Preorder the brief for the low price of $10 at DebateChamps.

The Extemp Central Topic Analysis will review each of the 10 possible Commentary areas for the 2011 National Tournament. The brief will be delivered via email on Saturday, June 4, 2010.

Extemp Commentary 2011 Topic Areas

• 2000 vs. 2010: A Decade of Differences
• The Budget Crunchies
• Campaign 2012: Contenders and Bit Players
• Looking for Unions and Their Labels
• Notable Deceased Since 2010 Nationals
• Rogue Nations and Nations Ruled by Rogues
• Social Media vs. Actual Socializing
• Tea for Two Parties
• Who’s Afraid of Foreign Trade?
• Wicked Wikis and Lamentable Leaks

Spend your time working toward your main event. If that doesn’t pan out, we’re here to help you be as competitive as possible in Extemp Commentary!

We’ve all had that horribly awkward conversation with a friend, classmate, or coworker about forensics.  Generally, the first statement out of their mouth will be something like “So…you see a lot of dead bodies?” If you tell them you’re on the speech team, then folks will probably ask “Is that like debate?”  If you do LD, PF, CX, Parli or other forms of debate, well, it is like debate.  If you compete in interp, public address or limited prep events, no, it’s not like debate.  The PG-13 video above demonstrates the frustrations of sharing our favorite activity with the world.

I’m just surprised someone who is on the speech team has such a monotone voice.

Blogging the Supplemental Events may prove a bit more tricky than the Main Events, as information has been a bit more hard to come by.  We apologize for any misspellings of names and welcome corrections from our readers.

Topic Area: The United States of Anger and Demonization

Speaker 1 — Louis Lee
Topic: “Demagogues unite.  Democracy needs you.”
Talk show hosts have a substantial effect on discourse in America.  Democracy needs unity among the groups.
1.  They deter Americans from participating in the political process.
2.  They convey information to Americans, albeit in a biased way.  They are useful as a means to share information.

Speaker 2 — Eli Bernstein
Topic: “Just say no.  Always, no.”
Debate has come to an end.  Taking away the power of debate diminishes the power of the USA.
1.  How Republicans have transitioned further to the during Obama Administration.  Shouting down the opposition and the filibuster are the key tools for accomplishing their “no.”
2.  How this affects Average Joe voters by turning them off from voting.  Americans are quickly losing trust in both political parties.

Speaker 3 — Rohan Pi
Topic:  ”Don’t tax me, Bro.”
Ultimately, we have to acknowledge that taxes are the down-payments we make for an advanced society. The lifestyle we enjoy is not possible without taxes.
1.  They maintain the goods, services and entitlements we enjoy as a society.
2.  We are in debt to the idea of prosperity by utilizing increased taxes to bring down the deficit and provide a better future.  This can be accomplished through reduced spending and higher taxes.

Speaker 4 — Nathaniel Hass
Topic: “Glenn and Rush: Ranting all the way to the bank.”
There are voices that are willing to make offensive, harmful arguments in public that are based on cultural stereotypes.
1.  What these people say, which is just plain wrong.
2.  Why are there people who say this, and who in the world is employing them?
3.  These people are paid to say such racist, terrible and untrue things.

Speaker 5 — Davis Mattick
Topic: “Nattering Nebobs (sp?) of Negativism”
We’ve become a negative culture.  (As negative as Harry Potter in the fifth novel.)  Giving up on an idea before it’s given time is unfair.
1.  Americans, in general, have a fatalistic attitude.
2.  We’ve given up on the future; however, there’s no reason to maintain that negativity.

Speaker 6 — Trevor Griffin
Topic: “Internet Flamethrowers”
We forget that what we do on the internet and social networking websites is a metaphorical flame-thrower that can have serious ramifications.
1.  Social such as Facebook and other social media.
2.  The political napalm thrown via the traditional media (FOX, NBC, etc.)
3.  Solutions for political and social flame-throwing and their extremities.

Very nervous.

