Novi's Next

Our next Legislative Debate event will be on Saturday, December 8, when we travel to Novi High school. Novi is outside of Detroit on I -69 (see map below).

So far three schools from the west side have expressed interest: Portage Central, Kalamazoo Central, and city. Between them they will bring some 40 students -- plan on having three chambers. Three chambers does pose some difficulties, since only 7 or 8 will advance to the Super Session.

Bills.
These will be due by Wednesday, November 28.

Transportation
Car pool. Given the interest in the event, we will need extra drivers (even a van can't hold everyone who wants to come).

Costs
We will stop for dinner on the way back, so be prepared for both lunch and dinner (and morning food, if you would like).

Time Line

• 6:45 a.m. Meet at City
• 7:00 a.m. Leave City
• 9:20 a.m. Arrive Novi HS (this allows for a quick road stop on the way)
• 9:00-9:30 Registration
• 9:45 General meeting
• 10:00- 11:30 Round one (this may go a little longer)
• 11:45-1:15 Round two
• 1:15-2:00 Lunch
• 2:00-4:00 Super Session
• 4:15 - 4:30 Awards
• 4:45 p.m. Leave Novi
• 8:00 p.m. Arrive City (with break for food)

And just where is Novi High School?

Here:
24062 Taft Road,
Novi, MI 48374

View Larger Map

Ionia Post Game

In the days before the meet, it looked as if we would have three chambers, but we only needed two. City took 8 students: Christina Le, Catherine Khuu, Riet Groenleer, Nate Ritsema, Emily Riippa, Abe Rinck, and Evan Vanderhoff . Three highlights set the tone for the day.

Highlight No. 1: Our POs.
A lot of the students were still fairly new, so that meant more opportunities for City High students to step up, and they did.

Congratulations to our three POs:

• Reggie Pell, first time!!
• Christina Le, and
• Nate Ritsema -- PO in both the regular session and in the Super Session.
  

Highlight No. 2: Super Session
Every student had the chance to participate in the Super Session -- this was a first for City. Congratulations!

Highlight No. 3: Awards.
City High students not only left with gavels in hand, but with awards. Four students received awards based on their performance in the Super Session:

• Christina Le -- First
• Abe Rinck -- Second
• Nate Ritsema -- Third
• Emily Riippa -- Ninth

Congratulations!

14 Bills at Ionia, part 3

Bill No. 8 -- The Popular Vote Statute of 2007

• Overview/Need. Although this says "Statute" it properly is a Constitutional Amendment. The bill proposes a move to popular election of the president. Under the Electoral College, the value of a vote varies, so that those in large states have relatively little say in who gets elected than those in Wyoming (population 500,000).
• Instrumentality. As a Constitutional Amendment, this measure must pass with a two thirds vote. Implementation language should indicate that the bill becomes effective upon ratification of the states. As a Constitutional Amendment, of course, there is no going back (see Sec. 5).
• Possible Amendment. Change Sec. 5 to match Constitutional requirements.
• Aff. Abolish the Electoral College is an perennial. Appeal to the notion of popular sovereignty. As the 2000 election showed, it is possible to win the popular votes and still not win the presidency. As we have seen, such outcomes cast the victor in doubt pretty much through the term.
• Neg. If you are historically minded, review arguments for preserving small state's rights. If it is by popular vote, then the small states turn completely invisible -- why should a candidate even bother with them? The question the Neg wants to raise is that of giving voice to the lesser parts of our country (and why that good over-rides that of the popular will). What do we gain by giving these regions a say?

Bill No. 9 -- Child Gun Safety and Education Bill

• Overview/Need. The Bill mandates certain mandatory safety measures for gun sellers and manufacturers. Guns in the home are a major source for child deaths -- this measure would begin to address this.
• Instrumentality. This is a fairly well-crafted piece of legislation. Note that it includes not only manufacturers of guns, but those who sell them. The weakness is that there remains no enforcement mechanism in the bill, presumably this would be with BATF. This could be a possible (but not necessary) amendment. If anything is missing here it is the regulation of gun shows. These firearms would presumably not be covered (this is a significant source of controversy with in the Second Amendment community).
• Aff. Emphasize basic safety benefits. Research deaths of children who play with guns. By making this a requirement for all sales, you have an efficient way of getting gun locks into homes.
• Neg. A negative attack can pick up a Second Amendment fundamentalism, that any restriction on guns, any requirement is but step to the government taking subverting the basic right to bear arms. That is, if they allow the regulation of manufacturers here, what else can they regulate? A different attack would be to address the question of gun shows. Since these are left out of the bill, and are one of the main sources for gun ownership transfers, this bill doesn't really solve the problem -- the danger still exists.

