Interpretation1. "The" means all of something.

1st off

Merriam-Websters Online Collegiate Dictionary, 08, http://www.merriamwebsteccom/dictionary/the 4 Used as a function word before a noun or a substantivized adjective to indicate reference to a group as a whole <the elite>

2. U.S.F.G. is composed of 3 branches. USA.gov, last updated June 27, 2008 U.S. Federal Government Official information and services from the U.S. government The three branches of U.S. governmentlegislative, judicial, and executivecarry out governmental power and functions. They specify their agent thats a voting issue

Predictable Limits hundreds of agents in the USFG, allows them to get specific link turns that we cant predict Ground we cant get our generic politics links and they can spike out of other generic disads by claiming they implement plan differently than the disad assumes
3. Dont have the jurisdiction to vote aff USFG means all 3 branches, they use the United States Congress

2nd Off
Counterplan: United States Congress should develop a charter corporation to develop, launch, and use the United States' solar power satellites. United States federal government should provide necessary support for the charter corporation.
Use of The before United States Congress inscribes nationalistic geopolitics, creating us-them dichotomies Thrift 2k (Nigel, University of Warwick Vice Chancellor, University of Bristol Professor of Geography, Its the Little
Things, Geopolitical Traditions: A Century of Geopolitical Thought p.383-385)

Let us finally come to one more arena: the arena of words. After all, here we might be thought to have the clearest example of representation at work, the word. Yet, what we do not get from critical geopolitics is a clear enough sense of how words function to bring about geopolitical change and it is not possible to do so as long as geopolitical forces continue to be framed as big and commanding (with all the masculine overtones). Some of the most potent geopolitical forces are, I suspect, lurking in the little details of peoples lives, what is carried in the specific variabilities of their activities (Shotter and Billig 1998:23), in the context of utterances. And these variabilities have immediate consequences. Thus, As Bakhtin notes, and as is confirmed by the work in conversational analysis, we sensitively catch the smallest shift in

intonation, the slightest interruption of voices in anything of importance to us in another persons practical everyday discourse. All those verbal sideward glances, reservations, loopholes, hints, thrusts do not slip past our ear, are not foreign to our own lips (Bakhtin 1984:201). And we in turn show our stance to what they do or say also in fleeting bodily reactions, facial expressions, sounds of approval or disapproval, etc. Indeed, even in the continuously responsive unfolding of non-linguistic activities between ourselves and othersin a dance, in a handshake, or even a mere chance collision on the street we are actively aware of whether the others motives are, so to speak, in tune or at odds with ours. And in our sense of their attunement or lack of it, we can sense their attitude to us as intimate or distant, friendly or hostile, deferential or arrogant, and so on. (Shotter and Billig 1998:23) Thus, very effective work has been done in disciplines like anthropology and discursive psychology (Billig 1995,

national identity and an accompanying geopolitical stance are inscribed through the smallest of details. Thus, for example, national identity is not accomplished in grand displays which incite the citizen to wave the flag in a fit of patriotic fervour. Instead, it goes on in more mundane citations: it is done unobtrusively on the margins of conscious awareness by little words such as the and we. Each day we read or hear phrases such as the prime minister, the nation, or the weather. The definite article assumes deictically the national borders. It points to the homeland: but while we, the readers or listeners, understand the pointing, we do not follow it with our consciousnessit is a seen but unnoticed feature of our everyday discourse.6 (Shotter and Billig 1998:20) Such work goes some way towards understanding the deep, often unconscious aggressions which lurk behind so much geopolitical reasoning,
1997) which attempts to provide a sense of how which through small details build a sense of us as not like them, and from which political programmes then flow as infractions are identified and made legible.7 In these few brief comments, , one still based on discourse, but on discourse understood in a broader way, and one which is less taken in by representation and more attuned to actual practices. In turn, such an agenda leads us away from interpretation of hyperbolic written and

I hoped to have outlined a parallel agenda for critical geopolitics

towards the (I hesitate to say real) work of discourse, the constant hum of practices and their attendant territorializations within which geopower ferments and sometimes boils over.
drawn rhetorics (which, I suspect, are often read by only a few and taken in by even fewer)

Geopolitical borders fuel racism and violence Dike 02 (Mustafa, University of London Royal Holloway Geography Dept. Human Geography Lecturer, Pera Peras
Poros: Longing for Spaces of Hospitality, Theory Culture Society)
Californias Proposition 187 was an attempt to build safe homes for Californians, not for all of them of course. The political abuse of the image of home as a sheltered and safe place drew upon an exclusionary, territorializing, xenophobic, premodern and patriarchal cult of home (Antonopoulos, 1994: 57). It was an elaborate fixing of boundaries, making California a safe home for its legal residents based on the exclusionary politics of home.

remember, however, that it is not only the situation of the guest but also the host that needs to be reconsidered since, in the case of , it is both receiving populations and immigrants [that] . . . risk mutual transformation, [that] . . . engage and attenuate their home-yearning for each others sakes and for the sake of their political life together (Honig, 1999: 203). The point, therefore, is about openings, about keeping open the question of who the people (the demos) is, since the question of democracy always arises at the limit of the demos . . . wherein

Boundaries, evidently, not only evoke the idea of hospitality, but of hostility and racism as well.12 It is important to immigration, for example

There is a need to reconsider the boundary, not only as a separator but as a connector as well, where hospitality comes into play pointing beyond the boundaries.
native, subject, citizen, or people receives its designation as such from the way the human encounter with the stranger and the strange is assumed (Dillon, 1999: 120 and 96). conditions, that would go beyond the interests, authority, and legislation of the state (Derrida, 1999a: 43). To conclude,

There is a need, perhaps, to reflect on what the title words, in Greek, of this text suggest: Pera peras poros: the other side/beyond limit passage; beyond the limits that interdict passage (Baptist, 1999: 102). There is a need, more importantly, if a cosmopolitan approach is to be assumed, to think about hospitality that would be more than cosmopolitical, that would go beyond strictly cosmopolitical

there is no way, I would argue, to escape the advent

of the stranger, to avoid questions and questionings that tremble, if not stir, the socio-political order that once appeared, perhaps, as a safe home. Nor is there a way to avoid the production of others. What is more important, instead of reflecting on the ways by which no other would be produced, is to be able to resist processes that produce and reproduce others; processes that stabilize themselves, that close spaces, and that derive their sustainability from the very process of othering itself. Again, what is more important, rather than reflecting on the ways by which to avoid the disturbance of the stranger, is to be able to provide for the social, cultural, institutional, ethical and political spaces where we could learn to engage with and learn from each other, while being
able to constitute our subjectivities free from subordination, in democratic ways. The point, then, is to open spaces, spaces where recognition as well as contestation and conflict can take place. Furthermore,

the point is not merely to open spaces; more importantly, it is to keep them open. Hospitality is aimed at such a concern.