As the moments wound down before the first draw of Extemp and rounds in Original Oratory, coaches pulled students aside to whisper final words of encouragement.  For individuals who spend several weekends out of the year at high school speech and debate tournaments, the scene was fairly ordinary: a typical high school, students dressed in suits and brightly-colored schematics already showing signs of wear.

Among the crowd was Michael Curry, a coach from Salem, Ore.  Like other coaches, though, Curry knew all-too-well that this was no ordinary weekend tournament.  However, the advice he offered to his students was quite basic: though these young adults are competing in the world’s largest academic contest, they shouldn’t let that fact overwhelm them.

“I try and get in the mindset of that it’s going to look and feel like other tournaments,” Curry said.

Read the Full Story at NFLNationals.org

To the over three thousand forensic competitors swarming the streets of Kansas City this week, the road to the national tournament has been wrought with far more than just practice. For some, the journey has been paved with worn-out high heels and blistered feet, empty water bottles, beaten down storage tubs filled with countless hours of research and a forlorn stack of ties that never get untied – just readjusted for the following weekend. (After all – who has the time and luxury to waste on ties when the van leaves in five minutes?)

Sure, there’s a comfort when competing in one’s home district all year. The competitors, coaches and campuses are fairly familiar and reasonably consistent. After about nine months of tournaments, it feels downright natural.

Then, you have Nationals. That’s when things start to get real. Suddenly, the stakes are higher and competitors are embarking on an entirely new journey.

For some the journey through Nationals is a new and tumultuous one, for the mind as well as the gastrointestinal track. Leading up to the first day of competition, Emily Boysisio of Canyon City, Colo., admitted that she was “Totally nervous. I got sick this morning. But it’s worth it.”

Read the Full Story at NFLNationals.org

Keep reading to see the competitors who advanced to the quarterfinals in Impromptu Speaking and Duo Interpretation.

The tournament also boasts one of the stronger judging fields in the nation with former extempers and recognized high school and collegiate coaches evaluating extempers performances. Extempers are guaranteed six preliminary rounds and for those that do not break to elimination rounds there is a supplemental impromptu competition that they can enter.

The cost per covered entry is $125 (one judge may cover two entries) and there is a $40 entry processing fee. Extempers can look at the invitation for the tournament on the TOC”s website to see if they meet the eligibilty requirements. The deadline for registering for the tournament and paying these fees is May 7th.

If you do not meet the eligibility requirements, you can submit a bid application. The deadline for this is April 1st. The cost of a bid application is $25.

SpeechGeek’s Extemp Central plans to do some live blogging from the tournament this year so those that cannot make the tournament will receive updated information about pairings/results/etc. However, it is hoped that extempers around the country plan to attend this year’s TOC.

Extemporaneous speaking is perhaps the most demanding of all forensics activities. It requires the research skills of a policy debater, the theory of a Lincoln-Douglas debater, and the speaking of a polished orator.  However, there are a few key differences between extemporaneous speaking and the previously mentioned events.  The first of which being that in extemporaneous speaking there is no one arguing against the speaker (barring a round with a built in cross examination period), thus a speaker must sufficiently address all arguments in order to have a complete persuasive presentation.  The extemporaneous speech is more analytically demanding than an oratory, and its topics change every round.  Perhaps, the most vital difference is the fact that an extemporaneous speaker only has seven minutes and just one speech to relay to the judge a message.  The speech must include analysis that is as deep-if not more so- than a debate case, while speaking well and engrossing the judge.  For unlike a debater an extemporaneous speaker doesn’t have the option to speed up to include all of his/her information.  This brings up an overbearing burden on the modern speaker: how to most efficiently include arguments while not increasing the rate of delivery.

The clearest way to resolve this issue is to use substructure.  Despite the way that this word strikes fear in the hearts of speakers across the nation, it is actually quite beneficial.  Unfortunately, it seems that the world of extemporaneous speaking has been burdened with adherence to the universal two sub point formula.  This format is highly unspecific and maybe a hindrance to effectively answering a question.   The following paper will seek to resolve this particular quagmire by addressing three specific types of substructure with direct application to extemporaneous speaking.

