ayolo

8/10/2019 ayolo

1/15

T

A. Interpretation:

1) Utilize resourcesOcean development is utilization as a resource

Owen 2003[Daniel Owen, Consultant to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, LegalAnd Institutional Aspects Of anage!ent Arrange!ents For "hared "toc#s $ith %eference &o

"!all 'elagics In Northwest Africa(, FAO Fisheries Circular No) *++,

http--www)fao)org-docrep-../-01/*+2-01/*+2.1)ht!3)4 &he legal regi!e for !anage!ent of shared stoc#sFor a stoc# shared 2etween two or !ore neigh2ouring coastal "tates and not ranging onto the high seas, the regi!e of Art /5637 LO"C is

appropriate) It states that

$here the sa!e stoc# or stoc#s of associated species occur within the e8clusi9e econo!ic zones of two or !ore coastal "tates, these "tates shall

see#, either directl0 or through appropriate su2regional or regional organizations, to agree upon the !easures necessar0 to coordinate and ensure

the conser9ation and de9elop!ent of such stoc#s without pre:udice to the other pro9isions of this 'art)Regarding the termdevelopment,Nandan, %osenne and Grandy[! state that"#he re$erence to development%%% relates to the development o$ those stoc&s as $ishery

resources % #his includes increased e'ploitation of little;used stoc&s, as well as

improvements inthe management of heavily-shed stocks for more eective exploitation. Combined withthe requirement in article 61 of not endanerin a iven stock by overexploitation! this envisaes a lon-termstratey of maintainin the stock as a viable resource.

8/10/2019 ayolo

2/15

Grammar mattersGrammar outweighs ( it determines meaning, ma&ing it a pre(re)uisite to predicta*le

ground and limits + and, without it, de*ate is impossi*le

llen -..3[%o2ert, ra!!ar atter?@

>ra!!ar !atters, then, 2ecause it is the accepted wa0 of using language, whate9er ones e8act

interpretation of the ter!) Incorrect gra!!ar ha!pers co!!unication, which is the whole

purpose of language) &he gra!!ar of standard

8/10/2019 ayolo

3/15

epistemologist" (o etermines (en 2t(e riter5s3 t(oug(t is complete'or 2t(e riter3. T(e t(oug(t may *e um*"irreleant" eir" or een-t(oug(tless"- *ut 2t(e riter3 is e/pressing it as 2t(e riter3 li$es anening its e/pression (en 2t(e riter3 ants to. T(e riter is master o'2t(e riter5s3 on t(oug(ts. I la*or t(e point *ecause I ant t(e riterreaing t(is *oo$ to accept 2t(e riter5s3 priileges an 2t(e riter5s3

responsi*ilities in t(e matter o' t(e style an t(oug(t o' 2t(e riter5s3sentences. In eery sentence 2t(e riter3 rites" 2t(e riter3 must ma$ean (as t(e opportunity to ma$e countless c(oices."#C$ %lan &law ' #o %eriod ' 3esinate +ction . &illiam a*in" 7ella ?uali0e Pro'essor o' 8inguistic tuies an Grammar. @T(e Gregg;e'erence anual: A anual o' tyle" Grammar" Usage" an Bormatting" Tent( ition 9nline.2KeC3);e!uests" suggestions" an commans are o'ten p(rase as

!uestions out o' politeness. Use a perio to en t(is $in o'sentence i' you e/pect your reaer to respon *y acting rat(ert(an *y giing you a yesEorEno anser.

Perio Key to a$e entence a Comman

a*in" #$>. )=illiam 5abin! >ella ?ualied %rofessor of @inuistic 5tudies and Arammar. ,8he Are*eference

8/10/2019 ayolo

4/15

debates. Its underlying objective is to contest the well-entrenched assumption that the viewer should be conceptualised as anoverhearer, in favour of a new theoretical construct, namely the recipient. Interlocutors in a political debate not only talk with eachother, but also, if not primarily, communicate meanings to the recipient. By employ- ing verbal aggression, a politician may have atwofold communicative intention with regard to two different ratified hearers s!he aims to disaffiliate from the conversationalist,thereby entertaining, and fostering solidarity with, recipients. The theses put forward are illustrated with e"amples from #olish pre-election debates televised in $ctober %&&'.

