Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Hey now, you're an All Star, get your game on, go play Hey now, you're a
Rock Star, get the show on, get paid And all that glitters is gold Only
shooting stars break the mold And all that glitters is gold Only shooting
stars break the mold
Trench. By contrast, more than 500 people have journeyed into spaceincluding Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), who sits on the committee before which Cameron testifiedand 12 people have actually set foot on the surface of the moon.
All it takes is a quick comparison of the budgets for NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to understand why space exploration is outpacing its ocean counterpart by such a wide margin. In
fiscal year 2013 NASAs annual exploration budget was roughly $3.8 billion. That same year, total funding for everything NOAA doesfishery management, weather and climate forecasting, ocean research and management, among
many other programswas about $5 billion, and NOAAs Office of Exploration and Research received just $23.7 million. Something is wrong with this picture. Space travel is certainly expensive. But as Cameron proved with his dive
that cost approximately $8 million, deep-sea exploration is pricey as well. And thats not the only similarity between space and ocean travel: Both are dark, cold, and completely inhospitable to human life. Yet space travel excites
Americans imaginations in a way ocean exploration never has. To put this in terms Cameron may be familiar with, just think of how stories are told on screens both big and small: Space dominates, with Star Trek, Star Wars,
Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, and 2001 A Space Odyssey. Then there are B-movies such as Plan Nine From Outer Space and everything ever mocked on Mystery Science Theater 2000. There are
This imbalance in pop culture is illustrative of what plays out in real life. We rejoiced along with the NASA mission-control room when the Mars rover landed on the red planet late last
year. One particularly exuberant scientist, known as Mohawk Guy for his audacious hairdo, became a minor celebrity and even fielded his share of spontaneous marriage proposals. But when Cameron bottomed out in the
Challenger Deep more than 36,000 feet below the surface of the sea, it was met with resounding indifference from all but the dorkiest of ocean nerds such as myself. Part of this incongruity comes from access. No matter where we
live, we can go outside on a clear night, look up into the sky, and wonder about whats out there. Were presented with a spectacular vista of stars, planets, meteorites, and even the occasional comet or aurora. We have all been
wishing on stars since we were children. Only the lucky few can gaze out at the ocean from their doorstep, and even those who do cannot see all that lies beneath the waves. As a result, the facts about ocean exploration are pretty
bleak. Humans have laid eyes on less than 5 percent of the ocean, and we have better maps of the surface of Mars than we do of Americas exclusive economic zonethe undersea territory reaching out 200 miles from our shores.
Sure, space is sexy. But the oceans are too. To those intrigued by the quest for alien life, consider this: Scientists estimate that we still have not discovered 91 percent of the species that live in our oceans. And some of them look
pretty outlandish. Go ahead and Google the deepsea hatchetfish, frill shark, or Bathynomus giganteus. In a time of shrinking budgets and increased scrutiny on the return for our investments, we should be taking a long, hard
look at how we are prioritizing our exploration dollars. If the goal of government spending is to spur growth in the private sector, entrepreneurs are far more likely to find inspiration down in the depths of the ocean than up in the
heavens. The ocean already provides us with about half the oxygen we breathe, our single largest source of protein, a wealth of mineral resources, key ingredients for pharmaceuticals, and marine biotechnology. Of course space
exportation does have benefits beyond the cool factor of putting people on the moon and astronaut-bards playing David Bowie covers in space. Inventions created to facilitate space travel have become ubiquitous in our livescellphone cameras, scratch-resistant lenses, and water-filtration systems, just to name a fewand research conducted in outer space has led to breakthroughs here on earth in the technological and medical fields. Yet despite far-fetched
plans to mine asteroids for rare metals, the only tangible goods brought back from space to date remain a few piles of moon rocks. The deep seabed is a much more likely source of so-called rare-earth metals than distant
asteroids. Earlier this year the United Nations published its first plan for management of mineral resources beneath the high seas that are outside the jurisdiction of any individual country. The United States has not been able to
participate in negotiations around this policy because we are not among the 185 nations that have ratified the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which governs such activity. With or without the United States on board, the
potential for economic development in the most remote places on the planet is vast and about to leap to the next level. Earlier this year Japan announced that it has discovered a massive supply of rare earth both within its exclusive
economic zone and in international waters. This follows reports in 2011 that China sent at least one exploratory mission to the seabed beneath international waters in the Pacific Ocean. There is a real opportunity for our nation to
lead in this area, but we must invest and join the rest of the world in creating the governance structure for these activities. Toward the end of last weeks hearing, Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK), who chairs the Subcommittee on Oceans,
Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, hypothetically asked where we would be today if we had spent half as much money exploring the oceans as we have spent exploring space. Given the current financial climate in Congress,
we wont find the answer to his question on Capitol Hill. But there may be another way. Cameron is currently in preproduction on the second and third Avatar films. He says the former will be set on an ocean planet. No one
except he and his fellow producers at 20th Century Fox really know how much the first installment of the movie series cost, but estimates peg it at approximately $250 millionor 10 times the total funding for NOAAs Ocean
Exploration program. Since the original Avatar grossed more than $2 billion at the box office worldwide, if NASA isnt willing to hand over a bit of its riches to help their oceanic co-explorers, maybe Cameron and his studio partners
can chip a percent or two off the gross from Avatar 2 to help fill the gap. Come to think of it, if the key to exploring the oceans hinges either on Hollywood giving up profits or Congress increasing spending, maybe we are more
likely to mine asteroids after all.