PS-IR

Primarily, it is imperative to address International Relation (IR) Theory and Political Study (PS) Theory.  The natural difference between the two is that IR is an evaluation of the interconnectivity of political interaction amongst nations and institutions whereas PS is an evaluation of the causation of a situation (economic, political, or social) based inside of a nation or more specifically an institution.  Both theories are critical to an effective extemporaneous speech; however the biggest challenge that remains is how to effectively plug this analysis in.  Former NFL Champion in International Extemporaneous Speaking, Spencer Rockwell, expanded upon this dilemma:

The paradox, however, once again invites a topic by topic approach to deciding not only when, but also how to use IR… best. [1]

It is this dilemma that must be alleviated in order to develop a sound point within an extemporaneous speech.

The most efficient way to use IR and PS is at the beginning of an individual point.  By explaining theory first and demonstrating the impact on the topic second a speaker maximizes the depth of an argument immensely. In this scenario, the judge will understand the purpose of what is about to be said before it is discussed. This comes in direct juxtaposition with the alternative of the judge becoming unsure of purpose until later in the point. For example, if the question being asked was “Is Nepal’s young democracy developing effectively?” an effective way to plug in PS would be as follows:

Point 1: The government has failed to instill institutions necessary to ascertain social justice.

1. Importance of social justice with respect to democracy (PS)

“Women’s rights remain critical to the idea of democracy as becoming the will of the people… Without appropriate education for women they cannot engage effectively in an advanced economy crippling hopes of being legitimate democratic state.”

-Sex and Social Justice, Martha Nussbaum[2]

B. Nepal has failed to provide women with adequate voting rights

“42% of women allowed to vote”

-NYT May 11, 2008[3]

C. No education available to women

“Women schools are crumbling.”

-Asia Times July 7, 2008

The benefit of using this specific model is that it can be applied to all three points in a speech.  Of course, the task of reading the material necessary to make a three point speech with specifically sourced theory built into each point is quite daunting.  While making a speech that uses this IR or PS framework in all three points is impressive, this isn’t to say that it is the best way to advance an argument.  After all, mixing this substructure with equally deep substructure within the other two points also can make quite the statement.

Case Study

Case Study within extemporaneous speaking is something that must be done very carefully. However, when done appropriately an area of analysis that uses the case study format can show that the speaker has a vast array of knowledge while also bringing depth to a speech.  This type of analytical formatting is certainly not necessary in all speeches, and should only be used when the topic demonstrates the need for it.  For sake of consistency, the question being asked is still “Is Nepal’s young democracy developing effectively?” and case study substructure could be used as follows:

Point 1: Corruption remains rampant at every level of the government

A.     Maoist connection with narcotics hurts parliament

“Maoist position in new parliament is corrupted by ties to drug lords.”

-Alan Johnston, the Brookings Institution, May 3, 2008

B. Treasury department accounting flaws

“Treasury has no account of over $3 billion of tax money”

-Bloomberg July 3, 2008

C. Local courts are easily bribed

“No accountability for judges- taints 73% of court cases”

-Economist February 22. 2009

All it would take is a brief explanation at the beginning of the point about corruption being a hindrance to democracy and this point can easily flow within a speech.  However, speakers rarely use the case study substructure within the context of a country specific speech.  Rather, this substructure is typically used in reference to international institutions to demonstrate a speaker’s knowledge of different global events and their impact in reference to an institution.  A clear example of this can be found in the 2005 NFL National International Extemporaneous Speaking Final Round where National Champion Kevin Troy answered the question “Is the U.N. mankind’s lone and best hope?”[4] Kevin answered yes and his first area of analysis used excellent case study substructure:

Point 1: International challenges demand global cooperation

A. Diplomatic Conflicts

“Entangling WW1 alliances engulfed in war- UN brings nations together

without those alliances.”

-New World Order, Ann Marie Slaughter

B. Humanitarian Arenas

“Darfur, AIDS, Poverty all require global cooperation”

-World Policy Journal, Spring 2005

C. Terrorism

“There must be cooperation to stop transit of nuclear weapons.”