The central point of attention here is verbal violence/aggression in televised political

debates.verbal aggression, also referred to as verbal violence, is here

defined as a set of linguistic strategies bymeans of which the speaker attacks/abuses(e.g. denigrates or ridiculesthe interlocutorand/or infringes the latter's conversational rights, for example by meansof invectives, interruptions, or too high a pitch of voice.) *erbal aggression in televised programmes,including political ones, has recently garnered some scholarly interest. +or instance, uginbhl (%&&' e"pounds on conversational violenceindebates, while rcher (%&&/) conceives of impoliteness as a subtype of verbalaggression , which need not be the effect of 0personal sense of spite0 (rcher %&&/ )/1. The methodological underpinnings of this distinction are of importanceto (impoliteness researchers. pecifically, verbal violence in scholarly discourse isconceptualised as impoliteness(see among others 2ulpeper %&&34 oren5o-6us %&&', %&&1. 7onetheless, the perspective assumedhere contributes to humour studies, insofar as aggression which politi- cians manifest against one another may be deemed as engendering humorous effects. The issue of

entertainment potential residing in impoliteness!aggression also tends to be raised, albeit intermittently (2ulpeper %&&34 oren5o-6us %&&', %&&1.!statement may then be ventured that verbal violence tends to coincide with

humor, specifically aggressive humour. "t must be stressed here that the focus of interest isverbal aggression carrying potential for humorousness, but not necessarilyfunniness.

7umors5 *inary (as a clear *rig(t line t(e a6rmatie crossest(e line it( isa6liatie (umor. arta Dynel #11(University of Bd, Poland The University of Lodz, Chair of Pragmatics, Associate ProfessorThis article formulates a theoretical proposal on the pragmatics of verbal violence which promotes humour in televised politicaldebates. Its underlying objective is to contest the well-entrenched assumption that the viewer should be conceptualised as anoverhearer, in favour of a new theoretical construct, namely the recipient. Interlocutors in a political debate not only talk with eachother, but also, if not primarily, communicate meanings to the recipient. By employ- ing verbal aggression, a politician may have a

twofold communicative intention with regard to two different ratified hearers s!he aims to disaffiliate from the conversationalist,thereby entertaining, and fostering solidarity with, recipients. The theses put forward are illustrated with e"amples from #olish pre-election debates televised in $ctober %&&'.

#umorousness is a binary category representing a stimulus' theoreticalcapacity to induce a humorous response, while funniness is a grad- ablecategory indicating the degrees of appreciation of a humorous text (2arrell )11'.8ssentially, a hypothesis is put forward that verbal violence in televised discourse promotes humorous effects from the viewer9s perspective, whilst s!he need not invariably

consider such aggressive humour funny, depending on his!her sense of humour and attitude towards the speaker and the attacked hearer.!ggressivehumor is widely recogni$ed as a power-based verbal tool, geared towardscontrolling the target and fostering conflict(see among others :artineau ;1'%4

8/10/2019 ayolo

5/15

with the hearer, for whose enjoyment an utterance is produced, and an out-group with the individual, a hearer or a non-hearer, who is lambasted or even humiliated. Theterm disaffiliative humour(cf. :artin et al. %&&?4 6ynel %&)&a is here used in reference toaggressive utterances which the speaker means to be truly abusive anddemeaning to one hearer but humorous to another .6isaffiliative humour can also be targeted at an absentparty, namely a non-participant, but such cases are immaterial here. This blanket category of humour is associated with such phenomena as sarcasm (#artington %&&E4 6ynel%&&1b, disparagement (Dillmann )1/?4 +ord and +erguson %&&@4 +erguson and +ord %&&/, putdowns (Dillmann and Ftocking )1'E4 6ynel %&&1b, ridicule (Div )1/@4 Billig

