DO NOT THINK ABOUT the words you are reading when doing these drills.

All I want you to do is read with your only goal to

say the words that are written down without worrying about comprehension. Make sure you have some water handy when
you do these drills and make sure you do each step immediately after the step before it. ALL READING IS ALOUD!!!
1. Warm up by reading through the tongue twisters aloud as fast as you can read. Read through twice.
2. For 45 seconds put a pen in your mouth (the pen should be held in the mouth by your back teeth, make sure you still
enunciate.) Try to ""speak through the pen"" if you seem to be having difficulty reading. For this 45 seconds read from the
section Horrible Writing.
3. For one minute read through the Horrible Writing section as fast as you can.
4. For 45 seconds alternate "Aah's" between each word as you read straight through the Horrible Writing section. 45
seconds: (ex: "I aah affirm aah that aah resolved aah.")
5. For one minute read full speed through the Debate Argument section. (Only read the bold and underlined sections.)
6. For 45 seconds read backwards in the Debate Argument section. (Start from the end , read words normally, but sentences
backwards. (ex: ""Affirm I Therefore Unjust Is Conscription Military") (Only read the bold and underlined sections.)
7. For one minute read full speed through the Debate Argument section. (Only read the bold and underlined sections.)
8. For 45 seconds take as deep a breath as possible then speak as long on that breath as possible through the Debate
Argument section. Repeat for the 45 seconds. Make sure the breaths are deep, but quick. (Only read the bold and underlined
sections.)
9. For one minute read full speed through the Debate Argument section. (Only read the bold and underlined sections.)
10. For 30 seconds repeat the sounds ahh-bahh-dee over and over as quickly as possible.
11. For 30 seconds read full speed through the Debate Argument section. FINISH STRONG!!! (Only read the bold and
underlined sections.)

Tongue Twisters
Betty Botter had some butter, "But," she said, "this butter's bitter. If I bake this bitter butter, It would make my batter
bitter. But a bit of better butter, That would make my batter better." So she bought a bit of butter Better than her bitter
butter And she baked it in her batter; And the batter was not bitter. So 'twas better Betty Botter Bought a bit of better
butter.
Ned Nott was shot and Sam Shott was not. So it is better to be Shott than Nott. Some say Nott was not shot. But Shott says
he shot Nott. Either the shot Shott shot at Nott was not shot, Or Nott was shot. If the shot Shott shot shot Nott, Nott was
shot. But if the shot Shott shot shot Shott, Then Shott was shot, not Nott. However, the shot Shott shot shot not Shott, but
Nott.
A tree-toad loved a she-toad Who lived up in a tree. He was a two-toed tree-toad, But a three-toed toad was she. The twotoed tree-toad tried to win The three-toed she-toad's heart, For the two-toed tree-toad loved the ground That the threetoed tree-toad trod. But the two-toed tree-toad tried in vain; He couldn't please her whim. From her tree-toad bower, With
her three-toed power, The she-toad vetoed him.
Mr. See owned a saw. And Mr. Soar owned a seesaw. Now, See's saw sawed Soar's seesaw Before Soar saw See, Which
made Soar sore. Had Soar seen See's saw Before See sawed Soar's seesaw, See's saw would not have sawed Soar's seesaw.
So See's saw sawed Soar's seesaw. But it was sad to see Soar so sore just because See's saw sawed Soar's seesaw.

Horrible Writing
Butler 97
The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous
ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the
question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes
structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure
inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of
power.

Bhabha 94
If, for a while, the ruse of desire is calculable for the uses of discipline soon the repetition of guilt, justification, pseudoscientific theories, superstition, spurious authorities, and classifications can be seen as the desperate effort to "normalise"
formally the disturbance of a discourse of splitting that violates the rational, enlightened claims of its enunciatory
modality.

Levine 96
As my story is an august tale of fathers and sons, real and imagined, the biography here will fitfully attend to the putative
traces in Manet's work of 'les noms du pr, a Lacanian romance of the errant paternal phallus ('Les Non-dupes errent'), a
revised Freudian novella of the inferential dynamic of paternity which annihalates (and hence enculturates) through the
deferred introduction of the third term of insemination the phenomeno-logically irreducible dyad of the mother and child.

