434 Cm Tournament Week Updates 1

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Politics Impact Calc Disad O/W and turns the case A. Magnitude – Iran will retaliate against U.S. strikes by attacking Israel and Iraq with chemical and biological weapons. Our evidence indicates that the U.S. will proceed to use low-yield nuclear bombs in order to protect the lives of the soldiers in Iraq. This will incite global uncertainty and lead to all 182 countries of the npt act to develop nuclear weapons as deterrents. A world with many nuclear armed countries and political tension is almost certain to lead to nuclear conflict leading to extinction destroying the chance of solving the impacts of prolif. B. Probability – Our evidence quotes McCain saying that there will be other wars in his presidency and that he will strike Iran because he doesn’t like their ignorance of global regulations against their development of nuclear weapons. C. Time Frame – McCain will attack Iran as soon as he gets into office. And the disad happens faster than the plan because only 4 nuclear power plants can be built a year and their evidence indicates that a lot more than four are necessary to solve.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Politics – A/T: Uniqueness Overwhelms the Link 1. Alternative energy tips the election – Prefer the specificity of our evidence, energy proposals are the only thing that can tip the elections. McCain will be able to spin alternative energy in his favor because he has a clear plan for alternative energy, and because Obama said that moving to alternative energy would mean that the public would have to move away from it’s gluttonous ways. This allows the GOP to capitalize on the issue and win the election. That’s Caldwell. 2. Evaluate the debate on who controls the uniqueness. We should not be blamed for having sweet evidence, we are simply framing the status quo. Controlling the uniqueness is more important than controlling the direction of the link. 3. Congressional stonewall - Democrats are being blamed for stalled energy proposals now, which allows Republicans to capitalize through opposition Wall Street Journal; 8-1-08; “Pelosi’s Energy Stonewall” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121754801152902691.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Hell -- otherwise known as Congress -- has officially frozen over. For the first time since the 1950s, Members will skip town today for the August recess without either chamber having passed a single appropriations bill. Then again, Democrats appear ready to sacrifice their whole agenda, even spending, rather than allow new domestic energy production. Or even a mere debate about energy. The Democratic leadership is stonewalling any measure that might possibly relax the Congressional ban on offshore drilling. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid know that they would lose if a vote ever came to the floor, and they're desperate to suppress an insurrection among those Democrats who are pragmatic about one of the top economic issues. Behind this whatever-it-takes obstructionism is an ideological commitment to high energy prices. The rulers of the Democratic Party want prices to keep rising. A good gauge of the radicalism of their energy blockade is the lowest common denominator of this energy fight: The effort to blame "speculators" for $4 gas was promoted by both Barack Obama and John McCain, as well as nearly everybody else in Washington. Sure enough, the House voted 276-151 on Wednesday for a bill that would have driven oil futures trading overseas. But the legislation actually failed to become law -- by design. It needed a two-thirds majority because Speaker Pelosi suspended the rules to prevent Republicans from offering amendments, drilling among them. Ms. Pelosi had decreed that she would not permit a roll-call vote under any circumstances, even if it stopped her own goal of wrecking the U.S. futures market. Meanwhile, the Senate is locked down over its own antispeculation bill. Majority Leader Reid briefly agreed to allow four amendments on GOP policy alternatives, but he withdrew the offer after he was subjected to the fury of the environmental lobby and Ms. Pelosi. To prevent a vote on offshore drilling this week, Senate Democrats also let fail a bill providing home heating assistance for the poor. Same thing for tax subsidies for wind and solar energy. Other liberal inspirations, including suing OPEC and a windfall profits tax on the oil industry, also ended up in the Congressional dumpster. And of course Democrats long ago shut down the normal budget process in both the Senate and the House to avoid any vote. Normally, the spending hiatus would be a useful byproduct of Congressional bickering. But in this case the shutdown is malign neglect. Surging energy prices act like a huge tax increase on the economy, since energy demand is relatively fixed over the short term. The price spike is imposing genuine hardships on middle-income and working-class voters across the country. The Democratic leadership isn't oblivious to this man-at-the-pump reality. But Al Gore's vision of the apocalyptic tides of climate change perfectly expresses their mentality: Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid see soaring prices as a public good -- the mechanism that will force energy enlightenment on the U.S. If anything, they think the price of gas is too low. As recently as June, the Senate debated a multitrillion-dollar carbon tax-and-regulation scheme that was designed to boost energy costs. A new version will be a priority in the next Administration. If nothing else, this summer's oil drilling stonewall is giving voters an insight into this ideology, which recoils at any oil, natural gas or coal production -- oh, and nuclear besides. That puts 93% of all U.S. energy off limits for expansion. Back in the real world, and barring a cold fusion or other miracle, the U.S. will remain dependent on fossil fuels for decades. A fresh round of domestic oil-and-gas exploration would ease the long-term pressures that supply and demand are exerting on prices, plus bolster energy security. And those not bound by anticarbon theology are coming around. Broad margins of the American public -- now even a slim majority of Californians -- favor increasing domestic production. Many Congressional Democrats are working below the radar to craft a compromise that couples drilling with conservation and programs to prop up renewable alternatives.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name But the leadership won't bend even a bit, and so Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid have spent the summer using every parliamentary deception to evade debating the issue that the American public cares most about. Short of cutting off the air conditioning on Capitol Hill, Democrats won't get the message until voters make them -- perhaps in November.

4. Tsunami - the GOP would ride a tsunami into office around energy (Free Republic, 6-19-08, “How McCain and the GOP Can Ride An Energy Wave To Victory”, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fnews/2033687/posts, [Ian Miller]) The energy problem in the US is lightning in a bottle for the candidate and/or party that can unleash it. The issue is there for the GOP to take advantage of as they by far have been much more on the right side of the issue. I'm no big fan of McCain. He wasn't my 1st, 2nd, or 3rd choice but it's who we have. It appears that he is getting the message about the energy crisis in the country, unlike Obama who keeps mouthing the same empty liberal rhetoric. Americans have had it with high energy prices because they know that rising food prices and rising prices of just about everything else is related to the higher energy costs. They are also learning that we have more oil available under our ground and shores than the entire Middle East. Even democrats with half a brain left are saying "it's time to drill!" Different republicans are offering different, albeit very similar solutions. McCain has some ideas. Current members of Congress have some ideas. Newt Gingrich has some ideas and has perhaps been in front on this issue with his "Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less." campaign. What the GOP needs to do is rally around a singular plan, much like they did in the 1992 elections with Newt's "Contract With America" plan. Here's how I think they get there and how they can "drop the bomb" on the democrats. First, McCain make ENERGY INDEPENDENCE along with national security the #1 campaign issue. There is simply NO down side to this. Energy independence means HUGE JOB GROWTH in a slumping economy, BIG DROP in energy prices, food prices, and all related industries, which all adds up to a roaring economy, and it means NO MORE RELIANCE on foreign thugs, dictators, and terrorists for our energy. These are the points that need to be stressed. Second, the way McCain brings this front and center is to pick a VP candidate to be his point man on this. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you...Newt Gingrich. Again, Newt is not the perfect conservative. He has some baggage, but in this day and age, who doesn't? I think he IS the perfect VP candidate under these conditions. He knows the energy issue inside-and-out and can bring instant authority and credibility to the ticket on this issue. Of course, Newt is a strong conservative on most other issues as well. Then, McCain and Newt need to have an "emergency energy conference" with GOP members of Congress and those GOP challengers running for office. You think Newt could work with Congressional GOP members? Obviously. Slam Dunk. They come up with a singular energy plan, basically calling for the opening up of onshore and offshore oil fields, coal fields, nuclear energy, etc., AND "fast-tracking" these through Congress. Similar to the "Contract with America", these candidates sign a pledge to back these measures in office. Then, a massive, coordinated ad campaign follows. They can use Newt's "Drill Here. Drill Now" slogan, and add "VOTE - " at the end. These ads will highlight how the democrats have blocked our energy independence, what the GOP plan is, how it would lead to energy independence, and all the benefits that would result. The ads then end with the slogan. If it's a Presidential ad, it ends with "DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. VOTE MCCAIN/GINGRICH.". If it's a national GOP ad, it ends with "DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. VOTE REPUBLICAN". It it's an ad for a Congressional candidate it can end with "DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. VOTE THOMPSON.", or whoever the candidate is. I believe that IF the GOP can coordinate a plan and strategy such as this, that they can ride a tsunami into office. Really, that could be the tip of the iceberg.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

5. Separation - Obama is barely winning separation on energy is key (Frank Newport, 6-24-08, “Obama Has Edge on Key Election Issues Better positioned than McCain on top two issues -- gas prices and economy”, http://www.gallup.com/poll/108331/Obama-Has-Edge-Key-Election-Issues.aspx, [Ian Miller]) Americans see Barack Obama as better able than John McCain to handle energy issues and the economy, the two most important election issues in the public's eyes, according to a recent Gallup survey. Six other issues were tested in the poll, with the two candidates positioned roughly evenly on Iraq, moral values, and illegal immigration, while Obama has an edge on healthcare and taxes. McCain's only advantage is on terrorism. The June 15-19 USA Today/Gallup poll asked Americans to rate the importance of the presidential candidates' positions on eight policy issues. The poll then asked respondents questions designed to measure the degree to which they perceive Obama and McCain as comparatively able to handle each of the eight issues. A majority of Americans believe that the candidates' positions on all issues tested will be either "extremely" or "very important" to their vote, not a surprising finding given that each issue included in the list was one that has received attention and focus in the campaign this year. The proportion of Americans who rate each issue as "extremely" important, perhaps a better test of each issue's impact this fall, ranges from 27% to 51%. Two issues top the list, based on the percentage rating each as extremely important in choosing between candidates: energy/gas prices and the economy. (Energy has spiked in its importance to voters in recent months as gas prices have risen to the $4-per-gallon level.) Obama has a clear advantage over McCain on both of these top two issues. Americans give Obama a 19-point edge over McCain as best able to deal with energy, with 47% choosing Obama and 28% McCain. On the economy, Obama has a 16-point margin over McCain, 48% to 32%. The next tier of issues -- Iraq, healthcare, and terrorism -- receive "extremely important" ratings from 41% to 44% of Americans. The positioning of the candidates on these three issues is mixed. Obama and McCain are tied as to who would be best able to handle Iraq; Obama wins by a substantial 25-point margin on healthcare; and McCain wins over Obama on terrorism by 19 points. (Terrorism is the only issue of the eight tested on which McCain has a significant margin over Obama.) The bottom tier of issues is seen as extremely important by no more than a third of Americans: taxes, moral values, and illegal immigration. On two of these issues -- moral values and illegal immigration -- Obama and McCain are tied. Obama has a smaller, nine-point lead over McCain on taxes. Summary Obama is leading McCain by six points among registered voters in the head-to-head matchup included in the current USA Today/Gallup poll, and there are significantly more Americans at the moment who identify themselves as Democrats than as Republicans. So it may not be surprising that Obama is rated as better able to handle more of the tested issues than is McCain. Regardless of the cause, the finding that Obama has significant strength on domestic issues is potentially quite meaningful in this year's election, given that gas prices and the economy are the two issues the public is most likely to see as important in choosing between presidential candidates. In fact, further analysis of the poll results shows that less than half of Americans believe McCain would be able to do a good job of handling either gas prices or the economy, while 59% say Obama would be able to do a good job on both of these issues. Iraq, on which the two candidates have sharply divergent positions, is not too far behind energy/gas prices and the economy in terms of imputed importance. At the moment, Americans are equally likely to choose Obama as positioned to do the better job on Iraq as they are to choose McCain. The poll points to one undisputed strength for McCain: terrorism. Slightly less than half of Americans say Obama would do a good job of handing terrorism, while 70% say that about McCain. But terrorism is slightly less important as a voting issue in Americans' eyes than are economic issues, gas prices, and Iraq. Indeed, a separate question in the poll, to be examined in detail later this week on gallup.com, shows that given a choice, Americans would rather have a president whose greatest strength is fixing the economy rather than one whose greatest strength is fighting terrorism. These data would suggest that from a campaign perspective, Obama would be advised to play off his domestic strengths, particularly in terms of the economy, to attempt to neutralize McCain's strength on terrorism, and to increase his (Obama's) perceived strength on Iraq. McCain, on the other hand, has a clear base of strength on national security, but needs to move into a more competitive position with Obama in terms of critical domestic issues relating to the economy and gas prices.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Politics – A/T: McCain Win Now 1. Polls - Obama is winning right now by 18 percent, because voters believe that changing parties in the White House will bring change to government policies. 2. McCain’s tied to bush McCain loses- no distance from Bush Judson Berger, staff writer, July 7, 2008 Fox News“MEET THE CANDIDATES: OBAMA, MCCAIN FINE TUNE IMAGE FOR NOVEMBER” http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/07/meet-the-candidates-obama-mccain-fine-tune-image-for-november/ Obama’s depiction of McCain has been crystal clear since he clinched the Democratic nomination. McCain is an older and more tired third Bush term — and despite his maverick record he’s traded in his independent stripes to run for president. “Bush is a millstone around his neck, and unless he can get to the center, he can’t win. It’s just impossible,” said Democratic pollster Doug Schoen. In practically every move McCain makes — from traveling to Latin America to promote free trade to reversing position to support lifting a ban on offshore oil drilling — the Obama campaign says McCain is mimicking the current, unpopular president. “While John McCain can legitimately tout moments of independence from his party in the past, such independence has not been the hallmark of his presidential campaign,” Obama said in St. Paul, Minn., when he clinched the nomination. “It’s not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush 95 percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year.”



FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

3. McSame A. McCain is tied to Bush Chris Cillizza – Washington Post political analyst; 6-18-08; “The Fix” Washington Post, http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/06/fix_pick_mcsame.html John McCain = George W. Bush. For much of the last few months, Democrats and their affiliate groups have worked hard to ensure voters become familiar with that equation. The Democratic National Committee has run ads that end with a picture of President Bush with his arm around McCain. Campaign to Defend America, a since-defunct third party group aligned with Democrats, called McCain the "McSame as Bush." In nearly ever speech he gives, Obama makes clear that he believes McCain's agenda for the country -- on issues ranging from the economy to Iraq -- represents nothing more than a third Bush term. It's hard to miss the message. And, according to a new poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News voters are internalizing the message. Thirty eight percent of those surveyed said McCain would take the country in a "new" direction, while 57 percent said a McCain administration would mostly keep America on the "same" course. In a New York Times/CBS poll conducted earlier this month, 43 percent of respondents said McCain would "continue Bush's policies," 28 percent said McCain would be less conservative than Bush, and 21 percent said McCain would be more conservative. Does that perception of McCain match the reality of the Arizona Senator's record over the last eight years? Elizabeth Bumiller of the New York Times attempted to answer that question in a front page story that ran on Tuesday. (One benefit of a cross country flight is that you can read all the major papers cover to cover.) Bumiller's conclusion? Yes and no. Yes on many major issues including the future of American involvement in Iraq, the economy and health care. No on the environment (McCain has been relatively outspoken within his party regarding the perils of global warming) and American diplomacy. "While it would be hard to categorize him as a doctrinaire Republican or conservative, Mr. McCain appears to have ceded some of his carefully cultivated reputation as a maverick," writes Bumiller, noting McCain's reversal on Bush's tax cuts -- he voted against them in 2001 but is now a supporter. But, she also notes -- and this is an important point -- that McCain and Bush are stylistically opposite, meaning that a McCain presidency might resemble the current administration on many policy matters but would have a very different personality. "Presidencies are about more than policies, of course, and Mr. McCain would bring a different style, background and world view to the White House should he be elected in November," says Bumiller. One of the biggest and most important decisions for voters in the coming general election is whether or not they believe that McCain will be the same as or different (in a good way) than Bush. Given Bush's dismal approval ratings, if voters decide McCain is too much like the current chief executive Republicans will have little hope of keeping the White House this fall. McCain and his campaign are well aware of the peril posed by being tied too tightly to Bush and are doing everything they can to put distance between the two men. Witness McCain's latest ad in which a narrator notes: "John McCain stood up to the president and sounded the alarm on global warming, five years ago." One ad will not solve McCain's "same as Bush" problem. According to the current numbers, McCain must create more space between himself and Bush in order to win the White House.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

B. Plan’s a win for Bush Paula Wolfson , writer for VOA news, Bush: Nuclear Power Must be Important Part of US Future , 6-21-2007 Following a tour of the plant, President Bush spoke of the need to encourage more companies to apply for permits to build nuclear power facilities. He said nuclear power must be part of a national energy strategy. "I believe that it is essential that we have a comprehensive energy policy to be able to deal with the challenges we are going to face in the 21st century - whether that be energy independence, or economic security or good environmental policy. And at the core of that policy must be electricity generated from nuclear power," he said. Nuclear power fell out of favor in the United States following an accident at the Three Mile Island facility in Pennsylvania in 1979. The Bush administration says since then, improvements in safety technology have made nuclear energy viable once again. President Bush spoke about the safety issue during his visit to Alabama. "Nuclear power is safe. The sector is one of the safest industries in the United States. Advances in science and engineering and plant design have made nuclear plants even safer than the last generation of plants," he said.



FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Politics A/T: Won’t Strike 1. McCain himself said that he will attack Iran. Our evidence directly quotes him in saying that their will be other wars in his presidency besides Iraq, and that he will strike Iran because his whole career is wrapped up in the military and national security. 2. Bush doctrine – McCain will aggressively pursue the Bush doctrine and strike Iran Matthew Yglesias, Associate Editor of The Atlantic Monthly, The American Prospect, 4-28-08, http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_militarist But despite McCain's loss in 2000, the strategic concepts he outlined back in 1999 came to be at the core of what we today term the Bush doctrine. Most significant is the emphasis on preventive war as a tool of policy. As outlined in McCain's disquisition on North Korea, the fact that some state does not, in fact, pose an imminent threat to the United States is no reason to refrain from attacking it. On the contrary, the fact that a state is nonthreatening is a reason to attack it as soon as possible, lest it become more powerful over time. In Bush's hands, this concept has led not only to the fiasco in Iraq but also to North Korea's acquisition of nuclear weapons and to several missed opportunities to secure the verifiable disarmament of Iran. McCain has pushed this doctrine longer, harder, and more consistently than has Bush. In the spring of 2002, when the Bush administration was still formally committed to reinvigorating the inspections process in Iraq, McCain was planted firmly on the administration's right flank, offering a strident call for regime change in Baghdad. In a speech to the American Jewish Committee, McCain explicitly drew the links between his 1999 rollback vision and the disastrous course on which Bush was about to embark the nation, saying proudly that "several years ago, I and many others argued that the United States, in concert with willing allies, should work to undermine from within and without outlaw regimes." Now, he said, the president had articulated a policy wherein "dictators that support and harbor terrorists and build [nuclear, chemical, or biological] weapons are now on notice that such behavior is, in itself, a casus belli. Nowhere is such an ultimatum more applicable than in Saddam Hussein's Iraq." At a time when politicians were bowing to the pressure to support the war but also offering careful caveats, McCain did the reverse. He went further than even Bush in predicting that the liberation of Baghdad "will serve as a counterpoint to the state-directed Arab media's distortion of the Palestinian conflict," embracing the view, then popular on the neoconservative fringe, that the road to Jerusalem ran through Baghdad. Likewise, McCain advanced the idea that remaking Iraq as a democracy "cannot be the end" of an American effort to re-order political conditions throughout the Middle East. This commitment is precisely the blunder that led the United States to compound the error of invading Iraq by later spurning peace offerings from Iran and rejecting all entreaties to make a serious effort at stabilizing the regional situation through engagement with Iraq's neighbors. And of course it's the same commitment that has led to repeated outbursts of anti-Iranian saber-rattling from the Bush administration, as the hawk faction with which McCain has consistently aligned himself threatens to seize control of the policy agenda and plunge the country into a new conflict. *** Optimistic liberals note that McCain has shown some capacity to change his mind, and that he has expanded his circle of advisers beyond the core group of neoconservative fanatics. But despite the disaster of Iraq, McCain remains as committed to a far-right vision of American foreign policy as ever. Well-known campaign "gaffes," like when he sang "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" to the tune of The Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann," are more than verbal fumbles on the part of a 71-year-old man? they are expressions of views McCain articulates with regularity. While Bush has been criticized for advancing an unduly broad conception of the terrorism problem, allowing Iraq, Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah to all be swept together with al-Qaeda, McCain sees a need to go even bigger. In a May 2007 speech to the Hoover Institution, McCain explained that the so-called war on terror is merely part of a "worldwide political, economic, and philosophical struggle between the future and the past, between progress and reaction, and between liberty and despotism." The despotism problem, in McCain's view, goes beyond the traditional axis of evil and requires us to not only "not put pressure on dictators in Iran, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma, and other pariah states" but also to fret that Russia and China have joined forces to block such pressure. At a time when the Bush administration has to some extent backed away from rogue-state rollback, McCain has decided to double down, concluding that the rogue-state problem can't be resolved until all autocratic powers are brought down. "Iran is able to aggressively pursue nuclear weapons and hegemony in the Persian Gulf," he said in the Hoover speech, "in part, because it has been shielded by the world's powerful autocracies." To combat this alleged conspiracy of dictatorships, McCain has proposed creating a "worldwide League of Democracies," whose role would be to create an alternative mechanism to the United Nations that could facilitate coercive action "with or without Moscow's and Beijing's approval." His

Continued – no text removed… Continued – no text removed… campaign Web site further ups the ante for conflict with Russia and China by going beyond the standard missile defense mumbo jumbo to describe his planned shield as intended to "hedge against potential threats from possible strategic competitors like Russia and China," in contrast to a Bush administration which has limited its shield rhetoric to rogue states. McCain would take an impractical and somewhat provocative idea and then make it worse by injecting additional provocation for no real

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name reason. At Hoover, McCain referred to his foreign-policy agenda as a "vision of a new era of enduring peace based on freedom," but it's clear that his policies will lead to more conflict than peace. Some of McCain's ideas are so unrealistic that it's hard to know what they would amount to in practice -- for example, there's no indication that any countries are eager to sign up for his League of Democracies. But a policy of rogue-state rollback would be a recipe for a new cold war (or two) with a few proxy conflicts thrown in for good measure. If we take McCain at his word, his administration will be prepared to back up our proxies with direct military intervention if necessary. What's more, McCain has made it clear over the years that he holds an unusually expansive view of what military action entails?namely a willingness to press through to the end and hold out for total victory irrespective of the cost. McCain correctly observes in a November/December 2007 Foreign Affairs article that it should be possible to get the existing nuclear powers to push for revisions aimed at closing some of the loopholes in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and thus greatly enhance American security. Unfortunately, the rest of his agenda pushes in the direction of much more nuclear proliferation. An avowed American policy of undermining Russia's and China's nuclear deterrent would force Russia and China to engage in new nuclear buildups to re-establish it, prompting a cascade of proliferation in India, Pakistan, and possibly beyond, and likely wreck all effort at reviving the multilateral arms-control regime. Meanwhile, the rollback policy will prevent any sort of diplomatic arrangement with potential proliferators like Iran and North Korea. McCain has said that in his opinion, "there's only one thing worse than the United States exercising the military option; that is a nuclear-armed Iran." If he means those words seriously, then a policy that takes meaningful diplomacy off the table will mean war with Tehran? just as McCain's "joke" about The Beach Boys song indicated. If he doesn't, it'll mean Iran moving closer to nuclear weapons capabilities.

3. Regime change – regime change is the only tool of foreign policy that McCain knows John Judis, visiting fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The New Republic, 7-30-08, http://tnr.com/story_print.html?id=220a2dab-3d4b-45e4-9355-b03d44b6b844 So could McCain still do a "Nixon-goes-to-China"? Nixon was a realist whose achievement as a statesman (as distinct from his failure as president) rested on his recognition of the limits of American power. He understood when he came to office that the United States could not hope to achieve victory in Vietnam but would have to settle for an imperfect compromise and, after backtracking, eventually did. Nixon, who could get into a funk over domestic opponents, was capable of an eerie detachment when it came to evaluating foreign leaders. He could also appreciate the historic insecurities that led countries to distrust the United States and each other. He confined his apocalyptic warnings of a worldwide communist conspiracy to domestic politics. He understood that beneath the appearance of socialist solidarity lay growing hostility between Russia and China, which the United States could exploit. By contrast, McCain is a radical idealist who wants to transform the world and is reluctant to acknowledge limits to this enterprise. He imagines a "democratic" Iraq opposed to Iran and occupied indefinitely by American troops. And McCain does not seem to possess Nixon's detachment when it comes to foreign affairs. He can't see what drove Putin and now his successor to distance themselves from the United States; or what--since the time of the pro-American Shah-has driven Iran, irrespective of Ahmadinejad, to seek a nuclear capability. If anything, McCain brings the same readiness to anger to bear in foreign relations that marked his tenure in the Senate. But it's one thing to blow up at a colleague and quite another to do so at a foreign president. The former may lead to difficulties in getting a bill passed; the latter to protracted conflict and even war. If one insists upon identifying a nation with its leader and seeing that leader as either incurably wicked or deeply irrational, then that rules out diplomacy or deterrence. Regime change becomes the only way of addressing a foe's antagonism. That, of course, was the argument that McCain and others used to justify the invasion of Iraq, and he seems to be making the same argument about Russia and Iran. John McCain has certainly had moments of greatness as a man and a politician, but, as a statesman, he's no Richard Nixon.



FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Politics A/T: Link Turn 1. We control the uniqueness. Extend the 1NC uniqueness evidence that indicates Obama is ahead now by 18 points in the polls because he’s controlling the energy issue now. 2. We control the internal link - Obama so far ahead on other social issues that energy policy would lead to swing votes for McCain. There is only a risk of a link because bush is still in office. Nuclear mobilizes independent voters. 2. Spin-offs – the Gop will be able to spin energy in their favor because Obama opened the door for the GOP when he said that high energy costs would allow Americans to change their gluttonous ways. The GOP would be able to capitalize on this issue by formulating a solid energy plan, allowing McCain to win the election. 3. Distance - New energy policy would put McCain ahead of Obama and Bush AP, 6/17/2008, McCain's Energy Plan Seeks Break From Bush, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/17/politics/main4186261.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_4186261 Republican Sen. John McCain called for a clean break from Bush administration energy policies on Tuesday, then promptly pivoted to accuse campaign rival Barack Obama of supporting recycled measures that failed in the past. McCain's bid to chart a middle course on a major issue hit a bump, though, when he criticized Obama for proposing a windfall profits tax despite saying last month he would consider the same proposal. In a speech in energy-producing Texas, McCain said the United States needs more oil than during the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s, yet produces less. Now, he warned, a single successful terror attack at an oil installation could plunge the country into an "economic crisis of monumental proportions." With President Bush's poll ratings at historically low levels, McCain often emphasizes his differences with the current administration, and he coupled his speech with the release of a new television commercial stressing an issue that appeals to environmentalists. "John McCain stood up to the president and sounded the alarm on global warming - five years ago," the ad states. "Today, he has a realistic plan that will curb greenhouse gas emissions. A plan that will help grow our economy and protect our environment." Aides said the commercial would run in several battleground states and on cable television over the next several days. Democrats immediately said McCain was not credible on the issue. "How can we trust John McCain to confront soaring gas prices or break America's dependence on foreign oil when he caved in to Big Oil on drilling and tax breaks ... and he has repeatedly opposed incentives for green jobs and renewable energy?" said Karen Finney, a spokeswoman at the Democratic National Committee. McCain included little in the way of new proposals in his speech, other than to call for reform of the laws governing the oil futures trading market and to repeat his day-old support for an end to the federal moratorium on offshore oil drilling. He favors allowing states to decide whether to explore offshore waters. He said he would outline additional specific measures in the next two weeks, and instead, used his speech to make the case for eliminating U.S. dependence on foreign oil, call for a break from Bush policies and criticize Obama. "... In effect, our petrodollars are underwriting tyranny, anti-Semitism, the brutal repression of women in the Middle East, and dictators and criminal syndicates in our own hemisphere," said the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting in his prepared remarks. "The next president must be willing to break with the energy policies not just of the current Administration, but the administrations that preceded it, and lead a great national campaign to achieve energy security for America," he said. McCain also reiterated his opposition to a 2005 energy bill that Bush backed and Obama voted for.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Politics A/T: Strikes Good 1. Extinction - Iran strikes would escalate into global nuclear war resulting in extinction, because they would inevitably lead to the violation of the npt treaty because the U.S. would release low-yield nuclear bombs against Iran in retaliation of attacks against Israel and Iraq because they would be by U.S. soldiers. This would cause all 182 countries in the npt to go nuclear leading to an unstable and nuclear armed world. 2. Middle East conflagration - Iran strikes would escalate into a broader Middle East conflagration Michel Chossudovsky, Center for Research on Globalization, 1/16/07 “Editorial Note – Iran: Pieces in Place for Escalation” http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4483 [Mills] The following text by Colonel Sam Gardiner (USAF, Retired) confirms our worst fears. The US is in an advanced state of readiness to wage war on Iran. To reverse the tide requires a massive campaign of networking and outreach to inform people across the land, nationally and internationally, in neighborhoods, workplaces, parishes, schools, universities, municipalities, on the dangers of a US sponsored war, which contemplates the use of nuclear weapons. The message should be loud and clear: It is not Iran which is a threat to global security but the United States of America and Israel. Even without the use of nukes, the proposed aerial bombardments could result in escalation, ultimately leading us into a broader war in the Middle East. Debate and discussion must also take place within the Military and Intelligence community, particularly with regard to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, within the corridors of the US Congress, in municipalities and at all levels of government. Ultimately, the legitimacy of the political and military actors in high office must be challenged. The corporate media also bears a heavy responsibility for the cover-up of US sponsored war crimes. It must also be forcefully challenged for its biased coverage of the Middle East war. What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called "Homeland Security agenda" which has already defined the contours of a police State. The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, "a long war", which threatens the future of humanity. It is essential to bring the US war project to the forefront of political debate, particularly in North America and Western Europe. Political and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must take a stance individually and collectively against war.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

AT: McCain Wins on Military 1. Not a large enough voter base to impact the election. 2. Obama is winning on energy, which is the largest issue in the election because it directly effects American wallets, that’s the 1NC Caldwell evidence. 3. The difference on energy and the economy has put Obama ahead nationally, that’s the Ward evidence. 4. Energy is the key to the election – Obama’s up. Tom Raum, AP staff writer, 6/23/2008, Gas at $4 brings promises, pandering, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isJU4OyzZglXxAWlzkvmnslNP3-wD91FUOI00 [ND] Obama and McCain have made high gas prices a top issue in their campaigns and have offered dueling remedies aimed at easing them. Their positions are being echoed daily by their surrogates on Capitol Hill. And both make it sound as if only their proposals would chart the path to lower fuel prices and a final cure for what President Bush once labeled the nation's addiction to foreign oil. This debate is certain to get louder as the November election approaches. In a USA Today-Gallup Poll released Monday, nine in 10 people said energy, including gas prices, would be very or extremely important in deciding their presidential vote in November, tying it with the economy as the top issue. People said Obama would do a better job than McCain on energy issues by 19 percentage points.

5. Obama will win – people love him and McCain is clueless Doavid Usborne, staff writer for The independent, 5/30/08, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20080530/ai_n25481332/print?tag=artBody;col1 Rupert Murdoch, the media mogul who has a history of subordinating his conservative instincts to pragmatism when it comes to choosing sides in national elections, has spoken up for Barack Obama, terming him a "rock star" who is "likely to win" the White House in November. Stopping short of offering an actual endorsement, Mr Murdoch made plain his enthusiasm for the Democratic hopeful when speaking on the fringes of a digital conference in California sponsored by The Wall Street Journal, recently acquired by News Corp. "He is a rock star," said Mr Murdoch. "I love what he is saying about education. I think he will win and I am anxious to meet him." Recalling a surprising loss of a safe Republican seat in a Mississippi by-election recently, Mr Murdoch suggested November may see a Democrat landslide. "You have probably the making of complete phenomenon in this country," he noted. John McCain, he said, goes into the election with "lots of problems". Mr Obama is tantalisingly close to seizing the Democratic nomination. Only three more primary votes remain - Puerto Rico on Sunday, followed by Montana and South Dakota on Tuesday. A potential bump on the road is a meeting tomorrow of the party's rules committee, which will consider proposals to reinstate votes cast in Florida and Michigan that were disqualified because both states voted too early. Mr Murdoch called Mr McCain, the Republican nominee, a "friend of mine" but was unexpectedly harsh in his assessment of him. "He's been in Congress a long time, and you have to make a lot of compromises. I think he has a lot of problems." He added Mr McCain "doesn't know much about the economy". While he was a "patriot", "he doesn't know much about organising a campaign, it would seem". Not everyone will be surprised by Mr Murdoch's comments. Earlier this year, his newspaper The New York Post endorsed Mr Obama over Hillary Clinton on the eve of New York's primary election, even though Mr Murdoch had previously appeared to have courted both the former first lady and her husband, Bill Clinton. He admitted in California that he had been involved in the newspaper's nod for Mr Obama. He predicted that the deteriorating economy will aid Mr Obama's bid. "The average American is really getting hurt financially and that all bodes well for him," he said. And while he said the race issue would be a challenge, "it looks like he will overcome that totally".