There are many answers to this questionmany that are right, many that are wrong. Among the
. We should obey
God because otherwise he'll make our lives miserable. We should obey
God because that guarantees a painless life. Right reasons for obeying God are many, including:
most commonly held, but incorrect, answers would be the following: We should obey God in order to earn salvation
We should obey God because it's the right thing to do. We should obey God because obedience leads to a fulfilling life. We should
obey God because Jesus taught us to do so. One could easily come up with dozens more answers by a careful study of Scripture.
Leviticus 22 provides a reason for obeying God that we might easily overlook. The whole chapter spells out a variety of laws
pertaining to the offering and eating of sacrifices. Verse 31 summarizes: "You must faithfully keep all my commands by putting them
into practice, for I am the LORD." Obedience is a response to God's very nature as embodied in his holy name. Verse 33 adds, "It
was I who rescued you from the land of Egypt, that I might be your God. I am the LORD." At first this might seem like an odd way to
sum up a chapter on obedience. But, in fact, the last verse of Leviticus 22 provides a powerful rationale for obedience. The Israelites
are to obey the Lord in response to his gracious salvation. Their obedience isn't meant to earn God's favor, but rather to respond to
this favor already given. God's own name, the LORD, embodies his grace and mercy (see Exod. 34:6-7). Thus, to honor God's name
is to live in response to his grace by obeying his commands. As Christians, our call to obedience is in many ways similar to that of
Leviticus 22. Romans 12:1-2 reveals that though we do not offer literal sacrifices, we are to offer our whole lives as living sacrifices
to God. We do so because of God's mercy given in Jesus Christ. Thus, we should obey God out of love for God and gratitude for all
that he has done for us. QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER REFLECTION: If you were to be asked the question "Why obey God?" what
answer(s) would you give? In what ways does obedience benefit God? In what ways does it benefit us? PRAYER: Merciful God, today
I begin by thanking you for your amazing grace, for coming in Christ to save the world, including me. Thank you, Lord, for the way
your grace has filled, shaped, and guided my life. Thank you for the privilege of living in your grace each day. May I seek to obey
you in all that I do, Lord, not in order to earn your favor, but so that I might respond appropriately to your favor already given to me.
As I receive your mercies, which are new every morning, may they motivate me to offer myself to you, all that I am, all that I do.
May my obedience to you be an act of thanksgiving, a demonstration of my love for you. All praise be to you, O God, because you
have rescued me from sin and death and because your grace fills my life each day. Amen.
ogre now.
