College Policy Debate Forums
November 23, 2017, 09:48:22 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WITH THE SITE, INCLUDING LOGGING IN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IMMEDIATELY.  EMAIL ME DIRECTLY OR USE THE CONTACT US LINK AT THE TOP.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register CEDA caselist Debate Results Council of Tournament Directors Edebate Archive  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
Author Topic: 2011-2012 topic paper- Critical Infrastructure  (Read 20549 times)
twhahn215
Newbie
*
Posts: 44


« Reply #30 on: April 27, 2011, 08:47:32 PM »

Gabe,

Thanks for the questions (and a special thanks for reading through the entire paper. I know it's a damn long read and I appreciate the effort!)

I want to address each of your points in turn:

Quote
1) the topic area is so large that these areas could be excluded from the final topic (this is obviously not unique to this topic, as the topic committee has a lot of tough work to do and inevitably produces resolutions that exclude parts of the topic paper)

This is an issue that has worried me about the topic. Here's the solution I've painted out in my head: voting for the CIKR topic will require the committee to be extremely strategic about how it selects the various wordings. It might be a good idea to have different words including different sectors so that the community can then chose the CIKR sectors that it deems worthwhile. I would also endorse a wording option that includes all sectors but focuses on limiting plan action.

Many of the sectors are unlikely to be stand-alone affirmatives (such as the postal industry or dams) so it's likely that the topic will naturally condense itself in the wording process. I think that the way we solve this "the topic doesn't include the CIKRs I wanted' fear is to offer continued input to the topic committee during the topic process. If CIKR were to win the first round of voting I plan on putting in my two cents during the wording process and I strongly encourage everyone else to do the same.

Quote
2) I might have missed this discussion (I will admit I skimmed over parts of the paper) but is there a strong answer to the states counterplan in reference to the two areas mentioned above? Just wondering if this was already addressed or if anyone came across anything while doing research on these questions.

I'll start by clarifying that I did not cover those areas, but I can provide a bit of analysis with the hope that others can supplement.

Generically speaking, there exists evidence that state action would fail to solve CIKR:

NARUC, 05
(National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, "Issue Paper on Critical Infrastructure Protection,
http://www.naruc.org/Publications/CIP_Issues_1.pdf)
Every state government has designated a primary contact for homeland security  matters. These contacts vary significantly by state, ranging from the state director  for homeland security to the head of emergency management agencies, state  police officials, attorney generals, Lt. Governors and others. This lack of  consistency complicates inter-state dialogue and collaboration, which is required  since infrastructure critical to one state may not reside in that state or country.

This is coupled with an all-too-common problem facing state; they already lack funding to implement CIKR improvements, and are thus incapable of acting without federal help:

Oregon Department of Transportation, 08
(Transportation Security, http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/docs/otpPubs/Security.pdf)
In March 2003, the ODOT State Bridge Engineer and the ODOT Statewide Emergency Operations Manager attended training on the use of the guide. No funding has been identified to implement vulnerability assessment and implementation of critical asset protection measures.   But it is anticipated that the federal government likely will require assessment of critical assets and implementation of protection measures in the future by state DOTs.   


This is obviously a bare-bones answer to your question. I am working on providing a more detailed answer ASAP. For now, I think it's also worth mentioning that most of the evidence we found pertaining to CIKR presupposes federal action as being critical to solvency. I will have to compare further, but I think that most of the 'fed solves' evidence is just leagues better than any CP solvency on a particular issue.

More soon.

Taylor
Logged
Adam Symonds
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 349


« Reply #31 on: April 27, 2011, 08:57:04 PM »

This is obviously a bare-bones answer to your question. I am working on providing a more detailed answer ASAP. For now, I think it's also worth mentioning that most of the evidence we found pertaining to CIKR presupposes federal action as being critical to solvency. I will have to compare further, but I think that most of the 'fed solves' evidence is just leagues better than any CP solvency on a particular issue.

More soon.