%&&3, or mocking (Div )1/@4 7orrick )11?4 8verts %&&?.%

&egardless of its form, an uneuivocallyaggressive utterance is non-humorous from the perspective of the listenerto whose detriment it is produced ,although the latter may appreciate that the offensive utterance is simultaneously a humorousstimulus for another hearer and the speaker. $ne may venture to claim that, in the absence of another listener beside the one attacked, an aggressive utterance may be devoid of

any humorous capacity, given that there is nobody the speaker can aim to entertain and affiliate with, at the e"pense of the target. (isaffiliation andaggression may hence give rise to humour only when there is at least onenon-targeted hearer, who may en%oy the humorous utterance, together with the speaker.2onseAuently, disaffiliative humour is simultaneously in a way affiliative, because it demonstrates camaraderie and strengthens bonds of solidarity between those who laugh (ordisplay other signs of enjoyment, distancing the amused individu- als from the target (8der )11?4 Cotthoff )11E, %&&'. In other words, disaffiliative humour is based onforming out-groups and in-groups, being humorous solely %. few of the authors listed in the references above consider the humour categories to be affiliative by nature.=owever, here all the phenomena are perceived only as genuinely aggressive, disaffiliative humour, distinct from friendly teasing, which captures pretended aggression (see6ynel %&&/, %&&1b, %&)&a, and references therein. to the latter (cf. a+ave et al. )1'?, )1'@4 #riest and Gilhelm )1'@4 Ftocking and Dillmann )1'E4 :c2auley et al. )1/?46uncan )1/34 6ecker )1/E. 8ssentially, the humorous potential of an aggressive remark is pivoted, to a large e"tent, on the act of disaffiliation. In the conte"t of the presentarticle, the in-group member with whom the speaker affiliates and builds solidarity is the viewer, while the target is the disaffiliated party, namely a member of the out-group(and so must be his!her supporters who do not find the remark amusing. That humour can carry aggression, and thus disaffiliation, is reflected by superiority theories (seeamong others Ceith-Fpiegel )1'%4 :orreall )1/?, )1/'4 runer )1'/, forthere are humour manifestations which are perfectly benevolent and free from any underlying aggression or hostility (:artin %&&'4 6avies %&&/4 :orreall %&&/. ggressiveconversational humour (see 2oates %&&'4 6ynel %&&1a, %&&1b, which can be captured by superiority theories, is prevalent in media discourse, both fictional (series and filmsand T* programmes, carrying entertainment values for wide audiences.

8/10/2019 ayolo

6/15

CAPITA8I

T(e a6rmatie5s catastrop(ic impacts are t(e *ac$rop upon(ic( t(e sym*olic orer o' glo*al capitalism is set + t(especter o' estruction an eman to a*anon ol ays is t(eultimate support 'or glo*al capitalismHize$4..1/"la9o:) 'rofessor) 'hilosoph0) Institute for "ociolog0 ; L:u2l:ana) raduate "chool) On elief) 'g) 53;54) Euestia)7&he logic of this succession is thus clear enough we "tart with the sta2le s0!2olic order we proceed to the heroic suicidal

attempts to *rea& out o$ it when the Order itsel$ seems threatened, we pro9ide the !atri8 of per!utationswhich accounts for how the re9olt itself is :ust the operator of the passage fro! one to another for! of the social lin# finall0, we con$ront

the society in which the revolt itsel$ is rendered meaningless, since, in it, transgression itself is not onl0 recuperated,

2ut directl0 solicited 20 the s0ste! as the 9er0 for! of its reproduction)&o put it in GegelHs ter!s, the truth of the studentHs transgressi9e re9oltagainst the

8/10/2019 ayolo

7/15

increasing wealth $or the $ew and increasing misery $or the many ) $e !ust 2egin our inKuir0, therefore, with the

chilling fact that 4growthHso conceived means the destruction o$ the natural $oundation o$ civilization % 5$

the world were a living organism, then an0 sensi2le o2ser9er would conclude that this 4growth4 is a cancer that, i$

not so!ehowtreated, means the destruction o$ human society, and e9en raises the Kuestion of the e8tinction of ourspecies) A si!ple e8trapolation tells us as !uch, once we learn that the growth is uncontrolla2le) &he details are i!portant and interesting, 2ut less

so than the chief conclusion that irresisti2le growth, and the e9ident fact that this growth desta*ilizes and *rea&s down the

