Chapter CII: Observation Five

Image of the Day: Work is for the Birds, fullbleed.org

While I was sitting in an auditorium at Sac State last Sunday, eating a mutant apple, I mused about the end of the debate season and how the past eight months had been a blur of a blur.

It occurred to me that I would never again read a 1AC, or perm a kritik, or drop three disads and a counterplan in the 2AR and spend six minutes ranting about the RVI on I-Spec.

I got a funny twinge that I felt before on the last day of school in 6th grade. As I trudged up the hill that day in June, I realized that it was the last time I would ever make that 45 minute walk home from Valencia Elementary School. It wasn't a sad feeling, nor a happy one--just an indelible *click* that occurs after something abruptly ends, that once seemed interminable.

Then, on Monday, I rooted around my backpack and found a crumpled sheet of lime green paper with red scribblings on it. It was the flowsheet from my first real debate round, back in September at Berkeley.

Shayla and I were Neg against Milliken and we didn't understand the 1AC. The low point was when we attacked the card which said racism made black people "invisible," since clearly, we are able to see black people ("on TV," I believe Shayla said).

The best part of the round, though, was when the Affirmative team started snapping at each other over the computer they were using.

"What the hell did you do? I can't scroll!" the 2AC muttered at her debate partner, who looked like an angular version of Che Guevara, plus glasses.

"Just give it to me!" pseudo-Che replied, snatching the laptop from her hands. "You broke my computer!" the hirsute young man accused, glaring back.

Yikes.

It's funny, comparing that to my last debate round, where we lost to the Feminist Jurisprudence Kritik. Goddamn Johnson card...

So anyway, thanks to everyone for a fun year, especially to all of my quondam debate partners: Shayla (1AC extraordinaire), Lillie (the other woman), Annie (the other other woman) and Joe (the other other other woman). You guys are splendiferous.

Beepbeepbeepbeep. I'm open for cross-examination.

Oh fuck, that was lame.

P.S. Congress is in a sweet position to act post-Hamdan.

Chapter LXXVI: Kafkaesque

Esoteric--The Metamorphosis, by Franz Kafka

Image of the Day: Floorplan of Samsa Residence






















"When Gregor Samsa woke up one morning from unsettling dreams, he found himself changed in his bed into a monstrous vermin." Thus begins Franz Kafka's often parodied, rarely understood monument of absurdist literature.

I had studied it in 12th grade and already knew all the important stuff, so when it was assigned in my English 350 class last week, I spent most of lecture time figuring out the floorplan to Gregor Samsa's apartment instead of listening. A daunting task, to be sure, as details were sparse, vague, and often contradictory (not unlike absurdist literature in general).

The first step was to determine what the major spaces were. The text explicitly mentions Gregor's room (3), Grete's room (6), the living room (9), the kitchen (12), the foyer (12), and the stairwell (15). Numbers in parentheses refer to pages in the Bantam Classics edition, translated by Stanley Corngold.

The existence of the parents' room is implied. After all, if even Grete--the youngest child--has her own room, then certainly the parents do also, given the norms in 1915. One can also conclude that there are no other major spaces than the ones enumerated above, since after a room is rented out (43), Grete must sleep in the living room (52).

I began the arrangement with Gregor's room, which is described as having "four familiar walls" (3). Gregor accesses the living room directly several times (14, 34, 45) through double doors and Kafka refers to a side door (5) and then the "other side door" (6) for a total of three entrances.

On page 9, Gregor is in his room and hears his father and the manager behind the "door on the left" and Grete, behind the "door on the right." Gregor's mother--also behind the "door on the left" communicates with Grete "by way of Gregor's room" (12). The door on the left is demonstrated to be the door to the living room since Gregor opens it and sees the manager and his father (14) while his sister sobs behind the door on the right (10).

The door on the right is a side door to Grete's room. This would seem to imply that Grete's room does not adjoin the living room, or else Grete would just open that door and shouting through Gregor's room would not be necessary. On the other hand, when Gregor sneaks into the living room in Chapter III (45), the renters are hurriedly shooed from the living room into their own room--which I take to be formerly Grete's room since she was displaced to the living room after they moved in (52).

Thus, I devised the arrangement of doors such that despite being in an adjoining room, someone standing at Gregor's living room door would have to shout through Gregor's room to communicate with someone at the door from Gregor's to Grete's room. This arrangement satisfies the right/left details if we assume Gregor was facing northwest during that scene.

The living room adjoins the foyer and the foyer the stairwell, since Gregor is able to see through the door to the foyer, and into the stairwell (15) while standing in the doorway from his room to the living room. It was tempting to place the foyer and stairwell directly west of Gregor's door, so that the living room door, foyer door, and stairwell door line up horizontally, but this could not be.

The reason is that in Chapter III, when the renters are eating in the living room and Grete begins playing the violin in the kitchen, the renters press their ears to the door from the living room to the foyer, implying that that is the closest they can get to the kitchen (45). Thus, while the living room adjoins the foyer and the foyer adjoins the kitchen, the living room does not adjoin the kitchen. Gregor is able to determine the music is coming from the kitchen as well, indicating his other side door leads to the kitchen (otherwise he would not be able to tell if it was coming from the foyer or the kitchen). Putting the foyer and stairwell on the west side of the living room would necessitate having an unrealistically huge foyer that wraps around the southwest corner in order to meet the kitchen adjoining Gregor's room.