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

AT: Separation Key 1. Plan solves separation, Bush hasn’t made himself known for his support of SPS. 2. We still win the direction of the link, space exploration is popular, and McCain will take credit for it. AP, 6/17/2008, McCain's Energy Plan Seeks Break From Bush, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/17/politics/main4186261.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_4186261 A spokeswoman said McCain had neither erred in his earlier comment nor changed his mind since. "He said he is willing to look at all ideas not simply Republican or Democratic ideas," said Jill Hazelbaker, McCain's communications director. McCain said the time has come for the United States to make a "great turn away from carbon-emitting fuels." He called for greater use of nuclear power as well as for alternative energy sources and greater conservation measures. "Over time, we must shift our entire energy economy toward a sustainable mix of new and cleaner power sources. This will include some we use already, such as wind, solar, biofuels, and other sources yet to be invented," he said. "It will include a variety of new automotive and fuel technologies - clean-burning coal and nuclear energy - and a new system of incentives, under a cap-and-trade policy, to put the power of the market on the side of environmental protection," he said.

3. Low Bush popularity is a death knell – improving his ratings boosts McCain By Dick Morris, a political analyst for Fox and a columnist for the Hill, 5/18/2008, Obama Has the Upper Hand. But McCain Can Still Take Him, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/16/AR2008051603729_pf.html [ND] Which brings us to George W. Bush, the least popular president of modern times. Unlikely as it sounds, the soon-to-be former president needs to get out of the White House, reenter the political arena (much as it will pain him) and go around the country telling us two things: First, we are winning in Iraq; second, the economy is not as bad as most people think. With the Dow at around 12,800 and unemployment at 5 percent, Bush can make a good case that things aren't really headed for the rocks. And he'll have to. Republicans cannot win with an incumbent president with rock-bottom ratings. Bush can help McCain, but that doesn't mean that McCain should support Bush. As Bush makes the case for himself, McCain must put distance between them. A lot of distance. Once, McCain ran against Bush. But since then, he has basked in the glow of Bush's warm welcome back to the mainstream of the party. Now McCain needs to free himself of Bush's spell, go out again into the cold and show the country the difference between his agenda and Bush's.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

AT: Obama Will Strike 1. Only a risk of offense for us, McCain will strike regardless escalating to extinction. 2. The Newbart evidence doesn’t say that Obama will strike, just that he hasn’t taken the option off the table. 3. Obama won’t strike Iran NPR 8/13/07 (“Obama: Iran requires direct diplomacy”, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15251928) Sen. Barack Obama says that as president, he would use direct diplomacy to constrain Iran's role in Iraq, encouraging Iran to cooperate with the United States through non-military means. In an interview with NPR's Andrea Seabook from a campaign stop in Iowa, Obama said that he'd use whatever military force is necessary to protect U.S. citizens, but that "the military option is not the only option in the toolbox." "I think Iran understands what military threats we pose. You know, they're not surprised that we could strike them, and strike them hard," Obama said. "What we haven't suggested in any way is what advantages they would have in acting more responsibly in the region. That's been the missing ingredient." The Illinois Democrat's comments follow a week of sparring over Iran with his main rival Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has a commanding lead in the polls. On Thursday, Clinton said she'd meet with Iranian leaders "without preconditions" — a position she criticized Obama for taking earlier in the summer. Obama also questioned Clinton's judgment in voting for last month's Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which identified the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Obama said the amendment included language that empowers the president to attack Iran."This is a lesson that I think Sen. Clinton and others should have learned: that you can't give this president a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it," Obama said.

4. Obama won’t strike Iran – he’s already opposed a resolution to go to war with Iran Donald Lambro 2/11/08 (The Washington Times, “Iraq aside, Democrats mum on foreign policy”, lexis) Last year, though, Mrs. Clinton came under fire from antiwar activists when she voted for a bipartisan Senate resolution condemning the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization that was responsible for roadside bombings and other attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq. Antiwar critics saw the vote as an attempt by the Bush administration to prepare to go to war against Iran unless it abandoned its ambitions to develop nuclear weapons. Mr. Obama opposed the resolution but missed the vote because he was campaigning. Many of Mr. Obama 's foreign policy advisers are also from the Clinton administration, including former National Security Adviser Anthony Lake, Susan E. Rice, an assistant secretary of state during Mr. Clinton's second term, and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig. Also on his team are Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brezezinski, and former National Security Agency counterterrorism specialist Richard Clarke. A key foreign policy clash that developed during debates between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama arose when he called for a change in dealing with rogue nations, saying he would hold unconditional talks with leaders of Iran, North Korea and Cuba. Mrs. Clinton called his proposal "irresponsible and, frankly, naive." Mr. Obama shot back, charging that her approach was outdated and represented a continuation of the Bush-Cheney policies. Mr. Obama 's foreign policy emphasizes personal diplomacy, economic development and humanitarian aid, and he rejects the pre-emptive policies of the Bush administration that led to the war in Iraq. "For most of our history, our crises have come from using force when we shouldn't, not by failing to use force," he told the New York Times. "The United States is trapped by the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that refuses to talk to leaders we don't like. Not talking doesn't make us look tough; it makes us look arrogant," he says on his campaign Web site. But Mr. O'Hanlon thinks Mr. Obama 's eagerness for one-on-one meetings with leaders of rogue nations "would cheapen the value of a presidential summits." "You don't want a president using his time by being lied to by foreign leaders. Hillary would be much more pragmatic. She suggested midlevel talks with Iran. Obama would look weak, and Hillary would not look weak," he said.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

5. Obama will not strike Iran FOXNews.com, 7- 9, 2008 “MCCAIN, OBAMA STAKE OUT DIFFERENCES ON IRANIAN MISSILE TESTS” http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/09/obama-says-iranian-missile-tests-prove-need-for-diplomacy/ “I would want to talk to the national security team to find out whether this indicates any new capabilities on Iran’s part. At this point, the reports aren’t clear. It’s still early,” Obama told CBS’ “Early Show.” “But I think what this underscores is the need for us to create a kind of policy that is putting the burden on Iran to change behavior. And, frankly, we just have not been able to do that over the last several years. Partly because we’re not engaged in direct diplomacy,” he said. His campaign released a statement saying: “These missile tests demonstrate once again that we need to change our policy to deal aggressively with the threat posed by the Iranian regime. “Now is the time to work with our friends and allies, and to pursue direct and aggressive diplomacy with the Iranian regime backed by tougher unilateral and multilateral sanctions. It’s time to offer the Iranians a clear choice between increased costs for continuing their troubling behavior, and concrete incentives that would come if they change course.” McCain told reporters in South Park, Pa., that the reported tests prove Iran is a threat to the surrounding region. “Channels of communication have been open and will remain open, but the time has now come for effective sanctions on Iran,” he said. “Diplomacy plays a key role … but history shows us when nations embark on paths that can jeopardize the security of the region and the world then other action besides diplomacy has to be contemplated and taken, and that’s why meaningful and impactful sanctions are called for at this time.” McCain said there is “continuing, mounting evidence that Iran is pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weapons,” a statement that appears at odds with a December U.S. intelligence report that concluded the country’s nuclear weapons program was halted in the fall of 2003.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

AT: Bush will strike 1. This card says that Bush should prepare for a strike, not that he will if Obama wins. 2. Obama’s promise that he won’t take force off the table means that Bush won’t take the risk of premature war. Dave Newbart 3/3/07 (Staff writer Chicago Sun-Times, “Obama: Iran threatens all of us”, http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article) Sen. Barack Obama said Friday the use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran, which he called "a threat to all of us." Speaking before a pro-Israel crowd at a downtown hotel, Obama also repeated his call for a phased pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq and strongly backed a strong U.S. relationship with Israel. Earlier in the day, the Republican National Committee took aim at Obama, issuing a research memo aimed at highlighting the Illinois freshman senator's lack of experience on foreign affairs. That the gloves-are-off memo was even generated at this time is a testament to Obama's growing strength in the Democratic primary field. Obama campaign spokesman Dan Pfeiffer dismissed the Republican memo as an "example of the type of politics Barack Obama is hoping to change." He said Obama has spoken out against the war for years. Iranian leader 'reckless' While he was being attacked in Washington, Obama was in friendly territory in Chicago as he appeared at a forum attended by 800 members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an influential pro-Israel lobby. He received a standing ovation from the crowd and a hug from one of the group's leaders. Obama said global leaders must do whatever it takes to stop Iran from enriching uranium and acquiring nuclear weapons. He called Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "reckless, irresponsible and inattentive" to the day-to-day needs of the Iranian people. The Iranian "regime is a threat to all of us," Obama said. While Obama wouldn't rule out force, he said the United States should engage in "aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions" to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear threat. Visited Israel last year Again taking aim at the Bush administration and the war in Iraq, he said the war had actually strengthened Iran's influence in the region. He noted the war had spurned "anti-U.S. and further anti-Israel propaganda." Obama told of a trip he took to Israel in January 2006, visiting a village that resembled a suburb in the United States. He said he was deeply moved by a visit to a home hit by a rocket launched by Hezbollah. "Our job is to never forget that the threat of violence is real," he said. Obama's appearance was seen as a move to court Jewish donors, although the event wasn't a fund-raiser. He did pose for photos with AIPAC members at a private reception before the speech. Although the event was billed as a "forum," he took no questions from the audience or media and left immediately after his half-hour speech. Even though many in the crowd endorsed his remarks, some said they are waiting to hear more from him in the coming months to better gauge his position on Israel and other foreign-policy questions. "He is an unknown," said Diane Dubey, an AIPAC member from Lincolnwood. Others said Obama, who largely read from prepared remarks, seemed slightly less passionate about the topic than presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, who spoke at AIPAC's national convention last year. Both Clinton and Obama will be at the convention March 11 in Washington. "He speaks beautifully, but we don't find a lot of emotion in what he says," said Mark Sherman of Northbrook.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

<McCain tied to bush> <evaluate the debate on who controls uniqueness, don’t blame for sweet evd, framing squo, controlling uniqueness more important>

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name Their affirmative links into our kritik regardless of the permutation, they assume that nature nature is just a commodity to be used. Ignore their permutation cards, (extend/read)

Reject the Affirmative plan and it’s framing of the environment as a commodity to be abused and exploited and affirm the goal of zero pollution- only in doing so can we break the economists shell of justifications and escape the cycle of moralized environmental destruction for monetary gain (Robert E. Kyklos, prof. philosophy at Research School of Social Sciences, 1994, Business Source Complete, “Selling Environmental Indulgences”, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=5&hid=109&sid=b3f2e93c-083f-43c2-905188c0309b685f%40sessionmgr107&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=bth&AN =9412201206) Neither, many would say, can cash transfers of the sort received in payment for environmental indulgences compensate for the harms involved in environmental despoliation. If, as just argued, they cannot be used to correct the damage, they could 'compensate' if at all only by making people better off in some other respect altogether. Their environment might be worse, but their wine cellar better; and, on balance, they think themselves better off in consequence. Surely it is true that overall well-being is a composite of roughly that sort; and surely some of its components are tradeable, at the margins, for one another in just that way. The question is whether environmental quality is of that character. On at least some of the arguments canvassed above, it is not: it is more fundamental; it is a precondition for valuing, rather than merely a source of values which can be set alongside and traded against other values. If so, neither money nor anything that money can buy can compensate for its loss[15]. Of course, there are also a great many practical difficulties in calculating (or, rather, in defending any particular calculation of) the cash value of environmental quality. More in deference to those practicalities than in deference to any matters of high principle, environmental economists are sometimes prepared (and governments are often keen) to fall back onto the first 'policyenforcement' defence of green taxes alone[16]. This fallback position amounts to using a 'market-based incentive system to meet pre-ordained environmental quality standards' (PEARCE et al., 1989. p. 165, after BAUMOL and OATES, 1971). The basic idea goes something like this. Let there be some independent social determination of the environmental standards that we want to attain. Let those be given by the political process, rather than by any economistic calculation of 'social cost' or 'optimal' despoliation. Let us merely use the price system to enforce that standard, floating the price up or down until the desired level of environmental quality has been achieved. There is, on this model, no independent justification of the particular price charged. It is all just a matter of what it takes to get people to cut back on their activities sufficiently to achieve our environmental targets[17]. While there is nothing special about the particular price being charged, however, there is nonetheless a good economistic reason to use price mechanisms to enforce those standards. The rationale is just that, insofar as the standards can be attained in ways that admit of partial noncompliance, pricing mechanisms evoke compliance from those whom economists would regard as the 'right' people -- those who gain relatively less from environmental despoliation or whom it costs relatively less to desist from it. This fallback position effectively insulates economists against the criticism that, in selling environmental indulgences, they are auctioning off nature's bounty too cheaply. If too much environmental despoliation is occurring, they would say, then that can only be for either of two reasons: either the price has been set too low to achieve the desired standard (and advocates of green taxes and such like would be the first to agree that it should be raised as high as necessary

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

to achieve that goal); or else the standard has been set too low (which is the fault of politicians, and ought not be taken as criticism of the price mechanism as a way of securing compliance with the standard). Either way, the complaint seems not to touch the practice of selling environmental indulgences, as such. Of course, efficiency gains from using the pricing mechanism even in this minimal way arise only in very particular circumstances. They presuppose that we can afford to tolerate some people, but not all people, acting as environmental despoilers. Sometimes, though, the situation is such that we cannot -- or cannot be sufficiently confident that we can -- afford any slackers at all. (Whaling negotiations are often like that: we do not know just how close we are to the limits of a successful breeding population, and given the real risks of destroying the whole species we do not want to take any chances.) Other times, considerations of fairness of the sort discussed in section II.5. above would lead us to say that, purely as a matter of principle, we should not tolerate any slackers even if practicalities would allow. For reasons either of practicality or principle, we might thus set the desired standard at zero despoliation. And if that is the goal, there is no advantage to pursuing it through the price mechanism. The more fundamental point to be made here, though, is that in retreating to this fallback position environmental economists really have given away their strongest claims on behalf of green taxes. Their proudest boast was that the buying of an environmental indulgence made despoliation not merely all right but actually right -- socially optimal. But that boast was predicated on the assumption that the price was right, that it was a true reflection of the full social costs of environmental despoliation. If there is no social-cost based rationale for the particular price being set for environmental indulgences, then their sale cannot perform that role of serving as a solvent turning wrongs into rights[18]. IV. CONCLUSIONS

How attractive we find green taxes and the 'polluter pays' principle more generally depends, in large part, upon what we see as their alternative. If, realistically, the alternative is polluters not paying, then the 'polluter pays' principle looks to be the relatively more restrictive option. Most of us would probably prefer a regime in which polluters at least be made to pay something -however inadequate that sum (or any sum) might be -- if the alternative realistically in view were that otherwise they be allowed to continue polluting with gay abandon. Suppose, however, the alternative in view were instead that polluters desist from polluting altogether. Then a rule that the 'polluter pays' looks to be the relatively more permissive option. If absent the option to pay the alternative is that people not pollute, then giving them permission to pollute upon payment is actually a mechanism for allowing more pollution than would otherwise occur. Seen in that light, many of us may well hesitate to endorse the 'polluter pays' principle that, in that other light, looked relatively attractive. Our kykos card specifically talks about how permutations aren’t possible because they continue to use economic factors to morally justify themselves. And you should ignore their claims of solving for pollution, The kritik is a gateway issue because we must first conceptualize the harms or benefits of thinking of nature as a dumping ground before we can examine whether or not giving people the right to pollute can solve. This issue comes first in determining whether the cap and trade based mindset is justified. Additionally, it’s the only real thing that happens in the round. Vote aff, and we leave the round with nothing, but examine the kritik as a gateway issue, and we can change the actual world by seeing if the way we manage the environment is good because the affirmative team did in real life advocate such a system. And extend our initial kyklos card, the affirmative alters our relationship with nature from a protector to an abuser, setting a price on its destruction by allowing companies to pollute for a small fee. The permutation doesn’t change this, ignoring this in all subsequent cases has already allowed for the initial impact to begin. And extend/read

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Tradable permits inverse the relationship between humanity and nature- by commodifying nature through the Right to Pollute, the environment is turned into our own perverse creation which we can in turn abuse and exploit My own view of the value of nature is very much like that. The value of natural processes is to provide a context, outside of ourselves (individually, or even collectively), in which to set our lives (see similarly HILL, 1983). What is wrong with environmental despoliation is that it deprives us of that context; it makes the external world more and more one of our own (perverse) creation. That is ultimately a wrong to humans, rather than to nature as such, to be sure. it is, nonetheless, a wrong that cannot be recompensed by cash payments. The humans wronged by such practices might be made better off in some sense or another by such payments. But they will be better off, if at all, in dimensions altogether different from those in which their losses have been sustained. The cash offered in payment for environmental indulgences -- through green taxes and such like -- cannot possibly recompense them for the loss of that context that provided meaning, of a sort, to their lives (GOODIN, 1992, pp. 41-54). We should view nature as a thing to be protected

The Environment and Nature, shared entities meant to be neither owned nor dominated by anyone, are now at risk of environmental despoiliation (Robert E. Kyklos, prof. philosophy at Research School of Social Sciences, 1994, Business Source Complete, “Selling Environmental Indulgences”, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=5&hid=109&sid=b3f2e93c-083f-43c2-905188c0309b685f%40sessionmgr107&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=bth&AN =9412201206) According to a common and currently influential diagnosis, the environmental crisis has essentially economic roots. The problem is not just that there are too many people, or even that they are on average enjoying too high a standard of living. All that is true, too, of course. More fundamentally, however, problems of environmental despoliation are said to derive from skewed incentives facing agents as they pursue their various goals. For some things, people must pay full price. For others, they pay only partially or indirectly or belatedly. To an economist, it goes without saying that the lower the costs the more people will consume of any particular commodity. Where some of the costs of their activities will be borne by others, agents looking only to their own balance sheets will over-engage in those activities. Because some of the costs are 'external' (which is to say, are borne by others, rather than themselves) agents will undertake more of those activities than they would have done, had they been forced to pay their full costs. They will do more of them than is socially optimal, taking due account of costs and benefits to everyone concerned (PIGOU, 1932). Environmental despoliation poses problems of economic externalities of just that sort. Environmental inputs are typically 'common property resources'. Clean air and water, fisheries, the ozone layer, the climate are everyone's business - and no one's. No one 'owns' those things. There is no one with standing to sue you if you take them without paying; nor is there anyone you could pay for permission to impinge on them, even if you wanted to do so. That fact inevitably gives rise to a divergence between the full social costs created by your actions and the portion of those costs sheeted back to you as private costs, to be entered on your own ledger. It is, of course, only the latter sorts of costs to which economically rational agents can be expected to respond (FREEMAN et al., 1973; FISHER, 1981; PEARCE, et al., 1989, see esp. p. 5).

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name This card shows that nature should be viewed as a thing to be protected because it represents something that is everyone’s and yet no ones and the same time, spoiling it hurts the resources that we all share. And doing so allows for numerous impacts. By saying that humans have the right to pollute, we condone current and increased pollution by saying its ok for a cost, one that commmodifies nature. This view insures a continual source of pollution as we begin to view it as our right. This turns the case, because the plan justifies increasing pollution for economic benefits, which will only inevitably turn the case. The alternative is the only way to solve. By rejecting the assumption that we have the right to pollute, we can reign in pollution and end the spoiling of nature by our incorrect assumptions.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name Obama would do the plan Barack Obama, 08 http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/firstamsecondev Tribal nations have joined in America’s quest for alternative, renewable energy. Because of their rural land bases and access to natural resources, many tribes have made great strides in economic development in the energy sector. Tribes have successful operations producing gas, solar, and wind energy. In addition to harnessing and producing energy, tribes have an interest in energy rights-of-way across tribal lands. Obama supports the production and mobility of sustainable energy in all communities, and recognizes the potential for energy development in Indian country. He also encourages energy companies and Indian tribes to negotiate in good faith to ensure tribes receive just compensation. Additionally, tribes are effectively unable to use the renewable energy Production Tax Credit, which provides tax incentives for the operation of renewable energy facilities. Obama supports creation of a Joint Venture Production Tax Credit that allows tribes to partner with private companies and fully utilize vast tribal energy resources.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name Native american’s are a swing vote MARTIN GRIFFITH, associated press, 7/13/08 http://www.santafenewmexican.com/National%20News/At-Nev--event--young-Native-Americans-mull-Obama--McCain Spoonhunter and about 1,000 other young Native Americans from across the country heard messages from Obama and John McCain at the annual United National Indian Tribal Youth (UNITY) conference in Reno. A representative of the National Congress of American Indians urged them to become politically active, saying the Native American vote could make a difference in this year's presidential election. Jackson Slim Brossy, legislative associate of the nonpartisan group based in Washington, D.C., said the Indian vote — which traditionally has been Democratic — is up for grabs this year as Obama and McCain both are trying to woo it. He said the Indian vote was a factor in Obama's defeat of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in June's Montana primary, as well as in past victories of U.S. Sens. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., and Jon Tester, D-Mont., and Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M. "The Native American vote has been overlooked in the past, but there's a trend of it making a difference and I think 2008 will continue the trend," Brossy told The Associated Press. "The vote will go to the candidate who reaches out more to Indian country and has the best policies for Indian country," he added. Jose Martinez Jr., 17, a Pima from Arizona's Salt River Reservation, praised McCain after hearing the Arizona senator's videotaped message. He said the Republican is better plugged into the concerns of Native Americans because he represents a state with more than 15 reservations and is former chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. "He has to live beside us and he understands how we live and think," Martinez said. "He's a simple man and simplicity has a way of winning the heart of people. He offers us stuff that he can actually deliver on."

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name Native Americans are a swing vote Rebecca Ford, Masters in journalism from USC, “New Mexico’s Swing Vote” 7/10/08 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-ford/new-mexicos-native-americ_b_112020.html Native American voters, often treated as an afterthought in presidential elections, are receiving an unprecedented amount of attention from both presidential candidates this year in the battleground state of New Mexico. It's a development nearly two decades in the making in which a handful of Albuquerque–based activists have been working to create a well-organized and powerful Native American voice. Today, with 63,000 registered voters, according to the Secretary of State’s Office, Native Americans may well be the swing constituency in one of the most politically volatile states in the country. The Sacred Alliance for Grassroots Equality (SAGE) Council, founded in 1996 by brother and sister Sonny and Laurie Weahkee, was formed to protest the construction of a road through the Petroglyph National Monument on Albuquerque's fast-growing westside. The city planned to build the road through the site, considered sacred to all of the state's pueblos, in order to ease traffic congrestion for many comuters. “A lot of people don’t realize that there’s not really a separation between the earth and the way we practice our cultures and our traditions,” said Sonny Weahkee. The petroglyphs, some of which are over 3,000 years old according to park officials, are still used for religious ceremonies by some tribes today. The Weahkees and their fellow activists did everything they could to stop the road from being built: collected signed petitions, spoke out at council meetings, and tried to block funding for the construction. Sonny and Laurie were even arrested, along with five other SAGE Council members, when they tried to physically stand in the way of the construction of the road. “At that time, we started to realize that the City of Albuquerque wasn’t going to move, no matter how many people we packed into the city council office,” said Sonny Weahkee, a Cochiti and Zuni Pueblo member. “They were never ever going to vote on our side.” The road was built in 2005. While the SAGE Council lost that battle, they learned an important lesson: in order for their voice to be heard, they had to mobilize the Native American vote. “If we stand together and vote together on whatever issue, we can start to gain some momentum and start turning people's heads,” said Sonny Weahkee. The SAGE Council created the Native American Voters Alliance, a network of Native Americans living in Albuquerque and rural areas of New Mexico. They registered voters at office buildings, and at the Albuquerque Indian Center. There would be long lines of Native Americans, many of whom had never before been asked to register. The Native American Voters Alliance went from a handful of members to over 6,700 participants. “The SAGE Council has probably done more for registering Native American voters, identifying registered Native American voters, keeping tabs on them, educating them on important issues, and making sure they get out to vote than any other group,” said Laura Harris, executive director of Americans for Indian Opportunity, an Albuquerque-based group which encourages Native American leadership. The SAGE Council tries to contact their thousands of members seven times before an election to educate them on what they deem issues important to Native Americans, and then encourage them to vote. This year, Laurie Weahkee became one of only four Native American superdelegates to the Democratic National Convention in Denver. She endorsed presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama in May. “He seems to be a lot more interested on root causes of things rather than a band-aid approach,” said Laurie Weahkee. She adds that the Native American vote is strong enough to make a real difference this year in a state that could be won or lost by hundreds of votes. “The Native American vote is really critical,” said Laurie Weahkee. “I think it’s even more important as Native people that we really are studying the different current issues and who is speaking to those particular platforms or solutions and then from there choosing our candidates.” Weahkee also encourages Native people to become involved in politics at any level. While New Mexico has yet to have a Native American member of Congress, there have been several Native politicians in local and state government positions. “I see a lot more Native people participating and willing to get more involved at the local level, which I think then translates to participating in the electoral process on a larger statewide and federal level,” she said.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name McCain can seize onto the plan and use it to swing the Indian vote away from democrats Rebecca Ford, Masters in journalism from USC,” 5/19/08 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-ford/mccain-courts-the-indian_b_102568.html Sen. John McCain has released his long-awaited "Native American Policy" in hopes of gathering more support from the often-ignored but influential group. The American Indian vote, which has been historically Democratic, could shift to the Republicans this election cycle because of the positive interaction and influence McCain has had with Native people. In states such as Arizona and New Mexico, where the Native American populations reach over 250,000 and 134,000 respectively, their vote could make a significant difference in the election. Reservations and tribal communities comprise over a quarter of Arizona's land. McCain, whose home state of Arizona includes over 20 Indian reservations, has a history of supporting tribal legislation. He served as former chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and is a current member of the committee. Along with the other two presidential candidates, McCain is a cosponsor of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, which passed the Senate in late February. "As president, John McCain will continue to build on his record of achieving results for Indian Country," the policy states. "And will continue to do so through close consultation with the tribes." McCain also promises to reform the trust system, fix education through the BIA schools construction initiative and continue to support tribes' rights to engage in gaming on Indian lands. The Arizona senator's advantage with Native Americans, whose population reached 4.3 million in 2000, is the past and personal interactions he's had with them. Each year, the Republican presidential candidate walks the 3-mile parade route of the annual Navajo Nation Fair in Arizona. McCain has also received the support of Native American Veterans, who said that if McCain were president he would act as "the eight hundred-pound gorilla against anti-Native American groups." This year could bring the highest turnout of Native American voters in history. In the New Mexico Democratic caucus, there was a significantly large turn out, according to Laura Harris, director of Americans for Indian Opportunity, in an interview with the High Country News. There are an estimated 150 Native American delegates. Kalyn Free, a Native American superdelegate, announced her support for Sen. Barack Obama earlier in May. "In 2008, we must elect a president who will restore our faith in the possibilities of each and every American, including the First Americans," said Free of her endorsement in a press release. While Obama has made some efforts to reach the Native American vote, it is too early to tell if voters feel that his dedication to their needs is as strong as McCain's.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name Issues of native American self sustainability hurt Obama, his campaign ignores these issues Rob Capriccioso, university of Michigan, political writing and editing contributions, including widely-read exclusives focused on the infamous "D.C. Madam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey, Best Journalistic Publication Media Award 8/1/08 http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096417847 Tom Arviso Jr., publisher of the Navajo Times, was primed and pumped to ask Sen. Barack Obama a question during the presumptive Democratic candidate's appearance at the 2008 UNITY: Journalists of Color convention July 26. He had been working for months with the Native American Journalists Association to have his voice heard. But at the last minute, UNITY organizers and CNN producers, who televised the event, cut Arviso from the lineup. He was told that his question could not fit into the senator's schedule. The newsman specifically wanted to know how the candidate would help tribes to become more self-sustaining. Arviso said the change was made ''basically at the request of the Obama camp,'' according to information he received from NAJA leaders. ''I was quite disappointed,'' said Arviso, who ultimately left the convention early in a sort of protest. ''What happened in Chicago, it just didn't look like it was run as professionally as it could have been - and, I think, a lot of that had to do with Obama's campaign. ... As journalists, we don't like to be told ahead of time what we're able to ask and what we're limited to. It boils down to a freedom of the press issue. Several Native journalists said after the event that developments at UNITY were an indication that Obama and his planners are sheltering the candidate from difficult questions.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name McCain is lacking native American support now, his choice to not attend UNITY: Journalists of Color convention hurt him Rob Capriccioso, university of Michigan, political writing and editing contributions, including widely-read exclusives focused on the infamous "D.C. Madam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey, Best Journalistic Publication Media Award 8/1/08 http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096417847 While Obama received his share of criticism from Native journalists, many were also taken aback by McCain's lack of an appearance at UNITY. ''I wish something could have been worked out,'' Bull said. ''There are accounts that he was working with potential GOP donors during that same week. The greatest irony I find in McCain's absence is that he has been complaining that he is not getting anywhere near the media attention Obama is receiving. ... Yet he passed up the opportunity to appear at UNITY.'' ''It really looks bad for him, like he doesn't care about what minority journalists think,'' LeValdo assessed of McCain's lack of appearance.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name Mccain hates native Americans ACSA, The ACSA is the world's largest computer science foundation with some 9.5 million registered members, and 15,000 sponsoring companies, Advances Magazine – 2/5/2008 http://acsa2000.net/cain2004.org/Dine-Navajo- PressRelease.htm A public research website: http://www.cain2008.org has brought together diverse historical elements of factual proof that Senator John McCain's was the key "point man" introducing, enacting and enforcing law that removed Dineh-Navajo Families from their reservation on the Black Mesa in Arizona. The McCain revised law relocated them to Church's Hill, Nevada (a Nuclear Waste Superfund Site, called "the New Lands" in PL 93-531). The Dineh-Navajo, a deeply spiritual and peaceful people, engaged in only peaceful resistance to being moved off lands they'd owned since 1500 A.D. Nonetheless, the Public Press and UN depicted brutalization, rights deprivation and forcible relocation. According to the website (and the United Nations studies) a small band of Indians claiming to be of the "Hopi- Navajo" band (an impossibility as Hopi is the parent culture of all Indian tribes), consisting of 3-5 local Arizona individuals assembled originally by Kennecott attorney John Boyden, Esq (Kennecott is a predecessor owner of the Peabody Western Group) and Congressman Wayne Owens, progressively laid claim to more and more of the lands actually owned by the "Dineh-Navaho" and subsequently offered the "Dineh's" coal rights to Peabody Western Group at nominal cost, while laws enacted by McCain, the Senate and signed into law, forced the relocation of the Dineh-Navajo. Senator McCain and his predecessors introduced legislation (S1973-1 and S.1003) which they claimed were justified by what has turned out to be a non-existent range war between the Dineh (mainly consisting of grandfathers and grandmothers in their 70's living on farmlands that had belonged to their tribe since 1500 AD) and the Hopi (the 3-5 individuals rapidly assembled to assist Peabody Western Group by Senator McCain, Congressman Owens and John Boyden). Subsequently, as the Dineh were removed from their farms by the "Relocation Commission" authorized by the US Senate at the behest of the revisions to the Public Law 93-531 introduced as S.1973-1 (1996 Partition) and S.1003 (2001 and 2005 accelerated removal of the Dineh by amendment) by Senator McCain, expanded Coal Mining Rights to their lands were granted to Peabody Western who with Bechtel Corp, have been mining the lands formerly occupied by the Dineh, and piping the coal to the Mohave Generating Station in Nevada, which serves the Las Vegas and Reno areas power needs. A map of the Mining and Piping operations are found depicted below. Not that long ago, the United Nations performed a Human Rights Investigation of the forced Navajo resettlement from Arizona to Nevada, under Special Rapporteur A. Amor. A law revised and submitted to Congress by Senator John McCain and others before him was determined to be the root cause of violations, which after ratification by President Clinton in 1999 during a globally publicized sit in by Songstress Julia Butterfly Hill at Big Mountain, Arizona. The enactment led to the removal of the Dineh band of Navajo from the Black Mesa to free the lands up to mining, and could lead to relocation of the Dineh-Navaho from Big Mountain, all based on a tissue of deceit, false claims of prior ownership by a small group of paid Arizona locals of Indian descent led by one Wayne Taylor, working for McCain and Peabody. To quote the UN website "The Black Mesa region in Arizona, USA is home to the indigenous communities of the Dineh (Navajo) and Hopi peoples. This region also contains major deposits of coal which are being extracted by North America's largest strip mining operation. The coal mines have had a major impact on families in the region. Local water sources have been poisoned, resulting in the death of livestock. Homes near the mines suffer from blasting damage. The coal dust is pervasive, as well as smoke from frequent fires in the stockpiles. Not coincidentally, the people in the area have an unusually high incidence of kidney and respiratory disease. " "The Dineh (otherwise known as Navajo) were stripped of all land title and forced to relocate. Their land was turned over to the coal companies without making any provisions to protect the burial or sacred sites that would be destroyed by the mines. People whose lives were based in their deep spiritual and life-giving relationship with the land were relocated into cities, often without compensation, forbidden to return to the land that their families had occupied for generations. People became homeless with significant increases in alcoholism, suicide, family break up, emotional abuse and death.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name Mccain has denied rights to Native americans ACSA, The ACSA is the world's largest computer science foundation with some 9.5 million registered members, and 15,000 sponsoring companies, Advances Magazine – 2/5/2008 http://acsa2000.net/cain2004.org/Dine-Navajo- PressRelease.htm Within the legal maneuverings of Senator McCain, the non-existent tribal counsel, called: the "Hopi-Navajo Counsel", made up of Peabody Group proxies of local Kayenta, Arizona area origin, surfaced false claims of prior ownership and eminent domain, and then successfully testified before the Senate (the Dineh were not invited to testify about their own fate before the Senate by Senator McCain, leading to a hue and cry in 1999) and demanded the removal of the rightful landowners, the Dineh-Navajo, claiming "encroachment on lands granted us by President Chester A. Arthur." They demand completion of the removal of the Dineh-Navaho from the Black Mesa and Big Mountain. Or course, as it turns out, the term "Hopi" refers to all Indians everywhere in the USA, and not any single tribal unit. The testimony by alleged "Hopis" from Arizona who count in number some five individuals, has with the help of Senator McCain, managed to testify at every hearing without the Senate every once questioning whether such a tribe exists, or whether it has rights to the territories which, now with many of the Dineh-Navajo having been forcibly removed, some 25,000 families and growing, are now being mined by Peabody Group in Black Mesa, with its sights set on Big Mountain. For an example of testimony by the fake Hopi tribal counsel: leader Wayne Taylor, at Senate Hearings on the forcible resettlement of the Dineh Navajo, tried to claim encroachment of lands he claimed "were occupied by our people for 1000 years", falsely alleging that the Navajo were relative newcomers. The claims are historical falsehoods, as the Navajo and all Indian Tribes of America are sub-units of the overall Hopi, which term refers to all Indian Tribes. (see Wayne Taylor's statement before the Senate: http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096411336) The behavior by Senator John McCain in manipulating the laws and circumstances of this horrific affair is pervasively criminal, in the ACSA's opinion, and also quite worthy of the prosecution and incarceration of Senator McCain, and his associates in sponsorship of the bills, the proxy Hopi "wooden indians" bought and paid for by McCain and Peabody, and the profiteering from the coal mining of the Black Mesa, for Criminal Fraud, Conspiracy and Misconduct of Office. ACSA would further not be in a position to hand McCain any endorsement in his Presidential run, we opine and consider his election, the election of a known criminal, would ultimately damage the United States in ways as of yet not conceived.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name Obama will provide assistance for natives New York Times, 5/19/08 http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/obama-adopted-by-native-americans/ “ Few have been ignored by Washington for as long as native Americans – the first Americans,” said Mr. Obama, telling this crowd that he intended to appoint a Native American adviser to his highest ranks of his administration if he wins. He also vowed to improve the health care and education opportunities on reservations across the nation. “I understand the tragic history,” Mr. Obama said, addressing tribal leaders and members. “Our government has not always been honest or truthful in our deals.”

