarity with linguistic analyses means that we often underestimate the power of images and concepts, especially when they are vague and ambiguous. A cornerstone of this study is that the speeches,

no matter how twisted they sometimes seem to us, express exactly what is meant; they are not mere rhetoric, they are a description of the reality that will determine how politics will be conducted and should be understood. For if we see the speeches as mere wordy desktop products, we are underestimating the power of constantly repeated assertions and vague but powerful terms and phrases. This war on terrorism has seen an accumulation of ambiguous but strong value words. There are plenty of Gods terms and Devils terms, according to Richard M. Weavers modern rhetorical theory.5 He refers to positively and negatively charged words, usually arranged in pairs of opposites: freedom fear; civilisation barbarism; war peace. This ongoing war has generated an abundance of big words and emotionally charged images. Events have been interpreted in value words and metaphors that sometimes remind us of what George Orwell in his gloomy utopia, Nineteen Eighty-Four, refers to as Newspeak, where war becomes peace, attacks becomes pre-emptive defence, military invasion becomes change of regime, occupation becomes humanitarian intervention. This distortion of language is by no means a new phenomenon. Manipulation and lies have always constituted a basic ingredient in warfare. And those in power have always endeavoured to explain and defend complex and controversial decisions with cosmetic euphemisms . The question today, however, should be how democratic communities ought to relate to this deliberate misdirection of public opinion and openly manipulative impact. One response would be to develop our sensitivity to deceptive rhetorical gimmicks and verbal tricks. We do not necessarily need to oppose military action in order to demand straightforward and honest language in a crisis situation. A democratic society is based on rational dialogue. When democratic countries go to war, we should be able to demand an open account of why the war is legitimate, instead of settling for what is referred to in English literature as perception management6, i.e. persuasion or indoctrination with any available means, including deception, to create and recreate our feelings, motives and objective reasoning. Of course the war has been debated, in the media and on the streets. But as in any other historically comparable period, political leaders have conducted a one-sided, black and white, opinion-forming campaign that should be unacceptable in democratic communities.

3. Our education impact outweighs word choices are comparatively more important than the substance of the policies since they implicate other decisions that happen around and in the wake of the plan extend Gordon. Nit picking about words is essential. 4. Word PICs are predictable they get to choose the approximately 15 words in the plan. They should be able to foresee potential word pics and prepare. If they dont, thats their fault. 5. Err Neg the Aff gets to speak first and last, they get to choose their plan and advantages, and we always have to react to new innovations. We should get leeway to craft specific strategies like word pics.

6. All CPs are PICs every counterplan changes part of the plan. Tossing out word pics is infinitely regressive and kills all CPs, which are key to test big affirmatives.

AT: Censorship Bad

1) No Link the CP doesnt censor the term embargo. We just replace it with something else since embargo is a euphemism that conceals the scope and magnitude of the US economic blockade of Cuba. 2) Turn refusing to choose some terms over others is infinitely regressive. Their argument authorizes using all sorts of racist or sexist language just to oppose censorship. Even if we shouldnt censor words, we should make choices about which terms are better than others and be held responsible for those choices.

AT: Reappropriation Good

1) No Link this argument does not apply in this context. Their authors are talking about how a marginalized group can take a term thats used to de grade them and use it as a positive label. Theres no explanation for how that works in the context of the embargo. 2) Err Neg People in Cuba refer to the embargo as a blockade. We shouldnt use Western postmodern philosophy as an excuse to sanitize oppression and paternalistically ignore the language used by the recipients of US dominance. 3) Doesnt Solve Theyre using the term embargo in exactly the same way the USFG always has, as a purportedly neutral description of US economic policies toward Cuba. Theres no explanation for how they RE-appropriate the term. They just appropriate it.

Err neg---Butlers pedantic insistence on subversive performance ignores the very real political and emotional damage done through the choices of certain words---if we win a net-benefit, you should ignore this argument Nussbaum 99 (Martha, law and ethics at University of Chicago, New Republic, p. ebsco)
Suppose we grant Butler her most interesting claims up to this point: that the social structure of gender is ubiquitous, but we can resist it by subversive and parodic acts. Two significant questions remain. What should be resisted, and on what basis? What would the acts of resistance be like, and what would we expect them to accomplish? Butler uses several words for what she takes to be bad and therefore worthy of resistance: the "repressive," the "subordinating," the "oppressive." But she provides

no empirical discussion of resistance of the sort that we find, say, in Barry Adam's fascinating sociological study The Survival of
Domination (1978), which studies the subordination of blacks, Jews, women, and gays and lesbians, and their ways of wrestling with the forms of social power that have oppressed them. Nor does Butler provide any account of the concepts of