Leahy 96
Total presence breaks on the univocal predication of the exterior absolute the absolute existent (of that of which it is not
possible to univocally predicate an outside, while the equivocal predication of the outside of the absolute exterior is
possible of that of which the reality so predicated is not the reality, viz., of the dark/of the self, the identity of which is not
outside the absolute identity of the outside, which is to say that the equivocal predication of identity is possible of the selfidentity which is not identity, while identity is univocally predicated of the limit to the darkness, of the limit of the reality
of the self). This is the real exteriority of the absolute outside: the reality of the absolutely unconditioned absolute outside
univocally predicated of the dark: the light univocally predicated of the darkness: the shining of the light univocally
predicated of the limit of the darkness: actuality univocally predicated of the other of self-identity: existence univocally
predicated of the absolutely unconditioned other of the self. The precision of the shining of the light breaking the dark is
the other-identity of the light. The precision of the absolutely minimum transcendence of the dark is the light itself/the
absolutely unconditioned exteriority of existence for the first time/the absolutely facial identity of existence/the
proportion of the new creation sans depth/the light itself ex nihilo: the dark itself univocally identified, i.e., not selfidentity identity itself equivocally, not the dark itself equivocally, in self-alienation, not self-identity, itself in selfalienation released in and by otherness, and actual other, itself, not the abysmal inversion of the light, the reality
of the darkness equivocally, absolute identity equivocally predicated of the self/selfhood equivocally predicated of the dark
(the reality of this darkness the other-self-covering of identity which is the identification person-self).

Debate Argument
Elections DA
Obama will win, but itll be closemodels prove
Political Wire 5/24 (A Political News Blog citing Alan Abramowitz, an Emory University professor and author of

The Polarized Public? Why

American
Government
is
So
Dysfunctional,
Models
Forecast
a
Narrow
Obama
Victory
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/05/24/model_forecasts_a_narrow_obama_victory.html)
Alan Abramowitz plugs the latest approval and GDP growth numbers into his presidential forecasting model and finds President Obama
is expected to win re-election by a very narrow share of the two-party vote. "Whether we base our prediction on President Obama's 47%
approval rating in the Gallup Poll in early May or a more sophisticated forecasting model incorporating economic conditions and the 'time for change'
factor, it appears likely that we are headed for a very close election in November. Both models make Obama a slight favorite
to win a second term. However, the final outcome will depend on the actual performance of the economy and the public's
evaluation of the president's job performance in the months ahead . Those interested in assessing where the presidential race stands
should focus on these two indicators rather than the day-to-day events of the campaign, which tend to dominate media coverage of the election."

Specifically, Obama is winning swing state independents, but new government spending causes backlash
Galston 5/10 (Walliam A., Ezra Zilkha Chair in the Brookings Institutions Governance Studies Program, where he serves as a senior fellow. A
former policy advisor to President Clinton Six Months To Go: Where the Presidential Contest Stands as the General Election Begins 5/10/12
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/05/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2012/5/10%20obama%20campaign%20galston/Where%20the
%20Presidential%20Contest%20Stands.pdf)KY
According to the 2008 exit polls, Obama carried Independents by eight points52 to 44 percent. Today, his standing with this important group is
significantly weaker. The most recent Quinnipiac poll gave Romney a 46 to 39 percent edge over the president; Pew found Romney enjoying a similar 48
to 42 percent advantage. 48 It is hard to see how Obama can win a majority of the popular vote unless he rebuilds his standing
among Independents. But it is not clear his current strategy is the one best calculated to bring about this result. Independents care more
about economic growth and equal opportunity than they do about reducing gaps in wealth and income . While half of them
believe that the U.S. economic system is unfair, 57 percent think that they themselves have been treated fairly. Perhaps that is why only 47 percent think
that income and wealth gaps need to be fixed through public policy. 49 A recent report 50 found Obama statistically tied with Romney among
Independents in swing states, with 36 percent of these Independents up for grabs. Among these Swing Independents, Obama now enjoys
a lead of 44 to 38 percent. But there are some warning signs. These voters are split on Obamas economic management, and they strongly prefer
Republicans both on the budget deficit and government spending, issues of great concern to them . And according to the report,
they are not much moved by the fairness argument. By 57 to 38 percent, they said it was more important to fix the budget deficit than to reduce the
income gap. A plurality42 percentthought that reducing the budget deficit was the single most effective way of
strengthening the economy. For this key group, the themes of growth and opportunity trump both the conservative focus on economic freedom
and the liberal emphasis on economic inequality. They are most worried about the national debt (64 percent), congressional
gridlock (55 percent), and the ability of the next generation to achieve the American dream (40 percent). And they are much angrier about the
failure of Congress to address our problems than they are about Wall Street bailouts or the suggestion that the wealthy dont pay their fair share of taxes.