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name Mccain has spearheaded illegal policies that brutalized natives for decades Cain2008.org created and maintained by the Canaanite Independent Political Committee (CIPC), a Political Party organized to bring to the public attention the depraved enactments of Senator John McCain against the Arizona Dineh- Navajo, by individuals with a conscience, so that those who died at his hand will not be forgotten. 2008 http://www.cain2008.org/ The Navajo Resettlement has led to the deaths of thousands of elders and mass radiation based deformities among newborn Navajo children and youngsters who are forced to play on land littered with Uranium Tailings. The accompanying thuggery and theft of property, fencing out of rangelands, cattle seizures, water well cappings and beatings and other indignity has led to the death of thousands of elder grandfathers and mothers of the Navajo Di'neh Nation, a birth defect rate twice the national average has led to UN & EU condemnations! Navajo are full US citizens! The environmental devastation around the mines, through brutal strip mining operations, open explosives runs, and "grim reaper" steam shovels has transformed the magnificent territories of the Dineh into a Helllike scar on earth, the water level in the region is reduced by 4 feet per year as the not-lawful steam slurry pipes pipe powdered coal and steam hundreds of miles to Mohave, just to "light up the strip" in Las Vegas and Reno, where energy wastefulness abounds: leaving leakage and residue in the environment poisoning the lands and people in their vicinity. Coal dust blasted from the mines as well. A Video, "VANISHING PRAYER", provides a more vivid view of the plight of the Di'neh-Navaho. Click one of these links (ABOVE) for a version that plays in media player! Senator McCain has brutally pursued continuous victimization of the Navajo for decades. Read this 2006 article where he vigorously moved to interdict efforts by the Dineh-Navajo to protect families effected tragically by the forcible resettlement, trying to freeze out their own relief efforts. He frequently resorts to legal trickery before the Senate by bringing a tiny, falsely registered "Hopi" tribal council to testify at Senate hearings who repeatedly give perjures testimony in efforts to fraudulently seize land rights away from their rightful Indian landholders, lands atop the intended Coal thefts. The Dineh have never been given a full hearing, and their identities have been forged by Senate and BIA Attorneys so as to enable their forcible removal. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, signed into UN Human Rights Policy and agreed to by the United States (but being intentionally violated by legal deceptions, fraud and trickery conceived by Senator John McCain and his cronies), defines the basis upon which 200 organizations at the UN simultaneously issued a written condemnation of the mistreatment of the Dineh-Navjo, at Article 10: The above exhibit is directly copied from the source documents at the United Nations, from proceedings of the current Commission on Human Rights, Mission Group on Indigenous Peoples.] Sewage from the mining has inundated the waters once pristine and inhabited by fish, frogs, turtles, water fowl - all dead or fled. Resistors who keep living, are abused by local Peabody thugs, there have been beatings and there have been murders of Dineh for keeping their farms. Navajo resister Rena Babbit-Lane, a weaver who lives at Big Mountain, expressed her people's struggle: "There's a lot of pollution from Peabody Coal Mine and a lot of the people are sick from it. It's our land on this Mesa - they don't need to bother us. They cannot impound anymore. What they are doing to us is making us sick. There has been destruction of grave sites. They're crushing cement foundations of people's homes that have been abandoned because of relocation. They are taking. It shows you how they are greedy. They're erasing all the evidence of genocide. Two burials of our family were destroyed. They were torn down and taken somewhere." Over the past decade, McCain's illegal conspiracy with paid stooges and Peabody in brutalizing the gentle Dineh-Navajo, a deeply spiritual, agrarian peoples, the stripping away of their rights and forced march to Nevada has led to the issuance of the very first UN Human Rights condemnation of the USA in history: an official condemnation from the Human Rights Commission on Indigenous Peoples (Hon. A. Amor) that held John McCain and his peers responsible for spearheading this illegal land seizure, coal seizure without payment of licensing rights, and rape of the land. A very hypocritical group of Senators, Reed, Rockefeller, Kennedy, Kerry and others along with Bill Clinton were also investigated. However, McCain was cited as the principal spearhead as author of the laws responsible for the Human Rights Violations! A paid media blackout followed that prevented coverage of the events that displaced and killed the Dineh-Navajo by the US Press! Americans have not been made aware of McCain's activities. Even today, Press Distributors refuse releases on this subject. We must keep this story alive! We must try to keep the surviving Dineh Navajo alive!

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name Obama is on the brink, McCain can snatch the elections Robert Stacy McCain, (assistant national editor for the Washington Times< and co-author (with Lynn Vincent) of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party.", ) 7/30/08 http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13614 THEN CAME A WEEKEND of worry for Republicans. The Rasmussen tracking poll, which had shown the race tied on June 19, on Saturday reported Obama ahead by 6 points. The next day, Gallup reported Obama ahead by 9 points. Had McCain's attacks backfired? Or had the wall-to-wall media coverage of Obama's trip simply buried the Republican message? Monday afternoon's release of the USA Today poll, with McCain leading by four points among likely voters, answered "no" to those questions, and was echoed yesterday when Rasmussen's tracking numbers showed Obama's lead shrunk to 47-46. Meanwhile, the Democrat's margin in yesterday's Gallup tracking poll was down to 6 points -- the same 47-41 edge he had on July 21. It is still only July and, as pollsters routinely caution, their results are only "snapshots" of current opinion, not predictions of Election Day results. The dog days of August and national conventions loom ahead, and the outcome will ultimately depend on the events of the next three months. For the past three months, however, all those polls showing Obama in the lead fueled a sense of inevitability that cast shadows of doom among Republicans. What happens if the polls should shift the other way? What fate befalls the frontrunner who falls behind? Just ask that formerly "inevitable" nominee, Hillary Clinton.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name McCain is losing now but could regain the lead by advocating alternative energy Donna Brazile ( political commentator on CNN, ABC and NPR, contributing columnist to Roll Call and former campaign manager for Al Gore), 7/29/08 Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign, unable to get traction with its relentless attacks on Sen. Barack Obama, is now sliding into the mud with its charge that Obama is responsible for high fuel prices at the pump. Is the McCain campaign running out of gas? After months of endlessly needling Obama to visit Iraq and Afghanistan, McCain’s campaign is now whining about the extensive and favorable media coverage of the junior senator’s trip to Europe and the Middle East, where he was greeted by leaders and dignitaries as if he had already won the election. Meanwhile, McCain, who once called the media his political base, must have felt like a jilted lover when he arrived in New Hampshire and was met at the airport by a lone reporter. Most members of Congress would give their right arm for the fawning media coverage McCain has received over the last 10 years. But when your campaign message has the flawed and failed talking points from another political era, why should the media pay attention? Like the rest of the country and the world, the media has come to recognize that McCain, like the Republican Party, has run out of gas. Having committed some major blunders in this campaign, McCain should thank his lucky stars that the media is still somewhat interested in capturing the wisps of what once was his straight-talking maverick style. Otherwise, how can anyone explain how the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has been absolved of the strict press scrutiny Obama endures? Even McCain’s major gaffes are ignored. For instance, the media has not sharply focused on his major foreign policy missteps, including his stated belief that there is an IraqPakistan border. CBS News left on the editing room floor the part of his interview with Katie Couric when, scrambling the basic timeline and history of the surge, he said: “And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that’s just a matter of history.” And what about Czechoslovakia? McCain believes it still exists. McCain’s alarming number of policy flip-flops has gone largely unreported by the media, especially cable news shows, more interested in Obama’s appeal to the center. McCain has flip-flopped on off-shore drilling, a grassroots lobbying reform bill he once sponsored, gay marriage, abortion, estate taxes, negotiating with North Korea, torturing and indefinitely holding detainees, privatizing Social Security, Bush’s tax cuts — the list is endless. Given that McCain secured his party’s nomination in February, why can’t he get traction? My answer: McCain needs new material to work with. He should stop trying to revive Sen. Hillary Clinton’s primary campaign against Obama.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name Obama will win now Eric Kleefeld (graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 2004 with a degree in political science. )7/29/08 http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/mark_penn_sighting_he_now_says.php Wouldn't you know it, but former Hillary chief strategist Mark Penn now thinks Barack Obama has a good shot at winning the general election -- after spending months bad-mouthing his chances. Penn arrived at this conclusion in a fairly novel way, however: He says that the key to the election will be a group of people he describes as "active grannies." "In the coming months, the big viewers of cable television, the conventions and the debates will be the active grannies," Penn writes in a new column for the Politico, "and they will be torn between wanting to vote for the kind of change they voted for in 1992 and wondering whether Obama has cleared the experience hurdle they are concerned about." "If I had to handicap the race now, Obama has a huge opportunity with this group," Penn later adds.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name Obama is winning now, we take into account intervention from independents AFP, 7/25/08 http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gUIVIUUbNo4fYVug2x1yHg5_agqQ A majority of Americans believe that Democratic candidate Barack Obama will win the presidential election against Republican hopeful John McCain in November, a Fox News poll showed Thursday. While 51 percent say Obama, who is vying to become the first African American president, will win the election, only 27 percent are betting on a McCain victory. Voters registered as Democrats are more confident about their candidate's chances than their Republican peers: 71 percent of Democrats see Obama winning on November 4 while 51 percent of Republicans believe McCain will win. One in four Republicans think that Obama, a senator from Illinois, will succeed US President George W. Bush. A month ago, 47 percent of Americans believed that Obama, 46, would win the election compared to 32 percent for McCain, a 71year-old Arizona senator. Even though many Americans are predicting an Obama victory, the race remains tight. In a head-to-head matchup, Obama leads McCain 41 to 40 percent among registered voters, the poll showed. If Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and independent hopeful Ralph Nader are added, Obama leads McCain by 40 to 37 percent. If Obama chooses former Democratic nomination rival Hillary Clinton as his running mate and McCain picks former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, a former Republican candidate, the Democratic ticket leads 48 to 39 percent.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name Topicality fx based alt energy They don’t meet their own definition, because they use multiple planks to achieve their goal. After the passage of the bill, energy caps are established, the plank is that emissions prices are increased, which makes it unfeasible to continue to use fossil fuels, which then may possibly cause people to switch to renewable energy. FX is abusive because the affirmative may take any number of plans to get out of disads, such as have the black ops take out the head of opec, which spikes oil prices because of terrorist and instability fears, which then makes using renewable energies more attractive, using a plank just as the plan does, and spiking out of elections, politics, and all other disads. Likewise, the cap and trade plank has given the aff additional ground to claim leadership and enhanced solvency along with their other advantages based on the possible increase in renewable energies. Additionally, the neg has lost politics and disad ground from the cap and trade because of the long timeframe that it enforces, allowing them to claim that that the plans effects will not be felt yet, or that the auctioning of the caps will take too much time that the elections, comlubia fta or other dis-ads become non-unique before the effects of the plan can solve. Their 4 year time-frame is a pre-empt to allow the aff to claim that they delay the plan Potential abuse is a voter because even if there was no abuse in the round which isn’t the case , it justifies this affirmative, and allows other teams to run the same plan and make it abusive, the repercussions of this round can and will justify this ffirmative and allow other teams to run it abusively. Prefer our standards, we give the most eduacational definition in this round, which is why we participate in debate, if we couldn’t learn anything, then fairness or predictability wouldn’t matter because basic point of this debate doesn’t exist, which is to learn more about the topic that we debate about. Our standards are the most conducive to the debate because we limit the incentives to being positive, which allows us to delve in-depth to the topic and prepare more instead of having uneducational debates where the neg can’t answer the double amount of affs that the plan advocates because under their definition, the neg couldn’t prepare for the double amount of evidence. Reject their argument that lit and clash check, just because we were prepared doesn’t matter, the goal is to find the best definition to debate for everyone, not just this round, and this round sets a precedent, and had we not be constrained, we could have gone for a different argument. Reasonability doesn’t matter, they aren’t reasonable because they don’t directly increase alternative energy incentives and create an unpredictable plank, and reasonability is an arbitrary standard because whats reasonable to one person may not be to another and is based on personal bias, instead prefer our standards which create the most educational debate which is what reasonability is predicated on. Competing interpretations are good, its key to creating the best definition to have an education debate, and debating about these definitions teaches us about grammer and what constitutes itself as part of the topic and what isn’t. We create the fairest topic, because we disallow multiple planks, which steals explodes aff ground and destroys neg ground. And a clear brightline and limits are key to fairness because they make it possible to predict the topic and determine what is topical and what isn’t and limiting the debate to positive incentives creates the fairest limits instead of exploding the topic and forcing the neg to cover double the topic, making it an incredibly unfair research burden on the neg. overlimiting is best, having a small limited debate is best because depth is best, with a gigantic bredth, we may just be limited to generic arguments over and over again, whereas with a limited debate, we can debate indepth about each and every single affirmative and run specific disads. Additionally, the degree to which they unlimit is doesn’t even allow us our generic arguments because they can use their planks to get out of it.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name Topicality natives in the U.S. We have the best definition, and you should base your decision around this. Our’s is from a qualified source, the U,S, government, which is the best actor to determine what constitutes a part of the U.S. and whats not. Choosing to ignore this definition in favor of a less qualified one Don’t accept that they create the best definition for debate, ours is best for debate, ignoring the actual confines of the U.S. kills education because we leave the round with more ambiguity about what the U.S. is than we came in with, which kills the point of debating here for education, whereas our definition is from the U.S., and makes the confines clear. The age of our card doesn’t matter, it talks about a clear fact that hasn’t changed, and new reparations only strengthen, we treat Indians as a foreign nations which has continued and is what the card is based around. Limits is key to this round, everything else stems off of it. By allowing them to explode limits away from the United states, we lose ground because now we have to defend increases in alternative energy in regions other than the U.S. which goes from 300 million people to 6000 million people. This also destroys predictability and brightline, because we came into this round expecting the debate to be limited by what the United States is, they destroy this. Our definition is the most conducive to education because we give the best limits to the round, accepting their definition justifies ignoring the bounds of the resolution, our definition ties the affirmative to what is said in the resolution and sets the best limits for the round. Also prefer our definition because it solves the case in real life. Reasonability doesn’t matter, they aren’t reasonable because they don’t directly increase alternative energy incentives and create an unpredictable plank, and reasonability is an arbitrary standard because whats reasonable to one person may not be to another and is based on personal bias, instead prefer our standards which create the most educational debate which is what reasonability is predicated on. Competing interpretations are good, its key to creating the best definition to have an education debate, and debating about these definitions teaches us about grammer and what constitutes itself as part of the topic and what isn’t. Reject their argument that lit and clash check, just because we were prepared doesn’t matter, the goal is to find the best definition to debate for everyone, not just this round, and this round sets a precedent, and had we not be constrained, we could have gone for a different argument. And it doesn’t check, we provide evidence that native Americans aren’t part of the U.S. Accept topicality as a framework for this debate, reject the idea that topicality reinforces a rejection of native Americans, we affirm their topic, we say that its better to recognize native Americans as separate nations, which solves their topic in reality to a greater degree than they do. Voting neg solves for all of their impacts. United states means within the jurisdiction not the territory 1. Interpretation – A. In means inside of – Merriam Websters Dictionary 08 Main Entry: 3in Pronunciation: \ˈin\ Function:adjective Date: 1599 1 a: that is located inside or within b: that is in position, operation, or power c: inside 22: that is directed or bound inward : incoming 3 a: extremely fashionable b: keenly aware of and responsive to what is new and fashionable 2. Violation – The affirmative increases alternative energy outside of the United States by placing satellites in space 3. Standards A. Limits – The aff underlimits the topic because their interpretation justifies plans to increase alternative energy anywhere on Earth. This destroys predictability, which is key to fairness and education. B. Predictability – it is impossible to prepare for a case without knowing where the alternative energy would be since the aff becomes a moving target. This destroys topic specific education.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name C. Brightline – alternative energy is either in the United States or it’s not. The aff blurs this by increasing U.S. incentives for alternative energy but having the alternative energy placed outside the U.S. Brightline is key to determining limits and ground because it is the internal link to fairness 4. Topicality is a voting issue for fairness, education, and predictability Reject their argument that lit and clash check, just because we were prepared doesn’t matter, the goal is to find the best definition to debate for everyone, not just this round, and this round sets a precedent, and had we not be constrained, we could have gone for a different argument. And we provide the defining piece of literature that proves them untrue.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

XTN: Industry Opposition Cap and trade attempts to increase alternative energy are doomed to failure because they don’t take into account industry and labor opposition. Peter Teague and Jeff Navin, Director of the Environment Program at the Nathan Cummings Foundation and former environmental advisor to Senator Barbara Boxer, Managing Director of American Environics Strategies and former Research Director for Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, June 26, 2007, “Global Warming in an Age of Energy Anxiety”, The American Prospect, http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=global_warming_in_an_age_of_energy_anxiety, BB With a regulatory-only approach, we will end with a debate between environmentalists arguing about the cost of global warming, and industry economists telling Americans how much more they'll pay for everything from electricity to gasoline to consumer products. And they'll argue that these higher prices will result in job losses. Policy makers are aware of this challenge and have added provisions to their regulatory bills that are aimed at easing voters' fears. There are proposals for tax rebates and offsets and even the creation of a "Climate Change Credit Corporation" to help voters with the anticipated increase in consumer energy costs. The trouble is that the bills either provide tiny amounts to authorize studies of the problem, or they remain silent about how much help voters can expect. It's important to remember that the proponents of Prop. 87 made a wellsupported case that the initiative wouldn't raise energy costs at all. Its defeat demonstrates that it's going to take more than good intentions about global warming and vaguely-worded proposals to convince voters. The Debate to Come A recent NPR segment noted that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released a report on environmentalists' preferred regulatory approach that says "low-income Americans and coal miners might suffer the most if the government adopts a so called cap and trade program to reduce emissions of green house gasses." The NPR report said, "Consumers will bear the cost of this kind of program. They would face higher prices for electricity, gasoline and other products. Since low-income Americans spend a higher portion of their incomes on such costs, they'll be hit the hardest." Keep in mind that this was NPR -- not Fox News. The "right-wing populist vs. liberal elite" frame is dropping into place with the help of those calling for the deepest cuts in carbon. The deep-cut mantra, repeated without any real understanding of what might be required to get to 60 or 80 percent reductions in emissions, ignores voters' anxieties. It also reflects the questionable view that these changes can be achieved with little more than trivial disruptions in our lives -- a view easier to hold if you're in a financial position to buy carbon credits for your beachfront house. Labor has indicated a willingness to support action on climate change, but it won't support deep cuts if working people are the most affected. This will leave environmentalists up against the well-financed business lobby. Good luck holding onto moderate Democrats, let alone Republicans -- even those who are beginning to understand the need for action on global warming. History teaches us that regulatory proposals that fail politically often lead to legislative paralysis. In 1993, the public was adamant that action be taken to address health care, and it seemed inevitable that some sort of reform would soon be signed into law. In 1994, the Clinton health care reform proposal failed before coming to a vote. In 1997, the Senate voted 95-0 to reject the United Nations Kyoto framework before it was even fully developed. Voters are still waiting for action on health care and global warming.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name Regulatory Frameworks decrease adversarialism and increase cohesion Jody Freeman, Acting Professor of Law, University of California, October, 1997, 45 UCLA L. Rev. 1, lexis, BB Although not free of adversarialism, n142 relationships improved in the context of the reg-neg. One commentator noted that some aspects of the negotiation, such as the initial data production, were conducted "like a poker game," n143 but also observed that this characterization did not apply to the discussions about how to prevent leaks or to the negotiation of the [*49] ultimate solution. n144 Industry representatives felt that, at a minimum, they had established credibility with the EPA and improved relationships. In addition, the agency was engaged and flexible. Once the importance of technical information about chemical processes became clear, the EPA committed significant resources to it, allocating five full-time staff members to data collection and modeling. n145 The EPA also provided a resource pool to offset expenses for parties who were not paid to attend committee meetings. n146 While the agency maintained a background threat of acting unilaterally, it supported the problem-solving dynamic with real dollars and significant staff time. The parties to the equipment leaks reg-neg did not merely bargain. They devised implementable solutions designed to attain, or ensure progress toward, the environmentally protective goal, with the guarantee that failure to comply would generate information that could facilitate revision of the standard. The solution was creative and unanticipated, and all sides took the position that it would not have resulted from a traditional notice and comment process. n147

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name 1AC(11/14) Only Regulatory Negotiations result in predictable regulations and lead to innovation Michael E. Porter and Claas van der Linde, C. Roland Christensen Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School, faculty of the International Management Research Institute of St. Gallen University, Fall 95, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 9 Issue 4, ebsco, BB Coordination of environmental regulation can be improved in at least three ways: between industry and regulators, between regulators at different levels and places in government, and between U.S. regulators and their international counterparts. In setting environmental standards and regulatory processes to encourage innovation, substantive industry participation in setting standards is needed right from the beginning, as is common in many European countries. An appropriate regulatory process is one in which regulations themselves are clear, who must meet them is clear, and industry accepts the regulations and begins innovating to address them, rather than spending years attempting to delay or relax them. In our current system, by the time standards are finally settled and clarified, it is often too late to address them fundamentally, making secondary treatment the only alternative. We need to evolve toward a regulatory regime in which the EPA and other regulators make a commitment that standards will be in place for, say, five years; so that industry is motivated to innovate rather than adopt incremental solutions.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Links: Cap and Trade Binding emissions reductions would devastate six U.S. industries critical to the global economy: paper, iron and steel manufacturing, petroleum refining, aluminum, chemical and cement manufacturing Mulchay executive vice president and CEO of Northern Indiana Public Service Company ’98 – Patrick “The Importance of Flexibility Implemented Through Voluntary Commitments to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions” Global Climate Change, A senior Level Debate at the Intersection of Economics, Strategy, Technology, Science, Politics, and International Negotiation p. 87-8 A U.S. Department of Energy study analyzed the potential economic impacts of increased energy prices on energy-intensive industries, assuming that new greenhouse gas control policies will constrain only industrialized countries and that any emissions control mechanism—from new energy taxes to emissions standards and tradable emissions permits—will drive up energy costs to some degree. According to the study, rising energy prices driven by new climate commitments could have a crushing effect on six U.S. industries: paper and allied products, iron and steel manufacturing, petroleum refining, aluminum production, chemical manufacturing, and cement manufacturing. Increased energy costs from emissions mandates could devastate the U.S. steel industry (which has already invested heavily in energy efficiency and pollution control technologies), without bringing a significant de crease in worldwide energy-related emissions from steelmaking. Production will simply be shifted to developing countries and may possibly lead to higher levels of overall pollution due to lower standards in those countries. This issue highlights the necessity for the thoughtful application of binding agreements for all nations—developing and developed. Energy costs account for approximately one-third of the cost of making steel. Almost half of the electricity NIPSCO generates is de livered to the steel industry. Steelmaking facilities in northern Indiana have invested substantially in the past decade to improve their efficiency, both in production and in energy use. Primary Energy, a subsidiary of NIPSCO Industries, is developing cogeneration projects with several of our steelmaking customers. These projects will contribute significantly to NIPSCO’s greenhouse gas reductions. In 1998 three Primary Energy cogeneration projects will go on-line at Inland, U.S. Steel, and National Steel, displacing nearly one million metric tons of NIPSCO’s carbon dioxide emissions. Sensible decision making on the greenhouse gas issue should involve a careful balancing of costs and benefits. However, this is complicated by the global effects of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, the long-term consequences and shortterm costs associated with the issue, and the global economy and tension between developed and developing nations.

Cap-and-trade deters investment – investors fear unstable prices LA Times, 5/28/07. “Time to tax carbon,” http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-carbontax28may28,0,2888366.story?coll=laopinion-leftrail Cap-and-trade would also have a nasty effect on consumers’ power bills. Say there’s a very hot summer week in California. Utilities would have to shovel more coal to produce more juice, causing their emissions to rise sharply. To offset the carbon, they would have to buy more credits, and the heavy demand would cause credit prices to skyrocket. The utilities would then pass those costs on to their customers, meaning that power bills might vary sharply from one month to the next. That kind of price volatility, which has been endemic to both the American and European cap-and-trade systems, doesn’t just hurt consumers. It actually discourages innovation, because in times when power demand is low, power costs are low, and there is little incentive to come up with cleaner technologies. Entrepreneurs and venture capitalists prefer stable prices so they can calculate whether they can make enough money by building a solar-powered mousetrap to make up for the cost of producing it.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Links: Cap and Trade Emissions caps slow economic growth Coon, Senior Policy Analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, 2004(Charli E., “As Reliable as the Groundhog: Kyoto’s Proponents Are Back,” 7/18, http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm530.cfm?renderforprint=1 Likewise, Charles River Associates (CRA), an economics, finance, and business consulting firm, analyzed the proposal (PDF link) and found that imposing an emissions cap equal to 2000-level emissions in perpetuity would increase the cost of residential electricity by over 19 percent and raise gasoline prices 14 percent by 2020. In addition, natural gas and electricity prices for industry would increase by 32 percent and 43 percent, respectively, by 2020. The CRA study also shows that the purchasing power of the typical household (2.6 members and an income of $49,000) would erode by over $600 in 2010 and by $1,000 in 2020. More disturbingly, however, CRA notes that the cost burdens associated with this proposal would fall most heavily on the poor and elderly. CRA data show that the poorest 20 percent of households would have to bear energy cost increases 64 percent larger than the highest income households. The elderly would have to bear cost increases 15 percent higher than those under age 65. Additionally, CRA projects that higher energy prices would cost 39,000 jobs by 2010 and 190,000 jobs by 2020. Finally, CRA projects that all industries would suffer losses in production. For example, coal production, electricity generation, and oil refining would decline by 57 percent, 7.9 percent, and 8.8 percent, respectively, by 2020. Non-energy sectors that are dependent on energy, chemicals, and steel would be the hardest hit. CRA estimates that, collectively, production from energy-intensive industries would decline $70 to $160 billion by 2020.

Emissions caps slow economic growth Coon, Senior Policy Analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, 2004 (Charli E., “As Reliable as the Groundhog: Kyoto’s Proponents Are Back,” 7/18 http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm530.cfm?renderforprint=1 Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) may try to attach an amended version of last year’s Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 (S. 139) to the class-action lawsuit bill that is being debated in the Senate this week or to another legislative vehicle. Studies show that this energy-suppressing proposal, whether in its original version or in its amended form, would have an adverse impact on the nation’s economy. It would increase the cost of energy for consumers, impact job creation, and slow the nation’s economic growth. For these reasons alone, Congress should continue to reject attempts to impose caps on greenhouse gas emissions.