Bill No. 10 -- A Bill to Bypass Doctors

• Overview/Need. The bill creates a category of behind-the-counter drugs, that presumably could be picked up without additional prescriptions. Such a move coupled with generics would be a way to lower drug costs and benefit the health consumer.
• Instrumentality. The bill is fairly clear in its particulars. Watch, however, for the issue of "consulation with the pharmacist." Does this give the pharmacist a veto over what can be sold? Must the consumer make repeated consultations, or is once enough? Or perhaps the consultation in question is simply a signed form on file at the pharmacy. For instance, what about birth control pills -- can a minor pick them up? Can a pharmacy refuse to sell them? This is an area to clear up in the debate.
• Aff. Increasingly medecine is driven by pharmacology. This measure would make basic goods available with minimum hassle. Less hassle, means more use, which in turn means better health. Use the WalMart $4/precription plan as a model for how something like this could work.
• Neg. As Instrumentality discussion noted, there are a host of operational questions. On the conservative side, you may want to emphasize the hazards say of birth control pills, or whether these are really appropriate. Note these are specifically mandated to be included. Does this apply to Plan B contraceptives ("morning after" pills)? Some pharmacists have objected to selling these on moral grounds -- the same can be said for hormone-based birth control. This conservative approach is something of an outside case -- the chamber may not especially like it or be sympathetic. It will take courage.

Bill No. 11 -- A Bill to Save the American Dream

• Overview/Need. The problem with sub-prime mortgages threatens not only homeowners but the economy. The media is filled with the stories of families tossed out because of the structure of these loans. Background reading will reveal a variety of tactics used to hook buyers into products that had high fees and harsh interest-rate adjustments. Did the buyers understand the problem they were getting into? At least for low-income buyers, the answer is certainly, no. The original mortgages were confusing. Adding to the problem is the way that these mortgages were then turned into securities that could be bought and sold in markets. The result has been that instead of one institution holding the security, multiple institutions each hold a small part of that mortgage -- so what happens when it fails? Ah, you see the problem. This bill cuts to the chase. Rather than handle on a case by case, it treats these mortgages as a class. Is this a good thing? Ah, that is the question, isn't it?
• Instrumentality. The mortgage meltdown is a rather complex event, so a bill like this will be open to the charge of over-simplification. A key question will be to whom this bill applies: is it for all mortgages, including those who invested in condominiums thinking they will then sell at a profit? Or is it for owner-occupied units? This bill pays solid attention to who will enforce this legislation. This gives clear accountability.
• Proposed Amendment: Add to Section 3 a requirement that this measure only applies to owner-occupied units. (Investors should now better and deserve to take their knocks).
• Aff. There are lots of horror stories out there to emphasize the need for relief. There is a lot of consumer caution right now, precisely because of the problem in the housing sector. So making homeowners secure will also help the economy. Admit that the plan takes a big swipe, but the problem is too complex for smaller steps.
• Neg. Emphasize the role of what economists call "moral hazard:" The buyers simply should have known better. No money down loans? You don't need to be an MBA to know that smells. And especially if the amendment doesn't fly -- then the bill seems to reward a lot of investors rather than individual homeowners.