-Nuclear Terrorism, Graham Allison

Once again, the speaker is faced with a major challenge using this type of substructure: time.  Each area of analysis in an extemporaneous speech should be around 1 minute and 30 seconds (give or take a few), as such that gives less than 30 seconds for each sub point after the introductory sentences.  Nonetheless, it can be done with a little bit of practice.

Counterpoint

The final bit of alternative substructure can be found as a bit of a mix between the aforementioned two.  It is the counterpoint substructure.  All argumentation should include an acknowledgement of opposition, and without realizing it most extemporaneous speakers address the opposition within the context of their speech by bringing up arguments that naturally stifle the claims of opposition.  This being said, the counterpoint substructure is tremendously beneficial to take rhetorical prowess to the next level.  This substructure explicitly sources the opposition and proceeds to disprove it.  For this example, the question being asked is “Should nuclear energy be pursued to fight global warming in industrialized nations?”

Point 1: Nuclear Energy is beneficial to the environment

A.     Human Danger (Opposing argument)

“People are endangered by the threat of nuclear fallout which offsets the environmental benefits.”

-The Heritage Foundation, October 2011

B. New technology is very safe (Counter Argument)

“Newly developed technology decreases the chances of nuclear fallout by

96%.”

-Scientific American, November 2011

C. Comparatively effective

“1 pound of uranium 235 produces 2 million times more energy than 1 pound of coal.”

-Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Spring 2008

By using counterpoint substructure, a speaker can eliminate the doubt or preconceived notions a judge may have through an effectively tailored argument; all while still developing a new argument as well.  This type of substructure is crucial in order for the judge to continue following the speech even if they disagree with the material, as it is the only type of substructure that specifically addresses his/her concerns while also maintaining consistency with the speakers answer.  When used well this is a clear way to diffuse common concerns.

By the same token, it is very important to address the opposing argument in either the first sub point or the second.  The justification for this is found within the mindset of a judge. Disenfranchising a judge for any period of time in a speech puts the speaker in a bad position.  In addressing the counterargument early in a point and disproving it later the speaker can entice the judge to continue listening.  While it may not seem this way at a tournament, the judge ought to be the speaker’s ally.

Conclusion

Alternate substructure is by no means a call to rebel against the traditional sub point system. Rather it is an enhancement to the system.  It provides clarity and an intrinsic connection to a judge on a structural level so as to supplement delivery.  Substructure is by no means a panacea to all extemporaneous woes, but it is certainly a necessary tool for an excellent speaker. Speech making is always quite the challenge, doing it in 30 minutes often seems impossible, but this challenge is the reason extemporaneous speakers put in the work.  Truly a melting pot of many events, extemporaneous speaking is one of the most prestigious of all forensic activities.  With an effective substructure the event is only enhanced.

[2] All books sourced within this essay are real books and are available at bookstores.

[3] All articles sourced within this essay are not real, and were used explicitly for example purposes.

[4] This final round video is available with Dale Publishing. <http://www.dalepublishing.us>

Background

Over the last several weeks, international extempers have most likely read about the recent political developments in South Africa, arguably the strongest power on the African continent.  For those extempers that have not had a chance to catch up on these developments, Thabo Mbeki is no longer president of the country.  After a prolonged political struggle between Jacob Zuma, who was Mr. Mbeki’s deputy president (a position most akin to vice-president in the United States) and who deposed Mr. Mbeki as leader of the African National Congress (ANC) in December, it appears that Mr. Zuma has won.  This victory came within the span of a month when Mr. Zuma was first acquitted of fraud and corruption charges based on a judicial technicality.  The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), the body of the South African judiciary who initiates criminal cases for the government, was said in the dismissal of the charges to have been influenced in its prosecution by Mr. Mbeki and his supporters.  This finding by the judge overseeing Mr. Zuma’s case gave weight to charges, long echoed by Mr. Zuma’s supporters, that Mr. Mbeki has been an overzealous president who has been intolerant of political opposition and that Mr. Mbeki has been willing to use the instruments of the state to clamp down on this dissent.  On September 20^th, the ANC decided that Mr. Mbeki should resign his post in order to end the political struggle that has gripped the country for three years.