Some indeterminacy exists since when Gregor dies (50), his parents get out of their "marriage bed" (52) and open a door into Gregor's room. Assuming they were not sleeping in the kitchen, that means they were in Grete's room. This indicates that the renters in fact rented out the parents' room, whereupon the parents moved into Grete's room, who was then pushed into the living room. Grete's room, then, no longer necessarily adjoins the living room (since the evidence was the renters being shooed into their room from the living room, and I thought they were living in Grete's room). However, if Grete's room does not adjoin the living room, that would mean the only way for the parents to get into their new room would be through either Gregor's room (not a viable option, all things considered), or through the renters' room, awkward at best.

I also placed a couple windows and bits of furniture.

Whew.

Chapter XLII: Cross Examination

Esoteric--policy debate.

Two interesting cross-ex segments from my last practice debate.

Note to the reader: In cross-ex transcripts, the speaker is identified in terms of the constructive speech he gives.
1AC = the person who gave the first affirmative constructive speech
2NC = the person who gave (or will give) the second negative constructive speech. I was the 2NC for this debate.

[1AC has just given his speech, wherein he proposes that Congress repeal Section 412 of the PATRIOT Act]
2NC (me): First off, please read the resolution text so we all know what we're debating about.
1AC: Resolved that the US Congress should substantially restrict one or more of the authorities established by the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001.
2NC: Thank you. The authority you wish Congress to restrict is that of indefinite detention?
1AC: Yes, under the PATRIOT Act the Attorney General can detain foreign aliens indefinitely.
2NC: Your position is that indefinite detention is unconstitutional, correct?
1AC: Yes.
2NC: Which Section of the PATRIOT Act grants this unconstitutional authority?
1AC: Section 412.
2NC: Here is a copy of Section 412 of the PATRIOT Act [Procures document and passes it to other team]. Please point out the specific text which authorizes the Attorney General to detain people indefinitely.
1AC: [A minute of silence as they pore over the text fruitlessly]
2NC: I have no further questions.

Note to the reader: In fact, the much feared indefinite detention supposedly authorized by Section 412 is not explicitly mentioned therein. It is the result of a loophole involving Section 412 and the Immigration Code. Section 412 allows the Attorney General to detain someone for only seven days before he must charge him with a crime or release him. However, it is not stated what must happen after the person is charged--theoretically, the Attorney General can charge the person with a minor immigration violation within seven days and THEN hold him forever. Which is what he should have said.

[I have finished my 2NC wherein I argued that using the Supreme Court to rule Section 412 unconstitutional is more solvent]
1AC: Do you know how many members the Supreme Court has?
2NC: Yes.
1AC: How many?
2NC: Nine.
1AC: So you're comfortable with the idea of nine unelected men deciding the fate of 250 million people?
2NC: I'm sorry, did you say nine men?
1AC: Yes.
2NC: I wasn't aware that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a man. I look forward to hearing your piece of evidence on that.
Judges: [Chuckles]

Note to the reader: I did eventually answer the question, of course. The counterargument I chose for this particular debate was that although unelected, the Supreme Court is composed of the finest legal minds in the country, as determined by the President and Congress (responsible for confirming the President's nominations). Thus, any criticism of a Justice's suitability to rule on constitutional issues is in effect a criticism of Congress's judgement in confirming that Justice. As such, the Affirmative cannot attack my plan in this respect without admitting that Congress is fallible and weakening their own plan, which calls for an Act of Congress rather than a Supreme Court ruling.

Chapter IX: Bad Beats

Esoteric--poker.

The situation: There are six players, arranged thusly:

button, small blind, big blind, player A, Me, player B.

I am dealt Q Q. Player A raises one chip, to 5. I reraise 4 more, to a total of 9. Player B folds, the button calls. The blinds fold. Player A calls.

Three players to the flop, which is J22. Player A bets 10. Putting him on the J, I raise to 40. I have 9 chips left. To my horror, both the button and player A call. I am screwed. One of them must have the 2 (and called the preflop raise for kicks), or a higher pocket pair. The turn is an 8. Player A checks to me, and I resignedly bet my remaining 9 chips. Surprisingly, the button folds, but Player A calls.

Player A did not, in fact, have the 2 or a higher pocket pair. He turns over 8 8, which means I winning when he called my preflop raise (81.5% favorite), I was winning when he called my massive bet on the flop (91.6% favorite), but caught the 8 on the turn for a full house and a 95.6% advantage. This is very very disappointing.

I have a 4.4% chance of hitting a queen on the river. But then, just like in Maverick, it happens. The queen lands, and I have queens full of twos, beating eights full of twos.

And I do believe that is the first time I've been all-in and won when drawing to two outs on the river. To put it another way, this is the worst beat I've ever given someone.

The worst beat I ever got, of course, was when I flopped a straight and moved all-in. The caller then magically converted middle pair on the flop into three of a kind on the turn, and full house on the river.

In other news, I've found that The Washington Post has become slightly more interesting reading over the past week than The New York Times.

11/02/2005 UPDATE: New bad beat: I have 3h 4h, the flop is 5h 6h 7h...straight flush. Various things happen, all-in by the river, which is 8h. Other guy has 9h. Ow.