Taylor

As you're looking into this, keep in mind that "states are patchwork and inconsistent" never answers the States CP - good negs will just say they fiat through that. If there is inconsistent enforcement of uniform procedures, that will address the CP though. "There's no Funding" is obviously a good way to go against the CP, but is obviously better as part of state economy DAs, since negs will try to fiat through that as well.
Logged
nickjsciullo
Newbie
*
Posts: 33


« Reply #32 on: April 27, 2011, 09:34:56 PM »

Gabe,

Thanks for the read and for the questions.  As the author of the transportation section, I'll try to provide some ideas here in response to your concerns.  I'll bold your concerns and respond after them...


1) the topic area is so large that these areas could be excluded from the final topic (this is obviously not unique to this topic, as the topic committee has a lot of tough work to do and inevitably produces resolutions that exclude parts of the topic paper)


I think you're correct that the topic is large and areas could be excluded including the areas you mention as well as others. I agree with my co-author, Taylor, that this is surely something that could be worked out in the specific wording of the Resolution, and, indeed, probably will be.  There are some sectors that could not be stand-alone affirmatives.  Arguably, some sectors might, in fact, be stand-alobe affirmatives as well.  I am hopeful that if CIKR were to be selected that we would all engage in a substantive discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of including and excluding certain sectors. 

I will add, as someone who has worked in the transportation sector my entire professional life (life beyond debate), there is probably ample room for transportation systems to be there own stand-alone topic.  Even if we were to think of transportation in its simplest form (road, rail, water, and air), there are so many issues surrounding transportation that are live issues in Congress now.  There would be ample advantage and disadvantage ground
as well as plenty of politics disadvantage links. 

2) I might have missed this discussion (I will admit I skimmed over parts of the paper) but is there a strong answer to the states counterplan in reference to the two areas mentioned above? Just wondering if this was already addressed or if anyone came across anything while doing research on these questions.

I'll speak only for transportation systems in this response, just like I attempted to do in the previous one.  Generally speaking the USFG is the preferred actor on transportation issues because the issues in transportation are cross-border.  The looming legislation in Congress now is national in nature (reauthorization, truck size and weight increases, etc.).  Where there is a strong deviation from the preference for USFG action, there is a push toward regional cooperation.  This regional cooperation often takes the form of states working together on issue of transportation policy.  Examples of this are groups like the I-81 Coalition and the I-95 Coalition, which are seeking collaborative multi-state solutions to highway issues.  These groups do not see themselves in opposition to federal government action however. 

Furthermore, with respect to waterborne transportation, particularly in rivers and lakes, often means multiple states working together because a state controls it's part of the river to the midpoint of the river.  There's a whole legal discussion of water rights that would illuminate this further, but that's not necessary.  If an Affirmative wanted to improve navigation on the Mississippi or Ohio Rivers, it would literally be impossible to trust states to do the work themselves.  Another issue is control of pieces of infrastructure by the Army Corps of Engineers.  It would be difficult for a state CP to address issues of residual federal control.  Transportation projects often require DOT, Army CoE, and other federal government agencies working on specific parts of a transportation plan.  A CP would have difficulty accounting for each of these groups. 

One reason states fail is because of budget deficits (of course the federal government has this problem too).  States are suffering from severe shortages in funding for transportation projects.  DOTs across the country are cash-strapped and this is why many are clamoring for quick passage of transportation reauthorization legislation.  The problems are even worse at the county and municipal level.  The federal government is uniquely better at funding transportation projects given the current state of state economies. 

A second reason states fail is problems of inconsistent enforcement and application.  This problem sometimes appears simply as Interstate XXX going from 4 lanes to 2 lanes at the state border.  Sometimes the issues are land use related.  Often times states prioritize sectors in the transportation system differently.  Pennsylvania for example is light years ahead in terms of encouraging the growth of freight rail where states like Connecticut are behind.  These inconsistencies can have a negative effect on the success of transportation improvements.  For example, the inconsistency in highway lanes can cause congestion problems and pose threats to safety. 

The most recent and significant example of states and the federal government working together on transportation issues was last year's TIGER grants.  These grants were directed to proposals made by states for the funding of transportation improvement projects.  To the point that TIGER grants could be an example of solvency for the States CP; there are many people who would argue they were a bad idea for the reasons above and others.  If a CP were to involve grants, there are of course negative arguments against federal government grants to states. 

As Taylor mentions, the evidence for federal government solvency is simply better in terms of warrants than states solvency. 