Having set the background, this brief will give an overview of the structure and history of South Africa’s political system, the current state of the government, and what challenges that government faces in the future.

South Africa’s Political Structure and History

South Africa was first settled by European explorers when the Portuguese set up trading posts shortly after Bartolomeu Dias became the first European explorer to reach the Cape of Good Hope, the southernmost tip of the continent.  In the 1600s, Dutch traders would eventually arrive for the Dutch East India Company and the British would make their incursions into the territory just prior to the 1800s in order to gain a geopolitical advantage over the French.  The British would solidify their hold on the Cape Town territory in 1806 when the Dutch East India Company went bankrupt.  After two conflicts known as the Boer Wars (1880-1881, 1899-1902), which broke out between British forces and the Boers, a name given to farmers of northwest European descent, over diamond, gold, and land resources, the British were able to combine the Boer-held territories, called the Orange Free States and the Transvaal, with colonies they controlled in Cape Town and Natal.  This new combination of territories was called the Union of South Africa and it was granted independence in 1934 by the Statute of Westminister.

South Africa is known by most of the public as a place where racial problems still persist.  This has origins from the colonial era when black Africans were forced to work in diamond and gold mines and were kept apart from the white population.  After World War II, the right-wing National Party bulked up racial segregation laws and created a system known as apartheid.  This system stripped black South Africans of their citizenship, deprived them of voting rights, forced black Africans to live in economically unproductive areas, streamlined them into careers that paid low wages, and socially segregated them from white society, which did not allow them to enjoy the same public services as white South Africans. Under the apartheid system, which would last in its complete form until 1990, where it would begin to be abolished, a process that finished in 1994, South Africa was like two different countries where the white dominated area of the country resembled the developed world and black dominated areas resembled the Third World.  South Africa was encouraged to abolish its apartheid system through sanctions by the outside world, enforced by Britain and the United States in the 1980s.

Following the release of Nelson Mandela from prison in February 1990, South Africa’s political system began to change.  Mandela was an activist for the ANC, an anti-apartheid group with communist ties that was once declared labeled as a terrorist group by the United States government.  By 1994, apartheid measures had been abolished from the law books and South Africa held its first elections open to all races.  In these elections, the ANC trounced the opposition, not a surprise considering that the ANC was seen as a champion of black rights, Mandela was put in as president, and the ANC has been in power ever since.

South Africa received a new constitution in 1996, which allowed a division of legislative and executive powers on a local, state, and national levels.  On a national levels, South Africa has a bicameral parliamentary structure.  The lower house is called the National Assembly and has 400 representatives allotted to it.  Representatives are selected via proportional representation based on popular vote tallies.  The upper house is called the National Council of Provinces, which has 90 representatives selected by the legislatures in South Africa’s nine provinces, with each provincial legislature getting 10 selections.  Both bodies members are slated to serve five year terms.

The South African president is the leader of the party that has control of the National Assembly, or in the case of there being a split election result where a coalition government has to emerge, the leader of the coalition government is named as the president.  Unlike United States politics, though, the South African president is responsible to parliament, and can be removed by the party they lead.  This is why Mr. Mbeki was forced to step down on September 20^th when the ANC power brokers turned against him.

Who are the Parties?

Today in South Africa there are four major political factions, but in terms of competitive races there are only two in conflict:  the ANC and the Democratic Alliance (DA).

African National Congress (ANC): The African National Congress received nearly 70% of the vote in the 2004 general election.  Its leader is Jacob Zuma, the man who pushed Mr. Mbeki out of power, and is a broad coalition of interests that span the political spectrum.  The ANC has backing from the now disbanded New National Party, a conservative party that is a legacy of the apartheid era, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, and the South African Communist Party.  For there to be a significant opening in South African politics, the ANC will need to split, much like how Japan needs the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) to split to have a fully functioning two party system.