Bill No. 12 -- Privatization of Public Parks

• Overview/Need. This properly is a resolution, focusing on a state issue, that of the state maintaining too many parks relative to its budget. Underlying this is the question of finances and the public goods: if we can't fund something, shouldn't we admit it, and turn over the property or program to those who can put it to better and presumably taxable) use? The issue may be state in wording, but the underlying issue is the balance between government and the private sector.
• Instrumentality. There are several awkward moments here. Section 3 is the big culprit -- what is being limited is not clear. This will be an area for significant discussion. The tension between a federal Congress and a State proposal will also need to be dealt with. An early address might be to suggest that the bill, while inappropriate, nonetheless raises some significant issues that deserve debate. (Such a move would be well received by the judges). The other big problem with the bill is that no mechanism is provided to determine what state parts (or any park) would be under consideration. Translate this to a National level: does this mean that we put up for sale the Statue of Liberty? Sleeping Bear Dunes? Yellowstone NP? With no mechanism for determining what fits, then anything can fit. Or nothing.
• Approach: Debate the mechanism, debate principle.
• Posssible Amendment:Suggest that the Congress create a study commission to see what National properties can be removed from the roll of national holdings. That this commission apply the rules and criteria set forth in this bill.
• Aff. This is a standard libertarian critique (see the Mackinac Institute, Cato Foundation for examples) of the government doing too much. Should the Federal government really be in the business of holding land that could be put to better use by the private sector? The Aff is the harder side in this case in that a good neg will make you look like you are going to destroy parks for the sake of business.
• Neg. Emphasize that the population likes its national parks and forests. These are not minor items. Emphasize that the private sector has not been a good custodian. Suggest that the lands are really the common property of all the citizens, and so can not be given away. As a practical matter, suggest that there is little economic return to be had here (unless one starts a gold mine say, in Yellowstone).

14 Bills at Ionia, pt. 2

Bill No. 3: Bridging the Wage Gap

• Overview (Need). The Bill addresses the disparity between wages for men and women. As the bill notes, this was first addressed in 1964, and since then the wage gap has decreased. But there still is a gap. In through a variety of mechanisms women are not yet earning the same as their male counterparts.
• Instrumentality. There are a couple of loose words here, most notably in Sec 2.A, "should be adhered to more strictly," which is more of a statement of hope than of policy. Concretely, the bill gives redress to to the woman. A key question to raise on instrumentality regards the meaning of "monetary" in Sec. 2: many wages are provided in a variety of other forms (bonuses, benefits, opportunity) that are not especially monetary. Does the bill's author mean wages? Or total compensation? A good suggested amendment would be to substitute monetary with total, as in "total compensation." Also on enforcement, recent court cases have limited the use of general or class action cases in favor of those who can demonstrate a direct harm. No harm, no case. This judicial roadblock may be the real nut to crack here.
• Aff. This side faces two challenges. That of direct, intended discrimination, and that of the status quo. For the former, one can argue philosophy quite cogently: equal work deserves equal pay. The right to pay your workers what you want does not mean that you may treat them unfairly. Example to use would be women in the military: for the same tasks, the same pay. The status quo question -- that things are ok as they are -- will take more work. Note how much we are losing in women's skills. There is plenty of material out there about wage gaps.
• Neg. They have an easier time. Although you will be tempted to simply argue that the bill is redundant, that would mean leaving behind a collection of very substantive issues worth your time. You may want to speak to women's progress over time, especially the number of women at the university -- this suggests there is no discrimination. You can also point to recent studies that African American males are the ones really falling behind (here) -- that is are we looking at the complaints of well-off women over against the real lack of opportunity for minorities? Lastly, there is the question of enforcement -- it may be that the bill actually does too little, since it only applies to women who can show they have been discriminated against.

Bill NO. 4: Foreign Born Presidents

• Overview/Need. This is a Constitutional Amendment masquerading as a bill (See Sec. 3). The United States unnecessarily shuts itself off from top talent by limiting the office of the Presidency to those born within the boundaries of the nation. The principle is that we want people who have an attachment to our country, so even if you were born overseas but grew up here, you would have that attachment. Why shouldn't you be President?
• Instrumentality. As noted this is a Constitutional Amendment. Passage requires a 2/3 majority. You will also want to amend Sec. 6 to bring it into line with the US Constitution. "This bill shall take effect as the XX Amendment, upon passage by 2/3 of the states on or before [date goes here, say 7 years]"
• Aff. This is a bill about who is an American. Use Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm as a case in point: she can govern a state, run as a US Senator, can even be a judge, but because she was born in Canada she somehow doesn't make the cut for the presidency? We are cutting off a skill set we need. A second argument would be the nature of changing world, where people move much more freely and rapidly now than in the 18th C. Place is not the barrier.
• Neg. Why change what isn't broken? The need for this amendment is not especially established. Be ready to counter the examples. Suggest that there does not seem to be a lack of people willing and able to be President, so therefore no reason to change.