3rd Off
Exploration requires human travel. Wright 8 (Edward, Project Manager Teachers in Space, Former President X-Rocket, LLC, and Programming Writer
Microsoft Corporation, Comment on A Move Against Mars Mission Funding, Space Politics, 6-28, http://www.spacepolitics.com/2006/06/28/a-move-against-mars-mission-funding/)
> No it doesnt, the article showed democratic support for further unmanned mars missions?

Unmanned missions are not exploration, they are merely reconnaissance. The dictionary defines exploration as travel for purposes of discovery. Sitting in a control room looking at pictures of Mars on a TV set is not exploration because it does not involve travel.
Calling unmanned space exploration and unmanned probes spaceships is just an attempt to co-opt the language. Mark further confuses the issue by defined space exploration to mean only missions conducted by NASA, ignoring the fact that the private sector is also working on space exploration.

And space development is colonization. Aldrin et al. No Date (Declan J. ODonnell, attorney practicing general trial law in Colorado; President of the World Space
Bar Association; President of United Societies in Space, Inc, Thomas L. Matula, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Marketing, School of Business Administration, University of Houston-Victoria, Buzz Aldrin, astronaut, second human being to set foot on the Moon, Received a Doctorate of Science in Astronautics at MIT ,International Space Development Authority Corporation: The Proposed Structure, http://space-law.org/ISDAC/ISDAC.html, ngoetz) The combined legislative procedures should be determined by these 500 or fewer legislators. Its agenda is expected to focus on outer space development as opposed to research, and exploration. That means eventual colonization. Rules of the road and the plan of
development must be worked out well in advance of the first settlers arriving in space. Until these things are clearly defined by the Authority, colonization cannot hope to commence. See Diagram No. 3.

The plan does not meet this interpretation

It doesnt involve human travel or colonization of space.

Voting issue First, limits

Allowing the aff to do anything in space is unpredictable. The aff would race to the smallest possible aff barely related to space. Only we force the aff to have predictable mechanism thats is the key internal link to education because predictability is a prerequisite to research and clash.

Second, ground
We lose all space science based generics because they also earth science, which is perceived very differently Small satellites dont link to spending or trade off disads.

Also theyre extra-topical, no resolutional basis for creating a charter corporation Independent voting issue Dont have the jurisdiction to vote aff and gives them specific link turns or no links or 2AC tricks that we cant predict, kills all neg ground And even if theyre not extra-topical, they dont mandate that the U.S. builds space solar satellites, they only use the current ones which there are none, they cant solve vote negative on presumption

4th Off
Counterplan: The United States Federal Government should establish an external, independent review body to consult over whether the United States Congress should develop a charter corporation to develop, launch, and use the United States solar power satellites and whether the United States federal government should provide necessary support for the charter corporation. The United States Federal Government should implement the recommendations of the review body.

Establishing an independent commission to pick research and tech priorities solves the whole case while avoid our policy churn net benefit.

Newton and Atkins 10 (Elizabeth, Director for Space Policy- U Alabama-Huntsville, and Chuck, former Chief of Staff-House Science Committee, Take
the Chaos Out of U.S. Space Policy, 10 May, 2010, http://spacenews.com/commentaries/100510-take-chaos-out-space-policy.html)

Policy stability is not an unheard-of feat; examples exist where a prioritization process stabilizes long-term national plans while still enabling political accountability for public resources. For example, for the past 40 years, the space science community and, more recently, the Earth science community have managed an inclusive, deliberate process to determine the most important questions and missions of their disciplines for the decade to come. Their process sets 10-year research and technology priorities, taking the guesswork out of the scientific ends that the government should support, thereby reducing and even avoiding the annual churn otherwise created by the U.S. governments legislative process or election cycles. The executive branch and Congress accept the scientific communities priorities and goals and determine the amount of public resources available. While funding and schedules can and do change with the budget process, the goals and destinations in space do not. It is time for human space exploration to be put on similar footing so that the political decisions are less about what the priorities, goals and missions are, and more about how many the country can afford at a given point in time, especially relative to other national needs. A managed and regular
prioritization process should replace episodic, ad hoc presidential commissions in order to ensure that the compelling questions for human space exploration are asked and answered with an enduring consensus in an accountable way and that diverse and iconoclastic views are considered. Similar to the way the science community does it, an external, independent review body would be managed to assess human space explorations relevance to stakeholders and to develop priorities for a six- to 10-year span. The process would produce assessments of relevance and priorities, not instructions on how to execute them, and would be organized thematically around major, compelling questions about humans future in space. Central, compelling questions such as, Can humans live off the land? and Are there commercially valuable resources? could serve as organizing principles for the activity since a questions-oriented approach makes it easier to keep stakeholders engaged and committed to the undertaking. While year-to-year appropriations may vary, the human space exploration priorities would not change, and NASA would then develop programs and projects that would be responsive to those questions (thereby retaining civil leadership in the systems engineering and government-funded portion of space architectures). The outside group, selected by the president and Congress, would involve scientists, engineers and industry representatives, public interest, education and labor groups, as well as scientific, technical, national security and foreign policy organizations. In essence, this outside group, like the space scientists' peer-review community, would provide national representation and continuity of intellectual leadership for human space exploration, reduce churn and provide outside validation on NASAs progress

in human space exploration. Longer-term congressional authorizations embracing the results of this process would provide the legislative buy-in necessary to institutionalize these outcomes. The next NASA authorization bill provides a perfect opportunity. A process that bridges election cycles can be the prescription for ensuring that human space exploration priorities and goals are relevant to Americas broader national interests, consistent with our self-image, and, most of all, sustained for the long-term
benefit of the nation.

Net benefit: Top-down determination of space exploration policy causes policy churn, which tanks US aerospace industry and crushes space leadership, which turns the case.

Newton and Atkins 10 (Elizabeth, Director for Space Policy- U Alabama-Huntsville, and Chuck, Chief of Majority Staff-House Science Committee,
Take the Chaos Out of U.S. Space Policy, 10 May, 2010, http://spacenews.com/commentaries/100510-take-chaos-out-space-policy.html) Political choices about the space program today are not so obvious, and it is increasingly clear that the United States needs a better way of setting priorities, goals and missions for human space exploration than was used during Cold War conditions. By rough count, since 1969 there have been 24 presidential blue-ribbon panels and agency evaluations of NASAs human space exploration direction, 22 attempts by Congress to terminate the international space station program and cancellations of at least 10 projects related to a space shuttle replacement. While NASAs budget for human space exploration is approximately 0.5 percent of the total federal budget, these aborted projects represent billions of dollars that could have been spent achieving something for America. The programmatic churn results not only in a price tag for unrealized projects but also in the well-documented erosion of our aerospace industrial base, decaying infrastructure and the disengagement of our brightest young minds. We should add to this cost the countrys loss of credibility and stature when we derail the plans of our

international partners and abandon

leadership in one of the few remaining areas where we truly are pre-eminent. In short, churn carries many opportunity costs. The United States deserves a sustainable human space exploration effort that is responsibly planned and given the consistent support necessary for a complex technical effort to succeed. In this age of record deficits, unemployment and troubling geopolitics, we or rather our elected leaders could choose to proceed differently this time around, with a vision for policy stability. The key challenge is that reconsiderations of space policy seem to match the length of the presidential election cycle, or sometimes even the annual appropriations cycle. We need to provide greater intellectual continuity to these reviews if we are to have any hope of policy stability.