natural groundnecessar0 for hu!an e8istence, !eans, in the plainest ter!s, that we are doomed under the present socialorder, and that we had 2etter change it as soon as possi2le if we are to sur9i9e) One wants to screa! out this 2rutal and plain truth, whichshould 2e on the !asthead of e9er0 newspaper and the station;identification of e9er0 !edia outlet, the leading issue 2efore Congress and all

go9ern!ental organizations, the focus of e9er0 congregation and the centrepiece of e9er0 curriculu! at all le9els of education ))) 2ut is nothing of

the #ind) es, endless attention is paid to the crisis, a great deal of it useful, so!e of it tri9ial, and so!e plainl0 har!ful) ut where is the serious,

s0ste!atic reflection of the 2rutal truth = that humanity is in the hands o$ a suicidal regime, which scarcel0 an0one thin#s iteither possi2le or desira2le to funda!entall0 change? $here is the rational dissection of this s0ste!Hs assault on nature, and the deri9ation of a plan

to reall0 change it = not to regulate this or that, or to resort to pra0er or inward change, 2ut actuall0 to address the cancer and la0 out the linea!ents

of a cure? I should hope, here) In an0 case, that is !0 goal, and if what I ha9e to sa0 is not true in e9er0 detail, or e9en sadl0 !ista#en, at least it can

ser9e to push the de2ate a2out funda!entals along) I ha9e no Kuarrel with !an0 of the 9irtuous and sensi2le en9iron!ental sche!es put forward

these da0s) 0 Kuarrel is onl0 with the :udg!ent that holds that piece!eal refor!s are all that is needed) 0 grie9ance is againstthe

attitude that re$uses to loo& at the pro*lem as a whole and to contemplate radical change) For if theargu!ent laid out a2o9e has e9en the slightest clai! on plausi2ilit0 =and it deser9es repetition that the !ass of e9idence is such as to place the

2urden of proof on those who would den0 it = then its i!plications need to 2e spun out without regard for how unfashiona2le or unsettling these

!a0 2e) If there is no effecti9e discourse on the logic of the s0ste!Hs growth, and the world now sits 2landl0 in s!ug denial, or e9en uneasil0 in

!or2id conte!plation, ta#ing the word of greenwashers and con!en of all #inds instead of facing the ecological crisis sKuarel0, then a wor# isneeded that stri9es :ust for such a discourse) I ha9e written &he

8/10/2019 ayolo

8/15

Link Warming

Attempts at re'orm only rener us una*le to eal it( t(e

crisis o' arming + capitalism proposes only (al'Eay solutionst(at presere t(e capitalist system *ut guarantee ecologicalestruction on t(e line.oster 07)ohn ;ellamy! %rofessor of 5ocioloy at 4niversity of reon! + #ew =aron the %lanetD! EFG6FGH! http$FFwww.monthlyreview.orFmrIineFfosterGEG6GH.html

Ju

3urin the last year the lobal warmin debate has reached a turnin point. 3ue to themedia hype surroundin +l AoreKs lm +n nconvenient 8ruth! followed by a newassessment by the 4.#. nterovernmental %anel on Climate Chane )%CC! theclimate skeptics have suered a maLor defeat. 5uddenly the media and the public areawakenin to what the scientic consensus has been sayin for two decades on human-induced climate chane and the daners it poses to the future of life on earth. %roposedsolutions to lobal warmin are poppin up everywhere! from the current biofuels panacea

to eoenineerin solutions such as pumpin sulfur particles into the stratosphere toshade the earth from the sun to claims that a market in carbon dioxide emissions isthe invisible hand that will save the world. 9@etKs quit the debate about whetherreenhouse ases are caused by mankind or by natural causes!9 %resident ;ushsaid in a hastily oraniIed retreat. 9@etKs Lust focus on technoloies that deal withthe issue.9 t is characteristic of the maic-bullet solutions that now pervade the mediathat they promise to defend our current way of life while remainin virtually cost free.