Bill No. 5. Independence for FEMA

• Overview/Need. We've been over this before. The bill removes FEMA from DHS and makes it a direct report to the President (i.e. "cabinet level"). Need is established in Sec. 2. Indirect reporting coupled with support for the fight on terrorism means that FEMA's focus is compromised, and so left vulnerable to responding to emergencies (i.e. Hurricane Katrina). It need institutional independence.
• Instrumentality. The bill is vague here on how or what the impact of the move would be. Unlike Christina's bill that called for professional competence nothing is provided for, here. A useful amendment would be to insert a Section 2 A adopting some of Christina's personnel reforms.
• Aff. FEMA is a story of incompetence and cronyism. This is a direct result of making it a creature of the political appointee at DHS. The disaster that is Katrina (play this up, you can always add to the "harm" aspect) is not over. The cure for FEMA is to insist on greater public accountability. Therefore it should be free-standing, and not hiding within another department. The prevention of natural disaster is too great.
• Neg. Against Katrina, bring up the California fires. FEMA did ok there. The problem is not where it falls on the organizational chart but how competent its administration is; this is a problem of cronyism and the bill does nothing to resolve. Read up on political appointees in the present administration -- there is a lot out there for the Dem. For the GOP-minded, you can explore the possibility that the next disaster may not be "natural" but terrorist-made. In that case linking FEMA with DHS makes abundant sense. Explore consequences of possible terrorist attacks (lil' nukes).

Bill No. 6. Single Sex Schools

• Overview/Need. This is a bit of a resolution -- note opening words, "There should be...." That said, the need has been documented that at some grade levels (middle school in particular) a single sex class room can be more productive to learning. However, understanding of 14th Amendment and of Civil Rights law prohibits what looks like "separate but equal." The bill poses the basic clash between the push for equality of treatment and the pursuit of excellence; it is a classic principle/pragmatic split. Focus on this rather than the instrumental issues (below).
• Instrumentality. There is a confusion in the bill about what exactly the Department of Education funds, so as written the bill makes the federal DoE the manager of the program. A classic 10th Amendment problem. A second issue would be that of the numbers: 50 -- given the number of children in schools, this is probably too low. A third issue is the question of "randomly selected," again, seeming to take power from the states who would otherwise oversee the program. In short, this is probably not actionable as written -- it is too specific. Two amendments may fix this:
• Sec. 2 "this process should begin with the creation of 50 single sex schools to be sited in different cities throughout this country" and delete the rest of the Section.
• Sec. 3 Keep it looser. Write an amendment where funding comes from a series of grants at the DoE, which will be required in turn to assess the quality of the curriculum and provide an annual public report.
• Aff. This is all about pragmatism. What can we do to improve public schools? Again there is plenty of evidence that boys and girls may learn differently -- so why not take advantage of this? Emphasize tales of empowerment. Emphasize the need for better skills, better engagement (bring up the study that black males are falling behind -- the need role models, safe places to grow, etc. ).
• Neg. This is a matter of principle. Men and women should be treated equally. Asking women to be treated differently only hides from them what the requirements are in real life. Two classes of schools invites students to be treated academically different. A second attack would be that of States rights -- education and its delivery is predominantly a state issue. (Note, these two neg arguments are deeply opposed to one another, since equality argues for more federal control, and states rights less. )

Bill No. 7 Student Athlete Drug Testing Bill

• Overview/Need. There are perhaps two issues underway here: that of the illegal drugs, and that of performance enhancing drugs, e.g. steroids. The bill appears to be focused on the latter with the DoE being the chief enforcer. On this, there is plenty of evidence that young athletes are tempted to boost performance with drugs, and that use of these drugs in a young and growing body can have serious health consequences for the athlete later in life (e.g. stunted growth from steroid use). The medical consequences are becoming clear, and so too is the pressure for the use of these drugs.
• Instrumentality. There is a clumsy wording in Sec 2 about "removal from the team" -- leaving the question, if you test positive for cross-country, does that mean you can participate on football, instead? A more important issue is that of the word "all" -- that's a lot of students (and a lot of drug tests). It is certainly worth exploring when this drug testing takes place. In the doctor's office? Last, you may want to consider the question of what happens if a doctor presents false tests (say of the star quarterback) -- this is not spelled out in the present bill.
• Amendment. You may want to charge an appropriate department (HHS, FDA) to draw up a set of banned drugs to be tested.
• Aff. Emphasize the need for athletes to be safe. This is not about substance abuse but abuse of the body. These "performance" enhancing drugs are also life-threatening. And in the same way we regulate collegiate sports, we should do the same for high school sports.
• Neg. Talk money. A good way to go would be to find out how many students participate in sports say in Michigan then apply a cost for the drug test. Can we afford it? Does the cost simply outweigh any advantage. And of course, there is our old favorite the 10th Amendment, arguing that matters like these are not really a national concern but a state concern.