Aerospace key to the economy and heg

ITA 11 [International Trade Administration, AEROSPACE INDUSTRY IS CRITICAL CONTRIBUTOR TO U.S. ECONOMY
ACCORDING TO OBAMA TRADE OFFICIAL AT PARIS AIR SHOW, http://trade.gov/press/press-releases/2011/aerospaceindustry-critical-contributor-to-us-economy-062111.asp, DA 7/14/11]//RS PARIS Francisco Snchez, Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade, addressed national and international groups at the 2011 Paris Air Show to reinforce the Presidents National Export Initiative (NEI) and support the U.S. aerospace industry. The U.S. aerospace industry is a strategic contributor to the economy, national security, and technological innovation of the United States, Snchez said. The industry is key to achieving the Presidents goals of doubling exports by the end of 2014 and contributed $78 billion in export sales to the U.S. economy in 2010. During the U.S. Pavilion opening remarks, Snchez noted that the aerospace sector in the United States supports more jobs through exports than any other industry. Snchez witnessed a signing ceremony between Boeing and Aeroflot, Russias state-owned airline. Aeroflot has ordered eight 777s valued at $2.1 billion, and the sales will support approximately 14,000 jobs. The 218 American companies represented in the U.S. International Pavilion demonstrate the innovation and hard work that make us leaders in this sector, said Snchez. I am particularly pleased to see the incredible accomplishments of U.S. companies participating in the Alternative Aviation Fuels Showcase, which demonstrates our leadership in this important sector and shows that we are on the right path to achieving the clean energy future envisioned by President Obama. The 2011 Paris Air Show is the worlds largest aerospace trade exhibition, and features 2,000 exhibitors, 340,000 visitors, and 200 international delegations. The U.S. aerospace industry ranks among the most competitive in the world, boasting a positive trade balance of $44.1 billion the largest trade surplus of any U.S. manufacturing industry. It directly sustains about 430,000 jobs, and indirectly supports more than 700,000 additional jobs. Ninety-one percent of U.S. exporters of aerospace products are small and medium-sized firms. Cross-apply 1AC Bearden evidence, economic collapse causes nuclear war and khalilzad says heg solves nuke war

5th Off
The Affirmative's justification of "storable" energy resources, even "renewable" energy resources, reveals the world as objects, as being relevant only to human subjective needs Beckman 00 (Tad, Prof of Philosophy @ Harvey Mudd College, "Martin Heidegger and Environmental Ethics," http://www2.hmc.edu/~tbeckman/personal/Heidart.html) Heidegger clearly saw the development of "energy resources" as symbolic of this evolutionary path; while the transformation into modern technology undoubtedly began early, the first definitive signs of its new character began with the harnessing of energy resources, as we would say. (7) As a representative of the old technology, the windmill took energy from the wind but converted it immediately into other manifestations such as the grinding of grain; the windmill did not unlock energy from the wind in order to store it for later arbitrary distribution. Modern wind-generators, on the other hand, convert the energy of wind into electrical power which can be stored in batteries or otherwise. The significance of storage is that it places the energy at our disposal; and because of this storage the powers of nature can be turned back upon itself. The storing of energy is, in this sense, the symbol of our over-coming of nature as a potent object. "...a tract of land is challenged into the putting out of coal and ore. The earth now reveals itself as a coal mining district, the soil as a mineral deposit." {[7], p. 14} This and other examples that Heidegger used throughout this essay illustrate the difference between a technology that diverts the natural course cooperatively and modern technology that achieves the unnatural by force. Not only is this achieved by force but it is achieved by placing nature in our subjective context, setting aside natural processes entirely, and conceiving of all revealing as being relevant only to human subjective needs. Such forms of technological thought only create the conditions that are the pre-requisite for nuclear warsthe consequences of such thought are more devastating than extinction Caputo 93professor of Humanities at Syracuse, founder of weak theology, MA from Villanova, PhD from Bryn Mawr in Philosophy (John Caputo, Demythologizing Heidegger, 1993 p. 136141, [Miller])

Heidegger remarks upon the prospect of a nuclear conflagration which could extinguish all human life: Man stares at what the explosion of the atom bomb could bring with it. He does not see that what has long since taken place and has already happened expels from itself as its last emission the atom bomb and its explosionnot to mention the single nuclear bomb, whose triggering, thought through to its utmost potential, might be enough to snuff out all life on
In his essay "The Thing" annihilation of humanity and the destruction of the earth? No. third world war has been removed. A strange assertion! Strange indeed, but only as long as we do not meditate. (G, 27/DT, 56).

earth. (VA, 165/PLT, 166). In a parallel passage, he remarks: ... [Man finds himself in a perilous situation. Why? Just because a third world war might break out unexpectedly and bring about the complete

In this dawning atomic age a far greater danger threatensprecisely when the danger of a The thinker is menaced by a more radical threat, is endangered by a more radical explosiveness, let us say by a more essential bomb, capable of an emission (hinauswerfen) of such primordiality that the explosion (Explosion) of the atom bomb would be but its last ejection. Indeed, the point is even stronger: even a nuclear bomb, or a wholesale exchange of nuclear bombs between nuclear megapowers, which would put an end to "all life on earth," which would annihilate every living being, human and nonhuman, is a derivative threat compared to this more primordial destructiveness. There is a prospect that is more
dangerous and uncannyunheimhcherthan the mere fact that everything could be blown apart (Auseinanderplatzen von allem). There is something that would bring about more homelessness, more not-beingat-home (un-Heimlich) than the destruction of cities and towns and of their inhabitants. Entsetzende), of annihilating its places and its settlers. Furthermore, this truly terrifying thing has already happened and has actually been around for quite some time. This more essential explosive has already been set off; things have already been destroyed, even though the nuclear holocaust has not yet happened. What then is the truly terrifying?

What is truly unsettling, dis-placing (ent-setzen), the thing that is really terrifying (das is not the prospect of the destruction of human life on the planet,

The terrifying is that which sets everything that is outside (heraussitzl) of its own essence (Wesen)'. What is this dis-placing [Entsetzendel? It shows itself and conceals itself in the way in which everything presences (anwest), namely, in the fact that despite
all conquest of distances the nearness of things remains absent. (VA, 165/P1.T, 166) The truly terrifying explosion, the more essential destruction is that which dis-places a thing front its Wesen, its essential nature, its ownmost coming to presence.