resistance and oppression that would help us, were we really in doubt about what we ought to be resisting. Butler departs in this regard from earlier social-constructionist feminists, all of whom used ideas such as non-hierarchy,
equality, dignity, autonomy, and treating as an end rather than a means, to indicate a direction for actual politics. Still less is she willing to elaborate any positive normative notion. Indeed, it is clear that Butler, like Foucault, is adamantly opposed to normative notions such as human dignity, or treating humanity as an end, on the grounds that they are inherently dictatorial. In her view,

we ought to wait to see what the political struggle itself throws up, rather than prescribe in advance to its participants. Universal normative notions, she says, "colonize under the sign of the same." This idea of waiting to see what we get--in a word, this moral passivity--seems plausible in Butler because she tacitly assumes an audience of like-minded readers who agree (sort of) about what the bad things are--discrimination against gays and lesbians, the unequal and hierarchical treatment of women-and who even agree (sort of) about why they are bad (they subordinate some people to others, they deny people freedoms that they ought to have). But take that assumption away, and the absence of a normative dimension becomes a severe problem. Try teaching Foucault at a contemporary law school, as I have, and you will quickly find that subversion takes many forms, not all of them congenial to Butler and her allies. As a perceptive libertarian student said to me, Why can't I use these ideas to resist the tax structure, or the antidiscrimination laws, or perhaps even to join the militias? Others, less fond of liberty, might engage in the subversive performances of making fun of feminist remarks in class, or ripping

down the posters of the lesbian and gay law students' association. These things happen. They are parodic and subversive. Why, then, aren't they daring and good? Well, there are good answers to those questions, but you
won't find them in Foucault, or in Butler. Answering them requires discussing which liberties and opportunities human beings ought to have, and what it is for social institutions to treat human beings as ends rather than as means--in short, a normative theory of social justice and human dignity. It is one thing to say that we should be humble about our universal norms, and

willing to learn from the experience of oppressed people. It is quite another thing to say that we don't need any norms at all. Foucault, unlike Butler, at least showed signs in his late work of grappling with this problem;
and all his writing is animated by a fierce sense of the texture of social oppression and the harm that it does. Come to think of it, justice, understood as a personal virtue, has exactly the structure of gender in the Butlerian analysis: it is not innate or "natural," it is produced by repeated performances (or as Aristotle said, we learn it by doing it), it shapes our inclinations and forces the repression of some of them. These ritual performances, and their associated repressions, are enforced by arrangements of social power, as children who won't share on the playground quickly discover. Moreover, the parodic subversion of justice is ubiquitous in politics, as in personal life. But there is an important difference. Generally we dislike these subversive performances, and we think that young people should be strongly discouraged from seeing norms of justice in such a cynical light. Butler cannot explain in any

purely structural or procedural way why the subversion of gender norms is a social good while the subversion of justice norms is a social bad. Foucault, we should remember, cheered for the Ayatollah, and why
not? That, too, was resistance, and there was indeed nothing in the text to tell us that that struggle was less worthy than a struggle for civil rights and civil liberties. There is a void, then, at the heart of Butler's notion of politics. This void can look liberating, because the reader fills it implicitly with a normative theory of human equality or dignity. But let there be no mistake: for

Butler, as for Foucault, subversion is subversion, and it can in principle go in any direction. Indeed, Butler's naively empty politics is especially dangerous for the very causes she holds dear. For every friend of Butler, eager to engage in subversive performances that proclaim the repressiveness of heterosexual gender norms, there are dozens who would like to engage in subversive performances that flout the norms of tax compliance, of non-discrimination, of decent treatment of one's fellow students. To such people we should say, you cannot simply resist as you please, for there are norms of fairness, decency, and dignity that entail that this is bad behavior. But then we have to articulate those norms--and this Butler refuses to do.

Re-appropriation fails- empirics prove- any other use contradicts the very meaning of the word Esteva, 92 (Mexican activist, "deprofessionalized intellectual" and founder of the Universidad de la Tierra in the Mexican city of Oaxaca - (Gustavo, The Development Dictionary A Guide to Knowledge as Power, ed by Wolfgang Sachs, p. 15-16)
The experts of Unesco, for their part, promoted the concept of endogenous development. For some time, this conception won more acceptance than all the others. It seemed clearly heretical, openly contradicting the conventional wisdom. Emerging from a rigorous critique of the hypothesis of development 'in stages' (Rostow), the thesis of endogenous development rejected the necessity or possibility -let alone suitability of mechanically imitating industrial societies. Instead, it proposed taking due account of the particularities of each nation. Little acknowledged, however was the fact that this sensible consideration leads to a dead-end in the very theory and practice of development, that it contains a contradiction in terms. If the impulse is truly endogenous, that is, if the initiatives really come out of the diverse cultures and their different systems of values, nothing would lead us to believe that from these would necessarily arise development - no matter how it is defined - or even an impulse leading in that direction. If properly followed, this conception leads to the dissolution of the very notion of development , after realizing the impossibility of imposing a single cultural model on the whole world - as a
conference of Unesco experts pertinently recognized in 1978.