I hope this provides some answers to your concerns.

Thanks,

Nick

« Last Edit: April 27, 2011, 09:41:04 PM by nickjsciullo » Logged

Nick J. Sciullo
Assistant Professor of Communication and Rhetorical Studies
Director of Debate
Illinois College
danoverbey
Newbie
*
Posts: 1


« Reply #33 on: April 28, 2011, 07:17:30 AM »

If folks want to exclude the development of new infrastructures, using "...of existing..." may solve most of the problem.

If folks want to include it, I would recommend:
1. Excluding the energy sector (similar to previous years topics, though most are far off in the rear view).
2. Focus on water, and something else.  Water is a universal problem, even more so than energy. The energy system is pretty resilient, in general, unless the wrong transformers get EMP'd or something ridiculous like that.

In terms of other thoughts on how to limit the topic, themes for sector selection might include:
1. Regulated v. Non-regulated sectors – Dams, Nuclear, Chemical, Food and Ag, and parts of Healthcare and Public Health, are all highly regulated. There are some sectors that are less-regulated, but still regulated (Banking and Finance – depending on your politics). There are also sectors that are largely unregulated…
2. Capability-based v. Product based sectors. Emergency Services, Healthcare and Public Health, Energy, and a few others are really about maintaining capabilities/services at all times, and in response to all “surge” situations. That is a bit of a sweeping generalization because HPH is broad, and there is certainly some manufacturing (medical materials) within that sector. Critical Manufacturing, Chemical, and Food/Ag are more product based.

As an alternate strategy - the topic could focus on hazards:
1. Natural disasters
2. Terrorism and other malicious actors
3. Aging infrastructure (I would exclude this, almost entirely because 85+% of the infrastructure is in private hands, if the aff is forced to defend massive expenditure in privately held assets, that could be a disaster in the current climate).
4. All-hazards - the cool new expression for "plan for everything"

Just a few more thoughts -
-dwo
Logged
twhahn215
Newbie
*
Posts: 44


« Reply #34 on: April 28, 2011, 07:27:28 PM »

Brad Hall was kind enough to bring the following article to my attention. While it does not address the question of resolutional wording, it clearly demonstrates that there is a continuing stream of strong evidence illustrating the timeliness of the topic.


Rendell, former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania and co-chairman of Building America’s Future Educational Fund & Gorton, former Republican senator from Washington and co-chairman of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s National Transportation Policy Project, 4/28/11
(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53853.html)
Our infrastructure hasn’t even kept pace with our national growth in the last few decades. Countless studies have documented this sobering news. U.S. infrastructure was given a D grade by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Yet policymakers show little sense of urgency that smart new investments are needed.
If the United States is to remain economically competitive with the rest of the world, we must reverse decades of failing and worsening national infrastructure with visionary and robust strategies.
But the growing concern over our nation’s soaring budget deficits — coupled with too many in Washington who equate investment in infrastructure with earmarked spending — has led many to argue that this is the wrong time to increase true infrastructure investment. They could not be more mistaken.
A frank conversation about our infrastructure needs should recognize that this debate is occurring in the context of stark choices about how to return the country to a sustainable fiscal path. With the dominant economic focus now on reducing public spending, a new conversation about increased investment in public infrastructure is needed. This conversation must include how to pay for the estimated trillions of dollars of needed investments and how to assure real returns.
We believe it is time to change the nature of the conversation about infrastructure. We cannot afford to let the current impasse persist.


Logged
max.o.archer
Newbie
*
Posts: 49


« Reply #35 on: April 29, 2011, 08:16:04 PM »

For those concerned about critical arguments under the CIKR topic, be sure to check out Keele University's Research Institute for Law Politics and Justice, "Biopolitics and Resilience," http://www.keele.ac.uk/bos/resources/resilience.html.
Logged
BrianDeLong
Full Member
***
Posts: 152


« Reply #36 on: April 29, 2011, 08:42:56 PM »

Nice find.