14 Bills at Ionia, pt. 1

With three sessions in front of us, be prepared on most of these. It will be very easy to be negative on any and all of these. Honestly, each bill has its holes. So when the bill in question goes off the track, it is more useful and ultimately more productive to consider the spirit or idea behind the legislation.

Now for the bills (we'll look at them in terms of Need, Instrumentality -- how they might actually be enacted, then suggestions for Aff and Neg)

Bill No. 1: Act to Improve Public Education

• Need. This bill arises from a flaw in No Child Left Behind: each state gets to define what success is, so naturally states want to set standards that put them in a good light. Fifty different standards for excellence would seem to be odd.
• Instrumentality. The bill leaves the funding for the test in the dark. You will be tempted to whack at this, but remember, this new test replaces others that states are using. The net cost is likely to be zero, or even less.
• Aff. Argue for the necessity for standards. This can be done with appeals to either commerce (business needs people who are skilled, a common test provides a common base), or it can be done as a matter of social justice: we do no favor to the poor or minority by pretending that there really is not a standard.
• Neg. Argue state's rights. Who knows the student better? Second, a test always implies a curriculum. Do we really want one curriculum for the whole country? There are lots of places here to mix it up.

Bill No. 2: Ban Animal Experimentation

• Need. Underlying this bill are two ideas: Animal rights, that is, we prove our humanity in how we treat those creatures who in some sense depend on us. Second, there is the idea of "shock the conscience" -- some experiments are truly horrific. This reliance on philosophy and aesthetics is a weakness in the bill.
• Instrumentality. There are some good points here, especially in the development of a new inspection service. However, the definition of experimentation is left under-developed. Does this include veterinary science? What is the meaning of "scientific" here? As a practical measure, the author has yet to understand how the use of grants can limit or focus research.
• Aff. Keep the focus on medicinal purposes. There is a growing body of evidence that suggests that we do not need to use animals in the way we have. There are alternatives.
• Neg. A focus on the outlier cases may be the most useful. The bill takes a categorical approach so focus on the exceptions. There are some circumstances where animal experimentation has helped. Be ready to bring up "touching stories".

Ionia, Saturday November 17

Our next weekend Legislative session takes place Saturday at Ionia. This is bringing in teams from the east side as well as from west Michigan, and if the bills are any indication, it should be fun.

Time line
We don't really have one, but this is the best I can come up figure out

• 7:00 a.m. meet at City
• 7:15 a.m. leave
• 8:00 a.m. arrive at Ionia
• 8:30 a.m. general meeting
• 9:00 - 11:00 Session I
• 11:00 - 1:00 p.m. Session II
• Lunch -- we're on our own.
• 3:00 - 5:00 pm Super Session
• 5:30 p.m. Awards
• 7:00 p.m. Arrive at City

Speaking of Food
What passes for a strip is right out side the high school. We'll go and find fast food. (Or you can bring your own).

Location
Ionia High School
250 Tuttle Rd
Ionia, MI

Or, for those who like a map:


View Larger Map

Kalamazoo Central, Nov 14

We're off to the second meeting of the West Michigan Legislative Debate League. This time at Kalamazoo Central.

Who's Going?
Here is who I have signed up:

• Oana Damacus
• Catherine Khuu
• Christina Le
• Emily Riippa
• Abe Rinck
• Nathan Ritsema
• Evan VanderHoff

Schedule will be as follows:

• 2:30 Meet at City
• 3:45 Arrive at Kalamazoo
• 4:15 -- 6:15 Session Opens
• 6:30 Awards
• 8:00 Arrive at City (maybe a little earlier)

Here's the map (click for exact location):


View Larger Map