The Democratic Alliance (DA): The Democratic Alliance, created when the Democratic Party and the New National Party briefly merged in 2000, finished in second place behind the ANC in the 2004 general election.  However, just to demonstrate the ANC’s dominance, the DA finished with 12% of the vote.  The DA was led by Tony Leon, an anti-apartheid advocate, from 2000 to 2007, when he stepped down and allowed Helen Zille, the mayor of Cape Town, to take over.  In 2006, the DA took control of Cape Town, which is significant as it is the only metropolitan area not controlled by the ANC.  The DA is a party which stands for liberal economic policies, federalism, and human rights protections.  Its popularity is growing, especially in urban areas and voter disillusion with the ANC could make it a force in the 2009 elections.

The Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP): The IFP finished behind the ANC and DA in the 2004 general election with 7% of the vote.  The current leader of the party is Mangosuthu Buthelezi, who founded the party in 1975.  The IFP was a supporter of anti-apartheid activism until the 1980s, until it became engulfed in a violent struggle with the ANC for influence in a post-apartheid South Africa.  In fact, the IFP hoped this violence would prevent the 1994 election, which did not happen.  The IFP’s main support comes from the Zulu people, South Africa’s largest ethnic group, and one of its stated goals is to prevent the ANC from establishing one party rule in the country.  The IFP is also concerned with South Africa’s AIDS crisis and high crime and unemployment rates and has currently allied itself with the DA.

The Independent Democrats: The Independent Democrats are new to the South African political scene, having been founded in 2003.  They are led by Patricia de Lille and took a mere 2% of the vote in the 2004 election.  The Independent Democrats represent a populist brand of politics and favor moderate and pragmatic policies.  However, since most of their policies are adopted by the ANC or DA, it is tough for them to establish a foothold.

The Current State of the Government (And What it Means for the Future)

It is not a surprise that the infighting within the ANC has caused massive disruptions for the government, especially since the ANC makes up 70% of the National Assembly.  To political observers, the conflict between Mr. Mbeki and Mr. Zuma was dividing the ANC, to the point where one of them needed to go so that the ANC could focus on the next general election, which will most likely be held in April 2009.  After Mr. Zuma’s victory over Mr. Mbeki in the ANC leadership election, observers knew it was only a matter of time before Mr. Mbeki faded into the sunset.  However, the timing of Mr. Mbeki’s departure, and forcing him out before his term expired in 2009, was alarming.

To look at the influence that Mr. Mbeki had over the government, all one needs to look at is who left with Mr. Mbeki when he was forced out.  Upon Mr. Mbeki’s resignation, his deputy president and ten of his ministers left, including the praised finance minister Trevor Manuel.  Mr. Mbeki is still supported by loyalists within the ANC, much of whom owe their position in the party to him.  While Mr. Mbeki might be riled by extempers as a poor manager of South Africa’s AIDS crisis, which affects over five million people, and as coddling Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, he is credited by experts as assisting in South Africa’s post-apartheid economic recovery.  In its briefing on South Africa, The Economist on September 27^th credited Mr. Mbeki with presiding over a falling unemployment rate and stabilizing South Africa’s finances.

In Mr. Mbeki’s absence, Kgalema Motlanthe has agreed to lead an interim government.  Mr. Zuma chose not to take over the post and instead try to use the time the interim government is in power and the next general election to build his leadership credentials.  However, it is no secret that after the 2009 general election Mr. Zuma will take over the South African presidency.

Mr. Zuma is a controversial figure in South African politics, having been acquitted of rape in 2006 and most recently corruption charges.  His fights with Mr. Mbeki have bruised many egos in the ANC and have made him enemies within the party’s ranks.  Observers worry that Mr. Zuma’s ability to get along with political opponents and negotiate on policy issues will be overshadowed by his willingness to stand on the sidelines while political problems develop.  Due to the fact that Mr. Mbeki’s autocratic leadership style kept ministries in line with government policy, pundits worry that Mr. Zuma’s laid back style could lead to turf wars inside of the government, most notably among the ANC’s business and trade unionist wings.  To add to this, it is still possible that the NPA could try to prosecute Mr. Zuma again for corruption, which would add a new dynamic to the 2009 general election or to a future Zuma administration.