It should be noted that depending on the wording, affirmatives will not be painted into a corner of shadow boxing potential terrorist attacks. In terms of resiliency infrastructure must be able to survive natural as well and man-made disaster scenarios.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2011, 08:46:24 PM by BrianDeLong » Logged
Adam Symonds
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 349


« Reply #37 on: May 01, 2011, 11:50:16 PM »

I have an easy time envisioning how this topic could provide some new and interesting debates. But my primary concern is that the paper is so broad and will need so much narrowing from the committee that the ideas that folks have about why they want the CIKR topic could be eliminated in the wording process. This is not a "topic committee will screw it up" argument -- just a recognition that the area under the topic is so large that our team could rank this topic highly but wind up with a wording that looks nothing like what we expected, through completely rational, logical, and optimal deliberations. I haven't worked with factorials in a while, but I remember enough to know there are so many sectors and different ways to construct a mechanism that the possible outcomes are quite large.

On a related note, it seems like even the core negative side of the controversy could change based on the approach of the topic committee. One of the earlier posts here suggested we could limit the topic to requirements on businesses or limit it to updating federal sectors/services. Obviously, limiting to federal changes could completely eliminate the business confidence da that seems to be the heart of the controversy.
Logged
twhahn215
Newbie
*
Posts: 44


« Reply #38 on: May 02, 2011, 08:09:57 AM »

Adam,

These are all good points. If CIKR were to be chosen as next years topic, the committee would be charged with providing a strong diversity of possible resolutional wordings. I don't think that they would 'screw this up,' but it would largely fall on the community collectively to provide input throughout the wording process. I think that the wiki-based organization of the wording process this year will help facilitate this. Of course, this is probably true for most of the topic options.

I also think that this topic appears huge because of the sheer size of the paper, but I think this worry applies equally to many of the other areas (treaties or demo assistance, for example).

The neg ground issue is less of a concern in my mind, given the massive literature base pertaining to all sectors of CIKR. The Neg Ground section of the paper was written in such a manner that all of those arguments would apply, regardless of how we word the resolution.
Also, I don't think that any potential wording could kill the biz con disad. Even if we limited the resolution to 'federal sectors,' most of the work done on those sectors are contracted out to private industries. Also, the massive spending required for most plans would certainly affect the market (given the uncertainty of the budget cap). Would the disad be altered? Yes, but it would still be completely viable. It's probably also unlikely that a non-private sector wording would win, based on what I've seen of community sentiments.


Whether CIKR wins or not, I think this year's topic discussion has been fantastic and I'm sure, based upon the healthy conversations that are occurring on all fronts, that this coming resolution will be a good one.

Taylor
« Last Edit: May 02, 2011, 08:12:09 AM by twhahn215 » Logged
kelly young
Full Member
***
Posts: 237



WWW
« Reply #39 on: May 02, 2011, 09:16:59 AM »

I have an easy time envisioning how this topic could provide some new and interesting debates. But my primary concern is that the paper is so broad and will need so much narrowing from the committee that the ideas that folks have about why they want the CIKR topic could be eliminated in the wording process. This is not a "topic committee will screw it up" argument -- just a recognition that the area under the topic is so large that our team could rank this topic highly but wind up with a wording that looks nothing like what we expected, through completely rational, logical, and optimal deliberations. I haven't worked with factorials in a while, but I remember enough to know there are so many sectors and different ways to construct a mechanism that the possible outcomes are quite large.

On a related note, it seems like even the core negative side of the controversy could change based on the approach of the topic committee. One of the earlier posts here suggested we could limit the topic to requirements on businesses or limit it to updating federal sectors/services. Obviously, limiting to federal changes could completely eliminate the business confidence da that seems to be the heart of the controversy.

1. Yes - I will warn people now - if you want to debate about a sole CIKR sector, there's a risk that it won't be included in the final paper. Much like if you are jazzed to debate about Bahrain, there's a chance it might not be in the final DAMENA resolution. This just means that you should understand you are voting for the broad topic, not one particular sector. Be smarter rather than dumber when you vote.

2. Fortunately, business confidence DA isn't the sole core negative ground on the topic. The best ground on the topic, as Dan Overby suggests, is to have the USFG regulate private industry, which is also where all of the best CIKR sectors lie, thus this is really where the literature pushes potential wording. Even if you just remain in the federal level, as Taylor argues, there is still a biz con DA.