The essential destruction occurs in the Being of a thing, not in its entitative actuality; it is a disaster that befalls Being, not beings. The destructiveness of this more essential destruction is aimed not directly at man but at "things" (Dirge), in the distinctively Heideggerian sense. The Wesen of things is their nearness, and it is nearness which has been decimated by technological proximity and speed. Things have ceased to have true nearness and farness, have sunk into the indifference of that which, being a great distance away, can be brought close in the flash of a technological instant. Thereby, things have ceased to be things, have sunk into indifferent nothingness. Something profoundly disruptive has occurred on the level of the Being of things that has already destroyed them, already cast them out of (herauswerfen)
their Being. Beings have been brought close to Us technologically; enormous distances are spanned in seconds. Satellite technology can make events occurring on the other side of the globe present in a

massive technological removal of distance has actually abolished nearness, for nearness is precisely what withdraws in the midst of such technological frenzy. Nearness is the nearing of earth and heavens, mortals and gods, in the handmade jug, or the old bridge at Heidelberg, and it can be experienced only in the quiet meditativeness which
flash; supersonic jets cross the great oceans in a few hours. Yet, far from bringing things "near," this

renounces haste. Thus the real destruction of the thing, the one that abolishes its most essential Being and Wesen, occurs when the scientific determination of things prevails and compels our assent. The thingliness of the jug is to serve as the place which gathers together the fruit of earth and sun in mortal offering to the gods above. But all that is destroyed when pouring this libation becomes instead the

the dominion of scientific representation, the rule of science over what comes to presence, what is called the Wesen, which is at work in science and technology, that is the truly explosivedisplacement of air by a liquid; at that moment science has succeeded in reducing the jug-thing to a non-entity (Nichtige). Science, or rather

destructive thing, the more essential dis-placing. The gathering of earth and sky, mortals and gods, that holds sway in the thingfor "gathering" is what the Old High German thing meansis scattered to the four winds, and that more essential annihilation occurs even if the bomb never goes off: Science's knowledge, which is compelling within its own sphere, the sphere of objects, already had annihilated things long before the atom bomb exploded. The bomb's explosion is only the grossest of all gross confirmations of the long-since accomplished annihilation of the thing. (VA, 168/PLT, 170J When things have been annihilated in their thingness, the mushroom clouds of the bomb cannot be far behind. So whether or not the bomb goes off is not essential, does not penetrate to the essence of what comes to presence in the present age of technological proximities and reduced distances. What is essential is the loss of genuine nearness, authentic and true nearness, following which the actual physical annihilation of planetary life would be a "gross" confirmation, an unrefined, external, physical destruction that would be but a follow-up, another afterthought, a less subtle counterpart to a more inward, profound, essential, authentic, ontological destruction. Our alternative isnt a fatalistic rejection of technologyrather rejection is a form of releasement that reorients our relationship towards technological modes of thought Botha 02 (Catherine, Dept. of Philosophy @ Univ. of Pretoria, Heidegger, Technology and Ecology, South African Journal of Philosophy, Vol 22, Issue 2, p. ebscohost)
Homelessness is the mood of the technological age. Rediscovering our worldly home as threatened, signals the restoring surmounting of technology. Memory or recollective thought chiefly summons this sense of a threatened sanctuary. Recollecting our worldly habitat not only fosters resistance to Das Gestell, but also Provides guidance in how human being relates to the products of technology. Heidegger acknowledges that we need not reject

the products or skills of technology. He says that we can not repudiate the technological world of to day as the work of the devil, nor should we destroy it, assuming that it does not do this to it self (Heidegger, 1993:330). Heidegger does not advocate a retreat to a pre-technological state of being, nor does he suggest that we fatalistically re sign our selves to the victory of Das Gestell. Fatalism is no answer because it reflects the same absence of thought that is evidenced in a naive complacency with technological progress. We can say both yes and no to technology by having an attitude of releasement toward things. In other words, although it is crucial to perceive the danger of our technological constructions lest they dominate us, it is unnecessary to reject them completely. The alternative to be coming slaves of our own machines is not simply to become their masters. The goal is to integrate technology within a bounded worldly dwelling no longer ordered by possessive mastery. The attitude required to free ourselves from possessive mastery and achieve an appropriate relation to technology is one of awaiting and receiving, openness and releasement. Releasement towards things and openness to the mystery grant us the possibility of dwelling in the world in a different way: a way where the mood of homelessness has been displaced. Until this occurs, our attempts to control the products of technology will only sustain our subordination to it. The irony is that the freedom that has been nurtured for two and a half millennia in the West
has encouraged this technological servitude.

6th Off
Counterplan: The United States Congress should employ a charter corporation to employ, launch, and use the United States' solar power satellites. The United States federal government should provide necessary support for the charter corporation.

the use of the word deploy acts as an emotional trigger for members of the debate community who have friends or relatives serving in the military overseas builds anxiety and fear Blow 10. (Kimchi, military wife, Bible teacher, freelance writer, speaker at several organizations including PWOC
International and AGLOW International, contributing author to Life Savors for Women, author of monthly devotions for the PWOC International website. She says that her drive for encouraging others comes from her own personal testimony of being orphaned in the streets of Vietnam as a young child and experiencing domestic abuse, divorce, widowhood and the aftermath of abortion. Deployed, A Spiritual Position! Devotions, Oct 4, 2010. PWOC International, http://pwoc.org/blog/tag/survive/ ps)

When most military wives hear the word deploy, it sends us on an emotional roller coaster ride. Were tempted to take our spouses and families, pack up and go AWOL! Some of the thoughts and feelings we experience might be fear, anxiety, loneliness, depression, or even death. Why does this word deploy make us feel so vulnerable? As military wives we must learn to accept this word on more positive terms. Yes, it is our duty! Why? you might ask, or some might say, I deployments are not an easy thing to accept, never mind to endure. It takes courage and more than that it takes faith. The word deploy in Websters is defined as such: apart, to spread out, position according to plan, to be deployed. As spouses, we only hear the word apart and a year of taking on a lot of extra responsibility! Lets look at what the Greek translation
says about the word deployed from scripture. Now theres a concept, looking at what God says about it and not how we feel about it. The word deployed, from the Greek word arak, means to arrange in rows, put in order, take up position and to set a value. Wow, I like the last one, to set a value! Notice there were no negative words, such as fear, loneliness, anxiety, or even death. However, I know that our emotions tend to rule our thoughts and words, but as Christian soldiers deployed in Gods Army, we must look past our thoughts and let truth rule! After all, God tells us in His Word to hold all our thoughts captive (2 Corinthians 10:5).