3espite the fact that economists have lon insisted that there is no such thin as afree lunch! we are now bein told on every side -- even by Aore -- that where lobalwarmin is concerned there is a free lunch after all. =e can have our cars! our industrial

waste! our endlessly expandin commodity economy! and climate stability too. 2ven the%CC! in its policy proposals! tells us that climate chane can be stopped on the cheap -- ifonly the maic of technoloy and markets is applied. 8he oal is clearly to save the planet --but only if capitalism can be fully preserved at the same time. >ence! the most prominentproposals are shaped by the fact that they are desined to t within the capitalist box.

8here can be no disruption of existin class or power relations. +ll proposed solutions must

be compatible with the treadmill of production. 2ven proressive thinkers such asAeore eat$ >ow to 5top the %lanet ;urnin have otteninto the act.

8/10/2019 ayolo

9/15

before. +s >annah +rendt! one of the leadin political philosophers of the "Gthcentury! explained$ 94nder modern /capitalist0 conditions not destruction butconservation spells ruin.9 >ence! capitalism! faced by natural obstacles! sees noalternative to a new assault on nature! employin new! hih-tech armaments . 8heecoloical irrationality of this response is evident in the tendency to dissociate lobalwarmin from the lobal environmental crisis as a whole! which includes such problems as

species extinction! destruction of the oceans! tropical deforestation! desertication! toxicwastes! etc. t is then possible! from this narrow perspective! to promote biofuels asa partial solution to lobal warmin -- without acknowledin that this willaccelerate world huner. r it is thouht pramatic to dump iron lins in theocean )the so-called Aeritol solution to lobal warmin in order to rowphytoplankton and increase the carbon absorbin capacity of the ocean -- withoutconnectin this at all to the current oceanic catastrophe. 8he fact that thebiosphere is one interconnected whole is downplayed in favor of mere economicexpediency. =hat all of this suests is that a real solution to the planetary environmentalcrisis cannot be accomplished simply throuh new technoloies or throuh turnin natureinto a market. t is necessary to o to the root of the problem by addressin the social

relations of production. =e must reconiIe thattodayKs ecoloical problems are related to

a system of lobal inequality that demands ecoloical destruction as a necessary conditionof its existence. #ew social and democratic solutions need to be developed! rooted inhuman community and sustainability! embodyin principles of conservation that areessential to life. ;utthis means steppin outside the capitalist box and makin peace withthe planet -- and with other human beins.

T(e primary et(ical irectie o' politics is to 0g(t againstglo*al capitalism. T(e large scale social e/clusion ane/ploitation o' entire groups o' people is renere incalcula*lean (ien it(in t(e 'rameor$ o' capital.8ize& and 6aly 0)5lavoL! professor of philosophy at the nstitute for 5ocioloy!

@LublLana! and Alyn! Conversations with NiIek! p 1O-16 Ju

&or NiIek it is imperative that wecut throuh this Aordian knot of postmodern protocoland reconiIe that our ethico-political responsibility is to confront the constitutive violenceof todayKs lobal capitalism and its obscene naturaliIationFanonymiIation of the millions who

are subLuated by it throuhout the world. +ainst the standardiIed positions ofpostmodern culture - with all its pieties concernin KmulticulturalistK etiquette - NiIekis aruin for a politics that miht be called Kradically incorrectK in the sense that itbreaks with these types of positions and focuses instead on the very oraniIinprinciples of todayKs social reality$ the principles of lobal liberal capitalism. 8hisrequires some care and subtlety. &or too lon! ilferdin and Aramsci! and more recently @aclau and

8/10/2019 ayolo

10/15

the initial prohibition conLures up the very thin it fears. 8his is not to endorse anyretrorade return to economism. NiIekKs point is rather that in reLectin economismwe should not lose siht of the systemic power of capital in shapin the lives and destinies

of humanity and our very sense of the possible. n particular! we should not overlookrefer to artle20 as the figure of resistance, of sa0ing NoP to the e8isting uni9erse of social !achiner0? #he di$$erence is dou*le%

irst, for GN, artle20Hs 5 would pre$er not to is interpreted as merely the $irst move o$, as it were,clearing