The most immediate impact of these latest developments that extempers need to take note of is that Mr. Mbeki’s departure has opened a gaping hole in the ANC’s leadership.  Supporters of Mr. Mbeki are unhappy and have quietly begun to discuss breaking from the ANC.  The only real question if they would have the political nerve to upset party elders or put the ANC’s electoral chances in jeopardy by doing so.  The ANC’s demise has long been predicted but never quite occurred.  If there is a break within the party it could be over economic issues, as Mr. Zuma gets his main backing from left-wing trade groups would want to scale back some of South Africa’s free market reforms.  If Mr. Zuma veers too far left it could alienate free market supporters and either push them into the hands of the DA or lead them to create their own political party.  Therefore, one of the major ramifications of Mr. Mbeki’s departure is that it could lurch the ANC back to its far-left basis and open up a power vacuum in South Africa’s political center, a spot the DA could be prime to fill.

Issues Facing South Africa

When extempers are analyzing the political situation in South Africa, it is very important to know what issues could decide the 2009 general election so that their speech can touch the issues that are most relevant to South African voters.

The biggest issue facing South Africa is its crime rate, which the UN has said makes it the second deadliest country in the world in terms of murder rates per capita.  Due to high unemployment, which is between 25-40%, depending on which economist you ask and which economic measure you use to define unemployment, South Africans have turned to crime.  In fact, a TNS research survey from June revealed that 75% of South Africans believe that the crime wave has been fueled by poverty.  South Africa’s high crime rates of murders, rapes, robberies, and carjackings have the potential to damage the nation’s growing economy.  For example, the 2010 World Cup is scheduled to be held in South Africa, but may not occur if crime rates are not lowered.  Also, South Africa’s well educated and best trained workers are leaving the country due to the fact that conditions are unsafe.  Furthermore, wealthier, and predominately white, South Africans are creating more gated communities as they fear their possessions are in danger, prompting a return of de facto segregation that could upset the political and social balance in the country that has been achieved since 1994.

Another major issue in the upcoming election will be the state of the country’s economy.  The DA will try to sell to voters the idea that Mr. Zuma will lurch the country’s economy towards state control that existed under the National Party in the apartheid years, which hurt the country’s economic growth.  The massive unemployment rate will also likely be on voters minds, especially considering the rising crime rate.  Economist argue that for South Africa to continue its economic growth it needs more skilled workers.  This is true for two reasons.  First, as The Economist reveals on September 27^th, up to 500,000 jobs are unfilled in the South African government due to a lack of skilled workers, putting a strain on government operations.  Second, ethnic tensions are exploding in the country as low skilled South Africans compete with illegal immigrants from economically depressed areas such as Zimbabwe.  Look for both parties to argue at making the education system more adaptive to rising demand, as it admits more students, especially from black backgrounds, while retaining quality.  Finally, look for both parties to contest the Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) program that the ANC adopted in 2003.  The BEE is meant to transform the South African economy to give black workers a broader voice in the economy and to reduce white control over some economic holdings.  The BEE mandates that businesses meet certain compliance targets in hiring and ownership.  Businesses also are told to take into consideration a worker’s previous background as opposed to what economic skills they may be able to bring a business.  While the ANC admits that the BEE should be revised, it staunchly defends its core precepts to redistribute economic power along racial lines in the country.  In contrast, the IFP, in conjunction with the DA, argue that the BEE is a process of reverse discrimination, is leaving unskilled workers in important positions, and is causing a process of “white flight” where South Africa’s best skilled workers are leaving the country.

Logan Scisco competed for four years for Danville High School in Danville, Kentucky where he was coached by Mr. Steve Meadows.  He also competed for two and a half years for Western Kentucky University.  He was the 2003 NFL United States Extemporaneous Speaking Final Round National Champion, a CFL finalist, a two-time NFA finalist in college, a two-time Kentucky state champion in extemporaneous speaking, a two-time MBA invitee, and was a four-time qualifier to CFL Nationals in extemp and a four-time qualifier to NFL Nationals in U.S. Extemp.  He has coached two Kentucky state extemporaneous speaking champions, an MBA invitee, ten extemp national qualifiers, a CFL finalist, and a NFL finalist (IX).  He currently teaches social studies at Grant County High School in Dry Ridge, Kentucky.