didnt sign up for this! Well, in fact you did when you married your military spouse. News flash, You are now a deployed soldier too! You are the soldier who stays in the rear and keeps the mission going at home. Just like your soldier, your orders are now set, you have a specific mission and self-sacrifice and bravery are needed! Your spouses job entails defending a nation at all costs. Yikes!! Maybe some of you didnt think about it before you jumped in and said, YES! Then again, some of you did. Either way,

It is necessary to create a distinction between the word deploy and the word employ; doing otherwise empirically risks misunderstandings and accidental use of weapons. Stanley 8 (Sgt. John J., M.A., twenty-one year veteran of the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department; worked a variety of
assignments including, custody, patrol, training and administrative support; also a published historian and has written extensively on the history of law enforcement and corrections. The use of less lethal weapons in corrections Concepts & terms. January 8, 2008. http://www.correctionsone.com/products/less-lethal/articles/1842375-The-use-of-less-lethalweapons-in-corrections-Concepts-terms/ ps)
What word should you use then? Commander Sid Heal, of the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department, says, "Use

the word 'employ' when describing something being put into service and deploy when something is placed into a position so that it can be used. You can deploy a TASER [or any other less lethal] without using it. You can also deploy a TASER without employing it, and vice versa."
Deploying a less-lethal weapon means that you are routinely carrying it or are moving it from an armory into your jail or prison. When you actually use it on an inmate or inmates you are employing it. If this word doesn't work for you try firing, activating, or any other term that is synonymous with use. According to Cmd. Heal, "Clarity is essential for understanding. When you are talking to a lay jury, you are in fact teaching them.

Hence, common terminology and clarity become critical factors."

Why is the use of proper terminology important? During the Los Angeles Riots in 1992 National Guard troops and Marines were routinely deployed with local law enforcement. Marines were assigned to work with deputy sheriffs and police officers in south Los Angeles County. There is one story that involved two Compton Police Officers and their Marine backup that has become a legend. The two officers responded to a domestic violence call with the Marines in support. As the story goes, the officers asked the Marines to cover them before they approached the house. The officers then stepped out and approached the dwelling. As soon as they did the Marines began riddling the house with their M16s. The facts of this encounter are slightly different: One of the officers in fact took shotgun pellets to the leg before the Marines opened up, but, they did open up. And the house was peppered with rounds to an extent well beyond the wildest dreams of any cop who has ever asked to be "covered" by a partner.

"Cover me" means something very different to soldiers and Marines than it does to cops. Fortunately, no one inside the house was injured, but it shows the importance of knowing the right terminology and using it properly. A misunderstanding and improper use of common terminology can not only lead to confusion, it can lead to tragedy.

7th Off 1. Our interpretation is that affirmative action should be limited to the mandates of the resolution; fiat is not part of that, making it extra topical. This is best for debate and a voting issue for the following reasons: a. Predictability- resolution is all that the negative has to research, allowing the affirmative to go outside the bounds of the resolution destroys negative criticism ground. b. Ground- we are prepared to debate the consequences of the aff advocating the resolution, we have reasons why advocating that the USFG should do something is bad, they spike out of those links by fiating past them.
Education- the affirmative ignores our role in discussing governmental action destroying a valuable area of exploration

8th Off
Interpretation increase requires an expansion on a pre-existing structure. Buckley et al, 06 - attorney (Jeremiah, Amicus Curiae Brief, Safeco Ins. Co. of America et al v. Charles Burr et al,
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/06-84/06-84.mer.ami.mica.pdf)
First, the court said that the ordinary meaning of the word increase is to make something greater, which it believed should not be limited to cases in which a company raises the rate that an individual has previously been charged. 435 F.3d at 1091. Yet the definition offered by the Ninth Circuit compels the opposite

Because increase means to make something greater, there must necessarily have been an existing premium, to which Edos actual premium may be compared, to determine whether an increase occurred. Congress
conclusion. could have provided that ad-verse action in the insurance context means charging an amount greater than the optimal premium, but instead chose to define adverse action in terms of an increase. That def-initional choice must be respected, not ignored. See Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 392-93 n.10 (1979) ([a] defin-ition which declares what a term means . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated). Next, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that because the Insurance Prong includes the words existing or applied for, Congress intended that an increase in any charge for insurance must apply to all insurance transactions from an initial policy of insurance to a renewal of a long-held policy. 435 F.3d at 1091. This interpretation reads the words exist-ing or applied for in isolation. Other types of adverse action described in the Insurance Prong apply only to situations where a consumer had an existing policy of insurance, such as a cancellation, reduction, or change in insurance. Each of these forms of adverse action presupposes an already-existing policy, and under usual canons of statutory construction the term increase also should be construed to apply to increases of an already-existing policy. See Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88, 101 (2004) (a phrase gathers meaning from the words around it) (citation omitted).

B. Violation The affirmative doesnt increase off of an existing space mission or program. C. Standards
1. Ground They steal our ground by creating some program that doesnt exist, we cant expect an aff

that doesnt have any pre-existing framework in the government. 2. Limits They explode the case list, any new program could be created, literally no limit. 3. Grammatical Context The use of the word substantially and increase implies that something must pre-exist to increase, our definition easily fits into that place. 4. Extra T- They are well outside the resolution through their aff, we cant prepare for something obscure like this, abuses the neg and is an independent voter. T is a voter for competitive equity, education, and fairness.

9th Off
Counterplan: The United States Federal Government should propose to develop a charter

corporation to develop, launch, and use the United States' solar power satellites and to provide necessary support for the charter corporation in a Joint Working Group with India. The United States will consistently advocate bilateral cooperation over developing a charter corporation to develop, launch, and use the United States' solar power satellites and providing necessary support for the charter corporation in negotiations. The resulting bilateral negotiations should be implemented based
on the conclusions of the working group. Empirically Joint working groups foster cooperation over space theyll say yes Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs 2007 *U.S. governmental
agency, press release [http://newdelhi.usembassy.gov/pr030907.html, U.S.-India Joint Working Group on Civil Space Cooperation, February 28th 2007] Following up on the commitments made under the U.S.-India Next Steps in Strategic Partnership to expand joint work on civil space programs, the Joint Working Group on Civil Space Cooperation (JWG) held its second meeting in Washington, DC, on February 27-28, 2007. Mr. Jeff Miotke, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Science, Space and Health, and Mr. Michael O'Brien, NASA Assistant Administrator for External Relations, led the U.S. delegation, and Dr. R. R. Navalgund, Director, India Space Research Organization (ISRO) Satellite Applications Centre, led the Indian delegation. The Chairmen of the Joint Working Group expressed their satisfaction at the strengthening relationship between the U.S. and India in civil space activities. This relationship is founded on the deep appreciation of each side for the other's achievements and capabilities in the development and application of space technologies, and their conviction that their partnership in civil space is both natural and of mutual benefit. Space activities lead to advances in prosperity, security and knowledge, and they offer a vision of progress that inspires young people around the world. The Chairmen noted that these benefits compel both sides to deepen their cooperation in civil space, and to provide for the widest possible dissemination of the scientific knowledge gained through their efforts in space. The Joint Working Group engaged in a broad range of discussions and endorsed the