Binding emission caps will cripple a critical sector of US economy and exports and causing massive job outsourcing Stone chairman, president and CEO of Stone Container Co. ’98 – Roger “A Call for Common Sense” Global Climate Change, A senior Level Debate at the Intersection of Economics, Strategy, Technology, Science, Politics, and International Negotiation p. 141 As we all know, the first UN Framework Convention on Climate Change issued a call on the developed nations to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2000. As I understand it, the current U.S. position now calls for mandated emissions reduction targets and timetables; we heard that today. This would be accomplished primarily, I think, by setting a cap on energy consumption and may also lead to new taxes on both energy and carbon emissions as well as impose excessive energy efficiency standards and perhaps severely re strict the way we manage our nation’s working forests. Massive changes such as these could permanently cripple our pulp and paper industry. A carbon tax could increase our direct costs by as much as 150 percent over the next eighteen years and raise manufacturing costs by up to 14 percent. And if credit is not given to the use of biomass fuels, manufacturing costs could rise as much as 30 percent. Indirect costs would probably be higher than that 30 percent number. I don’t think it takes a scientist or a Kellogg School graduate to understand the impact of a 30 percent hike in manufacturing costs. Paper mills could permanently close, thousands of jobs would probably be lost, and our position as the world’s leading paper producer would surely deteriorate, if not vanish. As an industry, paper’s payroll is about $26 billion a year, and we ex port goods worth more than $11.5 billion. In fact, our exports represent more than 2 percent of all U.S. exports. From our perspective it would be just plain silly to jeopardize all of this based on a theory founded on poor or inexact science or someone’s complex social or environmental agenda, using the false issue of climate change. What’s worse is that the jobs lost in the United States—and I think this is referred to as some thing that has to be negotiated—will move to the developing nations that are aggressively expanding their pulp and paper capacity, nations such as Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, and Brazil. These countries are not a part of the climate change equation as I understand it. And this means that, at the moment, they are not required to reduce their CO emissions, nor do they subscribe to the practice of sustainable forestry. They are free to cut their virgin tropical or rain forests at unsustainable levels. So what would the net effect of all this be? Well, the way we see it is that it will lead to an increase in CO emissions on a worldwide basis and a loss of forests rich in biodiversity. Clearly this is not a level playing field, and we see no environmental benefit in this scenario. In my opinion the loss of thousands of jobs to overseas countries that follow no environmental standard, frankly, is absurd.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

AT: Regulations Help Businesses Even if regulations don’t hurt businesses, firms will overreact – they will ignore any benefits Patrick Bernhagen, Department of Politics and International Relations - University of Aberdeen, 8/15/05. “Business Political Power: Economic Voting, Information Asymmetry, and Environmental Policy in 19 OECD Countries,” http://convention2.allacademic.com/getfile.php?file=apsa05_proceeding/2005-10-06/40383/apsa05_proceeding_40383.pdf The negative link between environmental protection and economic performance is neither clear nor undisputed. While environmental pioneers may suffer short-term economic disadvantages in international competition, early movers in the area of environmental protection will be at an advantage in competition for innovative technologies (J?nicke 1992, 52). At the level of the individual firm, however, no matter what society-wide benefits and even the long-term benefits to the firm there may be, envi- ronmental policies add considerable compliance costs to firms. This may lead to cut- backs in research and development efforts, limit the innovative efforts of firms, or even endanger their general profitability. As a result, firms will generally tend to em- phasize the costs of environmental policy, while underestimating the benefits and op- pose environmental policy which they perceive to place them at a competitive disad- vantage. Exceptions are cases where firms can achieve protectionist benefits through stricter environmental policies. In practice, however, these are rather rare (Murphy 2004)

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Flight Bad – Econ/Environment Industrial flight hurts the economy and can’t solve pollution – businesses will just move to laxer countries Yuquing Xing, professor of economics at Graduate School of International Relations, International University of Japan, 4/18/01, “Do Lax Environmental Regulations Attract Foreign Investment?” Environmental and Resource Economics, , http://www.springerlink.com/index/3JUUUG48YY29QHMU.pdf To correctly interpret our findings, one should keep in mind that the environ- mental variable is only one of the determinants of the FDI. Our empirical study only identifies the impact of environmental regulations on capital outflows and reveals the role of environmental regulations in the decision-making of the FDI of polluting industries. It would not be appropriate to conclude that environ- mental regulation alone can decide the direction of FDI flow for a polluting industry. We have no convincing evidence that the environmental variable domi- nates other determinants in the process of determining FDI of a polluting industry. However, to the extent that the environmental policy gap between developing and developed countries widens, more capital investment associated with polluting industries can be expected to flow to countries with lax environmental regulation. This could result in a significant migration of polluting industry to “pollution havens”. The flight of polluting industries may cause economic problems such as unemployment in the short run for the country exporting capital, and may also expedite environment degradation of host countries. In addition, the migra- tion of polluting industries only changes the geographic location of pollution generation. If the pollution is undepleted and can spill over borders (via rivers, aquifers, precipitation or air movement), the reduction of the pollution at the country with strict environmental regulations may be at least partially offset by an increase in pollution in other countries. Thus the free mobility of capital asso- ciated with polluting industries may undermine noncooperative efforts at pollution control.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name Removal of trade barriers is a positive incentive for other countries Center for European Policy Studies, 2-19-2007, “The Economic Effects of Wider Europe,” http://www.ceps.be/Article.php?article_id=358 These changes in the economic playing field are likely to impact the “four freedoms of markets”: freedom to trade goods, services, capital and labour. Decreased trade barriers for industrial goods will have significant positive welfare gains for the eastern neighbour countries, while, in the Mediterranean countries, where they have enjoyed about 25 years of free trade access to EU markets, the gains will be less pronounced. However, a decrease in non-tariff barriers, such as regulatory barriers, will benefit eastern and southern countries. Regarding benefits from agricultural trade, the speakers admitted that one must take a longer-term view, as EU protection in this sector remains relatively high. However, as the agricultural sector significantly contributes to most neighbour countries’ GDP, even a modest degree of opening to EU markets may lead to an increase in exports and, therefore, an increase in GDP.

Countries benefit from the removal of trade barriers Laporan Akhir, PENYUSUNAN BAHAN ADVOKASI DELEGASI INDONESIA DALAM PERUNDINGAN MULTILATERAL, 2004,  http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:8KK5stLbj4kJ:pse.litbang.deptan.go.id/eng/pdffiles/LHP_BHT_2004_EN .pdf+laporan+akhir+wto&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox­a Cocoa export tends to increase but it is still predominated by cocoa bean products, not the processed ones. The  share of processed cocoa in export quantity tends to increase, but not significant, making national grinding  industry slowly develops. These problems arise from the imposition of tariff escalation in the export  destinating countries and imposition of 10% value­added tax (VAT) by national government on cocoa beans as  raw material for processing industry, by which the price of cocoa beans becomes higher. 

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Tariffs are incentives for exporting countries Laporan Akhir, PENYUSUNAN BAHAN ADVOKASI DELEGASI INDONESIA DALAM PERUNDINGAN MULTILATERAL, 2004,  http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:8KK5stLbj4kJ:pse.litbang.deptan.go.id/eng/pdffiles/LHP_BHT_2004_EN .pdf+laporan+akhir+wto&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox­a The reduction of trade barriers through import tariff reduction (Out of quota tariff or applied tariff), and  export subsidy and domestic support reduction in Indonesia trading partners will lead to an increase in  Indonesian agricultural products. The increase will increase producer surplus, an incentive to raise  production and export but the consumer surplus is cut which leads to drops in consumption and imports

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Time to Exploooode Violation Extension

1. No chance that they meet - They are not increasing incentives in the jurisdiction of the United States. At best all they are doing is increasing incentives for the production and trade of sugarcane ethanol in Brazil. NONE OF THE INCENTIVES they give are within the jurisdiction of the United States. The U.S. does not have jurisdiction over Brazilian farmers. This means that at best they’re effectually topical, which destroys predictability because we can never predict how many steps they’ll take to be topical 2. The removal of the tariff is an incentive for Brazil – they’re the country that its removal most affects

Kaylan Lytle , 2007, COMMENT: DRIVING THE MARKET: THE EFFECTS ON THE UNITED STATES ETHANOL INDUSTRY IF THE FOREIGN ETHANOL TARIFF IS LIFTED 28 Energy L. J. 693 The debate over the ethanol tariff most directly affects Brazil, as its strong domestic ethanol program makes it the likely source for imported ethanol. Not only has ethanol reduced Brazil's need for imported oil, it has now become a major export for the country. n106 While Brazil is a large country, its population does not require the large amount of ethanol produced domestically. It is estimated that Brazil will export two-thirds of its sugar and 13.5% of its ethanol. n107 For the past few years, Brazil has exported much of this surplus ethanol to India. n108 This year, however, India's production of domestic ethanol will meet the country's demand and it will no longer import from Brazil. n109 With production continuing to grow, Brazil is looking to the United States to take on the additional ethanol.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name Limits Bomb The affirmative blows the lid off of the topic by allowing for the United States to increase incentives literally ANYWHERE where the U.S. does not have jurisdiction. This means that under their interpretation affirmatives can increase alternative energy incentives in anywhere where the United States does not have authority. This justifies increasing incentives in space, in China, and Sub-Saharan Africa. Also, it justifies lifting the steel tariff to improve Chinese relations. We will never be able to predict all the cases they could run under this interpretation as they could spec any country that we don’t have specific answers to, meaning that their link turns will always be more specific than our links, so the neg will always lose. Also, this destroys education because we are never going to learn about increasing incentives in our own country. Prefer depth over breadth, focus on a few core cases is better than running generic strats every round against unpredictable affs. Limits outweigh ground because you have to determine the limits of the topic before you can determine the ground we should have. They say ground – cross-apply my analysis why limits outweigh ground. Also, neg ground outweighs aff ground. The removal of the burden of topicality allows us to learn more about the ramifications of affirming the resolution. The affirmative robs the negative of core counterplan ground. The negative has to be able to defend international actors. This gives us access to US action disads. This case spikes out of those links by having Brazil accept the incentives.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Brightline bomb Prefer our definition – it makes a clear distinction between what is in the United States and what isn’t. Either something is in the jurisdiction of the United States federal government or it isn’t. Our evidence is in a policymaking context – it’s from the DOD. Prefer the definition that makes the clearest delineation between what is topical and not topical. Only a clear brightline can determine what should be within the topic and what is extra-topical. This is key to predictability as well as topic-specific education, which is what makes debate meaningful.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

A2: Reasonability Especially at the camp tournament you have to evaluate topicality in a framework of competing interpretations. Don’t let them get away with running unreasonable affs before the year even starts. This sets the tone for the rest of the year. Competing Interpretations is the only objective to determine topicality.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Deep Eco 2NC Block Link Level They say link turn

1. False – If anything they are making nature more efficient for the use of humanity – this reinforces a sense of anthropocentric domination over nature 2. They reinforce an ecocidal logic by using the market to utilize nature in a way that benefits humanity – they only help nature to help themselves and preserve their relations – our Cerrado turn proves 3. At worst they are masking their form of domination – no chance they can solve back for an identification with nature by allowing Brazilian farmland to be exploited to serve the market. Link Extensions

1. It’s a Man’s World – the affirmative reinforces anthropocentric logic in order to serve humanity. They substitute one form of domination for another by increasing incentives for sugarcane ethanol production. The industry they support ruthlessly exploits the environment in order to produce the biofuels that have the potential to run human society. 2. Devastation in the Nation – Our Ziegler evidence indicates that the use of biofuels for mass consumption creates agricultural debtorship and causes soil erosion. This turns the case, because in a world where humanity is dependent on the environment for energy, exploitation inevitably ensues which destroys the ability of the environment to support agricultural production. 3. Super Market – the affirmative’s utilization of the market for material gains is the ultimate form of anthropocentric domination over nature. Using tariffs as a way to control the use of nature posits nature as a means to humanity’s economic and political ends.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name Impact Level

1. Cross-apply Ziegler – the aff results in increased debt and soil erosion – turns back food prices and free trade 2. The positing of humans over nature leads to ecocide and genocide – that’s Katz. The Nazis were able to enact the Holocaust because they viewed their victims as animals, as less than human. Only a personal identification with nature can solve this genocidal logic. 3. This idea of domination spills over to other facets of policymaking. This ideology is the root cause of strained relations with Chavez. They can’t solve relations as long as they rely on the American ideal of domination over the world, and it will inevitably turn back free trade.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

A2: Perm

1. Still links – they still engage in an anthropocentric mindset by doing the plan in combination with the alt, means the perm can’t solve. 2. Not authentic – The perm co-opts the alternative to justify the anthropocentrism of the 1AC. This means that the permutation can never be an authentic relationship with nature. 3. Severance – the perm severs out of the solely anthropocentric justifications for the 1AC – this is a voting issue because it encourages argument irresponsibility and ignorance for the importance of discourse 4. X

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name They Say Framework

1. We meet their interpretation – we are advocating a political proposal 2. Counter-interpretation –The negative should have to disprove the affirmative a. Our interpretation is best b. We provide the best education because we learn both about the policy implications of the affirmative as well as the discursive and philosophical implications c. Lit checks – there’s tons of critical literature, there’s no way they weren’t conscious of that when they decided to run this case d. Key to neg flex – neg flex is key to clash because we can come up with the best case-specific strategies that directly clash with the warrants of the affirmative’s arguments 3. No reason to reject the team – this is a ridiculous argument, there’s no reason to vote us down because of it

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Link Level

Discourse of expansion - Any argument that they don’t link is simply false – their Kak evidence is exactly the sort of Imperial mindset Hardt and Negri indict – his idea that power projection is key to deterring other nations from warring posits the U.S. as the global preserver of the peace. This ideology of control puts the entire world within the framework of U.S. domination. Peace Police – The affirmative claims to expand for a peaceful purpose. It puts the U.S. in the classic position of the global policeman. However, this logic is no different than that used to justify police violence which undercuts the effectiveness and credibility of the police force. Smooth moves – we control the direction of the link because all the plan does is smooth the functioning of American management of the world. Their plan is an attempt to reformulate postmodern sovereignty – it’s a short-term fix. Their logic is rooted within the ideas of a postmodern absolutist sovereignty that fixes what went wrong in European imperialism.

Empire in the Sky – the Air Force is the ultimate manifestation of Hardt and Negri’s concept of Empire – They are enforcers of American imperial authority that travel across fixed boundaries and enforce the ideologies of the American constitution anywhere and everywhere in the world. The affirmative plan epitomizes the smoothing of the functioning of the Empire, as it allows these biopolitical angels to fly anywhere that U.S. seeks to control and strikes fear in the Oriental heathens as per their . The plan is the worst form of imperial expansion.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

The capitalist discourse of their Alic and their Mitchell and Cordle evidence reinforce the government’s ability to wield the invisible hand Michael Hardt, Professor at duke, Director of Graduate Studies Antonio Negri , taught at the Université de Vincennes (Paris-VIII) and the Collège International de Philosophie, along with Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze. ,Empire 2001, Harvard University Press (86) [adit] There is at the base of the modern theory of sovereignty, however, a further very important element-a content that fills and sustains the form of sovereign authority. This content is represented by capitalist development and the affirmation of the market as the foundation of the values of social reproduction." Without this content, which is

always implicit, always working inside the transcendental apparatus, the form of sovereignty would not have been able to survive in modernity, and European modernity would not have been able to achieve a hegemonic position on a world scale. As Arif Dirlik has noted, Eurocentrism distinguished itself from other ethnocentrisms (such as Sinocentrism) and rose to global prominence principally because it was supported by the powers of capital." European modernity is inseparable from capitalism. This central relationship between the form and the content of modern sovereignty is fully articulated in the work of Adam Smith. Smith begins with a theory of industry that poses the contradiction between private enrichment and public interest. A first synthesis of these two levels is confided to the "invisible hand" of the market: the capitalist "intends only his own gain," but he is "led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."" This first synthesis, however, is precarious and fleeting. Political economy, considered a branch of the science of the administrator and legislator, must go much further in conceiving the synthesis. It must understand the "invisible hand" of the market as a product of political economy itself, which is thus directed toward constructing the conditions of the autonomy of the market: "All systems either of preference or of restraint, therefore, being thus completely taken away, the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord."" In this case, too, however, the synthesis is not at all guaranteed. In effect, a third passage is necessary. What is needed is for the state, which is minimal but effective, to make the well-being of private individuals coincide with the public interest, reducing all social functions and laboring activities to one measure of value. That this state intervenes or

not is secondary; what matters is that it give content to the mediation of interests and represent the axis of rationality of that mediation. The political transcendental of the modem state is defined as an economic transcendental. Smith's theory of value was the soul and substance of the concept of the modern sovereign state.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

In Hegel, the synthesis of the theory of modern sovereignty and the theory of value produced by capitalist political economy is finally realized, just as in his work there is a perfect realization of the consciousness of the union of the absolutist and republican aspects-that is, the Hobbesian and Rousseauian aspects-of the theory of modern sovereignty. In relation to the spheres of civil law [PrivatrechtJ and private welfare, the spheres of the family and civil society, the state is on the one hand an external necessity and the higher power to whose nature their laws and interests are subordinate and on which they depend. But on the other hand, it is their immanent end, and its strength consists in the unity of its universal and ultimate end with the particular interest of individuals, in the fact that they have duties towards the state to the same extent as they also have rights."

The Hegelian relationship between particular and universal brings together in adequate and functional terms the Hobbes-Rousseau theory of sovereignty and Smith's theory of value. Modem European sovereignty is capitalist sovereignty, a form of command that overdetermines the relationship between individuality and universality as a function of the development of capital.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Impact Level 1. The K impacts are the root cause of all of your harms – The ideology of control forces those who are controlled to rebel against the dominating authority, which is the root of the harms that their Khalilzad and Lesser evidence describes. 2. Apocalypse Now – The K turns the case because 3. Destruction of meaning – in a world where there the populace is regulated and controlled to make the functioning of Empire more efficient there is no purpose for existence meaning all of their extinction claims are irrelevant 4. Systemic Racism - Prefer our impacts – The impacts of biopolitical racism are systemic, we are seeing the ramifications of Empire in the status quo genocide of the Native Americans, in the destructive genocides in Africa, and the repression of Tibet. A vote negative is a vote to stand against these ongoing atrocities instead of affirming these nebulous impact scenarios of the affirmative 5. Empirical Genocide - We control the empirics on this question – look to the Armenian genocide at the waning days of the Ottoman Empire, the extermination of Christians by the Romans, and the Holocaust itself. All of these were justified by the need for Empire to regulate those it deemed unnecessary to the functioning of Empire. All of these Empires committed acts of genocide those who got in their way, and all of them ultimately failed

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

6. Empire expands racism to cultural and social spheres my determining different as inferior Michael Hardt, Professor at duke, Director of Graduate Studies Antonio Negri , taught at the Université de Vincennes (Paris-VIII) and the Collège International de Philosophie, along with Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze. ,Empire 2001, Harvard University Press (191) [adit] The passage from modern sovereignty to imperial sovereignty shows one of its faces in the shifting configurations of racism in our societies. We should note first of all that it has become increasingly difficult to identify the general lines of racism. In fact, politicians, the media, and even historians continually tell us that racism has steadily receded in modern societies-from the end of slavery to decolonization struggles and civil rights movements. Certain specific traditional practices of racism have undoubtedly declined, and one might be tempted to view the end of the apartheid laws in South IMPERIAL SOVEREIGNTY 191 Africa as the symbolic close of an entire era of racial segregation. From our perspective, however, it is clear that racism has not receded but actually progressed in the contemporary world, both in extent and in intensity. It appears to have declined only because its form and strategies have changed. If we take Manichaean divisions and rigid exclusionary practices (in South Africa, in the colonial city, in the southeastern United States, or in Palestine) as the paradigm of modern racisms, we must now ask what is the postmodern form of racism and what are its strategies in today's imperial society. Many analysts describe this passage as a shift in the dominant theoretical form of racism, from a racist theory based on biology to one based on culture. The dominant modern racist theory and the concomitant practices of segregation are centered on essential biological differences among races. Blood and genes stand behind the differences in skin color as the real substance of racial difference. Subordinated peoples are thus conceived (at least implicitly) as other than human, as a different order of being. These modern racist theories grounded in biology imply or tend toward an ontological difference-a necessary, eternal, and immutable rift in the order of being. In

response to this theoretical position, then, modern antiracism positions itself against the notion of biological essentialism, and insists that differences among the races are constituted instead by social and cultural forces. These modern anti-racist theorists operate on the belief that social constructivism will free us from the straitjacket of biological determinism: if our differences are socially and culturally determined, then all humans are in principle equal, of one ontological order, one nature.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

With the passage to Empire, however, biological differences have been replaced by sociological and cultural signifiers as the key representation of racial hatred and fear. In this way imperial racist theory attacks modern anti-racism from the rear, and actually coopts and enlists its arguments. Imperial racist theory agrees that races do not constitute isolable biological units and that nature cannot be divided into different human races. It also agrees that the behavior of individuals and their abilities or aptitudes are not the result of

192

PASSAGES OFSOVEREIGNTY

their blood or their genes, but are due to their belonging to different historically determined cultures." Differences are thus not fixed and immutable but contingent effects of social history. Imperial racist theory and modern anti-racist theory are really saying very much the same thing, and it is difficult in this regard to tell them apart. In fact, it is precisely because this relativist and culturalist argument is assumed to be necessarily anti-racist that the dominant ideology of our entire society can appear to be against racism, and that imperial racist theory can appear not to be racist at all.

7. The strengthening of Empire ensures its collapse – it is equivalent to a parasite that saps itself of vitality – the opposite of the power of the multitude

Michael Hardt, Professor at duke, Director of Graduate Studies Antonio Negri , taught at the Université de Vincennes (Paris-VIII) and the Collège International de Philosophie, along with Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze. ,Empire 2001, Harvard University Press (191) [adit] Imperial command produces nothing vital and nothing ontological. From the ontological perspective, imperial command is purely negative and passive. Certainly power is everywhere, but it is everywhere because everywhere is in play the nexus between virtuality and possibility, a nexus that is the sole province of the multitude. Imperial power is the negative residue, the fallback of the operation of the multitude; it is a parasite that draws its vitality from the multitude's capacity to create ever new sources of energy and value. A parasite that saps the strength of its host, however, can endanger its own existence. The functioning of imperial power is ineluctably linked to its decline.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

AT: Perm

1. Perm still links - any engagement with the discourse of the 1AC re-creates the harmful epistemologies of Empire which are indicted by Hardt and Negri. It will never be able to overcome our postmodern sovereignty and Peace Police links because it will still use the discourse of expansion 2. The perm co-opts the alternative which destroys solvency – There is no chance for meaningful political

change when we view the world primarily through the top-down imperial mindset of the affirmative. Only an approach that tries to subvert the politics of domination can achieve a meaningful shift towards the politics of the multitude. 3. The perm can’t overcome the residual link – no chance for long-term solvency 4. Severance – the perm severs out of the stand-alone dominating discourse of the 1AC – voting issue because the aff can always sever out of their discourse to make no link arguments – encourages argument irresponsibility and means the aff doesn’t have to defend their discourse

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

5. Empire and movements of the multitude are mutually exclusive – movements that create true liberation can only occur outside of the geopolitical boundaries of the state. Michael Hardt, Professor at duke, Director of Graduate Studies Antonio Negri , taught at the Université de Vincennes (Paris-VIII) and the Collège International de Philosophie, along with Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze. ,Empire 2001, Harvard University Press (398) [adit] Through circulation the multitude reappropriates space and constitutes itself as an active subject. When we look closer at how this constitutive process of subjectivity operates, we can see that the new spaces are described by unusual topologies, by subterranean and uncontainable rhizomes-by geographical mythologies that mark the new paths of destiny. These movements often cost terrible suffering, but there is also in them a desire of liberation that is not satiated except by reappropriating new spaces, around which are constructed new freedoms. Everywhere these movements arrive, and all along their paths they determine new forms of life and cooperation-everywhere they create that wealth that parasitic postmodern capitalism would otherwise not know how to suck out of the blood of the proletariat, because increasingly today production takes place in movement and cooperation, in exodus and community. Is it possible to imagine

U.S. agriculture and service industries without Mexican migrant labor, or Arab oil without Palestinians and Pakistanis? Moreover, where would the great innovative sectors of immaterial production, from design to fashion, and from electronics to science in Europe, the United States, and Asia, be without the "illegal labor" of the great masses, mobilized toward the radiant horizons of capitalist wealth and freedom? Mass migrations have become necessary for production. Every path is forged, mapped, and traveled. It seems that the more intensely each is traveled and the more suffering is deposited there, the more each path becomes productive. These paths are what brings the "earthly city" out of the cloud and confusion that Empire casts over it. This is how the multitude gains the power to affirm its autonomy, traveling and expressing itself through an apparatus of widespread, transversal territorial reappropriation. Recognizing the potential autonomy of the mobile multitude, however, only points toward the real question. What we need to grasp is how the multitude is organized and redefined as a positive, political power. Up to this point we have been able to describe the potential existence of this political power in merely formal terms. It would be a mistake to stop here, without going on to investigate the mature forms of the consciousness and political organization of the multitude, without recognizing how

much is already powerful in these territorial movements of the labor power of Empire. How can we recognize (and reveal) a constituent political tendency within and beyond the spontaneity of the multitude's movements?

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

This question can be approached initially from the other side by considering the policies of Empire that repress these movements. Empire does not really know how to control these paths and can only try to criminalize those who travel them, even when the movements are required for capitalist production itself. The migration lines of biblical proportions that go from South to North America are obstinately called by the new drug czars "the cocaine trail"; or rather, the articulations of exodus from North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa are treated by European leaders as "paths of terrorism"; or rather still, the populations forced to flee across the Indian Ocean are reduced to slavery in "Arabia felix"; and the list goes on. And yet the flows of population continue. Empire must restrict and isolate the spatial movements of the multitude to stop them from gaining political legitimacy. It is extremely important

THE MULTITUDE AGAINST EMPIRE 399

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

from this point of view that Empire use its powers to manage and orchestrate the various forces of nationalism and fundamentalism (see Sections 2.2 and 2.4). It is no less important, too, that Empire deploy its military and police powers to bring the unruly and rebellious to order.' These imperial practices in themselves, however, still do not touch on the political tension that runs throughout the spontaneous movements of the multitude. All these repressive actions remain essentially external to the multitude and its movements. Empire can only isolate, divide, and segregate. Imperial capital does

indeed attack the movements of the multitude with a tireless determination: it patrols the seas and the borders; within each country it divides and segregates; and in the world of labor it reinforces the cleavages and borderlines of race, gender, language, culture, and so forth. Even then, however, it must be careful not to restrict the productivity of the multitude too much because Empire too depends on this power. The movements of the multitude have to be allowed to extend always wider across the world scene, and the attempts at repressing the multitude are really paradoxical, inverted manifestations of its strength. This leads us back to our fundamental questions: How can the actions of the multitude become political? How can the multitude organize and concentrate its energies against the repression and incessant territorial segmentations of Empire? The only response that we can give to these questions is that the action of the multitude becomes political primarily when it begins to confront directly and with an adequate consciousness the central repressive operations of Empire. It is a matter of recognizing and engaging the imperial initiatives and not allowing them continually to reestablish order; it is a matter of crossing and breaking down the limits and segmentations that are imposed on the new collective labor power; it is a matter of gathering together these experiences of resistance and wielding them in concert against the nerve centers of imperial command.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Alternative Debate

1. The alternative solves the case – our 1NC Hardt and Negri Evidence indicates that a bottom up ethico-political approach can subvert the discourse of hegemony and that it makes true political power possible. By operating in the margins of Empire we can tap the productive power of the multitude as opposed to the elitism of American government. The productive power of the multitude can create new forms of power outside of the dominance advocated by the 1AC and can solve for the problems inherent to capitalism and empire. 2. Our alternative has two steps – the first is to reject the affirmative as part of a critical examination of the discourses of hegemony. This disavowing of hegemony brings to light the contradictions and crises engendered by Empire. The second step is starting a movement in this room that breaks with the concrete alternatives presented by those who operate within a historical context. We advocate the affirmation of the multitude as an ethico-political entity. This process of critiquing opens up horizons beyond the rational focus of Empire 3. Only opening up space beyond Empire can solve – in a world of Empire all their impacts are inevitable. The alternative opens the possibilities of new modes of thought and new forms of political action. This means only the alternative can solve the case. A vote neg is a vote to broaden the horizons of political possibilities.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

A2: Empire Good

1. Empirically disproven – the broadening of boundaries advocated by the 1AC is emblematic of the worldview of past empires such as Rome, the Ottoman Empire, and the Third Reich. This view that the entire world can be fit within the boundaries of Empire inevitably leads to collapse of the state as overstretch and depleted economic resources take their toll. 2. Genocidal logic – our Hardt and Negri evidence indicates that the Empire is the paradigmatic form of Biopower. This logic of management inevitably leads to biopolitical racism and genocide, ultimately resulting in extinction 3. Hegemony doesn’t exist – their idea of America as an empire is a discursive construction. They ignore the true hegemony of multinational corporations. This turns case because they will inevitably increase American dependence on corporations instead of making America the sole superpower.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Perm - do the plan and use constructivism to combine the alternative’s view with ours Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics”, International Organization, Vol.  46, No. 2. (Spring, 1992), pp. 391­425, JSTOR An attempt to use a structurationist-symbolic inter-actionist discourse to bridge the two research traditions, neither of which subscribes to such a discourse, will probably please no one. But in part this is because the two "sides" have become hung up on differences over the epistemological status of social science. The state of the social sciences and, in particular, of inter-national relations, is such that epistemological prescriptions and conclusions are at best premature. Different questions involve different standards of inference; to reject certain questions because their answers cannot conform to the standards of classical physics is to fall into the trap of method-driven rather than question-driven social science. By the same token, however, giving up the artificial restrictions of logical positivist conceptions of inquiry does not force us to give up on "Science." Beyond this, there is little reason to attach so much importance to epistemology. Neither positivism, nor scientific realism, nor post-structuralism tells us about the structure and dynamics of international life. Philosophies of science are not theories of international relations. The good news is that strong liberals and modern and postmodern constructivists are asking broadly similar questions about the substance of international relations that differentiate both groups from the neorealist-rationalist alliance. Strong liberals and constructivists have much to learn from each other if they can come to see this through the smoke and heat of epistemology.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

2AC T – In 1. We meet – plan Funds NASA, R & D done in U.S. 2. Counter interpretation: INCENTIVES must be in the US – cross apply their definition

3. We meet, we give incentives to a federal agency 4. Counter-interpretation - in means under or based on the law of - that's black's law dictionary '04 5. Limits – we limit down the resolution to only the cases that which give incentives in the US, this is key to education because it include the policy options that are under the jurisdiction of the USFG 6. Either it’s legal or it isn’t, no middle ground. We access the best bright line because the law is clearly written out. 7. Predictability – the resolution is grounded in the USFG, most predictable action is to do a plan under the law. 8. Reasonability Checks abuse –we are reasonably topical, make them prove in round abuse, potential abuse is not a voter. 7. T is not a voter – Clash checks

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

2AC: ASPEC 1. WE MEET – THEIR DEFINITION ONLY SAYS THE GOVERNMENT CONTAINS 3 BRANCHES, NOT THAT IT IS LIMITED TO 3 BRANCHES 2. COUNTER-INTERPRETATION – THE AFF HAS TO DEFEND THE ENTIRETY OF THE BRANCH 3. ASPEC IS BAD a. INFINITE REGRESSION – IF THEY WANT US TO SPEC WHAT AGENT WE USE THEY’LL WANT US TO SPEC WHAT PEN THE PRESIDENT SIGNS THE PLAN WITH b. DECREASES NEG GROUND – THEY LOSE ALL THEIR DISADS TO FEDERAL ACTIONS c. REDUCES EDUCATION – DEBATING AGENT OF IMPLEMENTATION MEANS NO TOPIC SPECIFIC EDUCATION d. AGENT CPS ARE BAD, THEY DEPEND ON TIMEFRAME FIAT, ARE UTOPIAN, MOOT OUR 1AC ADVANTAGES, AND DISCOURAGE TOPIC SPECIFIC RESEARCH 4. SPECING NOT KEY TO GROUND – KRITIKS AND CASE SPECIFIC DISADS LINK REGARDLESS OF AGENT; AND, THIS TURNS BACK THER EDUCATION STANDARD, MEANS MOST TOPIC SPECIFIC 5. NO VOTER – THEY HAVE PLENTY OF CASE SPECIFIC STRATEGIES, DON’T VOTE US DOWN ON SOMETHING STUPID LIKE ASPEC 6. CROSS-X CHECKS

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

2AC: SAUDI OIL DISAD 1. HEG SOLVES BACK THE IMPACT – FERGUSON SAYS THAT THE ONLY PROBABLE SCENARIO FOR SAUDI NUCLEAR ARMAMENT IS IF THE U.S. DECLINES IN HEG AND CAN’T PROTECT IT ANYMORE SO THEY LASH OUT - THEIR 1NC LIPPMAN CONCEDES THIS 2. NO IMPACT – ISRAEL AND SAUDI ARABIA ENGAGING IN PEACE NEGOTIATIONS, WAR WON’T HAPPEN Mitchell J. Bard [director of the non-profit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE)], no date given, “Myth and Fact: Saudi Arabia's Peace Proposal,” http://www.ujc.org/page.aspx?id=100628 In an effort to jumpstart the peace process, Saudi Arabia has resurrected the idea of negotiating with Israel on the basis of a formula outlined by then Crown Prince Abdullah in 2002. Abdullah’s ideas were revised and adopted by the Arab League as a peace initiative that offered Israel “normal relations” in exchange for a withdrawal to the 1967 borders and resolution of the Palestinian refugee issue.

3. NO LINK – SAUDI ARABIA IS DEVELOPING THEIR OWN SOLAR POWER, NO DECREASE IN RELATIONS Middle East Online, 3/3/08, “Saudi Arabia to become solar power centre,” http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=24613 PARIS - Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter, plans to become an expert in another, cleaner field of energy by investing in solar power, the country's oil minister said in an interview released Sunday. "For a country like Saudi Arabia ... one of the most important sources of energy to look at and to develop is solar energy," Ali al-Nuaimi told French oil newsletter Petrostrategies. He added: "One of the research efforts that we are going to undertake is to see how we make Saudi Arabia a centre for solar energy research and hopefully over the next 30 to 50 years we will be a major megawatt exporter. "In the same way we are an oil exporter, we can also be an exporter of power."