Its all
2NC Shrek
2NC Overview:
Our Shrek K is satirical, painting a picture of the harmful nature of the
current debate space. We defend the fact that the actual debate space is
harmful, thus you must vote for the alt:
`We are the war' does not mean that the responsibility for a war is shared collectively and diffusely by an entire
society - which would be equivalent to exonerating warlords and politicians and profiteers or, as Ulrich Beck says,
upholding the notion of `collective irresponsibility', where people are no longer held responsible for their actions,
and where the conception of universal responsibility becomes the equivalent of a universal acquittal.' On the
contrary, the object is precisely to analyse the specific and differential responsibility of everyone in their diverse
situations. Decisions to unleash a war are indeed taken at particular levels of power by those in a position to make
them and to command such collective action. We need to hold them clearly responsible for their decisions and
Somalia - since the decisions for such events are always made elsewhere. Yet our insight that indeed we are not
responsible for the decisions of a Serbian general or a Croatian president tends to mislead us into thinking that
therefore we have no responsibility at all, not even for forming our own judgement, and thus into underrating the
recognize the connections between those political decisions and our own personal decisions. It not only shows that
we participate in what Beck calls `organized irresponsibility', upholding the apparent lack of connection between
bureaucratically, institutionally, nationally and also individually organized separate competences. It also proves the
phenomenal and unquestioned alliance of our personal thinking with the thinking of the major powermongers: For
we tend to think that we cannot `do' anything, say, about a war, because we deem ourselves to be in the wrong
obviously desire the range of action of a general, a prime minister, or a General Secretary of the UN - finding
expression in ever more prevalent formulations like `I want to stop this war', `I want military intervention', `I want
to stop this backlash', or `I want a moral revolution." 'We are this war', however, even if we do not command the
troops or participate in so-called peace talks, namely as Drakulic says, in our `non-comprehension: our willed
refusal to feel responsible for our own thinking and for working out our own understanding, preferring innocently to
drift along the ideological current of prefabricated arguments or less than innocently taking advantage of the
advantages these offer. And we `are' the war in our `unconscious cruelty towards you', our tolerance of the `fact
that you have a yellow form for refugees and I don't' - our readiness, in other words, to build identities, one for
This is why I have said that the appropriation of my interested work on education and empire to this transcendental
debate world constitute a travesty of my intentions. My scholarship is not disinterested. It is militant and intended
to ameliorate as much as possible the pain and suffering of those who have been oppressed by the democratic
institutions that have power precisely by way of showing that their language if truth, far from being
disinterested or objective as it is always claimed, is informed by the will to power over all manner of others.
I told my interlocutor that he and those in the debate world who felt like
him should call into question the traditional objective debate protocols and the
instrumentalist language they privilege in favor of a concept of debate and of
language in which life and death mattered . I am very much aware that the arrogant neocons who
now saturate the government of the Bush administration judges, pentagon planners, state department
officials, etc. learned their disinterested argumentative skills in the high school and
college debate societies and that, accordingly, they have become masters at
disarming the just causes of the oppressed . This kind leadership will reproduce itself (along with the
This is also why
invisible oppression it perpetrates) as long as the training ground and the debate protocols from which it emerges
remains in tact.
Their complaint is with the form rather than the content of the
1ACtranslating this complaint into a rule plays into sovereign
hands which turns decisionmaking and guts education
Steele 10Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Kansas (Brent, Defacing Power: The
Aesthetics of Insecurity in Global Politics pg 109-111)
The rules of language and speaking can themselves serve to conceal truth in world
politics. I begin here with the work of Nicholas Onuf (1989), which has inspired constructivists to engage how
language is a rule-governed activity (Wilmer 2003: 221).
persistence of asymmetric social relations, known otherwise as the condition of rule. (1989: 22)
developing individual (Giddens 1991: 40). Without routines, individuals face chaos, and what Giddens calls the
protective cocoon of basic trust evaporates (ibid.). Yet, as I have discussed in my other work (2005, 2008a) and as
the linguistic rules or at least styles or language used by the targeted power to be part of the problem (the notion
academic-intellectual parrhesia provided later in this chapter illustrate, different manifestations of truth-telling as a
form of counterpower occupy different spaces along this spectrum balancing between abiding by these
conventions of decorum and style; the need to provide forceful, decloaked truth; or, in the case of Cynic parrhesia,
person said that was, for the victim, inappropriate or, more to the point, inconvenien
Satire Works
If people dont understand the irony at first, itll make an even
bigger impression on them once they get it we can always
explain the joke later
Day, 8 Ph.D. and Assistant Professor of English and Cultural Studies at Bryant University; (Amber,
Are They For Real? Activism and Ironic Identities, 2008,
http://www.cios.org/www/ejc/EJCPUBLIC/018/2/01846.html)//IS
Hutcheon warns of the potential danger inherent in the use of irony in that it can
easily backfire. She explains, those whom you oppose might attribute no irony and
simply take you at your word; or they might make irony happen and thus accuse
you of being self-negating, if not self-contradicting. Those with whom you agree
(and who know your position) might also attribute no irony and mistake you for
advocating what you are in fact criticizing (16). The Yes Men, it seems, found
themselves precisely falling prey to these traps, but have hit upon a method of
using the pitfalls to their advantage, allowing audiences to read them seriously and
then exposing them for being complicit with the offensive ideas put forward. In
hindsight, the irony is much more obvious, meaning either that those present at the
live event appear morally unscrupulous or that the media is spurred to engage in
reflection about why they were taken in. Perhaps more importantly, the revealed
hoaxes speak to a growing number of fans who take delight in witnessing
organizations and corporations they are already critical of be publicly pranked,
again providing affirmation for existing discursive communities.
Framework