following conclusions: Space exploration and research will enable dramatic advances in knowledge of the basic nature and dynamics of our planet and the universe around it. Successful international cooperation in space research proceeds from the understanding that scientific information should be shared as widely and quickly as possible to enable its fullest use for research purposes in the interests of the public good. The two sides look forward to India's Chandrayaan-1 lunar mission in March 2008, which will greatly increase our knowledge of Earth's natural satellite. NASA and ISRO have agreed upon cooperative programs for this mission that will further both countries' goals for space exploration, and will set the stage for future cooperation. Space exploration is a source of inspiration and discovery in which many nations of the world have chosen to partake. The U.S. has set for itself a Vision for Space Exploration. NASA has invited opinions from India and other countries to define a strategy that details how Lunar exploration fits into the broader global effort to explore space. Additional opportunities for cooperation exist in the field of space science, including astrophysics, robotic exploration of the solar system, and the investigation of the relationship between the Earth and the Sun. Earth observation data and information yield a broad range of societal benefits. The U.S. and India, through cooperation between their technical agencies, including NOAA, NASA and the USGS for the U.S. and ISRO for India, have embarked upon a number of collaborative activities in the application of Earth observations and look forward to continued collaboration in this area. One area that Earth observations can be applied to is disaster management. The Earth and its inhabitants are vulnerable to long-term processes and sudden events, from climate change to natural disasters, without regard to national boundaries. Space observations play a vital role in developing an understanding of these vulnerabilities and mitigating their consequences. The two sides look forward to future launches of U.S. and Indian satellites that will improve global Earth observations and provide opportunities for further cooperative projects. Plans are being made to establish a ground station in India for the U.S. National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System, and to investigate potential collaboration on medium resolution land-imaging systems. One area for further
collaboration is the possible use of Indian Resourcesat data to address expected gaps in data from U.S. Landsat satellites. Additional activities, including collaborations between U.S. and Indian scientists and coordination of observations from U.S. and Indian spacecraft, are under consideration. In additional to bilateral cooperation, international multilateral fora serve as important areas for discussion and policy coordination on a range of issues. These range from the wide-ranging deliberations of the Group on Earth Observations and the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites, to specialized forums on spacecraft standards and protocols, to avenues for coordination and planning for space missions and scientific research. Continued

progress is being made in promoting interoperability among existing and future U.S. and Indian civil space based positioning, navigation, and timing systems to create a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). A joint statement detailing areas for future joint work in GNSS was adopted by the JWG. The two sides exchanged information on a range of space and other policy issues and noted the ongoing efforts to conclude new bilateral agreements designed to open up new opportunities for cooperation. At the end of the session, the JWG received information from U.S. and Indian commercial groups on ways and means to promote commercial ties in the space sector. In order to strengthen the relationship between the U.S. and India in civil space cooperation, the Joint Working Group continues to serve as a useful mechanism to endorse proposals for enhanced cooperation, promote understanding of government policies and procedures, and facilitate

collaboration by addressing issues promptly. The two delegations have identified the next steps that need to be taken by each side and
have agreed that the next meeting will take place in India in early 2008.

The politics of space are profoundly gendered the discourse of exploration, development, and colonization reproduce heteronormative hierarchies and ensure the continuation of patriarchy in space. Griffin 9 (Penny, Senior Lecturer - Convenor, MA International Relations, The Spaces Between Us: The Gendered Politics of Outer Space, in
Bormann, N. and Sheehan, M. (eds), Securing Outer Space. London and New York: Routledge, pp.59-75.) This chapter is about sex, but not the sex that people already have clarity about. 'Outer

10th Off

space' as a human, political domain is organized around sex, but a 'sex' that is tacitly located, and rarely spoken, in official discourse. The poli tics of outer space exploration, militarization and commercialization as they are conceived of and practiced in the US, embody a distinction between public and private (and appropriate behaviours, meanings and identities therein) highly dependent upon heteronormative hierarchies of property and propriety.1 The central aim of this chapter is to show how US outer space discourse, an imperial discourse of technological, military and commercial superiority, configutes and prescribes success and successful behaviour in the politics of outer space in particularly gendered forms. US space discourse is, I argue, predicated on a heteronormative discourse of conquest that reproduces the dominance of heterosexual masculinity(ies), and which hierarchically orders the construction of other (subordinate) gender identities. Reading the politics of outer space as heteronormative suggests that the discourses through which space exists consist of institutions, structures of understanding, practical orientations and regulatory practices organized and privileged around heterosexuality. As a particularly dominant discursive arrangement of outer space politics, US space discourse (re)produces meaning through gendered assumptions of exploration, colonization, economic endeavour and military conquest that are deeply gendered whilst presented as universal and neutral. US space discourse, which dominates the contemporary global politics of outer space, is thus formed from and upon institutions, structures of understanding, and practical orientations that privilege and normalize heterosexualiry as universal. As such, the hegemonic discursive rationalizations of space exploration and conquest ,re)produce both heterosexuality as 'unmarked' (that is, thoroughly normal ized) and the heterosexual imperatives that constitute suitable space-able people, practices and behaviours. As the introduction to this volume highlights, the exploration and utilization of outer space can thus far be held up as a mirror of, rather than a challenge to, existent, terrestrially-bound, political patterns, behaviours and impulses. The new possibilities for human progress that the application and development of space technologies dares us to make are grounded only in the strategy obsessed (be it commercially, militarily or otherwise) realities of contemporary global politics. Outer space is a conceptual, political and material space, a place for collisions and collusions (literally and metaphorically) between objects, ideas, identities and discourses. Outer space, like international relations, is a global space always socially and locally embedded. There is nothing 'out there' about outer space. It exists because of us, not in spite of us, and it is this that means that it only makes sense in social terms, that is, in relation to our own constructions of identity and social location. In this chapter, outer space is the problematic to which I apply a gender analysis; an arena wherein past, current and future policy-making is embedded in relation to certain performances of power and reconfigurations of identity that are always, and not incidentally, gendered. Effective and appropriate
behaviour in the politics of ourer space is configured and prescribed in particularly gendered forms, with heteronormative gender regulations endowing outer space's hierarchies of technologically superior, conquesting performance with theif everyday power. It is through gender that US

techno-strategic and astro-political discourse has been able to (re)produce outer space as a heterosexualized, masculinized realm. 2. The Impact: Heteronormativity results in omnicide. The combination of the universal suspicion of Queerness and the genocidal impulse to eradicate it motivates a larger apocalyptic movement to rescue hetero-culture with extinction. Sedgwick 8 (Eve, Professor of English at Duke University, Epistemology of the Closet, second revised edition, California at Berkeley Press, p. 127-130)
From at least the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah, scenarios