Infrastructure investment NOW is unpopularAmericans unwilling to pay

Alden 6/14 Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, (Edward, The First Renewing America Progress Report and
Scorecard: The Road to Nowhere 6/14/12, CFR, http://blogs.cfr.org/renewing-america/2012/06/14/the-first-renewing-america-progress-report-andscorecard-the-road-to-nowhere/]

Americans understood this once upon a time, building the most impressive network of roads and airports in the world, as
well as a solid freight rail system. But for far too long we have been living on that inheritance. Two data points from the Scorecard
stand out: Since 1980, the number of highway miles traveled by American drivers has doubled, but the miles of road on which theyre driving have
increased just 5 percent. Its no mystery, as the report notes, why traffic congestion takes more than $700 out of the pocket of the average commuter
each year. Two-thirds of Americans say that fully funding transportation infrastructure is either extremely important or
very important to them. Yet solid majorities are opposed to any of the usual ways of funding new roads, including higher
gas taxes or new tolls. It would be easy to point a finger at Congress, and we certainly do in the report. Reauthorization of the surface transportation
bill, usually known as the highway bill, has always been contentious, but nevertheless it used to win approval routinely. But the last multi-year bill
expired in 2009 and has been replaced by a series of short-term extensions that make rational construction planning all but impossible for state and local
governments. The bill expires again June 30th, and congressional leaders again look unlikely to reach agreement and are predicting another short-term
extension. It will be the 10th; as a Miami Herald editorial put it recently, this marks a new low in congressional irresponsibility. But congressional
inaction in many ways reflects public ambivalence. Americans want uncluttered highways, efficient airports, and seamless mass
transit systems, but they are either reluctant to pay for these things or doubt the ability of governments to deliver . The overdue
backlash against pork barrel politics for favored projects, for instance, seems to have hardened into a deeper public cynicism about the
ability of government to deliver any needed public works . Even proposals like using a federal seed money to create a National
Infrastructure Bank that would funnel private investor (not taxpayer) money into new projects have been unable to get through Congress.

Independents will blame Obama

Resurgent Republic 11 (according to a poll by Resurgent Republic, VOTERS BELIEVE AMERICA IS WORSE OFF THAN WHEN OBAMA
TOOK OFFICE 11/8, http://www.resurgentrepublic.com/research/voters-believe-america-is-worse-off-than-when-obama-took-office)
Resurgent Republic conducted a survey of 1000 American voters October 30 through November 2, 2011, with full results available here. Following are
key highlights pertaining to President Obamas perception among Independent voters: If President Obama's reelection campaign is a
referendum on the incumbent, as are almost all reelection campaigns, then he remains in deep trouble a year out from the election, because
Independents believe the country is worse off than when he was inaugurated. Cont Republicans and Independents think Barack Obama and
the Democrats control Washington , while Democrats think Republicans in Congress are in control. In yet another indicator of the low esteem
with which Washington is held in the country, each party views the other one as in control. Republicans view Obama and the Democrats as controlling
Washington by 67 to 15 percent, while Democrats view Republicans as in control by 55 to 26 percent. Independents split more evenly, but still view
Obama/Democrats in control by 39 to 34 percent

And, Swing State Independents hold the key to victory

Galston 5/10 (Walliam A., Ezra Zilkha Chair in the Brookings Institutions Governance

Studies Program, where he serves as a senior fellow. A

former policy advisor to President Clinton Six Months To Go: Where the Presidential Contest Stands as the General Election Begins 5/10/12
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/05/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2012/5/10%20obama%20campaign%20galston/Where%20the
%20Presidential%20Contest%20Stands.pdf)KY
Independent voters in the most competitive states may be the quintessential swing group, perhaps holding the key to victory
for either Obama or his Republican opponent . Since last fall, their support has shifted toward Obama over his likely Republican opponent
Romney, after previously favoring Romney. And it is those independent voters -- particularly women -- who are driving Obama's overall lead in
swing states. So while both campaigns will make considerable efforts to make sure their core supporters vote, the other big
piece of their strategy would be finding the issues or themes that help win over independents in the states where either
candidate has a reasonable chance of winning..