4. NO LINK – WE DON’T DEFEND BEAMING, PLAN WON’T BE PERCEIVED AS A SHIFT TOWARDS ALT ENERGY 5. NO INTERNAL – THE UNUNDERLINED PART OF THEIR AICE 07 SAYS THAT A SAUDIISRAEL WAR IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY 6. NO LINK – SAUDI ARABIA DOESN’T RELY ON THE U.S. AS AN OIL CUSTOMER SURIS [Saudi-U.S. Relations Information Service], 10/29/04, “Defining Interests and a Changing Relationship, Ambassador Chas Freeman Interview: Part I,” http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/newsletter2004/saudi-relations-interest-10-29.html Amb. Freeman: I have a sense that there are very momentous changes in Saudi policy emerging. One is that the Saudis place less emphasis on -- maybe no emphasis on -- maintaining preeminence in market share in the United States. Therefore, they treat American purchasers like any other purchasers with no preference -- no more special relationship, if you will.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

2AC: SAUDI OIL DISAD 7. NO LINK – SAUDI ARABIA WON’T GET NUKES, NO MATTER WHAT – 4 REASONS Thomas W. Lippman , member of the Council on Foreign Relations and former Middle East correspondent and a diplomatic and national security reporter for The Washington Post, 2/9/08 “Nuclear Weapons and Saudi Strategy” http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/articles/2008/ioi/080209-lippman-nuclear.html It is far from certain, however, that Saudi Arabia would wish to acquire its own nuclear arsenal or that it is capable of doing so. There are compelling reasons why Saudi Arabia would not undertake an effort to develop or acquire nuclear weapons, even in the unlikely event that Iran achieves a stockpile and uses this arsenal to threaten the Kingdom. Money is not an issue -- if destitute North Korea can develop nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia surely has the resources to pursue such a program. In the fall of 2007, the Saudis reported a budget surplus of $77 billion, and with oil prices above $90 a barrel, Riyadh is flush with cash. But the acquisition or development of nuclear weapons would be provocative, destabilizing, controversial and extremely difficult for Saudi Arabia, and ultimately would likely weaken the kingdom rather than strengthen it. Such a course would be directly contrary to the Kingdom’s longstanding stated goal of making the entire Middle East a nuclear weapons free zone. According to Sultan bin ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, the Defense Minister and Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, nuclear weapons by their nature contravene the tenets of Islam. Pursuing nuclear weapons would be a flagrant violation of Saudi Arabia’s commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), and would surely cause a serious breach with the United States. Saudi Arabia lacks the industrial and technological base to develop such weapons on its own. An attempt to acquire nuclear weapons by purchasing them, perhaps from Pakistan, would launch Saudi Arabia on a dangerously inflammatory trajectory that could destabilize the entire region, which Saudi Arabia’s leaders know would not be in their country’s best interests. The Saudis always prefer stability to turmoil.

8. TURN – SOLAR POWER INCREASES U.S.-SAUDI RELATIONS Karima Burns [MD, runs a herbal consulting clinic and school full-time], 5/16/02, “The Country of Energy,” http://www.islamonline.net/english/Science/2002/05/article10.shtml The King Abdul Aziz City for Science and Technology (KACST) is responsible for the administration and supervision of all research projects in various scientific areas (Saudi Embassy). KACST provides funding for solar energy research in the Kingdom as well. It also funds various cooperative efforts with organizations around the globe. KACST's most ambitious applied research project is the Solar Energy Research Program. The program encompasses a multitude of projects, many in cooperation with Saudi industries, universities, research institutes and American scientific organizations. It is under them that all of Saudi Arabia’s solar projects run.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name Biofuels bipart in congress Green Car Congress, 8-3-2008,“Bill In US Congress to Encourage Installation of Biofuel Station Infrastructure” http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/08/bill-in-congres.html US Representatives Herseth Sandlin (D-SD) and John Shimkus (R-IL) introduced bipartisan legislation—H.R.6734, The E85 and Biodiesel Access Act—that would streamline the process and provides greater incentives for service station owners to install equipment to dispense E85 and biodiesel.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name Congress supports alternative energy now/ alternative energy popular now/ hydropower key/ hydropower popular/ industry agrees with congress/ alternative energy popular with industry National Hydropower Association, 8-4-2008 “NHA Applauds Creation of Congressional Hydropower Caucus: Bipartisan group shows vision and leadership on energy independence through water power” Washington, DC (Aug. 4, 2008) Congress took another important step toward advancing the country’s energy, environmental, and economic goals last week by announcing the creation of the Congressional Hydropower Caucus, a bipartisan group that will promote the benefits of hydropower, America’s largest renewable-energy resource. “We welcome this initiative and applaud the House members who launched this effort,” said NHA executive director Linda Church Ciocci. “Their actions recognize that hydropower is – and will remain – the keystone of the country’s energy mix.” Church Ciocci singled out caucus co-chairs Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA) and Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE) for special praise. “By demonstrating their commitment to hydropower, these leaders are also showing their dedication to a clean, affordable energy future,” she said. “Their work also underscores the fact that new technologies and advancements are making hydropower one of the most exciting new energy options available today.” Church Ciocci noted that although hydropower has a century of achievement in providing large-scale baseload capacity through dams and reservoirs, some of the most exciting work being done in the renewable energy arena involves new water power technologies that capture energy from tides, waves, rivers, streams, and even manmade flows, like aqueducts. According to a report last year from the Electric Power Research Institute, these new technologies, combined with new efficiencies at existing hydropower facilities, development at existing non-powered dams, and new small and low power hydro development, could double the industry’s overall capacity to more than 180,000 megawatts. “As an industry, we’re on the vanguard of renewable energy development, and we’re also an established, proven part of the energy mix. I can’t think of any other energy resource that has both a future filled with new technologies and a history of achievement,” she said. Church Ciocci added that NHA was pleased that the Congressional Hydropower Caucus’ stated goals appear to echo many of the industry’s priorities, including recognizing hydropower’s role in integrating other renewables into the electric grid, promoting the expansion of conventional hydropower where appropriate, developing new technologies, and educating the public on the role hydropower plays in our energy mix. “We look forward to working with the caucus to advance these important goals,” she said.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

He’s A Nazi Politics Impact Calc.................................................................................................................................................................................1 Politics Impact Calc.....................................................................................................................................................................................1 Politics – A/T: Uniqueness Overwhelms the Link...................................................................................................................................2 Politics – A/T: Uniqueness Overwhelms the Link.......................................................................................................................................2 Politics – A/T: McCain Win Now............................................................................................................................................................5 Politics – A/T: McCain Win Now................................................................................................................................................................5 Politics A/T: Won’t Strike........................................................................................................................................................................8 Politics A/T: Won’t Strike............................................................................................................................................................................8 Politics A/T: Link Turn..........................................................................................................................................................................10 Politics A/T: Link Turn..............................................................................................................................................................................10 Politics A/T: Strikes Good......................................................................................................................................................................11 Politics A/T: Strikes Good..........................................................................................................................................................................11 AT: McCain Wins on Military...............................................................................................................................................................12 AT: McCain Wins on Military...................................................................................................................................................................12 AT: Separation Key................................................................................................................................................................................13 AT: Separation Key....................................................................................................................................................................................13 AT: Obama Will Strike...........................................................................................................................................................................14 AT: Obama Will Strike...............................................................................................................................................................................14 AT: Bush will strike...............................................................................................................................................................................16 AT: Bush will strike...................................................................................................................................................................................16 XTN: Industry Opposition.....................................................................................................................................................................39 XTN: Industry Opposition.........................................................................................................................................................................39 Links: Cap and Trade.............................................................................................................................................................................42 Links: Cap and Trade.................................................................................................................................................................................42 Links: Cap and Trade.............................................................................................................................................................................43 Links: Cap and Trade.................................................................................................................................................................................43 AT: Regulations Help Businesses..........................................................................................................................................................44 AT: Regulations Help Businesses..............................................................................................................................................................44 Flight Bad – Econ/Environment............................................................................................................................................................45 Flight Bad – Econ/Environment................................................................................................................................................................45 Time to Exploooode...................................................................................................................................................................................48 Deep Eco 2NC Block ............................................................................................................................................................................52 Empire in the Sky – the Air Force is the ultimate manifestation of Hardt and Negri’s concept of Empire – They are enforcers of American imperial authority that travel across fixed boundaries and enforce the ideologies of the American constitution anywhere and everywhere in the world. The affirmative plan epitomizes the smoothing of the functioning of the Empire, as it allows these biopolitical angels to fly anywhere that U.S. seeks to control and strikes fear in the Oriental heathens as per their . The plan is the worst form of imperial expansion..........................................................................................................................................................56 The capitalist discourse of their Alic and their Mitchell and Cordle evidence reinforce the government’s ability to wield the invisible hand .......................................................................................................................................................................................................57 Michael Hardt, Professor at duke, Director of Graduate Studies Antonio Negri , taught at the Université de Vincennes (ParisVIII) and the Collège International de Philosophie, along with Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze. ,Empire 2001, Harvard University Press (86) [adit]....................................................................................................................................57 There is at the base of the modern theory of sovereignty, however, a further very important element-a content that fills and sustains the form of sovereign authority. This content is represented by capitalist development and the affirmation of the market as the foundation of the values of social reproduction." Without this content, which is always implicit, always working inside the transcendental apparatus, the form of sovereignty would not have been able to survive in modernity, and European modernity would not have been able to achieve a hegemonic position on a world scale. As Arif Dirlik has noted, Eurocentrism distinguished itself from other ethnocentrisms (such as Sinocentrism) and rose to global prominence principally because it was supported by the powers of capital." European modernity is inseparable from capitalism. This central relationship between the form and the content of modern sovereignty is fully articulated in the work of Adam Smith. Smith begins with a theory of industry that poses the contradiction between private enrichment and public interest. A first synthesis of these two levels is confided to the "invisible hand" of the market: the capitalist "intends only his own gain," but he is "led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."" This first synthesis, however, is precarious and fleeting. Political economy, considered a branch of the science of the administrator and legislator, must go much further in conceiving the synthesis. It must understand the "invisible hand" of the market as a product of political economy itself, which is thus directed

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name toward constructing the conditions of the autonomy of the market: "All systems either of preference or of restraint, therefore, being thus completely taken away, the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord."" In this case, too, however, the synthesis is not at all guaranteed. In effect, a third passage is necessary. What is needed is for the state, which is minimal but effective, to make the well-being of private individuals coincide with the public interest, reducing all social functions and laboring activities to one measure of value. That this state intervenes or not is secondary; what matters is that it give content to the mediation of interests and represent the axis of rationality of that mediation. The political transcendental of the modem state is defined as an economic transcendental. Smith's theory of value was the soul and substance of the concept of the modern sovereign state................................................................................................................57 In Hegel, the synthesis of the theory of modern sovereignty and the theory of value produced by capitalist political economy is finally realized, just as in his work there is a perfect realization of the consciousness of the union of the absolutist and republican aspects-that is, the Hobbesian and Rousseauian aspects-of the theory of modern sovereignty...................................58 In relation to the spheres of civil law [PrivatrechtJ and private welfare, the spheres of the family and civil society, the state is on the one hand an external necessity and the higher power to whose nature their laws and interests are subordinate and on which they depend. But on the other hand, it is their immanent end, and its strength consists in the unity of its universal and ultimate end with the particular interest of individuals, in the fact that they have duties towards the state to the same extent as they also have rights."....................................................................................................................................................................58 The Hegelian relationship between particular and universal brings together in adequate and functional terms the HobbesRousseau theory of sovereignty and Smith's theory of value. Modem European sovereignty is capitalist sovereignty, a form of command that overdetermines the relationship between individuality and universality as a function of the development of capital.............................................................................................................................................................................................58 6.Empire expands racism to cultural and social spheres my determining different as inferior.............................................................60 Michael Hardt, Professor at duke, Director of Graduate Studies Antonio Negri , taught at the Université de Vincennes (ParisVIII) and the Collège International de Philosophie, along with Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze. ,Empire 2001, Harvard University Press (191) [adit]..................................................................................................................................60 The passage from modern sovereignty to imperial sovereignty shows one of its faces in the shifting configurations of racism in our societies. We should note first of all that it has become increasingly difficult to identify the general lines of racism. In fact, politicians, the media, and even historians continually tell us that racism has steadily receded in modern societies-from the end of slavery to decolonization struggles and civil rights movements. Certain specific traditional practices of racism have undoubtedly declined, and one might be tempted to view the end of the apartheid laws in South...............................................60 IMPERIAL SOVEREIGNTY 191.................................................................................................................................................60 Africa as the symbolic close of an entire era of racial segregation. From our perspective, however, it is clear that racism has not receded but actually progressed in the contemporary world, both in extent and in intensity. It appears to have declined only because its form and strategies have changed. If we take Manichaean divisions and rigid exclusionary practices (in South Africa, in the colonial city, in the southeastern United States, or in Palestine) as the paradigm of modern racisms, we must now ask what is the postmodern form of racism and what are its strategies in today's imperial society..............................................60 Many analysts describe this passage as a shift in the dominant theoretical form of racism, from a racist theory based on biology to one based on culture. The dominant modern racist theory and the concomitant practices of segregation are centered on essential biological differences among races. Blood and genes stand behind the differences in skin color as the real substance of racial difference. Subordinated peoples are thus conceived (at least implicitly) as other than human, as a different order of being. These modern racist theories grounded in biology imply or tend toward an ontological difference-a necessary, eternal, and immutable rift in the order of being. In response to this theoretical position, then, modern antiracism positions itself against the notion of biological essentialism, and insists that differences among the races are constituted instead by social and cultural forces. These modern anti-racist theorists operate on the belief that social constructivism will free us from the straitjacket of biological determinism: if our differences are socially and culturally determined, then all humans are in principle equal, of one ontological order, one nature....................................................................................................................................60 With the passage to Empire, however, biological differences have been replaced by sociological and cultural signifiers as the key representation of racial hatred and fear. In this way imperial racist theory attacks modern anti-racism from the rear, and actually coopts and enlists its arguments. Imperial racist theory agrees that races do not constitute isolable biological units and that nature cannot be divided into different human races. It also agrees that the behavior of individuals and their abilities or aptitudes are not the result of.........................................................................................................................................................61 192 PASSAGES OFSOVEREIGNTY..........................................................................................................................................61 their blood or their genes, but are due to their belonging to different historically determined cultures." Differences are thus not fixed and immutable but contingent effects of social history. Imperial racist theory and modern anti-racist theory are really saying very much the same thing, and it is difficult in this regard to tell them apart. In fact, it is precisely because this relativist and culturalist argument is assumed to be necessarily anti-racist that the dominant ideology of our entire society can appear to be against racism, and that imperial racist theory can appear not to be racist at all......................................................................61 7.The strengthening of Empire ensures its collapse – it is equivalent to a parasite that saps itself of vitality – the opposite of the power of the multitude...................................................................................................................................................................61

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name Michael Hardt, Professor at duke, Director of Graduate Studies Antonio Negri , taught at the Université de Vincennes (ParisVIII) and the Collège International de Philosophie, along with Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze. ,Empire 2001, Harvard University Press (191) [adit]..................................................................................................................................61 Imperial command produces nothing vital and nothing ontological. From the ontological perspective, imperial command is purely negative and passive. Certainly power is everywhere, but it is everywhere because everywhere is in play the nexus between virtuality and possibility, a nexus that is the sole province of the multitude. Imperial power is the negative residue, the fallback of the operation of the multitude; it is a parasite that draws its vitality from the multitude's capacity to create ever new sources of energy and value. A parasite that saps the strength of its host, however, can endanger its own existence. The functioning of imperial power is ineluctably linked to its decline.................................................................................................61 1.Perm still links - any engagement with the discourse of the 1AC re-creates the harmful epistemologies of Empire which are indicted by Hardt and Negri. It will never be able to overcome our postmodern sovereignty and Peace Police links because it will still use the discourse of expansion........................................................................................................................................................62 5.Empire and movements of the multitude are mutually exclusive – movements that create true liberation can only occur outside of the geopolitical boundaries of the state.........................................................................................................................63 Michael Hardt, Professor at duke, Director of Graduate Studies Antonio Negri , taught at the Université de Vincennes (ParisVIII) and the Collège International de Philosophie, along with Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze. ,Empire 2001, Harvard University Press (398) [adit]..................................................................................................................................63 Through circulation the multitude reappropriates space and constitutes itself as an active subject. When we look closer at how this constitutive process of subjectivity operates, we can see that the new spaces are described by unusual topologies, by subterranean and uncontainable rhizomes-by geographical mythologies that mark the new paths of destiny. These movements often cost terrible suffering, but there is also in them a desire of liberation that is not satiated except by reappropriating new spaces, around which are constructed new freedoms. Everywhere these movements arrive, and all along their paths they determine new forms of life and cooperation-everywhere they create that wealth that parasitic postmodern capitalism would otherwise not know how to suck out of the blood of the proletariat, because increasingly today production takes place in movement and cooperation, in exodus and community. Is it possible to imagine U.S. agriculture and service industries without Mexican migrant labor, or Arab oil without Palestinians and Pakistanis? Moreover, where would the great innovative sectors of immaterial production, from design to fashion, and from electronics to science in Europe, the United States, and Asia, be without the "illegal labor" of the great masses, mobilized toward the radiant horizons of capitalist wealth and freedom? Mass migrations have become necessary for production. Every path is forged, mapped, and traveled. It seems that the more intensely each is traveled and the more suffering is deposited there, the more each path becomes productive. These paths are what brings the "earthly city" out of the cloud and confusion that Empire casts over it. This is how the multitude gains the power to affirm its autonomy, traveling and expressing itself through an apparatus of widespread, transversal territorial reappropriation..........63 Recognizing the potential autonomy of the mobile multitude, however, only points toward the real question. What we need to grasp is how the multitude is organized and redefined as a positive, political power. Up to this point we have been able to describe the potential existence of this political power in merely formal terms. It would be a mistake to stop here, without going on to investigate the mature forms of the consciousness and political organization of the multitude, without recognizing how much is already powerful in these territorial movements of the labor power of Empire. How can we recognize (and reveal) a constituent political tendency within and beyond the spontaneity of the multitude's movements?...........................................63 This question can be approached initially from the other side by considering the policies of Empire that repress these movements. Empire does not really know how to control these paths and can only try to criminalize those who travel them, even when the movements are required for capitalist production itself. The migration lines of biblical proportions that go from South to North America are obstinately called by the new drug czars "the cocaine trail"; or rather, the articulations of exodus from North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa are treated by European leaders as "paths of terrorism"; or rather still, the populations forced to flee across the Indian Ocean are reduced to slavery in "Arabia felix"; and the list goes on. And yet the flows of population continue. Empire must restrict and isolate the spatial movements of the multitude to stop them from gaining political legitimacy. It is extremely important..................................................................................................................64 THE MULTITUDE AGAINST EMPIRE 399...............................................................................................................................64 from this point of view that Empire use its powers to manage and orchestrate the various forces of nationalism and fundamentalism (see Sections 2.2 and 2.4). It is no less important, too, that Empire deploy its military and police powers to bring the unruly and rebellious to order.' These imperial practices in themselves, however, still do not touch on the political tension that runs throughout the spontaneous movements of the multitude. All these repressive actions remain essentially external to the multitude and its movements. Empire can only isolate, divide, and segregate. Imperial capital does indeed attack the movements of the multitude with a tireless determination: it patrols the seas and the borders; within each country it divides and segregates; and in the world of labor it reinforces the cleavages and borderlines of race, gender, language, culture, and so forth. Even then, however, it must be careful not to restrict the productivity of the multitude too much because Empire too depends on this power. The movements of the multitude have to be allowed to extend always wider across the world scene, and the attempts at repressing the multitude are really paradoxical, inverted manifestations of its strength......................................65

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name This leads us back to our fundamental questions: How can the actions of the multitude become political? How can the multitude organize and concentrate its energies against the repression and incessant territorial segmentations of Empire? The only response that we can give to these questions is that the action of the multitude becomes political primarily when it begins to confront directly and with an adequate consciousness the central repressive operations of Empire. It is a matter of recognizing and engaging the imperial initiatives and not allowing them continually to reestablish order; it is a matter of crossing and breaking down the limits and segmentations that are imposed on the new collective labor power; it is a matter of gathering together these experiences of resistance and wielding them in concert against the nerve centers of imperial command. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................65 2AC T – In ............................................................................................................................................................................................69 2AC T – In ................................................................................................................................................................................................69 2AC: ASPEC..........................................................................................................................................................................................70 2AC: ASPEC..............................................................................................................................................................................................70 2AC: SAUDI OIL DISAD.....................................................................................................................................................................71 2AC: SAUDI OIL DISAD.........................................................................................................................................................................71 2AC: SAUDI OIL DISAD.....................................................................................................................................................................72 2AC: SAUDI OIL DISAD.........................................................................................................................................................................72 He’s A Nazi............................................................................................................................................................................................75 He’s A Nazi................................................................................................................................................................................................75 2AC Frontline........................................................................................................................................................................................83 2AC Frontline............................................................................................................................................................................................83 ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................84 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................84 Wolin, 90 - Distinguished Professor of History at the City University of New York Graduate Center - 1990 (Richard Wolin, The Politics of Being, P. 46) .........................................................................................................................................................................86 2AC Frontline........................................................................................................................................................................................86 2AC Frontline............................................................................................................................................................................................86 2AC Frontline........................................................................................................................................................................................88 2AC Frontline............................................................................................................................................................................................88 2AC Frontline........................................................................................................................................................................................89 2AC Frontline............................................................................................................................................................................................89 Alt Sucks................................................................................................................................................................................................91 Alt Sucks....................................................................................................................................................................................................91 Alt Sucks................................................................................................................................................................................................92 Alt Sucks....................................................................................................................................................................................................92 Alt Sucks................................................................................................................................................................................................93 Alt Sucks....................................................................................................................................................................................................93 Submission Turn....................................................................................................................................................................................94 Submission Turn........................................................................................................................................................................................94 Perm Solvency.......................................................................................................................................................................................95 Perm Solvency...........................................................................................................................................................................................95 ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................95 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................95 He’s A Nazi ...........................................................................................................................................................................................96 He’s A Nazi ...............................................................................................................................................................................................96 ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................96 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................96 He’s A Nazi ...........................................................................................................................................................................................97 He’s A Nazi ...............................................................................................................................................................................................97 Survival Key To Ontology.....................................................................................................................................................................99 Survival Key To Ontology.........................................................................................................................................................................99 Reg Neg CP..........................................................................................................................................................................................102 Reg Neg CP..............................................................................................................................................................................................102 Strat Notes............................................................................................................................................................................................103 Strat Notes................................................................................................................................................................................................103 ***Counterplans/Net Benefits***...........................................................................................................................................................104 CP-Generic...........................................................................................................................................................................................105 CP-Generic...............................................................................................................................................................................................105 Generic NB..........................................................................................................................................................................................106

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name Generic NB..............................................................................................................................................................................................106 XTN: Industry Opposition...................................................................................................................................................................107 XTN: Industry Opposition.......................................................................................................................................................................107 XTN: Reg Negs →Coaltions...............................................................................................................................................................108 XTN: Reg Negs →Coaltions...................................................................................................................................................................108 CP-Patents............................................................................................................................................................................................109 CP-Patents................................................................................................................................................................................................109 Patents Bizcon Links............................................................................................................................................................................110 Patents Bizcon Links................................................................................................................................................................................110 XTN: Reg Negs → Innovation............................................................................................................................................................111 XTN: Reg Negs → Innovation................................................................................................................................................................111 CP-RPS................................................................................................................................................................................................112 CP-RPS....................................................................................................................................................................................................112 XTN: Reg Negs Solve.........................................................................................................................................................................113 XTN: Reg Negs Solve.............................................................................................................................................................................113 CP-Brownfields....................................................................................................................................................................................114 CP-Brownfields........................................................................................................................................................................................114 CP-Feed-in Tariffs................................................................................................................................................................................115 CP-Feed-in Tariffs....................................................................................................................................................................................115 CP-Natives...........................................................................................................................................................................................116 CP-Natives...............................................................................................................................................................................................116 XTN: Reg Neg Solves Natives............................................................................................................................................................117 XTN: Reg Neg Solves Natives................................................................................................................................................................117 CP-Nuclear...........................................................................................................................................................................................118 CP-Nuclear...............................................................................................................................................................................................118 ***2NC Answers***...............................................................................................................................................................................119 AT: Courts Rollback.............................................................................................................................................................................120 AT: Courts Rollback.................................................................................................................................................................................120 AT: Takes Long Time...........................................................................................................................................................................121 AT: Takes Long Time...............................................................................................................................................................................121 AT: Conglianese...................................................................................................................................................................................122 AT: Conglianese.......................................................................................................................................................................................122 AT: Litigation.......................................................................................................................................................................................123 AT: Litigation...........................................................................................................................................................................................123 Consult Good.......................................................................................................................................................................................124 Consult Good...........................................................................................................................................................................................124 Deadlines Key......................................................................................................................................................................................125 Deadlines Key..........................................................................................................................................................................................125 2AC – AT Incentives Encourage ............................................................................................................................................................126 Politics- Obama Good..............................................................................................................................................................................128 12.Link Turn- Military funding massively unpopular—lobbies protest..............................................................................................130 Who says there's no anti-war movement in the United States? In the past two months, the anti-war movement has taken on one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the United States in an important fight. And so far, the anti-war movement is winning. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................130 Here's the story: On May 22, a bill was introduced into Congress that effectively called for a blockade of Iran, H. Con. Res. 362. Among other expressions of hostility, the bill calls for:......................................................................................................130 "prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran...".......................................................................................130 This sounded an awful lot like it was calling for a blockade, which is an act of war. A dangerous proposition, especially given all the efforts that the Bush-Cheney administration has taken to move us closer to a military confrontation with Iran, the bluster and the threats, and the refusal to engage in direct talks with the Iranian government. The last thing we need is for the war party to get encouragement from Congress to initiate more illegal and extremely dangerous hostilities in the Persian Gulf. If the bill were to pass, the Bush Administration could take it as a green light for a blockade. It's hard to imagine the Iranians passively watching their economy strangled for lack of gasoline (which they import), without at least firing a few missiles at the blockaders. Whereupon all hell could break loose................................................................................................................130 By June 20 this bill was zipping through Congress, with 169 co-sponsors, soon to accumulate more than 200 Representatives. Amazingly, it was projected to appear quickly on the House Suspension Calendar. This is a special procedure that allows the House of Representatives to pass non-controversial legislation by a super-majority. It allows the bill to avoid amendments and

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name other procedural votes, as well as normal debate. An aide to the Democratic leadership said the resolution would pass Congress like a "hot knife through butter."..................................................................................................................................................130 Heidegger.................................................................................................................................................................................................132 2AC States CP (1/3).............................................................................................................................................................................141 2AC States CP (1/3).................................................................................................................................................................................141 2AC States CP (2/3).............................................................................................................................................................................142 2AC States CP (2/3).................................................................................................................................................................................142 2AC States CP (3/3).............................................................................................................................................................................143 2AC States CP (3/3).................................................................................................................................................................................143 2AC T- Only Tax incentives.................................................................................................................................................................144 2AC T- Only Tax incentives.....................................................................................................................................................................144 2AC Obama Good (1/3).......................................................................................................................................................................145 2AC Obama Good (1/3)...........................................................................................................................................................................145 2AC Obama Good (2/3).......................................................................................................................................................................146 2AC Obama Good (2/3)...........................................................................................................................................................................146 2AC Obama Good (3/3).......................................................................................................................................................................147 2AC Obama Good (3/3)...........................................................................................................................................................................147 2AC Fiscal Discipline (1/2).................................................................................................................................................................148 2AC Fiscal Discipline (1/2).....................................................................................................................................................................148 2AC Fiscal Discipline (2/2).................................................................................................................................................................148 2AC Fiscal Discipline (2/2).....................................................................................................................................................................148 2AC Eco Managerialism (1/2).............................................................................................................................................................150 2AC Eco Managerialism (1/2).................................................................................................................................................................150 2AC Eco Managerialism (2/2).............................................................................................................................................................151 2AC Eco Managerialism (2/2).................................................................................................................................................................151 Hegemony 1NC/2AC Supplement...........................................................................................................................................................155 Hegemony is not sustainable...................................................................................................................................................................159 Current Hegemony doesn’t solve - Space................................................................................................................................................160 Counter-Balancing won’t Happen...........................................................................................................................................................161 Counter-Balancing won’t Happen...........................................................................................................................................................162 Counter-Balancing Won’t Happen...........................................................................................................................................................163 Counter-Balancing Won’t Happen...........................................................................................................................................................164 Hegemony Solves EU CB and NATO.....................................................................................................................................................165 Must Increase Hegemony Now................................................................................................................................................................166 Addressing Climate Solves Hegemony...................................................................................................................................................167 Hegemony Good Impacts – Indonesia Add-On.......................................................................................................................................168 Hegemony Good Impacts – Climate Solvency........................................................................................................................................169 Hegemony Good Impacts – Proliferation................................................................................................................................................170 Hegemony Good Impacts – NATO..........................................................................................................................................................171 Hegemony Good Impacts – UN, genocide, security, proliferation..........................................................................................................172 Hegemony Good Impacts – Middle East.................................................................................................................................................173 Hegemony Good Impacts – China...........................................................................................................................................................174 Hegemony Good Impacts – China Brink.................................................................................................................................................175 Hegemony Good Impacts – ASEAN 1/2.................................................................................................................................................176 Hegemony Good Impacts – ASEAN 2/2.................................................................................................................................................177 Multipolarity now....................................................................................................................................................................................178 Multipolarity Inevitable...........................................................................................................................................................................179 Multipolarity Inevitable...........................................................................................................................................................................180 Multipolarity Inevitable...........................................................................................................................................................................181 EU will counter-balance..........................................................................................................................................................................182 Hegemony Inevitable...............................................................................................................................................................................183 Hegemony Turns Itself.............................................................................................................................................................................184 T-Incentives..........................................................................................................................................................................................185 T-Incentives..............................................................................................................................................................................................185 States CP: Feed in Tariff Solvency......................................................................................................................................................186 States CP: Feed in Tariff Solvency..........................................................................................................................................................186 States CP: Universities Solve ..............................................................................................................................................................187 States CP: Universities Solve ..................................................................................................................................................................187

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name Politics: Bush wont strike Iran.............................................................................................................................................................189 Politics: Bush wont strike Iran.................................................................................................................................................................189 Israel Strikes =Global Nuke War.........................................................................................................................................................192 Israel Strikes =Global Nuke War.............................................................................................................................................................192 Israel Wont Strike.................................................................................................................................................................................193 Israel Wont Strike.....................................................................................................................................................................................193 Israel and US wont strike Iran (good card)..........................................................................................................................................194 Israel and US wont strike Iran (good card)..............................................................................................................................................194 2AC: SCIENCE K (SS).......................................................................................................................................................................195 2AC: SCIENCE K (SS)...........................................................................................................................................................................195 2AC: SCIENCE K (SS).......................................................................................................................................................................196 2AC: SCIENCE K (SS)...........................................................................................................................................................................196 Xtra Topicality GT...................................................................................................................................................................................197 States CP Block GT.................................................................................................................................................................................198 The perm solves best. Multiple actors create movements for environmental justice.........................................................................198 Frug, Jerry, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, and a leading academic authority on local government law 48 Stan. L. Rev. 1071 (1995-1996) Geography of Community, The; [adit]..............................................................................................200 Politics GT...............................................................................................................................................................................................204 Eco-Managerialism Kritik.......................................................................................................................................................................207 4.Solvency of Transportation Injustices is key to Sustainable Communities......................................................................................207 Transportation justice, a response to discriminatory transportation planning, has addressed a wide range of issues over the past century, including bus and rail segregation, highway development, transit design," toxic freight, airport expansion, and neighborhood street safety( Jenbrock and Schweitzer 1999; Conservation Law Foundation Bullard and Johnson 1997; Bullard et al. 1.004). Historically, large-scale highway projects have had a significant impact on minority and income neighborhoods while facilitating increased automobile use emissions by wealthier suburban residents (Bullard and Johnson __ Bullard et al. 1.004). Activists are continuing to work to gain within transportation systems, particularly urban transit. In many the difference in transit quality between services for suburban commuters and urban residents is analogous to the segregation fought in bus boycotts of the 1950s and the Freedom Riders campaign in 1960s (Bullard and Johnson 1997). Many just sustainability advocates point to transportation as the number-one issue to address in sustainable cities, and gradually federal, state, and local transportation agencies have included nonautomotive modes as relevant parts of transportation systems (Newman and Kenworthy 1999). One of the first steps in doing this, in controlling urban transportation futures for people, especially the disadvantaged, is to reframe the concept of transportation to the broader and more productive concept of access. By thinking in terms of access, we can think inclusively about the ways of bringing things to people and people to things. ..........................207 9.Alt Doesn’t Solve suburbian biopower- The entire concept of the suburb is rooted in controlling the lives of those in the inner city, cutting off transit and building large highways so they can’t intrude on the suburban lifestyle- that’s Frug 96.................................208 Case Answers...........................................................................................................................................................................................209 Politics KO...............................................................................................................................................................................................210 States CP KO...........................................................................................................................................................................................212 The perm solves best. Multiple actors create movements for environmental justice.........................................................................212 Spending..................................................................................................................................................................................................217 Situationism.............................................................................................................................................................................................219 at: states Politics - Day 1..........................................................................................................................................................................229 georgia......................................................................................................................................................................................................232 AT: Georgia Education T/O.....................................................................................................................................................................233 Georgia cutting education spending in the Squo ................................................................................................................................233 Medicad Will Take the cut Instead - Georgia ......................................................................................................................................233 Cutting Georgia Education Budget Now ............................................................................................................................................233 AT: Georgia Education T/O.....................................................................................................................................................................234 Georgia Economy’s tanked..................................................................................................................................................................234 Georgia Economy and Budget Tanked................................................................................................................................................234 general State Budgets ..............................................................................................................................................................................235 state Budgets Tubed.................................................................................................................................................................................236 State budgets jacked Now....................................................................................................................................................................236 State Budget DA Toast.........................................................................................................................................................................236 Huge State Budget Defecits Now .......................................................................................................................................................236 california..................................................................................................................................................................................................237 AT: California Budget Fight DA - no compromise..................................................................................................................................238 California Budget Compromise Doomed............................................................................................................................................238

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name .............................................................................................................................................................................................................238 Budget Crisis NOW and MULTIPLE Years Without budget Resolution Disprove the Case..............................................................238 Political Posturing Preventing a Budget Compromise.........................................................................................................................239 AT: California Budget Fight DA - no compromise..................................................................................................................................240 Impact Empiracly Denied....................................................................................................................................................................240 No Budget Compromise and RECENT Spending...............................................................................................................................240 AT: California Budget Fight DA - Econ Dead.........................................................................................................................................241 California Economy Tanked - Jobs......................................................................................................................................................241 AT: California Budget Fight DA - NO trade off......................................................................................................................................242 The Gubernator Will Target Jobs - Not ___.........................................................................................................................................242 Gubernator Will Target Employees - He Thinks it’s the Only Option.................................................................................................242 indiana......................................................................................................................................................................................................243 AT: indiana DA -Energy Policeis NOw ..................................................................................................................................................244 Multiple Indiana Environmental Policies Non-Unique the DA...........................................................................................................244 AT: indiana DA -Daniels win Now .........................................................................................................................................................245 Daniels Getting a Win From Alternative Energy Now .......................................................................................................................245 AT: Indiana DA - Econ Tanked................................................................................................................................................................246 Indiana economy Jacked - GM Moving...............................................................................................................................................246 texas.........................................................................................................................................................................................................247 at: texas DA - Renewables Now..............................................................................................................................................................248 Texas Funding Renewables Now.........................................................................................................................................................248 Texas Funding Renewables Now.........................................................................................................................................................248

Strategy: Alright, against this K you shouldn’t have too much trouble. The 2AC is pretty long, so you’ll want to cut some of it off if it isn’t like a 1-off K or something. If they read the “engage the poetical” shell, you may want to read the counterpoem at the bottom of the 2AC #2.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

2AC Frontline 1. Turn - Technological thought is only bad because of a lack of the right kind of rationality –the plan allows a reflection of ends that is able to counter the hegemony of instrumental reason.