of same-sex desire would seem to have had a privileged, though by no means an exclusive, relation in Western culture to scenarios of both genocide and omnicide. That
sodomy, the name by which homosexual acts are known even today to the law of half of the United States and to the Supreme Court of all of them, should already be inscribed with the name of a site of mass extermination is the appropriate trace of a double history. In the first place there is a

history of the mortal suppression, legal or subjudicial, of gay acts and gay people, through burning, hounding, physical and chemical castration, concentration camps, bashingthe array of sanctioned fatalities that Louis Crompton records
under the name of gay genocide, and whose supposed eugenic motive becomes only the more colorable with the emergence of a distinct, naturalized minority identity in the nineteenth century. In the second place, though, there is the inveterate topos of associating gay

acts or persons with fatalities vastly broader than their own extent: if it is ambiguous whether every denizen of the obliterated
Sodom was a sodomite, clearly not every Roman of the late Empire can have been so, despite Gibbon's connecting the eclipse of the whole people to the

habits of a few. Following both Gibbon and the Bible, moreover, with an impetus borrowed from Darwin, one of the few areas of agreement among modern Marxist, Nazi, and liberal capitalist ideologies is that there is a peculiarly close, though never precisely defined, affinity between same-sex desire and some historical condition of moribundity, called "decadence," to which not individuals or minorities but whole civilizations are subject. Bloodletting on a scale more massive by orders of magnitude than any gay minority presence in the culture is the "cure," if cure there be, to the mortal illness of decadence. If a fantasy trajectory, utopian in its own terms, toward gay genocide has been endemic in Western culture from its origins, then,

it may also have been true that the trajectory toward gay genocide was never clearly distinguishable from a broader, apocalyptic trajectory toward something approaching omnicide. The deadlock of the past century between minoritizing and universalizing understandings of homo/heterosexual definition can only have deepened this fatal bond in the heterosexist imaginaire. In our culture as in Billy Budd, the phobic narrative trajectory toward imagining a time after the homosexual is finally inseparable from that toward imagining a time after the human; in the wake of the homosexual, the wake incessantly produced since first there were homosexuals, every human relation is pulled into its shining representational furrow. Fragments of visions of a time after the homosexual are, of course, currently in dizzying
circulation in our culture. One of the many dangerous ways that AIDS discourse seems to ratify and amplify preinscribed homophobic mythologies is in its pseudo-evolutionary presentation of male homosexuality as a stage doomed to extinction (read, a phase the species is going through) on the enormous scale of whole populations. 26 The lineaments of openly genocidal malice behind this fantasy appear only occasionally in the respectable media, though they can be glimpsed even there behind the poker-face mask of our national experiment in laissez-faire medicine. A better, if still deodorized, whiff of that malice comes from the famous pronouncement of Pat Robertson: "AIDS is God's way of weeding his garden." The saccharine luster this dictum gives to its vision of devastation, and the ruthless prurience with which it misattributes its own agency, cover a more fundamental contradiction: that, to rationalize complacent glee at a spectacle of what is imagined as genocide, a proto-Darwinian process of natural selection is being invokedin the context of a Christian fundamentalism that is not only antievolutionist but recklessly oriented toward universal apocalypse. A similar phenomenon, also too terrible to be noted as a mere irony, is how evenly our culture's phobia about HIV-positive blood is kept pace with by its rage for keeping that dangerous blood in broad, continuous circulation. This is evidenced in projects for universal testing, and in the needle-sharing implicit in William Buckley's now ineradicable fantasy of tattooing HIV-positive persons. But most immediately and pervasively it is evidenced in the literal bloodbaths that seem to make the point of the AIDS-related resurgence in violent bashings of gays--which, unlike the gun violence otherwise ubiquitous in this culture, are characteristically done with two-by-fours, baseball bats, and fists, in the most literal-minded conceivable form of body-fluid contact.

It might be worth making explicit that the use of evolutionary thinking in the current wave of utopian/genocidal fantasy is, whatever else it may be, crazy. Unless one believes, first of all, that same-sex object-choice across

history and across cultures is one thing with one cause, and, second, that its one cause is direct transmission through a nonrecessive genetic path--which would be, to put it gently, counter-intuitive--there is no warrant for imagining that gay populations, even of men, in post-AIDS generations will be in the slightest degree diminished. Exactly to the degree that AIDS is a gay disease, it's a tragedy confined to our generation; the long-term demographic depredations of the disease will fall, to the contrary, on groups, many themselves direly endangered, that are reproduced by direct heterosexual transmission. Unlike genocide directed against Jews, Native Americans, Africans, or other groups, then, gay

genocide, the once-and-for-all eradication of gay populations, however potent and sustained as a project or fantasy of modern Western culture, is not possible short of the eradication of the whole human species. The impulse of the species toward its own eradication must not either, however, be underestimated. Neither must the profundity with which that omnicidal impulse is entangled with the modern problematic of the homosexual: the double bind of
definition between the homosexual, say, as a distinct risk group, and the homosexual as a potential of representation within the universal. 27 As gay community and the solidarity and visibility of gays as a minority population are being consolidated and tempered in the forge of this specularized terror and suffering, how can it fail to be all the more necessary that the avenues of recognition, desire, and thought

between minority potentials and universalizing ones be opened and opened and opened? 3. The alternative: Vote negative to queer space and reject the 1AC. This solves by preventing static understandings of space and sexuality. Individual resistance to heteronormativity is a prerequisite to ending the suffering in the world. Steyaert 10 (Doctor in Psychology and Professor in Organizational Psychology at the University of St. Gallen (January 2010, Chris, Gender, Work
and Organization., Queering Space: Heterotopic Life in Derek Jarmans Garden, vol. 17, no. 1, [NZR]) The rich

artistic output that Jarman realized under difficult circumstances was not possible without challenging the societal limits in which he worked artistically. The figure of the troubadour and the Harlequin announce a car- nivalesque form of resistance (Dey and Steyaert, 2007). The red thread that connects the personal, the artistic and the political is Jarmans homosexuality. This makes it necessary to look at the care of the self as a practice of resistance and his gardening as a form of queering space. His art
becomes the political activism that tries to form a minor language in an increasingly repressive discourse on homosexuality. However, since the seropositive diagnosis, the mood in which this activism is played out changed drastically, and [t]his time his mood would be Artaudian: it would take the form of a scream of rage, an attack on the gutter press and the moral low ground that British culture now occupied. (Morgan, 1996, p. 113) The care of the self aims not at some form of personal transformation, since it should be clear that heterotopic subjectivity is a historical construct which cannot be understood outside relations of power and knowledge (Berard, 1999, p. 217). Jarman stretched the relation between his personal history and the ways in which various histories that he, as a gay person, had became part of, are usually told. Jarman worked as intensively on the limits which (British) society posed on him as well as on the limits that death entered on his life scene in the form of seropositivity. Like every gay person, taking care of himself was for Jarman as much a practical as a historical task. Just as for most other people becoming aware of being gay or lesbian forces you to deal with a setting of public practices and discourses that are filled with heterosexual expectations and models and that you need to resist, turn around and replace, without any clear set of alternative forms or practices available. Being mostly exposed to a heteronormative ideal of living, you have to (learn to) re-inscribe yourself into a history of a different sexuality and in the most practical sense find new practices of living and relating that are helpful to go on with your life out of the closet (Brown, 2000). According to Foucault, resistance is focused on the forms within which individuals are