Logged

Director of Forensics/Associate Professor
Wayne State University
313-577-2953
kelly.young [at] wayne.edu
www.wsuforensics.org
agswanlek
Newbie
*
Posts: 6


« Reply #40 on: May 02, 2011, 10:54:29 AM »

I have an easy time envisioning how this topic could provide some new and interesting debates. But my primary concern is that the paper is so broad and will need so much narrowing from the committee that the ideas that folks have about why they want the CIKR topic could be eliminated in the wording process. This is not a "topic committee will screw it up" argument -- just a recognition that the area under the topic is so large that our team could rank this topic highly but wind up with a wording that looks nothing like what we expected, through completely rational, logical, and optimal deliberations. I haven't worked with factorials in a while, but I remember enough to know there are so many sectors and different ways to construct a mechanism that the possible outcomes are quite large.

Sup Adam,

The reason this doesn't concern me as much as it concerns others is that the "core" of the topic, critical infrastructure, will remain the same regardless of resolutional wording.   If you decide to rank it highly, i'm assuming it will be on the justification that you wish to debate part of that critical infrastructure (or all of it).  The beauty (in my mind) of this topic is complexity of interactions between the sectors which allows for some forms of predictability to emerge.  Dams for example (as the DOHS puts it):

The Dams Sector has dependencies and interdependencies with a wide range of other sectors, including:
The Agriculture and Food Sector, as a continued source of water for irrigation and water management;
The Transportation Systems Sector uses dams and locks to manage navigable waters throughout inland waterways;
The Water Sector, by supplying potable water to concentrated populations and commercial facilities in the U.S.;
The Energy Sector, by providing approximately 8 to 12 percent of the nation’s power needs with hydropower dams; and
The Emergency Services Sector, which relies on Dams Sector assets for firefighting water supply, emergency water supply, and waterborne access in the event of a significant disaster.

Ps.
This has been said before, and a point i'd like to stress about the unique opportunity this topic provides, is that there is room for agent cp's to be educational (sounds weird eh)?  
« Last Edit: May 02, 2011, 10:56:09 AM by agswanlek » Logged
katsulas
Newbie
*
Posts: 9


« Reply #41 on: May 02, 2011, 12:26:04 PM »

My concern about how broad the critical infrastructure topic will be concerns the definition of what constitutes "protection."

Here's the definition from the topic paper:

Protection includes actions to mitigate the overall risk to CIKR assets, systems, networks,
functions, or their inter-connecting links. In the context of the NIPP, this includes actions to
deter the threat, mitigate vulnerabilities, or minimize the consequences associated with a terrorist
attack or other incident (see figure S-1). Protection can include a wide range of activities,
such as improving security protocols, hardening facilities, building resiliency and
redundancy, incorporating hazard resistance into facility design, initiating active or
passive countermeasures, install-ing security systems, leveraging “self-healing”
technologies, promoting workforce surety programs, implementing cybersecurity
measures, training and exercises, business continuity planning, and restoration and
recovery actions, among various others.

Here's an example of what I fear: promoting workforce surety programs allows affirmative cases to institute programs to prevent
employees from falling asleep while monitoring infrastructure.  So, giving employees longer breaks so they don't doze off is topical?

Logged
Jessica Kurr
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 89


« Reply #42 on: May 02, 2011, 01:12:29 PM »


Here's an example of what I fear: promoting workforce surety programs allows affirmative cases to institute programs to prevent employees from falling asleep while monitoring infrastructure.  So, giving employees longer breaks so they don't doze off is topical?


I'm going to reiterate my earlier post about the word "substantial."

1) Making small changes to breaks isn't a substantial change because it doesn't change the overall protection level ie its only a bureaucratic change.

Bagley 2006 - Law Clerk to Judge David S. Tatel, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 2005-2006. J.D., New York University School of Law, 2005 (Nicholas, "Benchmarking, Critical Infrastructure Security, and the Regulatory War on Terror," 43 Harv. J. on Legis. 47, Lexis)

Because "security" cannot be readily measured against a commonly recognized yardstick, however, providing a similar standardized metric in the terrorism context is deeply problematic. Rigid checklists of required security practices will not take into account a high degree of variation among firms, nor are they likely to provide a meaningful measure of facilities' actual security vulnerabilities. Similar to the way in which OSHA's "going by the book" strategy of regulatory enforcement has been the subject of longstanding criticism for the inefficiencies that result from its focus on technical violations rather than on the substantive goal of worker safety, a checklist approach threatens to submerge our substantive objective of reducing critical infrastructure vulnerabilities under technical requirements that may not substantially advance that goal. n160

2) Let's say the change is substantial. That aff is effectually topical. It only increases protection as an effect of increasing the break. Increasing protection isn't intrinsic to the plan action.