Wolin, 90 - Distinguished Professor of History at the City University of New York Graduate Center (Richard Wolin, The Politics of Being, P. 167) Heidegger's theory of technology ultimately collapses under the weight of its own self-imposed conceptual limitations. And thus, the intrinsic shortcomings of his theoretical framework prevent him from entertaining the prospect that the problem of technological domination owes more to the dearth of reason in the modern world rather than an excess. For in modern life, the parameters of rationality have been prematurely restricted: formal or instrumental reason has attained de facto hegemony; practical reason-reflection on ends-has been effectively marginalized. Instead of the "overcoming" of reason recommended by Heidegger, what is needed is an expansion of reason's boundaries, such that the autonomous logic of instrumental rationality is subordinated to a rational reflection on ends. Similarly, Heidegger's incessant lamentations concerning the "will to will-the theoretical prism through which he views the modern project of human self-assertion in its entirety- only serve to confuse the problem at issue?7 That the forces of technology and industry follow an independent logic.

2. Ethics come before ontology – Heidegger’s failure to differentiate between the Holocaust and mechanized agriculture proves the impotence of ontological reassessment alone Arnold I. Davidson, coeditor of Critical Inquiry, Assoc Prof of Philosophy, U of Chicago, Critical Inquiry, Winter 1989. p.424-6 Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe, who brought this statement to prominence and discusses it at length in La Fiction du politique, admits that insofar as Heidegger intended to refer the gas chambers and death camps to the essence of technology his thought is "absolutely just. " But the justice of this condemnation, by way of the relation between technology and nihilism, is by itself “scandalously insufficient" (E p. 58). According to Lacoue-Labarthe, this scandalous insufficiency results from the fact that Heidegger never acknowledged that this mass extermination was essentially [pour l’essential] the extermination of the Jews, and that this fact makes for an incommensurable difference from the economic and military practice of blockades, or even the production of nuclear weapons, not to mention the mechanization of the food industry (F, pp. 58-59).32 For Lacoue- Labarthe, as for Blanchot and Levinas, Heidegger’s silence concerning the Final Solution, his failure to pronounce the name of the Jews, is what remains beyond pardon. And I think that behind this silence, when one encounters Heidegger’s 1949 pronouncement, one cannot but be staggered by his inability—call it metaphysical inability—to acknowledge the everyday fate of bodies and souls, as if the bureaucratized burning of selected human beings were not all that different from the threat to humanity posed in the organization of the food industry by the forces of technology? The mechanization of agriculture may be a cause for worry; the production of hydrogen bombs is a reason for terror; the economic blockades of countries maybe evil; but the production of corpses in the gas chambers and death camps brings us face to face with the experience of- horror. Where have these distinctions gone? Humanism aside, what has become of the human? At Auschwitz, says Lacoue-Labarthe, the Jews were treated as industrial waste (F, pp. 51-62). Do we have no criteria of evaluation to distinguish between die waste products of technology and the production of human corpses in the gas chambers? Are the advances of Heidegger’s thought inseparable from this indifference to the specifically human? By the advances of Heidegger’s thought I mean to refer, among other things, to his interpretation of Nietzsche`s phrase, "God is dead”. As a consequence of the Nietzschean death of God, as Heidegger well understood, the traditional foundations of humanism are thrown into question, As Gavel] succinctly puts this thought: "Nietzsche’s idea of the death of God can be understood to begin by saying . . . : the idea of God is part of (the idea of) human nature. If that idea dies, the idea of human nature equally dies" (CR, p. 483). So there is no question here of a return to the old idea of human nature; the task is to recover the human after the death of God. Heidegger’s interpretation of this task leaves him only one path of recovery-—-the human must be rethought through Being, and it is this subordination of being human to Being that leads to the problems of suppression and indifference, and to the violent return of the repressed, that I have [continued] sketched. I understand Levinas` work to suggest another path to the recovery of the human, one that leads through or toward other human beings: “The dimension of the divine opens forth from the human face. . . . Hence metaphysics is enacted where the social relation is enacted- in our relations with men .... The Other is not the incarnation of God, but precisely by his face, in which he is disincarnate, is the manifestation of the height in which God is revealed. It is our relations with men . . . that give to theological concepts the sole signification they admit of.55 Levinas places ethics before ontology by beginning with our experience of the human face; and, in a clear reference to Heidegger’s idolatry of the village life of peasants, he associates himself with Socrates, who preferred the city where he encountered men to the country with its trees.5“ In his discussion of skepticism and the problem of others, Cavell also aligns himself with this path of thought, with the recovery of the finite

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name human self through the acknowledgment of others: As long as God exists, 1 am not alone. And couldn`t the other suffer the fate of God? . .. I wish to understand how the other now bears the weight of God, shows me that I am not alone in the universe. This requires understanding the philosophical problem of the other as the trace or scar of the departure of God. [CR, p. 470]. The suppression of the other, the human, in Heidegger’s thought accounts, I believe, for the absence, in his writing after the war, of the experience of horror. Horror is always directed toward the human; every object of horror bears the imprint of the human will.38 So Levinas can see in Heidegger’s silence about the gas chambers and death camps "a kind of consent to the horror."39 And Cavell can characterize Nazis as “those who have lost the capacity for being horrified by what they do.40 Where was Heidegger’s horror? How could he have failed to know what he had consented to? Hannah Arendt associates Heidegger with Paul Valery‘s aphorism, " ‘Les évméments ne sont que Fécuma des choses’ (‘Events are but the foam of things’)."`41 I think one understands the source of her intuition. The mass extermination of human beings, however, does not produce foam, but dust and ashes; and it is here that questioning must stop. You onlookers, You who raised no hand in murder, But who did not shake the dust From your longing, You who halted there, where dust is changed To light.

3. Management of nature and the world is inevitable and the alternative’s approach doesn’t solve status quo policies that are worse than the plan – like oil companies, warming, and pollution.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

4. Turn – “Letting beings be” permits ultimate violence to occur. Heidegger ignores the fact that not reacting in the face of nuclear escalation makes the Alt culpable for annihilation. Khalilzad and Bearden say that without US Heg our world would be a mess. This evidence assumes your authors and answers the argument that ontology outweighs nuclear war.

Ronald E. Santoni, Phil. Prof @ Denison, 1985, Nuclear War, ed. Fox and Groarke, p. 156-7 To be sure, Fox sees the need for our undergoing “certain fundamental changes” in our “thinking, beliefs, attitudes, values” and Zimmerman calls for a “paradigm shift” in our thinking about ourselves, other, and the Earth. But it is not clear that what either offers as suggestions for what we can, must, or should do in the face of a runaway arms race are sufficient to “wind down” the arms race before it leads to omnicide. In spite of the importance of Fox’s analysis and reminders it is not clear that “admitting our (nuclear) fear and anxiety” to ourselves and “identifying the mechanisms that dull or mask our emotional and other responses” represent much more than examples of basic, often. stated principles of psychotherapy. Being aware of the psychological maneuvers that keep us numb to nuclear reality may well be the road to transcending them but it must only be a “first step” (as Fox acknowledges), during which we Simultaneously act to eliminate nuclear threats, break our complicity with the ams race, get rid of arsenals of genocidal weaponry, and create conditions for international goodwill, mutual trust, and creative interdependence. Similarly, in respect to Zimmerman: in spite of the challenging Heideggerian insights he brings out regarding what motivates the arms race, many questions may be raised about his prescribed “solutions.” Given our need for a paradigm shift in our (distorted) understanding of ourselves and the rest of being, are we merely left “to prepare for a possible shift in our self-understanding? (italics mine)? Is this all we can do? Is it necessarily the case that such a shift “cannot come as a result of our own will?” – and work – but only from “a destiny outside our control?” Does this mean we leave to God the matter of bringing about a paradigm shift? Granted our fears and the importance of not being controlled by fears, as well as our “anthropocentric leanings,” should we be as cautious as Zimmerman suggests about out disposition “to want to do something” or “to act decisively in the face of the current threat?” In spite of the importance of our taking on the anxiety of our finitude and our present limitation, does it follow that “we should be willing for the worst (i.e. an all-out nuclear war) to occur”? Zimmerman wrongly, I contend, equates “resistance” with “denial” when he says that “as long as we resist and deny the possibility of nuclear war, that possibility will persist and grow stronger.” He also wrongly perceives “resistance” as presupposing a clinging to the “order of things that now prevails.” Resistance connotes opposing, and striving to defeat a prevailing state of affairs that would allow or encourage the “worst to occur.” I submit, against Zimmerman, that we should not, in any sense, be willing for nuclear war or omnicide to occur. (This is not to suggest that we should be numb to the possibility of its occurrence.) Despite Zimmerman’s elaborations and refinements his Heideggerian notion of “letting beings be” continues to be too permissive in this regard. In my judgment, an individual’s decision not to act against and resist his or her government’s preparations for nuclear holocaust is, as I have argued elsewhere, to be an early accomplice to the most horrendous crime against life imaginable – its annihilation. The Nuremburg tradition calls not only for a new way of thinking, a “new internationalism” in

which we all become co-nurturers of the whole planet, but for resolute actions that will sever our complicity with nuclear criminality and the genocidal arms race, and work to achieve a future which we can no longer assume. We must not only “come face to face with the unthinkable in image and thought” (Fox) but must act now - with a “new consciousness” and conscience - to prevent the unthinkable, by cleansing the earth of nuclear weaponry. Only when that is achieved will ultimate violence be removed as the final arbiter of our planet’s fate.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

5. Turn – Authenticity – The Alt is based on a notion of authenticity that separates practical reason from true being-in-the-world. Wolin, 90 - Distinguished Professor of History at the City University of New York Graduate Center - 1990 (Richard Wolin, The Politics of Being, P. 33-34) Although an understanding of Heidegger's political thought should in no way be reduced to the concrete political choices made by the philosopher in the 1930s, neither is it entirely separable therefrom. And while the strategy of his apologists has been to dissociate the philosophy from the empirical person, thereby suggesting that Heidegger's Nazism was an unessential aberration in the hope of exempting the philosophy from political taint, this strategy will not wash for several reasons. To begin with, Heidegger's philosophy itself would seem to rule out the artificial, traditional philosophical separation between thought and action. In truth, much of Being and Time is concerned with overcoming the conventional philosophical division between theoretical and practical reason; a fact that is evident above all in the "pragmatic" point of departure of the analytic of Dasein: "Being-in- the-world" rather than the Cartesian "thinking substance." More importantly, though, what is perhaps the central category of Heidegger's existential ontology-the category of "authenticity''- automatically precludes such a facile separation between philosophical outlook and concrete life-choices. As a work of fundamental ontology, Being and Time aims at delineating the essential, existential determinants of human Being-in-the-world. Heidegger refers to these structures (e.g., "care," "fallenness," "thrownness," "Being-toward-death") as Existenzialien. The category of authenticity demands that the ontological structures of Being and Time receive practical or ontic fulfillment; that is, the realization of these categorial determinations in actual, concrete life contexts is essential to the coherence of the Heideggerian project. This conclusion follows of necessity from the nature of the category of authenticity itself: it would be nonsensical to speak of an "authentic Dasein" that was unrealized, existing in a state of mere potentiality. Authenticity requires that ontic or practical choices and involvements-concrete decisions, engagements, and political commitments-become an essential feature of an authentic existence.

6. Impact – This leads to totalitarianism and explains the relationship between Heidegger and National Socialism. Authenticity can be used to justify a spiritual mission to rule those who aren’t capable of living authentic lives. This proves the Alt will be misappropriated. Wolin, 90 - Distinguished Professor of History at the City University of New York Graduate Center - 1990 (Richard Wolin, The Politics of Being, P. 46) The political philosophical implications of this theory are as unequivocal as they are distasteful to a democratic sensibility. On the basis of the philosophical anthropology outlined by Heidegger, the modern conception of popular sovereignty becomes a sheer non sequitur: for those who dwell in the public sphere of everydayness are viewed as essentially incapable of self-rule. Instead, the only viable political philosophy that follows from this standpoint would be brazenly elitist: since the majority of citizens remain incapable of leading meaningful lives when left to their own devices, their only hope for "redemption" lies in the imposition of a "higher spiritual mission" from above. Indeed, this was the explicit political conclusion drawn by Heidegger in 1933. In this way, Heidegger's political thought moves precariously in the direction of the "Fuhrerprinzip" or "leadership principle." In essence, he reiterates, in keeping with a characteristic antimodern bias, a strategem drawn from Platonic political philosophy: since the majority of men and women are incapable of ruling themselves insofar as they are driven by the base part of their souls to seek after inferior satisfactions and amusements, we in effect do them a service by ruling them from above.77To date, however, there has never been a satisfactory answer to the question Marx poses concerning such theories of educational dictatorship: "Who shall educate the educator?”

2AC Frontline 7. Perm – do the plan and all parts of the alternative that aren’t rejection. A. The Perm tests the fact that the plan is just a response to a particular disclosure of being that requires a certain political engagement. Proves not mutually exclusive.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

B. The Perm does the same thing the Alt does but avoids all of our turns – it prescribes a certain authentic mode of being but it tethers the thought-practice to the plan and recognizes the limits of its ontological horizon. This is better than acting as some empty vessel for a new fascism the Bush administration can cook up.

Slavoj Zizek, Senior Researcher at the Institute for Social Sciences in Ljubljana, 1999 [The Ticklish Subject, p. 13-15] Apropos of this precise point, I myself run into my first trouble with Heidegger (since I began as a Heideggerian - my first published hook was on Heidegger and language). When, in my youth, I was bombarded by the official Communist philosophers' stories of Heidegger's Nazi engagement, they left me rather cold; I was definitely more on the side of the Yugoslav Heideggarians. All of a sudden, however, I became aware of how these Yugoslav Heideggarians were doing exactly the sauce thing with respect to the Yugoslav ideology of self-management as Heidegger himself did with respect to Nazism: in ex-Yugoslavia, Heideggerians entertained the same ambiguously assertive relationship towards Socialist self- management, the official ideology of the Communist regime - in their eyes, the essence of sell-management was the very essence of modern man, which is why the philosophical notion of self-managemrnt suits the ontological essence of our epoch, while the standard political ideology of the regime misses this 'inner greatness' of self-management ... Heideggerians are thus eternally in search of a positive, ontic political system that would come closest to the epochal ontological truth, a strategy which inevitably leads to error (which, of course, is always acknowledged only retroactively, post factum, after the disastrous outcome of one's engagement). As Heidegger himself put it, those who carne closest to the Ontological Truth are condemned to err at the ontic level ... err about what? Precisely about the line of separation between ontic and ontological. The paradox not to be underestimated is that the very philosopher who focused his interest on the enigma of ontological difference - who warned again and again against the metaphysical mistake of conferring ontological dignity on some ontic content (God as the highest Entity, for example) - fell into the trap of conferring on Nazism the ontological dignity of suiting the essence of modern man. The standard defence of Heidegger against the reproach of his Nazi past consists of two points: not only was his Nazi engagement a simple personal error (a ‘stupidity [Dummheit]', as Heidegger himself put it) in no way inherently related to his philosophical project; the main counter-argument is that it is Heidegger's own philosophy that enables us to discern the true epochal roots of modern totalitarianism. However, what remains unthought here is the hidden complicity between the ontological indifference towards concrete social systems (capitalism, Fascism. Communism), in so far as they all belong to the same horizon of modern technology, and the secret privileging of a concrete sociopolitical model (Nazism with Heidegger, Communism with some 'Heideggerian Marxists') as closer to the ontological truth of our epoch. Here one should avoid the trap that caught Heidegger's defenders, who dismissed Heidegger’s Nazi engagement as simple an anomaly, a fall into the ontic level, in blatant contradiction to his thought, which teaches us not to confuse ontological horizon with ontic choices (as we have already seen, Heidegger is at his strongest when he demonstrates how, on a deeper structural level, ecological, conservative, and so on, oppositions to the modern universe of technology are already embedded in the horizon of what they purport to reject: the ecological critique of the technological exploitation of nature ultimately leads to a more 'environmentally sound' technology. etc.). Heidegger did not engage in the Nazi political project 'in spite of' his ontological philosophical approach, but because of it; this engagement was not 'beneath' his philosophical level - on the contrary if one is to understand Heidegger, the key point is to grasp the complicity (in Hegelese: 'speculative identity') between the elevation above ontic concerns and the passionate 'ontic' Nazi political engagement. One can now see the ideological trap that caught Heidegger: when he criticizes Nazi racism on behalf of the true 'inner greatness' of the Nazi movement, he repeats the elementary ideological gesture of maintaining an inner distance towards the ideological text - of claiming that there is something more beneath it, a non-ideological kernel: ideology exerts its hold over us by means of this very insistence that the Cause we adhere to is not 'merely' ideological. So where is the trap? When the disappointed Heidegger turns away from active engagement in the Nazi movement, he does so because the Nazi movement did not maintain the level of its 'inner greatness', but legitimized itself with inadequate (racial) ideology. In other words, what he expected from it was that it should

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

2AC Frontline legitimize itself through direct awareness of its 'inner greatness'. And the problemlies in this very expectation that a political movement that will directly refer to its historico-ontological foundation is possible. This expectation, however, is in itself profoundly metaphysical, in so far as it fails to recognize that the gap separating the direct ideological legitimization of a movement from its 'inner greatness' (its historico-ontological essence) is constitutive, a positive condition of its 'functioning'. To use the terms of the later Heidegger, ontological insight necessarily entails ontic blindness and error, and vice versa - that is to say, in order to be 'effective' at the ontic level, one must disregard the ontological horizon of one's activity. (In this sense, Heidegger emphasizes that 'science doesn't think' and that, far from being its limitation, this inability is the very motor of scientific progress.) In other words, what Heidegger seems unable to endorse is a concrete political engagement that would accept its necessary, constitutive blindness - as if the moment we acknowledge the gap separating the awareness of the ontological horizon from ontic engagement, any ontic engagement is depreciated, loses its authentic dignity.

8. No impact and the alternative fails – Either the alternative opposes plan and perm solves or the status quo is overwhelming. Don’t believe the hype – the plan does not justify “all forms of violence”. Heidegger’s critique is sloppy when it lumps the 1AC together with Western rationalism, this makes the Alt critically useless.

Ferry and Renaut, 90 – Professor of Political Science at the Sorbonne and Professor of Philosophy at Nantes – 1990 (Luc Ferry and Alain Renaut, Heidegger and Modernity, trans. Franklin Philip, P. 87-88) From this viewpoint, it is first of all clear, as we have noted, that this criticism of technology as the global concretization of an idea of man as consciousness and will implies, like it or not, a deconstruction of democratic remains on and hence, in some sense, of humanism. It is also clear, however, that Heidegger's thinking, even fixed up this way, continues in some odd way to misfire because of its one-dimensionality. Just as, on the strictly philosophical level, it leads to lumping the various facets of modem subjectivity together in a shapeless mass and to judging that the progression from Descartes to Kant to Nietzsche is linear and in fact inevitable; just as, on the political level, it leads to the brutal inclusion of American liberalism in the same category with Stalinist totalitarianism. Now this is no mere matter of taste: anyone has the right to loathe rock concerts, Disney World, and California. Nonetheless, no one may-Hannah Arendt and Leo Strauss, who lived in the United States, did not make this mistake - identify, in the name of a higher authority, the barbarism of the Soviet gulags with the depravities of a Western society whose extraordinary political, social, and cultural complexity allows areas of freedom that it would be wholly unwarranted to judge a priori as mere fringes or remnants of a world in decline.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

9. Turn – “Letting things be” leads empirically leads to fascism – humanism is inevitable, only the plan separates ends from means to maintain an ethical anchor that avoids the pitfalls of paralyzing antihumanism.

Murray Bookchin, Founder of the Institute for Social Ecology and Former Professor at Ramapo College, 1995 [Re-enchanting Humanity, p. 168-170] "Insofar as Heidegger can be said to have had a project to shape human lifeways, it was as an endeavor to resist, or should I say, demur from, what he conceived to he an all-encroaching technocratic mentality and civilization that rendered human beings 'inauthentic' in their relationship to a presumably self-generative reality, 'isness', or more esoterically, 'Being' (Sein). Not unlike many German reactionaries, Heidegger viewed ‘modernity' with its democratic spirit, rationalism, respect for the individual, and technological advances as a 'falling' (Gefallen) from a primal and naive innocence in which humanity once 'dwelled,’ remnants of which he believed existed in the rustic world into which he was born a century ago. 'Authenticity', it can be said without any philosophical frills, lay in the pristine Teutonic world of the tribal Germans who retained their ties with ‘the Gods’, and with later peoples who still tried to nourish their past amidst the blighted traits of the modern world. Since some authors try to muddy Heidegger's prelapsarian message by focusing on his assumed belief in individual freedom and ignoring his hatred of the French Revolution and its egalitarian, 'herd'-like democracy of the 'They', it is worth emphasizing that such a view withers m the light of his denial of individuality. The individual by himself counts for nothing', he declared after becoming a member of the National Socialist party in 1933. 'The fate of our Volk m its state counts for everything.'22 As a member of the Nazi party, which he remained up to the defeat of Germany twelve years later, his antihumanism reached strident, often blatantly reactionary proportions. Newly appointed as the rector of the University of Freiburg upon Hitler's ascent to power, he readily adopted the Fuehrer-principle of German fascism and preferred the title Rektor-Fuhrer, hailing the spirit of National Socialism as an antidote to 'the darkening of the world, the flight of the gods, the destruction of the earth [by technology], the transformation of men into a mass, the hatred and suspicion of everything free and creative.’28 His most unsavory remarks were directed in the lectures, from which these lines are taken, 'from a metaphysical point of view', against 'the pincers' created by America and Russia that threaten to squeeze 'the farthermost corner of the globe ... by technology and ... economic exploitation.'29 Technology, as Heidegger construes it, is 'no mere means. Technology is a way of revealing. If we give heed to this, then another whole realm for the essence of technology will open itself up to us. It is the realm of revealing, i.e., of truth.’30 After which Heidegger rolls out technology's transformations, indeed mutations, which give rise to a mood of anxiety and finally hubris, anthropocentricity, and the mechanical coercion of things into mere objects for human use and exploitation. Heidegger's views on technology are part of a larger weltanschauung which is too multicolored to discuss here, and demands a degree of interpretive effort we must forgo for the present in the context of a criticism of technophobia. Suffice it to say that there is a good deal of primitivistic animism in Heidegger's treatment of the 'revealing' that occurs when techne is a 'clearing' for the 'expression' of a crafted material - not unlike the Eskimo sculptor who believes (quite wrongly, I may add) that he is 'bringing out' a hidden form that lies in the walrus ivory he is carving. But this issue must be seen more as a matter of metaphysics than of a spiritually charged technique. Thus, when Heidegger praises a windmill, in contrast to the 'challenge' to a tract of land from which the ‘hauling out of coal and ore' is subjected, he is not being 'ecological'. Heidegger is concerned with a windmill, not as an ecological technology, but more metaphysically with the notion that 'its sails do indeed turn in the wind; they are left entirely to the wind's blowing'. The windmill 'does not unlock energy from the air currents, in order to store it'.31 Like man in relation to Being, it is a medium for the 'realization' of wind, not an artifact for acquiring power. Basically, this interpretation of a technological interrelationship reflects a regression - socially and psychologically as well as metaphysically – into quietism. Heidegger advances a message of passivity or passivity conceived as a human activity, an endeavor to let things be and 'disclose' themselves. 'Letting things be' would be little more than a trite Maoist and Buddhist precept were it not that Heidegger as a National Socialist became all too ideologically engaged, rather than 'letting things be', when he was busily undoing 'intellectualism,' democracy, and technological intervention into the 'world'. Considering the time, the place, and the abstract way in which Heidegger treated humanity's 'Fall' into technological ‘inauthenticity’ – a ‘Fall’ that he, like Ellul, regarded as inevitable, albeit a metaphysical, nightmare - it is not hard to see why he could trivialize the Holocaust, when he deigned to notice it at all, as part of a techno-industrial ‘condition’. 'Agriculture is now a motorized (motorsierte) food industry, in essence the same as the manufacturing of corpses in the gas chambers and extermination camps,' he coldly observed, 'the same as the blockade and starvation of the countryside, the same as the production of the hydrogen bombs.’32 In placing the industrial

2AC Frontline means by which many Jews were killed before the ideological ends that guided their Nazi exterminators, Heidegger essentially displaces the barbarism of a specific state apparatus, of which he was a part, by the technical proficiency he can attribute to the world at large! These immensely revealing offhanded remarks, drawn from a speech he gave in Bremen m 1949, are beneath

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name contempt. But they point to a way of thinking that gave an autonomy to technique that has fearful moral consequences which we are living with these days in the name of the sacred, a phraseology that Heidegger would find very congenial were he alive today. Indeed, technophobia, followed to its logical and crudely primitivistic conclusions, finally devolves into a dark reactionism – and a paralyzing quietism. For if our confrontation with civilization turns on passivity before a ‘disclosing of Being’, a mere ‘dwelling’ on the earth, and a ‘letting things be’, to use Heidegger’s verbiage – much of which has slipped into deep ecology’s vocabulary as well – the choice between supporting barbarism and enlightened humanism has no ethical foundations to sustain it. Freed of values grounded in objectivity, we are lost in a quasi-religious antihumanism, a spirituality that can with the same equanimity hear the cry of a bird and ignore the anguish of six million once-living people who were put to death by the National Socialist state.

10. Double-bind - Heidegger used his ontology to critique anti-Semitism, but only by recognizing the benefits of humanism, which justifies the plan’s approach to the world. The alternative is a fanatical hatred of modernity that makes the nationalist myth possible.

Ferry and Renaut, 90 – Professor of Political Science at the Sorbonne and Professor of Philosophy at Nantes – 1990 (Luc Ferry and Alain Renaut, Heidegger and Modernity, trans. Franklin Philip, P. 107108) Whatever is true of this debate, which, it will be readily agreed, here remains open, one thing is still certain. Heidegger is not close to Nazism because he remained a prisoner of humanism, nor because of his deliberations about authenticity and the distinguishing property of man. For Heidegger, the distinguishing property of man is always transcendence, and on the contrary, it was in the name of this transcendence and thus because he was still a humanist that Heidegger could criticize the biologizing reifications of Nazi antiSemitism. More generally, it is very much in the name of humanism thus understood, in the name of that strictly human capacity to wrench oneself free of natural determinations, that a criticism of the racist imaenation (in the Lacanian sense) is possible. When, however, Heidegger makes the destiny of Being the destiny of man, when he thus returns to the antihumanist idea of a traditional code (if only that of the history of Being), he founders in inauthenticity, and his fall makes possible the return of the nationalistic myth and the fanatical hatred of modernity.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Alt Sucks Heidegger’s alternative leaves no room for political action, which is necessary to resist technology. Michael E. Zimmerman, Professor of Philosophy at Tulane University, ’90 (Heidegger’s Confrontation with Modernity p. 264) The same criticism of early Foucault's "all-encompassing theory of power" may be leveled at Heidegger's all-encompassing theory of the technological Will to Power. While insightful in many ways, Heidegger's account appears to leave no room for what many people regard as the legal, political, cultural, and social expressions of resistance to the "disciplinary matrix" of modern technology. Such resistance is a manifestation of at least a measure of human freedom, even in the face of the undeniable power of the multifarious forms of repression and distraction at work in modern technological societies. Heidegger discounted the potential of constitutionally based democracies for resisting technological totalitarianism for several reasons. To begin with, because of his reading of Western history, he argued that liberal democracy and Soviet communism were "metaphysically" the same in that both were manifestations of subjectivism and humanism.

Their alternative dooms millions to death. Michael E. Zimmerman, Professor of Philosophy at Tulane University, ’90 (Heidegger’s Confrontation with Modernity p. 265-266) Not all pragmatists share Sherover's conviction that critical deconstruction of oppressive political structures and engaged reconstruction of the social community are necessary or even appropriate activities for those engaged in the critique of metaphysical foundationalism. Richard Rorty, for example, another pragmatist influenced by Heidegger's deconstructive method, suggests that deconstruction has and ought to have no real political effect. It is one thing, he suggests, to speak as intellectuals about deconstructing Western metaphysics; it is quite another to take that deconstruction into the political domain. In other words, while we may abandon our search for the chimera of "absolute foundations" or "final truths" in epistemology, science, and political theory, we should not confuse such abandonment with relinquishing our social solidarity as expressed in the liberal humanism which defines the Western world. 34 Hence, while Rorty likes Heidegger's method, he accuses Heidegger's critique of modernity and industrial technology of being in some respects naive. There is really no alternative so Rorty insists, to increasing our commitment to the industrial technology which has come out of the Enlightenment—unless we are willing to see millions of people starve to death around the world.35 In a world bereft of foundations for making monumental decisions, however, we may well ask: On what basis are we to say that it is better to feed starving millions, for example, than to worry about the fate of the entire human species in the face of a population explosion which threatens the stability of the biosphere? Moreover, are there not empirical questions to be asked regarding the relationship between those starving millions, on the one hand, and the influence of colonial-imperial economic practices—including those sponsored by the rich industrial democracies praised by Rorty—which helped to create the conditions for "overpopulation.”