able, are obliged, to recognize themselves as subjects of this sexuality (Foucault, 1990b, p. 4). Perhaps resisting is not pleasant work, but it is clearly something that needs to be done repeatedly, daily, when you want to claim a

space for oneself. Stonewall is the legendary symbol of gay resistance, the somewhat belated open opposition to those who wanted to take away
even the small ghettos for gays. As a consequence, a little cafe in New York became a heterotopia for an act of resistance that was followed with an increasing amount of demonstrations, parades and (protest) marches, through which gay and lesbian people bring homosexuality out of the closet, or out of protected spaces, and visibly into the streets. Depicting exemplary demonstrations, processions and gatherings, Jarman made several references to this in his films, including The Garden and Edward II. The kind of liberating struggle that Jarman at that time practiced in his movies, paintings and artistic work in general comes close to the kind of counterattack Foucault (1990) foresaw: It is the agency of sex that we must break away from, if we aim through a tactical reversal of the various mechanisms of sexuality to counter the grips of power with the claims of bodies, pleasures, and knowledges, in their multiplicity and their possibility of resistance. The rallying point for the counterattack against the deployment of sexuality ought not to be sex-desire, but bodies and pleasures. (Foucault, 1990a, p. 157; my emphasis)9 It is the dimension of resistance which in my view makes it feasible to connect the care of the self and the technologies of the self with the concept of queerness. According to Foucault (1982a) resistance is not just an act of negation, but a creative process. This includes as much the daily creative execution of living as the artistic option of creating an aesthetic track of ones own. In the case of gay and lesbian resistance the creative process through which discursive realities are

confronted has been captured by the term queer. The term queer is itself heterotopic.10 It is at odds with definition and allergic to any kind of stabilizing, as it tries to escape the settling discourses and forms of living and is tending toward across formulations: across genders, across sexualities, across genres, across perversions (Kosofsky Sedgwick, quoted in Plonowska Ziarek, 1998, p. 18; italics in original). In an attempt to value the destabilizing character
of the term queer, Halperin (1995) tries to develop a queer politics based on Foucaults work, drawing mainly on The History of Sexuality but also on several interviews Foucault gave in the 1980s to magazines for gay and lesbian audiences (such as The Advocate in 1982 and Christopher Street in 1981) and which have been collected in Part 4 of Dits et Ecrits (Foucault, 1994). According to Halperin (1995), homosexual emancipation and gay

liberation imply a reversal of the discursive positioning of homosexuality and heterosexuality. Heterosexuality, which is in the position of a universal subject of discourse, needs to be interrogated and critiqued. Simultaneously homosexuality needs to shift from the position of an object of power/ knowledge to a position of legitimate subjective agency (Halperin, 1995, p. 57). Queer activities and practices are thus trying to reverse the dominant position of a heterosexual discourse, which can never be considered as lacking what Foucault calls a tactical polyvalence. According to Foucault the world
of discourse cannot be divided between accepted and excluded dis- course, or between the dominant and the dominated discourse, since [D]iscourses are not once and for all subservient to power or raised up against it, any more than silences are. We must make allowance for the complex and unstable process whereby discourse can be both an instru- ment and an effect of power, but also a hindrance, a stumbling-block, a point of resistance and a starting point for an opposing strategy. (Foucault, 1990a, pp. 1001; my emphasis). The psychiatric discourse on homosexuality started being used in reverse to claim a position and to speak using the same categories but with opposite intentions, namely to start to claim a position which is not defined by oppo- sition to the heterosexual essence. It is here that queerness can be situated, and it is worthwhile to quote Halperin on this at length as he convincingly argued that to shift the position of the homosexual requires making available to lesbians and gay men a new kind of sexual identity, one char- acterised by its lack of a clear definitional content. The homosexual subject can now claim an identity without an essence. To do so is to reverse the logic of the supplement and to make use of the vacancy left by the evacu- ation of the contradictory and incoherent definitional content of the homosexual in order to take up instead a position that is (and always had been) defined wholly relationally, by its distance to and difference from the normative. (Homo)sexual identity can now be constituted not substantively but oppositionally, not by what it is but by where it is and how it operates. Those who knowingly occupy such a marginal location, who assume a de-essentialised identity that is purely positional in character, are properly speaking not gay but queer. (1995, pp. 612; emphasis in original) Becoming queer is then turning the position of the gay, struggling with

coming out into an open positionality, where new possibilities for living and relating (to oneself and others) emerge. Queer can refer to a whole set of (sometimes eccentric) technologies of the self which can not be defined substantively or even illustrated where the space for development is inventively explored, never occupied. It is a space of concrete freedom, for self- styling and self-transforming. The care of the self, as a queer project, engenders a new strategic possibility for the self. Transformation is a matter of form where we play out ourselves in the field of institutional games (Foucault, 1995b). The politics and practice of queer resistance consists thus in the playful experimenting with new forms of relationships and in expanding possibilities of relational practices at the limits of established social orders. The breaking out of relationships as defined by heteronormativity is not so much a matter of
redefining a new, this time homosexual, norm, but of leaving you in an open field in which to concoct new forms of relating and living together. Foucault described being gay in an open, becoming mode, which sounds to me very similar to the notion of queer that was not yet in vogue in Foucaults time: to be gay is to be in a state of becoming ... the point is not to be homosexual but to keep working persistently at being gay ... to place oneself in a dimension where the sexual choices one makes are present and have their effects on the ensemble of our life ... These sexual choices ought to be at the same time creators of ways of life. To be gay signifies that these choices diffuse themselves across the entire self; it is also a certain manner of refusing the modes of life offered, it is to make a sexual choice into the impetus for a change of existence. (Foucault, 1982b, p. 24) Queering ones life is not just a

matter of having done with heterosexual life forms, but Foucault seemed to believe that these experimentations might open up and inspire the social fabric of affecting and relating in general. He pleaded to resist the kind of relationships society
proposes and thought that queer practices might bring along new relational possibilities that can also enrich the lives of non-homosexual people (Foucault, 1981). Foucault deemed such experimentation and ongoing formation of queering and othering rela- tionships indispensable but also improbable, since most of us are not willing to deal with such an open and complex relational life. Queering space can thus counter

the impoverishment of the relational world, since in effect, we live in a legal, social, and institutional world where the only relations possible are extremely few, extremely simplified, and extremely poor.