3) If you want to limit out bureaucratic changes, you could a funding element into the resolution. So,

- Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase the budget for protection and resiliency of its critical infrastructure and key resources.

- Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase the funding for protecting and improving resiliency of its critical infrastructure and key resources.

I'm not sure what the term of art would be right now, but introducing a budget/funding element would ensure you can't do small changes like the breaks aff you mention.

A2: Increase budget by hiring more workers to ensure longer breaks

I don' this aff would be topical under the proposed resolution that I included above. You could perhaps increase funding to hire more workers, but you wouldn't be able to specify longer breaks. If you are worried about the "hire more workers" aff, you could further specify the funding/budget wording to include  non-employment. This means the money would have to be spent on equipment, facilities, materials, etc. The funding for workers to install or construct everything would probably be considered normal means. I'll look into this funding/budget wording idea further, but it is a possibility.

Independent of this funding/budget idea, I'd like to mention that the topic paper does say that it might be beneficial to only say resiliency and not protection in the wording of the resolution. That seems to eliminate a bunch of the concerns of protection being very large.

One of the definitions of resiliency included is:
"Likewise, government and academic organizations have discussed how resiliency can be achieved in different ways. Among these are an organization’s robustness (based on protection, for example better security or the hardening of facilities); the redundancy of primary systems (backups and overlap offering alternatives if one system is damaged or destroyed); and the degree to which flexibility can be built into the organization’s culture (to include continuous communications to assure awareness during a disruption, distributed decision-making power so multiple employees can take decisive action when needed, and being conditioned for disruptions to improve response when necessary). "

For energy, you could do smartgrid improvements to prevent electricity failures (that would fall under redundancy of primary systems). You could fund connecting emergency response networks (that would fall under the third category), which means calling 911 would connect you to the local dispatch not where your cellphone is located. You could add protections to nuclear plants (robustness) to prevent failure. You could add similar protections to chemical, ag, dam, and water, which ensure there's a steady supply of those resources.  For defense industrial you could increase protection to prevent loose nukes or meltdowns (I think that was an advantage for pit-stuffing affs if I recall correctly). You could fund the Air Force to make sure they don't lose any nukes again. For manufacturing, you could increase resiliency by opening research to new materials/sector (Hydrogen was listed in the paper), that would be topical under redundancies.

As you can see, there are a bunch of different affs resiliency would cover alone. I'm not sure what affs would become non topical by eliminating protection from the resolution, as I think the small affs like increase break times are already non-topical, but it would still provide viable affirmative ground.
Logged
katsulas
Newbie
*
Posts: 9


« Reply #43 on: May 02, 2011, 01:34:47 PM »

Jeff,

The topic paper specifically recommends including both the words  "protections" and "resiliency".  See page 19-20.

Protections includes plans like improving personnel screening. That is clearly topical under "protections."  I have
zero faith in the ability of "substantial" to weed out these cases, some of which don't require spending any money.

JPK
Logged
agswanlek
Newbie
*
Posts: 6


« Reply #44 on: May 02, 2011, 01:56:57 PM »

Jeff,

The topic paper specifically recommends including both the words  "protections" and "resiliency".  See page 19-20.

Protections includes plans like improving personnel screening. That is clearly topical under "protections."  I have
zero faith in the ability of "substantial" to weed out these cases, some of which don't require spending any money.

JPK

John,

I think alot of your concern is weeded out by lack of solvency advocates for the "give them trucker pills" affirmative.  And while your indict of substantial is valid it is true under any of the topic papers proposed.  Many of the areas within the resolution are facing drastic budget cuts, and have severe technical problems hamstringing their ability to be efficient, which is where most of the literature base (from what I researched, life has been solely on finals right now) is. I'll have more on this later!
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMF customization services by 2by2host.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!