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Alt Sucks Treating ontology as the root cause fails – philosophical assumptions don’t determine political outcomes. Majid Yar, Lecturer at the School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research at the University of Kent, January, 2K (Arendt's Heideggerianism: Contours of a `Postmetaphysical' Political Theory?, Cultural Values, Volume 4, Issue 1) A second, and not unrelated difficulty, is a causal attribution to philosophy in relation to politics, culture and society. That is, the tendency is not simply to attribute philosophical figurations of the political to the political experiences of actual social beings, but also to depict those philosophical interpretations standing in a determining relation to the culture and society as a whole. As Heidegger declaims at the beginning of 'The Age of the World Picture', 'Metaphysics grounds an age, in that through a specific interpretation of what is and through a specific comprehension of truth it gives to that age the basis upon which it is essentially formed [emphasis added]' (Heidegger, 1977, p. 115). 'Metaphysics', as an 'interpretation', is the basis upon which an age is formed. The 'interpretation' adduced here, let us be clear, is that of philosophy. Hence, for Arendt, the emergence of philosophy's metaphysical discourse on the political, its figuration of the political in terms of a dualistic metaphysical ontology, in terms of theoretical models of truth, and so on, rather than in terms of doxical opinion, agonism and performativity etc., -this philosophical figuration is taken as a disaster for political life. Yet this disastrous consequence only follows from the philosophical refiguration if we accord philosophical understanding a determinative or prescriptive role, in that it has the power to efface and override the existing understandings that political actors might have. The 'onto-theological' or 'onto-typological' tradition is taken to permeate Western science, culture, and politics as a whole; the language of metaphysics is held to be central to constituting the entire range of human possibilities (McCarthy, 1991, p. 102; Rorty, 1984, p. 3, pp. 15-6; Rorty, 1998, p. 45; also, Rorty, 1991). As Richard Rorty puts it: 'there is something called 'philosophy' or 'metaphysics' which is central to our culture and has been radiating evil influences outward' (Rorty, 1984, pp. 18-9).[ 19] In short, the 'postmetaphysical' discourse on the political 'presupposes a prior determination of the political as the practical effectuation of the philosophical' (Fraser, 1984, p. 136). This casts philosophy in a relation to the political as both villain and hero. First philosophy qua metaphysics is the party responsible for the parlous state of the modem political, the cause of its pathological degradation into a totalitarian form of relation toward Being and beings. Then philosophy charges itself with the responsibility of redeeming the political, by way of philosophy's self-transformation into a postphilosophical, literary-poetic 'thinking'. What is missed here is the possibility that the political never did mirror or actualise the metaphysicians' understanding of Being; that for political life, it might well have been 'business as usual', largely indifferent to philosophy's discourse. From the standpoint of political beings it might be claimed that they never have lived their relations in the way in which philosophers' discourses figured them. Consequently, there is no need to 'breach a wholly other politics' to lead them back from an oblivion which only ever existed as part of philosophical manifestos. Hence there is no necessity to lead political beings back to something primordial or essential from which they have supposedly departed - this departure, or 'forgetting', is characteristic only of philosophy's turn to metaphysics, not of the field of political practice. I'm not necessarily claiming that this is the case, that there is a profound disjunction between the comportment toward humans and other entities envisioned by modern philosophy on the one hand, and that to be found in the understandings of our political culture and the practices of political life on the other. The point is, that this a question for substantive inquiry; if we want to say something about the way in which the modem political reveals the Being of beings (technologically, coercively, forgettingly, etc.) this is something which has to be investigated. The 'postmetaphysical' critique of political modernity assumes convergence or identity by mapping philosophical renditions onto the culture as a whole, and what is more, makes philosophy responsible for that convergence via its determining influence. If we insist on proceeding in this way, we might get our 'diagnosis of the present', and any attendant 'prescription' for our ailing political life, rather alarmingly wrong.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Alt Sucks The neg’s obsessive fear of co-optation suspends all political engagement-this makes societal inequalities inevitable. Majid Yar, Lecturer at the School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research at the University of Kent, January, 2K (Arendt's Heideggerianism: Contours of a `Postmetaphysical' Political Theory?, Cultural Values, Volume 4, Issue 1) Similarly, we must consider the consequences that this 'ontological substitution' for the essence of the political has for politics, in terms of what is practically excluded by this rethinking. If the presently available menu of political engagements and projects (be they market or social liberalism, social democracy, communitarianism, Marxism, etc.) are only so many moments of the techno-social completion of an underlying metaphysics, then the fear of 'metaphysical contamination' inhibits any return to recognisable political practices and sincere engagement with the political exigencies of the day. This is what Nancy Fraser has called the problem of 'dirty hands', the suspension of engagement with the existing content of political agendas because of their identification as being in thrall to the violence of metaphysics. Unable to engage in politics as it is, one either [a] sublimates the desire for politics by retreating to an interrogation of the political with respect to its essence (Fraser, 1984, p. 144), or [b] on this basis, seeks 'to breach the inscription of a wholly other politics'. The former suspends politics indefinitely, while the latter implies a new politics, which, on the basis of its reconceived understanding of the political, apparently excludes much of what recognizably belongs to politics today. This latter difficulty is well known from Arendt's case, whose barring of issues of social and economic justice and welfare from the political domain are well known. To offer two examples: [ 1] in her commentary on the U.S. civil rights movement in the 1950s, she argued that the politically salient factor which needed challenging was only racial legislation and the formal exclusion of African- Americans from the political sphere, not discrimination, social deprivation and disadvantage, etc.(Arendt, 1959, pp. 45-56); [ 2] Arendt's pronounceraent at a conference in 1972 (put under question by Albrecht Wellmer regarding her distinction of the 'political' and the 'social'), that housing and homelessness were not political issues, that they were external to the political as the sphere of the actualisation of freedom as disclosure; the political is about human self-disclosure in speech and deed, not about the distribution of goods, which belongs to the social realm as an extension of the oikos.[ 20] The point here is not that Arendt and others are in any sense unconcerned or indifferent about such sufferings, deprivations and inequalities. Rather, it is that such disputes and agendas are identified as belonging to the socio-technical sphere of administration, calculation, instrumentality, the logic of means and ends, subjectobject manipulation by a will which turns the world to its purposes, the conceptual rendering of beings in terms of abstract and levelling categories and classes, and so on; they are thereby part and parcel of the metaphysical-technological understanding of Being, which effaces the unique and singular appearance and disclosure of beings, and thereby illegitimate candidates for consideration under the renewed, ontological-existential formulation of the political. To reconceive the political in terms of a departure from its former incarnation as metaphysical politics, means that the revised terms of a properly political discourse cannot accommodate the prosaic yet urgent questions we might typically identify under the rubric of 'policy'. Questions of social and economic justice are made homeless, exiled from the political sphere of disputation and demand in which they were formerly voiced. Indeed, it might be observed that the postmetaphysical formulation of the political is devoid of any content other than the freedom which defines it; it is freedom to appear, to disclose, but not the freedom to do something in particular, in that utilising freedom for achieving some end or other implies a collapse back into will, instrumentality, teleocracy, poeisis, etc. By defining freedom qua disclosedness as the essence of freedom and the sole end of the political, this position skirts dangerously close to advocating politique pour la politique, divesting politics of any other practical and normative ends in the process.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Submission Turn The critique assumes that the only response to technology is submission as a standing reserve – the aff reaffirms political and economic structures that allow us to resist technological disclosure. Michael E. Zimmerman, Professor of Philosophy at Tulane University, ’90 (Heidegger’s Confrontation with Modernity p. 267-268) As I mentioned above, much of deconstruction is in fact motivated by a (frequently hidden) liberatory interest. If the technological society eliminates all differences and reduces everything to the same monochromatic raw material, however, whence can arise the "fissure" which causes the authoritarian system of signifiers to tremble, to quake, to loosen up? While significant changes in a prevailing cultural paradigm cannot be explained merely in terms of arbitrary human decisions, neither can free human decisions be discounted in such an explanation. Humans are thrown at birth into a cultural discourse and, hence, into a destiny which they themselves did not choose. People cannot return to the "origins" of that discourse in order to start a new one. To a large extent, then, individuals are for the most part players in a game of institutional, social, political, economic, literary, artistic, and religious discourse, only part of which they comprehend. Despite being shaped by such discourse, however, individuals are not merely automatons at the mercy of an inexorable destiny. Rather, they may also bring to their historical discourses unexpected insights, novel variations, new possibilities which reveal it is by no means fixed but instead is open to disrupture. It goes without saying, of course, that the possibility for such variation and novelty is greatly enhanced by political systems which both guarantee and encourage self-expression and which also promote the economic means necessary for individuals to develop the capacity for self-expression. Unfortunately, however, Heidegger regarded "self-expression" and "democratic principles" as bourgeois ideals symptomatic of the one-dimensional atomism and egoism of a modern subjectivism which was blind to the fact that the "actors" on the stage of human history were players in a drama that they did not themselves compose. If we may benefit from Heidegger's insight that modern technology is characterized by a one-dimensional way of disclosing entities, we must also be willing to criticize his presuppositions about the extent to which humans are incapable of resisting and developing alternatives to that disclosure.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Perm Solvency The perm solves-we need to combine metaphysical philosophy with policies that address socio-economic inequalities. Majid Yar, Lecturer at the School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research at the University of Kent, January, 2K (Arendt's Heideggerianism: Contours of a `Postmetaphysical' Political Theory?, Cultural Values, Volume 4, Issue 1) In summary, on the basis of the criticisms I've outlined, I think that the postmetaphysical rethinking of the political must address itself to a number of difficulties: [ 1] It must open itself to the investigations of socio-historical sciences in formulating its characterisations of the political in late modernity, rather than relying upon a 'mapping' of philosophical understandings onto society, culture and polity as a whole; [ 2] It must reconsider its assumptions about the importance or potency of philosophy, using those aforementioned social, historical and politological investigations to reassess the heretofore unchallenged assumption that politics, society and culture are in some sense lived and practised as actualisations of philosophical figurations. This in turn will at least set in question the assumption that a post-philosophically led turn to an 'other thinking' of Being is the most appropriate response to a pathologisation of the political, a pathologisation which the philosophical tradition itself is presumed to have instigated; [ 3] on the basis of such explorations and reassessments, it must break with synoptic, overgeneralising and undifferentiated assessments of the present political, enabling an identification of those aspects of political thinking and practice most in need of challenge; and [ 4] it must find a way to admit those social and economic problematics which stand under suspicion because of their contamination with metaphysical assumptions (instrumentality, rational calculability, planning, control, willful manipulation, etc.), but which nonetheless constitute the large part of the most urgent political concerns, for most people, in most of the world today. This last challenge appears the most difficult, striking as it does at the heart of the distinctions upon which the postmetaphysical critique relies. These distinctions are both its strength anti its weakness. Strengths because they permit a critique of political modernity at a depth its rivals find hard to match, in the course of which it uncovers underlying continuities and compromises that prevalent discourses on emancipation share with the ideologies and practices they endeavour to supplant. But weaknesses in that the 'extremity' or uncompromising character of its distinctions prevent it from doing what its rivals can do -- that is, differentiate between 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' uses of rationality in its different forms, distinguish between technological alternatives according to their sensitivity to human and environmental needs, and so on. The only way forward, I would suggest, would be to open up to both the explorations of those disciplines in the human and social sciences it has thus far shunned, and equally to engage in a heterodox dialogue with other accounts which 'work' the same socio-political terrain (I'm thinking here especially of critical theory and the possibility of a philosophically informed social theory and analysis).[ 22]. I think that such an engagement can only be to the benefit of all parties concerned.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

He’s A Nazi Heidegger’s philosophy is inextricably linked to his engagement with Junger and Nazism Michael E. Zimmerman, Professor of Philosophy at Tulane University, 1990, Heidegger’s Confrontation with Modernity, NetLibrary [BB] From the very beginning of his career, Heidegger was concerned about the relation between burning issues of "factical existence," on the one hand, and problems in the history of metaphysics, on the other. He saw an internal relationship between the decline of the West into nihilism and the decline of Western humanity's understanding of being. During the 1920s, however, his critique of modern technology tended to be overshadowed by the ontological analyses that were clearly in the purview of his role as an academic philosopher. His decision to begin focusing on the phenomenon of modern technology cannot be understood apart from two interrelated events: first, his practical engagement with National Socialism, and second, his confrontation with Ernst Jünger's striking predictions about the technological future. Jünger's thesis, that the Gestalt of the worker was mobilizing the entire planet into a technological frenzy, was in many ways similar to what Spengler, Scheler, and others had already said. Nevertheless, Heidegger concluded that Jünger's writings gave the clearest expression to the metaphysical condition of the West at the end of the history of metaphysics. Jünger, like other reactionary authors, argued that modernity and industrial technology could not be explained either in terms of Marxist economic theories or in terms of the liberal free-market ideology. The industrial transformation of the earth was merely the empirical manifestation of a hidden, world-transforming power. Jünger maintained that this power took the form of the Gestalt of the worker, the latest historical manifestation of Nietzsche's cosmic Will to Power. Heidegger transformed what Jünger regarded as the history of the Will to Power into what he was to call the "history of being." Moreover, influenced once more by Jünger, he also formulated his own highly controversial claim that Nietzsche's metaphysics calls for humanity to dominate the earth through technological means. Resolved to forestall Jünger's fearsome predictions, but equally attracted to his masculinist rhetoric of courage and hardness, Heidegger used his own philosophical vocabulary and personal magnetism to support the National Socialist "revolution," which promised to provide an authentic "third way" between the twin evils of capitalist and communist industrialism. In this chapter, I argue that Heidegger believed National Socialism would renew and discipline the German spirit, thereby saving Germany from technological nihilism. I shall also address the following question: If Heidegger believed that his own philosophy could provide spiritual direction for National Socialism, does this mean that his philosophy is essentially fascist? In the subsequent chapter, I explain Jünger's conception of modern technology. Then, I shall describe in detail Jünger's influence both on Heidegger's engagement with National Socialism and on his mature concept of technology.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

He’s A Nazi Heidegger’s Nazism persisted throughout his life – his lack of questioning of the movement makes him complicit in the holocaust – and his philosophy is rooted in Nazi ideology Michael E. Zimmerman, Professor of Philosophy at Tulane University, 1990, Heidegger’s Confrontation with Modernity, NetLibrary [BB] For years after 1934, Heidegger continued to play an active role as part of a group of academicians who wanted to "complete" the revolution by transforming the German university system.30 Moreover, he blacklisted people he considered to be "unGerman" for somehow consorting with Jews. Heidegger's reasons for refusing to fire two Jewish professors during his rectorate were tactical, not ethical: their dismissal would not look good on the international scene. The question of whether he was deeply, or only opportunistically, anti-Semitic is complex. None of his public statements can be read as anti-Semitic, but on the other hand he never publicly apologized for his original support for the regime that exterminated millions of Jews and other "subhumans." In the late 1940s, in an extremely rare reference to the Holocaust, he said: "Agriculture is now a motorized food industry, essentially the same thing as the fabrication of cadavers in the gas chambers of the extermination camps, the same thing as the blockades and the reduction of countries to famine, the same thing as the fabrication of hydrogen bombs."31 In this astonishing statement, Heidegger glided over the fact that the Holocaust was a German phenomenon involving the slaughter of millions of Jews. Instead, he chose to view the Holocaust as a typical episode in the technological era afflicting the entire West. Nevertheless, in speaking of the Holocaust in the same breath with the hydrogen bomb, Heidegger was making an important point. Mass extermination in the Nazi camps was possible only because of developments within industrial technology. Moreover, the Nazis spoke of the Jews as if they were little more than industrial "waste" to be disposed of as efficiently as possible. Officials in charge of planning strategic use of nuclear weapons must be trained to conceive of the enemy populace in wholly abstract terms. Heidegger argued in several places that the hydrogen bomb—an instrument of mass extermination—was not the real problem facing us. Instead, the problem is the perversion and constriction of humanity's understanding of being itself in the technological era. Extermination camps and hydrogen bombs, from Heidegger's viewpoint, were both symptoms of humanity's conception of itself and everything else as resources to be produced and consumed, created and destroyed, at will. There is, however, something problematic but also typical of Heidegger's tendency to explain specific events and deeds in Germany as if they were typical of the entire Western world. Hence, during the 1940s he spoke of Hitler as if he were the inevitable manifestation of certain trends within the history of productionist metaphysics: One believes that the leaders had presumed everything of their own accord in the blind rage of a selfish egotism and arranged everything in accordance with their own will. In truth, however, they are the. necessary consequence of the fact that entities have gone over into the way of erring in which the vacuum [resulting from the self-concealment of being] expands which requires a single order and guarantee of entities. Therein is demanded the necessity of "leading," i.e., the planning calculation of the securing of the whole of the entity. For this such men who serve the leading must be directed and armed. The "leaders" are the authoritative mobilizationworkers [Rustungsarbeiter] who oversee all sectors of the securing of the consumption of the entity, because they see through the whole of the surrounding [sectors] and thus dominate erring in its calculability. [VA I: 85-86/105] Hitler's National Socialism, we are told, resulted not from peculiar historical conditions, such as widespread German anti-Semitism and hostility toward Enlightenment political values, but instead from a metaphysical process that determined events throughout the West. Surely such an analysis is open to question. The same kind of exculpatory metaphysical explanation can be discerned in Heidegger's account of Nietzsche's racism: "Nietzsche's racial thought has a metaphysical, not a biological sense." [N II: 309] Here, Heidegger sought both to protect Nietzsche from abuse at the hands of various Nazi ideologues, and to clarify that his own conception of the German Volk was a metaphysical, not a racist, one. But, as Derrida asks, "Is a metaphysics of race more serious or less serious than a naturalism or biologism of race?" 32 Nevertheless, Derrida also cautions that in thinking Nazism and anti-Semitism, we must not focus on Heidegger alone, for "Nazism could have developed only with the differentiated but decisive complicity of other countries, of 'democratic' states, and of university and religious institutions."33 During the 1920s and 1930s, German universities—professors and students alike—were mostly either conservative or reactionary in outlook.34 Hence, students and faculty helped both to make Hitler's accession to power possible and to consolidate that power. After the war, reflecting on his Rektor's address, Heidegger argued that it had been intended to defend the university against political cooptation. But colleagues who may have read his ambiguous words in this manner in 1933 were soon expressing outrage at his accumulation of university authority, at his allowing himself to be called Führer of the university, and above all at his eagerness (expressed in a telegram to Hitler!) to cooperate with the Gleichschaltung, i.e., with the "coordination" of the university into the totalitarian National Socialist state.35 Shortly before resigning as Rektor, Heidegger spelled out his official goals: Since the beginning of my installation, the initial principle and the authentic aim [of my rectorate]... reside in the radical transformation of intellectual education into [continued – no text removed] a function of the forces and demands of the National Socialist state.... One cannot presume [to know] what will remain of our transitory works The only certainty is that our fierce will, inclined toward the future, gives a meaning and brings support to our most simple effort. The individual by himself counts for nothing. It is the destiny of our nation incarnated by its state that matters.36 [My emphasis] In light of Being and Time's emphasis on individuation as an essential ingredient in authentic existence, we may be amazed at the assertion that the

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name individual "counts for nothing" in the Nazi state. We should recall, however, that in the late chapters of Being and Time Heidegger argued that authentic individuation could occur only within the context of an entire generation willing to submit to its common destiny. The explicitly political Heidegger of 1933-34 sought to achieve his own authentic individuation by surrendering himself to what he believed were the "powers of being" at work in National Socialism. Two provocative passages shed light on Heidegger's political engagement. In the first passage, from 1935, Heidegger spoke of the "violent one" who tries to overpower the overpowering being: "The more towering the summit of historical Dasein, the deeper will be the abyss for the sudden fall into the unhistorical, which merely thrashes around in issueless and placeless confusion." [GA, 40: 170/135] Apparently, Heidegger was aware of the risk he was taking by supporting National Socialism. In his own defense, he insisted that it was better fox him to become engaged than to sit on the sidelines like so many others did. He did not escape unscathed by his decision. So disturbed was he by his de-Nazification hearings, and by related threats by French occupation authorities to deprive him of his home and his personal library, that he had a nervous breakdown in the spring of 1946 and spent three weeks under psychiatric care. In light of the global havoc and personal disaster which followed upon Heidegger's decision to lend his philosophy in support of Hitler, we may find particularly ironic Heidegger's remark from 1929-30: What can [today's philosopher] not report with the most modern slogans about the world situation, spirit, and the future of Europe, the coming age of the world and the new Middle Ages! How he can speak with unsurpassable earnestness about the situation of the university and its concerns, ask what man is, whether he is a transition to or [a matter of] boredom to the gods. Perhaps he is a comedian—who can know that?... If he is one who philosophizes, why does he relinquish his solitude and loiter about as a public professor in the market? But above all, what a dangerous beginning is this ambiguous behavior! [GA, 29/30: 18-19] While Heidegger's maverick version of National Socialism was incomparably more sophisticated than the primitive writings of many Nazi ideologues, nevertheless he shared with other Nazis a deep mistrust for the concept of individual civil, political, and economic liberties. Regarding such liberties as invitations to socially corrosive egoism, he proclaimed that only by surrendering to a higher power could Germans achieve genuine freedom. This conception of freedom was shared not only by Heidegger and Hitler, but by Jünger as well. Heidegger's relationship to National Socialism cannot be understood unless we see the extent to which Heidegger believed that it offered an alternative to the technological nihilism predicted by Jünger. Jünger called on Germans to submit to that nihilism, while Hitler—so Heidegger at first believed—called on Germans to submit to the dangerous venture leading beyond such nihilism. In the following chapter, we shall examine Jünger's conception of the nihilism of modern technology.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Survival Key To Ontology Maintaining human survival doesn’t lead to management over life, it’s a pre-requisite to ontology A. Survival is key to ontology because the rethinking relies on human agency; B. Reacting to death can bring responsibility back to human existence which forms our ethical obligation to save lives. Brent Dean Robbins, doctoral student in clinical psychology at Duquesne University, http://mythosandlogos.com/Boss.html]

1999 [“Medard Boss,”

"Death is an unsurpassable limit of human existence," writes Boss (119). Primarily, however, human beings flee from death and the awareness of our mortality. But in our confrontation with death and our morality, we discover the "relationship" which "is the basis for all feelings of reverance, fear, awe, wonder, sorrow, and deference in the face of something greater and more powerful." (120). Boss even suggests that "the most dignified human relationship to death" involves keeping it--as a possibility rather than an actuality-constantly in awareness without fleeing from it. As Boss writes: "Only such a being-unto-death can guarantee the precondition that the Dasein be able to free itself from its absorption in, its submission and surrender of itself to the things and relationships of everyday living and to return to itself." (121) Such a recognition brings the human being back to his responsibility for his existence. This is not simply a inward withdrawal from the world--far from it. Rather, this responsible awareness of death as the ultimate possibility for human existence frees the human being to be with others in a genuine way. From this foundation--based on the existentials described above--Boss is able to articulate an understanding of medicine and psychology which gives priority to the freedom of the human being to be itself. By freedom, Boss does not mean a freedom to have all the possibilites, for we are finite and limited by our factical history and death. Yet within these finite possibilities, we are free to be who we are and to take responsibility for who we are in the world with others and alongside things that matter.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

No Impact/Alt Links Modernity hasn’t eclipsed Being and never will; the neg’s willingness to proclaim a lack of Being is much more likely to cause their impacts Bruno Latour, professor of sociology, School of Mines, “We Have Never Been Modern”, trans. Porter, pg. 65-7, 1990

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Reg Neg CP

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Strat Notes I think this is pretty self explanatory. The CP has good game against Patents and Natives, not sure about the others though. If you want to be sleazy, when the 2AC says perm: do both, you can call it a severance/timeframe perm, b/c the CP Text says “one year to negotiate”. Which also means you can run politics as a CP. This essentially becomes a delay CP, which is pretty cool. Though the 1AR has a pretty good abuse story. Ideal Net Benefits for this are: Spending, Bizcon, Maybe Politics if you have some lobby links (lobbies won’t get pissed off if they can decide how the policy is implemented).

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

***Counterplans/Net Benefits***

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

CP-Generic CP Text: The United States federal government should ________

The executive branch should engage in binding regulatory negotiations to determine implementation. Parties will have no more than one year to negotiate. Reg Neg Solves- Empirical Proof Philip J. Harter, AB, Kenyon College; MA, JD University of Michigan; Adjunct Professor and Summer Faculty, Vermont Law School; former Chair, Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice and former Co-chair Working Group on Regulatory Reform of the American Bar Association., 2000 “Assessing the Assessors: The Actual Performance of Negotiated Rulemaking”, 9 N.Y.U. ENVTL. L.J. Recent Agency Use of Reg Neg. And, indeed, in the past few years agencies have used reg neg to develop some of their most contentious rules. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Park Service used a variant of the process to write the regulations and policies governing sightseeing flights over national parks; the issue had been sufficiently controversial that the President had to intervene and direct the two agencies to develop rules “for the management of sightseeing aircraft in the National Parks where it is deemed necessary to reduce or prevent the adverse effects of such aircraft.”22 The Department of Transportation used it to write a regulation governing the delivery of propane and other compressed gases when the regulation became ensnared in litigation and Congressional action.23 The Occupational Safety and Health Administration used it to address the erection of steel structures, an issue that had been on its docket for more than a decade with two abortive attempts at rulemaking when OSHA turned to reg neg.24 The Forest Service has just published a notice of intent to establish a reg neg committee to develop policies governing the use of fixed anchors for rock climbing in designated wilderness areas administered by the Forest Service.25 This issue has become extremely controversial.26 Negotiated rulemaking has proven enormously successful in developing agreements in highly polarized situations and has enabled the parties to address the best, most effective or efficient way of solving a regulatory controversy. Agencies have therefore turned to it to help resolve particularly difficult, contentious issues that have eluded closure by means of traditional rulemaking procedures.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Generic NB Companies will backlash against the plan killing solvency GLOBAL CLEAN ENERGY, INC., 5-6-08, EDGAR Online, Lexis Currently, the cost of electricity generated from gasification, without the benefit of subsidies or other economic incentives, substantially exceeds the price of electricity in most significant markets in the world. As a result, the near-term growth of the market for our BOO plants, which are designed to feed electricity to an on-site end-user, depends significantly on the availability and size of government incentives and subsidies for gasification. As alternative energy becomes more of a competitive threat to conventional energy providers, companies active in the conventional energy business may increase their lobbying efforts in order to encourage governments to stop providing subsidies for alternative energy, including gasification. We cannot predict the level of any such efforts, or how governments may react to such efforts. The reduction, elimination or expiration of government incentives and subsidies, or the exclusion of gasification technology from those incentives and subsidies, may result in the diminished competitiveness of gasification relative to conventional and non-gasification alternative sources of energy. Such diminished competitiveness could materially and adversely affect the growth of the gasification industry, which could in turn adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Regulatory Negotiations promote coalitions between industry and environmentalists Richard J. Curcio and Fran M. Wolf, Professor at Kent State University and Former Chairman of Dept of Finance, Associate Professor at Youngstown State University, Summer 1996, Journal of Financial and Strategic Decisions Vol. 9 Num. 2, http://www.studyfinance.com/jfsd/pdffiles/v9n2/curcio.pdf, BB A good relationship with activist groups cannot be overemphasized. Lavelle (1993) reports that more than one half of corporate attorney respondents in a National Law Journal/Arthur Andersen survey state that community activists impact corporate behavior. “Reg-neg”, or regulatory negotiation between corporations and interested parties such as environmental groups, has already been written into some environmental legislation. The firm and environmental groups may agree on a plan that reduces costs by allowing the firm to bypass rigid command-and control regulation in favor of an alternative that is better both for the firm and for the environment.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

XTN: Industry Opposition And current attempts to increase alternative energy are doomed to failure because they don’t take into account industry and labor opposition. Peter Teague and Jeff Navin, Director of the Environment Program at the Nathan Cummings Foundation and former environmental advisor to Senator Barbara Boxer, Managing Director of American Environics Strategies and former Research Director for Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, June 26, 2007, “Global Warming in an Age of Energy Anxiety”, The American Prospect, http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=global_warming_in_an_age_of_energy_anxiety, BB With a regulatory-only approach, we will end with a debate between environmentalists arguing about the cost of global warming, and industry economists telling Americans how much more they'll pay for everything from electricity to gasoline to consumer products. And they'll argue that these higher prices will result in job losses. Policy makers are aware of this challenge and have added provisions to their regulatory bills that are aimed at easing voters' fears. There are proposals for tax rebates and offsets and even the creation of a "Climate Change Credit Corporation" to help voters with the anticipated increase in consumer energy costs. The trouble is that the bills either provide tiny amounts to authorize studies of the problem, or they remain silent about how much help voters can expect. It's important to remember that the proponents of Prop. 87 made a wellsupported case that the initiative wouldn't raise energy costs at all. Its defeat demonstrates that it's going to take more than good intentions about global warming and vaguely-worded proposals to convince voters. The Debate to Come A recent NPR segment noted that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released a report on environmentalists' preferred regulatory approach that says "low-income Americans and coal miners might suffer the most if the government adopts a so called cap and trade program to reduce emissions of green house gasses." The NPR report said, "Consumers will bear the cost of this kind of program. They would face higher prices for electricity, gasoline and other products. Since low-income Americans spend a higher portion of their incomes on such costs, they'll be hit the hardest." Keep in mind that this was NPR -- not Fox News. The "right-wing populist vs. liberal elite" frame is dropping into place with the help of those calling for the deepest cuts in carbon. The deep-cut mantra, repeated without any real understanding of what might be required to get to 60 or 80 percent reductions in emissions, ignores voters' anxieties. It also reflects the questionable view that these changes can be achieved with little more than trivial disruptions in our lives -- a view easier to hold if you're in a financial position to buy carbon credits for your beachfront house. Labor has indicated a willingness to support action on climate change, but it won't support deep cuts if working people are the most affected. This will leave environmentalists up against the well-financed business lobby. Good luck holding onto moderate Democrats, let alone Republicans -- even those who are beginning to understand the need for action on global warming. History teaches us that regulatory proposals that fail politically often lead to legislative paralysis. In 1993, the public was adamant that action be taken to address health care, and it seemed inevitable that some sort of reform would soon be signed into law. In 1994, the Clinton health care reform proposal failed before coming to a vote. In 1997, the Senate voted 95-0 to reject the United Nations Kyoto framework before it was even fully developed. Voters are still waiting for action on health care and global warming.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

XTN: Reg Negs →Coaltions Reg Neg solves for effectiveness and environmental cohesion Philip J. Harter, AB, Kenyon College; MA, JD University of Michigan; Adjunct Professor and Summer Faculty, Vermont Law School; former Chair, Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice and former Co-chair Working Group on Regulatory Reform of the American Bar Association., 2000 “Assessing the Assessors: The Actual Performance of Negotiated Rulemaking”, 9 N.Y.U. ENVTL. L.J. Congressional and Presidential Support. Congress has twice embraced “reg neg.” Although agencies had successfully used reg neg by following recommendations of the Administrative Conference of the United States14 by empanelling committees under the Federal Advisory Committee Act,15 Congress provided its imprimatur on the process in 1990 when it enacted the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990.16 The original act sunsetted in 1996, and Congress then permanently reauthorized it.17 Similarly, the Clinton Administration has repeatedly endorsed it and encouraged agencies to use it. For example, the seminal regulatory document of the Administration — Executive Order 1286618 — provides that “Each agency . . . is directed to explore and, where appropriate, use consensual mechanisms for developing regulations, including negotiated rulemaking.”19 Its National Performance Review (NPR), headed by the Vice President, resoundingly supported the process after finding: The traditional model for rulemaking is that of agency experts deciding the best way to regulate, offering the public an opportunity to comment on the agency's proposed rule or to object to its adoption, and then issuing binding rules telling regulated entities what to do. Even if the agency experts choose wisely, the traditional model has very little buy-in from outside the agency, which undermines the rule's effectiveness. The traditional process encourages adversarial, uncooperative behavior on the part of private industry or others who might be affected by an agency's decisions, which frequently leads to protracted litigation. Agencies routinely find themselves under attack from various private parties who are unhappy with the rule. This has been particularly true in controversial areas such as environmental regulation or the health and safety of workers.20 The solution to this problem, according to NPR, is to “increase the use of negotiated rulemaking.”21

Negotiated Rulemaking provides a platform for cohesion Philip J. Harter, AB, Kenyon College; MA, JD University of Michigan; Adjunct Professor and Summer Faculty, Vermont Law School; former Chair, Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice and former Co-chair Working Group on Regulatory Reform of the American Bar Association., 2000 “Assessing the Assessors: The Actual Performance of Negotiated Rulemaking”, 9 N.Y.U. ENVTL. L.J. My own article that developed the recommendations97 on which the ACUS Recommendation,98 the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, and the practice itself are based describes the anticipated benefits of negotiated rulemaking: Negotiating has many advantages over the adversarial process. The parties participate directly and immediately in the decision. They share in its development and concur in it, rather than “participate” by submitting information that the decisionmaker considers in reaching the decision. Frequently, those who participate in the negotiations are closer to the ultimate decisionmaking authority of the interest they represent than traditional intermediaries that represent the interest in an adversarial proceeding. Thus, participants in negotiations can make substantive decisions, rather than acting as experts in the decisionmaking process. In addition, negotiation can be a less expensive means of decisionmaking because it reduces the need to engage in defensive research in anticipation of arguments made by adversaries. Undoubtedly the prime benefit of direct negotiations is that it enables the participants to focus squarely on their respective interests.99 The article quotes John Dunlop, a true pioneer in using negotiations among the affected interests in the public sphere,100 as saying “In our society, a rule that is developed with the involvement of the parties who are affected is more likely to be accepted and to be effective in accomplishing its intended purposes.”101 Reducing time and litigation exposure was not emphasized if even mentioned directly.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

CP-Patents CP Text: The United States federal government should require the executive branch to increase revenueneutral incentives for alternative energy. The executive branch should engage in binding regulatory negotiations to determine implementation. Parties will have no more than one year to negotiate. Reg Negs solve-- they result in innovation Michael E. Porter and Claas van der Linde, C. Roland Christensen Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School, faculty of the International Management Research Institute of St. Gallen University, Fall 95, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 9 Issue 4, ebsco, BB Coordination of environmental regulation can be improved in at least three ways: between industry and regulators, between regulators at different levels and places in government, and between U.S. regulators and their international counterparts. In setting environmental standards and regulatory processes to encourage innovation, substantive industry participation in setting standards is needed right from the beginning, as is common in many European countries. An appropriate regulatory process is one in which regulations themselves are clear, who must meet them is clear, and industry accepts the regulations and begins innovating to address them, rather than spending years attempting to delay or relax them. In our current system, by the time standards are finally settled and clarified, it is often too late to address them fundamentally, making secondary treatment the only alternative. We need to evolve toward a regulatory regime in which the EPA and other regulators make a commitment that standards will be in place for, say, five years; so that industry is motivated to innovate rather than adopt incremental solutions.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Patents Bizcon Links Companies depends on predictable patents to inspire investor confidence and fund the industry. Dan Eramian, Vice President of Communications of BIO, 04, Patents Save Lives”, speech given at the Global Public Policy Institute, June 24, http://bio.org/news/newsitem.asp?id=2005_0407_01 Last year, investors poured almost $17 billion into biotech companies, despite the fact that most have no products on the market and will probably lose money years before turning profitable. And many will never become profitable. So why do investors keep writing the checks? Because patents are in place that protect intellectual property. Patents attract investors, because they assure a return if a risky research project is successful. But this investor support is fragile, and it can be shaken by public-relations blunders, especially in the realm of patents. To give just one example of what can happen, back in March of 2000, the U.S. genomics bubble popped when the press misread a statement from President Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair as a change in their governments' policies that would threaten gene patents. Biotech stocks plunged 13 percent in a single day, a loss of more than $40 billion in value. And that was because of a misinterpretation of single statement.