Obama winning the election is key to prevent Israel strikes on the Iranian nuclear program
Hayden 2/19 (By Tom Hayden 2/19/12 The coming war with Iran Is GOP rhetoric setting the stage for an Israeli attack?
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/coming-war-with-iran/content?oid=5104826 - BRW)
Standing in the way, according to the article, is President Barack Obama, whom the Israelis suspect has abandoned any aggressive strategy that would
ensure the prevention of a nuclear Iran and is merely playing a game of words to appease them. The same conclusion has been suggested elsewhere. So

the stage is set for nuclear brinksmanship in an American presidential-election year. The role of Republican candidates is
to ensure that the second condition is met, that of tacit support for an Israeli strike, even if forced by political pressure.
The balance of forces is lopsided at present, with most Americans worried about Iran and unprepared to resist a sudden
outbreak of war, Congressdominated by supporters of the American Israel Public Affairs Committeeand the media are
not prepared to oppose a strike. A short successful wara highly dubious prospectwould be accepted by American
public opinion until serious consequences set in afterward. Any public expression of protest against this war is far better than silence, of
course. But the greatest opportunity for protest may be in the arena of the presidential-election drama now playing out . It is
fair and accurate to say both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are collaborating, for political reasons, to push Obama into war
during the presidential election, with Rick Santorum on the bench if needed. The New York Times has also now documented, in a front-page
story, the millions spent by casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson and his Israeli wife to save Gingrichs presidential campaign. Adelson was pleased when
Gingrich, seemingly out of nowhere, recently condemned the Palestinians as an invented people. Adelson owns a newpaper chain in Israel supportive
of the Netanyahu government and is a vocal opponent of a negotiated settlement. No one in the mainstream media so far has written the
story of Romneys past consulting and business partnership with Israels Prime Minister Netanyahu at Boston Consulting
Group, but his campaign rhetoric echoes Netanyahus position , that Obama cant be trusted to prevent Iran from getting the
bomb. The Romney and Gingrich campaigns create an unrelenting pressure on Obama to support an attack on Iran with little countervailing pressure.
But neither the Republicans nor the Israeli hawks are comfortable being charged with using political pressure to start a
war. Santorum, whose Republican ranking is third, is equal to Romney and Gingrich in his hawkish position toward Iran. Santorum has deep support
from right-wing Christian groups who believe that war in the Middle East will hasten the Second Coming. Avoiding war with Iran may be

Obamas best option in policy and politics, if he can navigate the campaign winds. The question is whether any organized
force has his back.
Iran Israel war causes extinction

Hirsch 5 - Professor @ UC San Diego (Jorge, Can a nuclear strike on Iran be averted, November 21

st
, EMM - BRW)
The Bush administration has put together all the elements it needs to justify the impending military action against Iran. Unlike in the case of Iraq, it
will happen without warning, and most of the justifications will be issued after the fact. We will wake up one day to learn that

facilities in Iran have been bombed in a joint U.S.-Israeli attack. It may even take another couple of days for the revelation that

some of the U.S. bombs were nuclear. Why a Nuclear Attack on Iran Is a Bad Idea Now that we have outlined what is very close to happening, let us
discuss briefly why everything possible should be done to prevent it. In a worst-case scenario, the attack will cause a violent reaction

from Iran. Millions of "human wave" Iranian militias will storm into Iraq, and just as Saddam stopped them with chemical
weapons, the U.S. will stop them with nuclear weapons , resulting potentially in hundreds of thousands of
casualties. The Middle East will explode, and popular uprisings in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other countries with
pro-Western governments could be overtaken by radical regimes. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, and a

nuclear conflict could even lead to Russia's and Israel's involvement using nuclear weapons.

In a best-case scenario,
the U.S. will destroy all nuclear, chemical, and missile facilities in Iran with conventional and low-yield nuclear weapons in a lightning surprise
attack, and Iran will be paralyzed and decide not to retaliate for fear of a vastly more devastating nuclear attack. In the short term, the U.S. will
succeed, leaving no Iranian nuclear program, civilian or otherwise. Iran will no longer threaten Israel, a regime change will ensue, and a pro-Western
government will emerge. However, even in the best-case scenario, the long-term consequences are dire. The nuclear threshold

will have been crossed by a nuclear superpower against a non-nuclear country. Many more countries will rush to get their
own nuclear weapons as a deterrent. With no taboo against the use of nuclear weapons, they will certainly be
used again. Nuclear conflicts will occur within the next 10 to 20 years, and will escalate until much of the
world is destroyed. Let us remember that the destructive power of existing nuclear arsenals is approximately one million
times that of the Hiroshima bomb, enough to erase Earth's population many times over.