8/10/2019 ayolo

11/15

the ta2le, of ac)uiring a distance toward the e'isting social universe what is then needed is a move

toward the painsta&ing wor& o$ constructing a new communityif we re!ain stuc# at the artle20 stage, we end up

in a suicidal !arginal position with no conseKuences) ))) Fro! our point of 9iew, howe9er, this, precisel0, is the conclusion to 2e a9oided in its

political mode,:artle*yHs I would prefer not to is not the starting point o$ a*stract negationwhich should

then 2e o9erco!e in the patient positi9e wor# of the deter!inate negation of the e8isting social uni9erse, 2ut a #ind of cliche, the

underlying principle that sustains the entire movement far fro! o9erco!ing it, the su2seKuent wor# of construction,

rather, gi9es 2od0 to it) &his 2rings us 2ac# to the central the!e of this 2oo# the paralla8 shift) :artle*y4s attitude is not merelythe$irst, preparatory, stage $orthe second, !ore constructive, wor&of for!ing a new alternati9e order it is the

very source and *ac&ground o$ this order, its permanent $oundation%&he difference 2etween artle20Hs gesture ofwithdrawal and the for!ation of a new order isagain, and for the last ti!ethat of paralla8 the 9er0 frantic and engaged acti9it0 of

constructing a new order is sustained 20 an underl0ing I would prefer not to which fore9er re9er2erates in itor, as Gegel !ight ha9e put it,

the new post(revolutionary order does not negate its $ounding gesture, the e'plosion o$ the

destructive $ury that wipes away the Old it merely gives *ody to this negativity% &he difficult0 of i!aginingthe New is the difficult0 of i!agining artle20 in power) &hus the logic of the !o9e fro! the superego;paralla8 to the artle20;paralla8 is 9er0

precise it is the !o9e fro! so!ething to nothing, fro! the gap 2etween two so!ethings to the gap that separates a so!ething fro! nothing,fro! the 9oid of its own place)&hat is to sa0 in a re9olutionar0 situation, what, e8actl0, happens to the gap 2etween the pu2lic Law and its

o2scene superego supple!ent? It is not that, in a #ind of !etaph0sical unit0, the gap is si!pl0 a2olished, that we o2tain onl0 a pu2lic regulation

of social life, depri9ed of an0 hidden o2scene supple!ent) &he gap re!ains, 2ut reduced to a structural !ini!u! to the pure difference

2etween the set of social regulations and the 9oid of their a2sence) In other words, :artle*y4s gesture is what remains o$ the

supplement to the ;aw when its place it emptied o$ all its o*scene superego content) 5+3;+4

8/10/2019 ayolo

12/15

CA

arming

2orts to reduce lobal warmin hurt the economy Lobs and manufacturin

;arrasso and >eitkamp! 6F" ohn is Lunior senator from =yomin and >eidi is a

member of the #orth 3akota 3emocratic-#onpartisan @eaue %arty and is the Lunior

senator from #orth 3akota )ohn and >eidi! 8he #ew +nti-Coal *ules =ill Cut obs

and >urt the 2conomy!=all 5treet ournal! "G1O! http$FFonline.wsL.comFarticlesFthe-

new-anti-coal-rules-will-cut-Lobs-and-hurt-the-economy-1OG1HR1OPSFFTT2##2n

8/10/2019 ayolo

13/15

5tark! 6F6+ustralian Climate 5cience Coalition! %h3 in marine science from the

4niversity of eartland nstitute )=alter! =hy

Climate Chane 3oesnt 5care

8/10/2019 ayolo

14/15

idea of exponential diversication! a feature we rst reconiIed by thinkin of evolutionary chane asa self-oraniIed system. t is like the sand rains causin the pile to row! leadin to theinevitable avalanche.8he model is also relevant to separate parts within the oraniIed system.

;iodiversity makes ecosystems less stable and more susceptible to collapse increased biodiversity prevents resiliency and collapses the system.

#aeem! G" )5hahid #aeem - 3irector of 5cience at Center for 2nvironmental *esearch and Conservation)C2*C! %rofessor and Chair of Columbia 4niversity 3epartment of 2coloy! 2volution and 2nvironmental ;ioloy! GH

8/10/2019 ayolo

15/15

;oulter! G" )istory

ayolo

Documents