Predictability is key to the patent system Lydia Nenow, Spring 2001, 23 Hous. J. Int'l L 569, Lexis A patent's full commercial value can be realized only when patents are enforced with predictable reliability. The inability to enforce a patent because of lack of clarity in the pertinent laws may result in the diminishing or complete elimination of a company's incentive to invest in the development of new products and processes. The protection of a predictable patent system is of particular importance to the biotechnology industry where success requires massive investment. n78 It takes a quarter of a billion dollars and four to seven years to bring a biotech-based [*582] pharmaceutical product to the market, n79 and an estimated ninety percent of biotechnology companies will have a drug that fails or is delayed. n80 Hence, it is easy to understand why many would be deterred from biotech experimentation if they are unable to recoup the sizable research and development costs. In addition, the uncertainty of patentability, or enforceability of a granted patent, also raises a biotechnology company's legal costs and may ultimately create a disincentive to innovation.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

XTN: Reg Negs → Innovation Regulations encourage innovation-- Laundry List Michael E. Porter and Claas van der Linde, C. Roland Christensen Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School, faculty of the International Management Research Institute of St. Gallen University, Fall 95, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 9 Issue 4, ebsco, BB First, regulation signals companies about likely resource inefficiencies and potential technological improvements. Companies are still inexperienced in measuring their discharges, understanding the full costs of incomplete utilization of resources and toxicity, and conceiving new approaches to minimize discharges or eliminate hazardous substances. Regulation rivets attention on this area of potential innovation.[3] Second, regulation focused on information gathering can achieve major benefits by raising corporate awareness. For example, Toxics Release Inventories, which are published annually as part of the 1986 Superfund reauthorization, require more than 20,000 manufacturing plants to report their releases of some 320 toxic chemicals. Such information gathering often leads to environmental improvement without mandating pollution reductions, sometimes even at lower costs. Third, regulation reduces the uncertainty. that investments to address the environment will be valuable. Greater certainty encourages investment in any area. Fourth, regulation creates pressure that motivates innovation and progress. Our broader research on competitiveness highlights the important role of outside pressure in the innovation process, to overcome organizational inertia, foster creative thinking and mitigate agency problems. Economists are used to the argument that pressure for innovation can come from strong competitors, demanding customers or rising prices of raw materials; we are arguing that properly crafted regulation can also provide such pressure. Fifth, regulation levels the transitional playing field. During the transition period to innovation-based solutions, regulation ensures that one company cannot opportunistically gain position by avoiding environmental investments. Regulations provide a buffer until new technologies become proven and learning effects reduce their costs. Sixth, regulation is needed in the case of incomplete offsets. We readily admit that innovation cannot always completely offset the cost of compliance, especially in the short term before learning can reduce the cost of innovation-based solutions. In such cases, regulation will be necessary to improve environmental quality. Stringent regulation can actually produce greater innovation and innovation offsets than lax regulation. Relatively lax regulation can be dealt with incrementally and without innovation, and often with "end-of-pipe" or secondary treatment solutions. More stringent regulation, however, focuses greater company attention on discharges and emissions, and compliance requires more fundamental solutions, like reconfiguring products and processes. While the cost of compliance may rise with stringency, then, the potential for innovation offsets may rise even faster. Thus the net cost of compliance can fall with stringency and may even turn into a net benefit.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

CP-RPS CP Text: The United States federal government should require the executive branch to increase revenueneutral incentives for alternative energy enough to increase alternative energy to at least 20% of electricity production by 2020, measured from the baseline of current production. The executive branch should engage in binding regulatory negotiations to determine implementation. Parties will have no more than one year to negotiate.

Regulatory Negotiations enable better solutions to environmental goals Shari K. Grossartha and Alan D. Hecht, EPA Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation, EPA Office of Research and Development, May 2007, Ecological Engineering, Volume 30, Issue 1, pg. 1-8, science direct, BB EPA has been exploring regulatory flexibility since its inception. Administrator Doug Costle (2001, speaking in a 1996 interview) realized that “command and control” regulation would only go so far and would not allow for adaptation to changing circumstances. In 1979, Costle introduced the “bubble policy” for controlling stationary sources of pollution, allowing industry to increase pollution at one point within a plant if reductions were achieved elsewhere in the facility. During the late 1980s, especially while the Clean Air Act of 1990 was being developed, EPA increased its appreciation of the value of consulting with industry while formulating regulations. The agency learned that firms subject to regulations possess relevant expertise and understanding. Administrator Bill Reilly, 1990a and Reilly, 1990b observed that “regulatory negotiations are extremely productive at getting a result that works for everybody” and emphasized the need to listen to industry, whose leaders “often have a better, more intimate grasp of how to achieve [environmental goals], than we do.” Regulatory flexibility and negotiation provide means for EPA to work with the regulated community and other stakeholders toward achieving sustainable outcomes through pollution prevention, increased efficiencies, and systematic thinking.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

XTN: Reg Negs Solve Regulatory negotiations lead to new and innovative solutions Jody Freeman, Acting Professor of Law, University of California, October, 1997, 45 UCLA L. Rev. 1, lexis, BB The actual solution, however, was a win-win result for everyone involved. Environmentalists secured an increasingly stringent standard while industry bargained for phased implementation. As a result, both industry representatives and the NRDC could "sell" the agreement to their constituencies as a victory. The EPA demonstrated a commitment to working with stakeholders, a posture that would be well received by both Congress and the Clinton administration. The agency could also credibly claim that while stakeholders were involved in the rule making, the bargain struck did not undermine the public interest in reducing toxic air emissions. The consensus improved the likelihood of implementation and reduced the chance that the rule would be legally challenged, potentially saving significant resources for all of the parties. n135 On the traditional measures of cost, implementability, and legitimacy, as viewed by the parties, the reg-neg was a success.

Regulatory negotiations facilitates unique solutions to environmental problems. Jody Freeman, Acting Professor of Law, University of California, October, 1997, 45 UCLA L. Rev. 1, lexis, BB The parties did not merely bargain, but also drew upon a set of developments, including the emergence of total quality management principles in both the chemical industry and at the EPA, to devise an unanticipated solution. The negotiated consensus requires industry to pool information about worker training, technology, or management practices that most effectively reduce emissions. n139 This element of the solution creates a badly needed feedback mechanism. Historically, neither the EPA nor environmental groups had the means by which to judge which technologies or management practices facilitated rule compliance because nothing forced the industry to disclose why it could not meet standards. This kind of information disclosure, as opposed to the reporting only of leak rates, could enable better diagnosis of leak causes. By requiring information sharing among companies about the most effective controls, the negotiated rule creates a mechanism for increasing safety standards. The primary monitoring authority rests with the companies but is subject to governmental oversight. Another important result of the problem-solving process was the recognition that the production goals of chemical companies can coincide with the regulatory goal of controlling toxic emissions. The industry was moving toward a "best practice" standard in any event, because such a standard was consistent with improving the quality of the pumps and valves themselves. n140 In essence, the negotiated solution forces chemical [*48] companies to adopt leak prevention measures that also achieve the goal of reducing air pollution. The solution is superior to a strict emissions limit because it allows companies to devise processspecific and cost-effective methods for achieving compliance. A Total Quality Management (TQM) approach guarantees closer monitoring of the components most likely to leak. n141 It establishes a regime in which the penalty for noncompliance is to be more closely monitored and be required to generate more information about why existing leak controls do not work. This facilitates adaptation and progress toward regulatory goals without being unnecessarily punitive: a facility will never be in violation of the regulation so long as it pursues the improvement program.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

CP-Brownfields CP Text: The United States federal government should amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, specifically to exempt local governments from CERCLA liability on the condition that local governments take care with regards to contamination during brownfields cleanup. The executive branch should engage in binding regulatory negotiations to determine implementation. Parties will have no more than one year to negotiate. Reg Neg’s enable tailored local solutions Edward P. Weber, Professor in Political Science, Director of the Thomas S. Foley Institute for Public Policy and Public Service, and Affiliated Professor in WSU's Program in Environmental Science and Regional Planning in Washington State University, 1998, pg 10, Georgetown University Press Regulatory negotiations and consensus-based roundtable" rulemakings invite environmentalists, state officials, and business interests to the bargaining table for the purpose of having tern help government regulators write (fill in the details of) regulations. Public-private partnerships are at root a collaborative redefinition existing regulatory arrangements. At the invitation of Amoco Oil, EPA spent three years studying an oil refinery to better match rules with pollution problems and to prevent pollution instead of simply regulating its release. U.S. corporations in the iron and steel industry, rte electronics and computer industry, the auto industry, and the printing industry, along with federal and state regulators, national environmentalists, and locally based environmental justice groups, are attempting to rationalize the existing regulatory rules for each industrial sector and construct a "common sense" approach to environmental regulations (USEPA 1994a). In Colorado, four of the largest employers and polluters)-Coors Brewing, Martin Marietta," Hewlett Packard, and the Public Service Company of Colorado are collaborating with EPA, the League of Women Voters, environmentalists, and the state o find innovative ways to prevent pollution (Pollution Prevention Partnership 1993).

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

CP-Feed-in Tariffs CP Text: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States. Specifically, the executive branch should engage in binding regulatory negotiations to determine implementation. Parties will have no more than one year to negotiate.

Reg Negs solve-- they result in innovation Michael E. Porter and Claas van der Linde, C. Roland Christensen Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School, faculty of the International Management Research Institute of St. Gallen University, Fall 95, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 9 Issue 4, ebsco, BB Coordination of environmental regulation can be improved in at least three ways: between industry and regulators, between regulators at different levels and places in government, and between U.S. regulators and their international counterparts. In setting environmental standards and regulatory processes to encourage innovation, substantive industry participation in setting standards is needed right from the beginning, as is common in many European countries. An appropriate regulatory process is one in which regulations themselves are clear, who must meet them is clear, and industry accepts the regulations and begins innovating to address them, rather than spending years attempting to delay or relax them. In our current system, by the time standards are finally settled and clarified, it is often too late to address them fundamentally, making secondary treatment the only alternative. We need to evolve toward a regulatory regime in which the EPA and other regulators make a commitment that standards will be in place for, say, five years; so that industry is motivated to innovate rather than adopt incremental solutions.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

CP-Natives CP Text: The United States federal government should establish a policy increasing revenue-neutral alternative energy incentives to Native Americans. The executive branch should engage in regulatory negotiations with Native American groups to determine implementation. All representatives should be granted a veto. Parties will have no more than one year to negotiate. Regulatory Negotiations are key to Indian Self-Determination—Empirically Proven Lawrence Susskind and Liora Zion, Ford Professor of Urban and Environmental Planning at MIT and President of the Consensus Building Institute, & Research Assitant, August 2002, “CAN AMERICA’S DEMOCRACY BE IMPROVED?”, http://www.lawrencesusskind.com/content/contributions/democracy.pdf, BB Negotiated rulemaking is a relatively new approach to developing regulations. In order to ensure that new regulations are effective, realistic, and fair, and that those who will be bound by them will accept them more readily, lawmakers use consensus building techniques to develop draft legislation. Thus, the stakeholders participate in shaping the regulations about which they are concerned. During the negotiation process, the parties may ask experts to make presentations relevant to the task at hand, or they might engage in joint fact-finding as part of the process. The development of a single negotiating text is also a common technique used for rulemaking42. Example: Federal Negotiated Rulemaking One of the largest negotiated rulemaking efforts to date was a consensus building process in 1996 to implement amendments to the Indian Self-Determination Act. The group was to focus largely on arrangements concerning Native American tribes’ roles and responsibilities in the delivery of federal programs, including schools, health facilities, and construction projects. The consensus building process involved 63 people, including 48 representatives of Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and 15 representatives from more than 10 federal agencies and offices. These representatives comprised an Advisory Committee that was charged with producing recommendations to the Department of the Interior and the Department of Health and Human Services concerning which regulations, if any, should exist. The negotiations of the Advisory Committee were facilitated by four cofacilitators of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). The negotiations began with a considerable amount of distrust between the Indian and Federal representatives, since previous attempts to amend the regulations had excluded the input of Native groups. However, the group agreed to operate by consensus, seeking unanimity for all decisions, and so each representative was effectively granted a veto on the process. The group decided to follow a proposal submitted by an Indian attorney to divide into six working groups to address different aspects of the law. As a group, the representatives allocated different topics to the different working groups. The representatives then signed up to those work groups addressing issues about which they had the greatest knowledge or in which they had the most interest. Since some representatives enrolled in multiple working groups, the co-chairs tried to avoid scheduling more than three working group meetings simultaneously, and representatives had to prioritize their interests. Each working group was co-chaired by a federal and a tribal representative, and facilitated by one of the neutrals. The working groups produced regular updates on their progress to share with the rest of the participants, notifying them, for example, when they had completed a draft of a section of regulation. As the working groups agreed on specific sections of the regulation, they submitted them to the whole group for approval. The working groups had to have reached an internal consensus before they could present any product to the whole group, since those within the working groups, involved in formulating the proposals, were those who tended to be most concerned about the issue under consideration. When the working groups presented their proposals, they took questions of clarification first, and then the facilitators listed any questions concerning content. The co-chairs then decided whether to address each question in the whole group, or within a tribal or federal caucus. Once the large group reached consensus, it would adopt the recommendation. The process did not run without problems. Indian representatives’ concerns about the process to review the Advisory Committee’s recommendations nearly prompted them to leave the negotiations. Other concerns also arose, and the Advisory Committee was unable to resolve every substantive issue. For four issues that remained outstanding, the federal and tribal teams each wrote a report stating their opinions on the matter. These reports were presented to the chiefs of staff of both departments, who made final decisions, sometimes in favor of the federal team, and sometimes in favor of the tribal team. Despite these problems, however, the Advisory Committee agreed by consensus on 34 pages of detailed regulations to guide the process of making contracts between tribes and tribal organizations and the Departments of the Interior and of Health and Human Services. Tribal and federal representatives expressed satisfaction with the process, and the process has subsequently become a model for further negotiations involving Native groups.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

XTN: Reg Neg Solves Natives Reg Negs solve for Indians differing cultural views and increase government collaboration Brian D. Polkinghorn and Jeanmarie Pinto, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Conflict Resolution and Executive Director of the Center for Conflict Resolution at Salisbury University, & Research Associate with the Center for Conflict Resolution at Salisbury University, 2002, International Negotiation 7: 209–233, “In Different Tongues: Making Room for Cultural Differences in the Negotiated Rulemaking Process”, ebsco, BB American Indians differ from non-Indians not only in their history but also in their general philosophies of life (Farella 1984; Fixico 1996;Wallace 1994; Yazzie 1994). For many Indian cultures, all living things are meant to be respected and people are no more important than any other living thing. This view contrasts sharply with the typical view of most “mainstream” Americans, who believe in humankind’s inherent superiority over all other living things (Clark 1989). Put another way, Indians tend to see life as a community, where non-Indians tend to see it as a hierarchy. This is an important point when one is looking at conflict and its resolution. A community view tends to focus more on healing and restoration whereas a hierarchical view focuses on division in order to maintain the hierarchy (Austin 1992; Bluehouse and Zion 1993, Stuart 1997; Weaver 1996). The aforementioned cultural differences and nuances are all-important considerations that should be taken into account in the context of negotiation processes between Indians and non-Indians. American Indians are not just another ethnic group vying for recognition in the United States, however. Whether they are defined as distinct, sovereign entities, as most Indian nations see themselves, or as “domestic, dependent nations,” as the U.S. government has defined them, the issue of sovereignty lends a unique twist to their relationship with the mainstream society. Using a consensus-based reg-neg process to address Tribal-

Federal issues may be a culturally-sensitive and effective method not only for settling the issue on the table, but also for healing and rebuilding the complex and troubled relationship between American Indians and the U.S. government. The use of this process is a positive move away from an atmosphere of pure consultation to one of increased collaboration between two legitimate governmental bodies.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

CP-Nuclear CP Text: The United States federal government should increase revenue-neutral nuclear energy incentives. The executive branch should engage in binding regulatory negotiations to determine implementation. Parties will have no more than one year to negotiate. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has used regulatory negotiations National Partnership for Reinventing Government, The National Partnership for Reinventing Government (NPR), originally the National Performance Review, was the Clinton-Gore Administration's interagency task force to reform and streamline the way the federal government works, 21-May-2002, “Improving Regulatory Systems”, http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/reports/reg03.html A small number of federal agencies have successfully pioneered a consensus-based approach to drafting regulations-negotiated rulemaking (sometimes called regulatory negotiation or "reg neg"). Reg neg brings together representatives of the agency and the various affected interests in a cooperative effort to develop regulations that not only meet statutory requirements, but also are accepted by the people who ultimately will have to live with the regulations[Endnote 2] Since 1982, approximately 35 federal agency negotiated rulemakings have taken place or are currently under way. Almost half have been at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is the only federal agency with a small office assigned specifically to assist other parts of the agency in doing reg negs. Other users include the Departments of Agriculture (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service), Education (required in certain programs by statute), Labor (Occupational Safety and Health Administration), and Transportation (Office of the Secretary, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Coast Guard), Farm Credit Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission[Endnote 3] The Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 establishes a statutory framework for agency use of reg neg.[Endnote 4]

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

***2NC Answers***

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

AT: Courts Rollback Reg-Neg ensures acceptance in court Robin McCall, J.D. Candidate 2007, University of California Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, Winter, 2007, University of California, Hastings College of the Law West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law & Policy, Lexis.

A quiet revolution during the past few decades has been transforming this process. In negotiated rulemaking, nicknamed "reg-neg," agencies share the table with concerned members of the public, or stakeholders. n143 Congress prefers agencies to use reg-neg when it "enhances the informal rulemaking process." n144 Congress found that reg-neg can "increase the acceptability and improve the substance of rules, making it less likely that the affected parties will resist enforcement or challenge such rules in court." n145 Professor Ashutosh Bhagwat regards reg-neg as especially suited to managing public property, because under such circumstances expertise may be irrelevant to most of the issues raised, and there are fewer technical concerns where the potential for agency capture could pose a threat.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

AT: Takes Long Time Reg Neg saves time Cary Coglianese, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, and Affiliated Scholar at Harvard Law School., 4-97, Duke Law Journal, Lexis One advantage formal negotiated rulemaking purportedly has over informal rulemaking is its ability to produce rules in less time. Yet the impact negotiation has on the time it takes to develop a regulation remains unclear. In a 1987 article, former EPA Administrator Lee Thomas stated that "as we look back upon our experiences with negotiated rules so far, they have saved time. Regulatory negotiation shortened our total process on each one of them." n105 The National Performance Review report on the regulatory process similarly stated that negotiated rulemaking at EPA has saved up to eighteen months compared with conventional rulemaking. n106 Despite this proclaimed efficiency, the NPR authors also interestingly cautioned Congress not to impose "short [*1279] statutory deadlines to issue proposed or final rules, especially if they are shorter than two years [because this may] preclude the use of negotiated rulemaking." n107 In at least one instance, a federal agency decided that "negotiated rulemaking was not a practical option" for the development of regulations because of statutory time constraints. n108 Although negotiated rulemakings may not be sufficiently fast when an agency must meet stringent deadlines, overall they have been thought to be potential time-savers. n109

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

AT: Conglianese Coglianese is wrong- 4 Reasons Philip J. Harter, AB, Kenyon College; MA, JD University of Michigan; Adjunct Professor and Summer Faculty, Vermont Law School; former Chair, Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice and former Co-chair Working Group on Regulatory Reform of the American Bar Association., 2000 “Assessing the Assessors: The Actual Performance of Negotiated Rulemaking”, 9 N.Y.U. ENVTL. L.J. Unfortunately, Coglianese’s research is significantly flawed and hence misleading concerning the actual experience with negotiated rulemaking. First, he misapplies his own methodology by including a rule as a completed reg neg when in fact the negotiations were abandoned early on; given the dynamics of the particular rule and Coglianese’s methodology, its erroneous inclusion had a significant effect on the ultimate conclusion. Second, his methodology measures the wrong thing: it fails to account for what the agency was actually trying to accomplish in several major proceedings, and hence his results are misleading in that the agency achieved its objective a far less time than is calculated by the numbers used. Third, he does not differentiate a substantive judicial challenge to a rule that was issued substantially as the committee agreed from either those instances in which the agency itself significantly changed the rule after the committee reached consensus and those petitions for review that were filed while the petitioner and EPA worked out minor details. Finally, the proponents of negotiated rulemaking also envisioned benefits beyond the savings of time and judicial review; rather, they were in many instances seen as derived from the other benefits. His methodology does not consider these other values. Properly understood negotiated rulemaking has been remarkably successful in fulfilling its promise. In particular, EPA’s experience has been that reg neg has cut the time for rulemaking by a third, knocking a full year off the typical schedule. Moreover, no rule that implements a consensus reached by the committee in which the parties agree not to challenge it has ever been the subject of a substantive judicial review — even though they tend to be far more controversial and complex than average rules. And, finally, the participants and those otherwise affected by rules find a range of values in negotiated rulemakings than those developed traditionally.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

AT: Litigation Reg Negs solve Litigation Cary Coglianese, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, and Affiliated Scholar at Harvard Law School., 4-97, Duke Law Journal, Lexis As I showed in Part I, the goal of reducing litigation was a driving force behind the Negotiated Rulemaking Act. n133 According to some, negotiated rulemaking has achieved this goal. Former EPA Administrator Lee Thomas asserted that at his agency "regulatory negotiation has reduced litigation." n134 The National Performance Review reported a reduction in the 80 percent rate at which EPA rules are challenged to a rate of 20 percent following the introduction of negotiated rulemaking. n135 The former research director of ACUS has written that agencies developing rules through negotiation have succeeded in "dramatically reducing the rate of litigation over those rules." n136

Reg Neg avoid unnecessary litgation and delays in implementation Edward P. Weber, Professor in Political Science, Director of the Thomas S. Foley Institute for Public Policy and Public Service, and Affiliated Professor in WSU's Program in Environmental Science and Regional Planning in Washington State University, 1998, pg 127, Georgetown University Press If a collaborative effort could produce a rule that better reflected the preferences of stakeholders and considered their political and economic constraints, endless litigation and implementation delays might be avoided and players might instead unite in support of an agreement. As one participant from the Department of Energy put it, the clean fuels regulation was a good example of something that "cried out for collaboration. It was very complicated, and cooperation with industry would result in better information with which the government could write the regulations" (interview 3/23/94). The general perception was that a traditional notice-and-comment rulemaking procedure would limit the flow of technical information on the reformulation process that was essential to an effective, implementable rule."

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Consult Good Consult CPs are Good: a. Best Policy Option- If we win that consultation is the best, than we win b. Real World Education- Foreign Policy leaders consult all the time, it is part of international policy making c. Lit Checks Abuse- Literature limits the number of consultation CPs d. Increase Strategic Thinking- Forces the 2ac to think about the plan in light of international events e. Neg Ground- The negative should be able to CP foreign policy methods on a foreign policy topic f. Key to test Resolved- The CP is offense against the resolution g. Err neg on Theory- AFF bias, Infinite prep, 1st and last speech, 2ar persuasion h. Potential Abuse isn’t a voter i. Reject the CP not the Team

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Deadlines Key Deadlines are key to solve Kevin Phillip Cichetti, J.D. Candidate, the Washington College of Law, Winter, 1996, 9 Admin. L.J. Am. U. 1183, lexis Negotiated rulemaking is an open process in which all interested parties to a proposed regulation work together to find a solution to the problem facing the agency. David M. Pritzker, Working Together for Better Regulations, 1992 A.B.A. Sec. Natural Resources, Energy, and Envtl. Law 40. The EPA was one of the first agencies to institutionalize its own negotiated rulemaking program and draft its own selection criteria. 48 Fed. Reg. 7494 (Feb. 22, 1983). The EPA's selection criteria include: (1) it looks for a limited number of issues which are related to extremely controversial national policy; (2) there must exist a well-developed factual base to permit a "meaningful discussion and resolution of the issues;" (3) there should exist several ways to solve the problems; and (4) a firm deadline should exist for the resolution of the issues. David M. Pritzker & Deborah S. Dalton, Negotiated Rulemaking Sourcebook 39 (1990) [hereinafter Pritzker & Dalton]. Determining the requisite level of scienter a person must possess before the EPA commences a criminal investigation clearly fits within these criteria. Deadlines are key to successful negotiations Siobhan Mee, Executive Editor, BOSTON COLLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS LAW REVIEW, 1997-1998. Fall, 1997, 25 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 213, lexis, BB The Reg-Neg Act also directs agencies to assess the likelihood that the proposed committee will reach consensus within a fixed period of time. n85 Deadlines often are perceived as an essential tool for moving negotiations and avoiding delay tactics. n86 The pressure of an approaching deadline helps parties make the difficult choices that are necessary to reach consensus. n87 Typically, deadlines are provided by the agency's commitment to develop the rule by itself if the negotiations produce nothing by a certain date, or by a legislative or judicial mandate for agency action within a limited time period. n88

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

2AC – AT Incentives Encourage 1. We Meet – Allowing companies to negotiate the regulations both motivate and stimulate them to act because they are allowed to bring their policy ideas to the table

2. We meet – the consequences of not complying with the mandates of the plan motivate and stimulate companies to act

3. Counter Interpretation – Incentives include finance, rules, regulations, and policies Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, 07 (North Carolina State University, http://www.dsireusa.org/faq/faq.cfm?&CurrentPageID=9&EE=1&RE=1) What types of renewable energy incentives does DSIRE track? The DSIRE project tracks information on state, utility, local, and selected federal incentives that promote the use of renewable energy technologies. For more information on federal incentives, see what federal incentives does DSIRE track. On the DSIRE website, incentives are grouped into two categories as follows: (1)Financial Incentives: tax incentives, grants, loans, rebates, industry recruitment, bond programs, and production incentives. (2) Rules, Regulations, & Policies: public benefits funds, renewables portfolio standards, net metering, interconnection, extension analysis, generation disclosure, contractor licensing, equipment certification, solar/wind access laws, and construction & design standards (including building energy codes and energy standards for public buildings), required utility green power options, and green power purchasing/aggregation policies.

4. We meet - we specify the rules that companies be required to meet, which are incentives

5. Counter Standards A. Limits – We limit the topical AFFs down to those that give financial or positive incentives and those that place rules or negative incentives B. Predictability – Our interpretation allows the NEG to be predict the Affirmative case because we allow for a selective group of incentives C. Real world – our plan is a real world option, the government uses rules, regulations, and policies to ensure the effectiveness of policies

6. They say vagueness, but we specify the action of regulatory negotiation and the amount that companies are incented to cut carbon emissions by

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

7. They say future fiat, but we fiat that the plan passes immediately and one year is allowed the determination of implementation

8. They say predictable limits, but we specify the results of the consultation, just not the definite implementation. There is no brightline for how much we have to specify. If we specified solar power, but not the company, they would claim a ground loss of a General Electric brand solar panels DA

9. They Say FX A. We are not FX – the 20% by 2020 rule is established immediately upon the passage of the plan. Also, the negotiations themselves are incentives for action B. FX good 1. Neg ground -The Neg gains ground, every additional step in the affirmative plan gives extra link ground for DA’s and K’s 2. Real World – Policies are all effectual to some extent. When the government issues oil subsidies, they are implemented, and then the price of gas goes down 3. Topic specific Education – Because incentives are effectual by nature, we able to properly discuss them.

10. Reasonability – As long as we meet a credible definition of the topic, you should not vote us down on T. Make them prove abuse.

11. T is not a voter

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Politics- Obama Good 1.

Uniqueness Overwhelms link- Obama has too high a lead- Obama is leading the presidential race by 18 points, one energy policy won’t upset that high a lead.

2.

Uniqueness doesn’t take into account external factors- while energy policy may be the most important issue in the race right now, it alone doesn’t justify an 18 point lead.

3. Plan goes Obama- The plan dooms McCain by moving toward Obama talking points – it undercuts the GOP message – Iran rapprochement proves Kevin Drum, journalist/columnist for Washington Monthly, Washington Monthly, 7-17-08, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_07/014112.php Am I off base, or is it sort of weird that there's been so little followup to the news that the Bush administration plans to open an "interests section" in Tehran? None of the big U.S. newspapers has so much as mentioned this story yet, which either means they don't think it's a big deal (unlikely) or that not a single one of them has been able to confirm the original Guardian report (also unlikely). Over at The Corner, where I figured they'd be going ballistic, the news has been met with nothing more than a shrug. Now, sure, an interests section is not an embassy (we already have one in Cuba, for example), but this would still be a pretty stunning turnaround, wouldn't it? Especially since the rapprochement appears to be mutual. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has indicated he's open to a U.S. proposal and an Iranian spokesman later confirmed that Iran is open to direct talks. How cordial! So why the radio silence? At the very least, shouldn't the talking heads be talking about the political implications of this news? Barack Obama favors direct talks with Iran and John McCain doesn't, and now here comes George Bush apparently clearing the deck for direct talks. So what does McCain do now? He'll tap dance a bit, of course, claiming that Bush is not doing precisely what Obama proposed (which is true), but he's certainly moving in that direction. Doesn't this cut McCain's legs out from under him? Doesn't it make Obama look more prescient and presidential? Shouldn't this at a minimum be a fascinating topic for fact-free cable news speculation and talk radio bloviation? I think so! 4.

Democrats take non-nuclear and non-oil energy- their Caldwell evidence says a successful Republican platform would be built on domestic drilling and nuclear energy, NOT other alternatives, which go to the democrats.

5.

No voter switch- their link evidence says nothing about Obama’s voters switching sides or not voting because of the plan, ensuring Obama will hold his lead.

6.

Iran too far off- Their’s four months before John McCain has a chance to take the oval office. Then Iran-U.S. tensions will presumably build to a head over time. Then John McCain will have to gain political and popular support for an Iran attack with the U.S. still in Iraq and with a Democratic congress. Then the invasion of Iran will occur. This huge timeframe kills all probability of impact and ability to make predictions on a McCain presidency.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name 7. Biofuels

are popular New York Times, Matthew L. Wald, 7/24/08, Gassing Up With Garbage, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/business/24fuel.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5087&em& en=6d8750fcd5a5af75&ex=1217044800 [adit] The government is pushing to get the industry off the ground. Legislation passed last year mandates the use of 36 billion gallons of biofuels a year by 2022, less than half of it from corn ethanol. Almost all the rest is supposed to come from nonfood sources, though the requirement could be waived if the industry faltered. “One has to say upfront that what Congress has done is remarkable in its bravery,” said David Morris, vice president of the Institute for Local Self Reliance, a group in Minneapolis that advocates biofuels.

8. Obama will push Biofuels Crosscut, 7/24/08, Gauging the Biofuels backlash, http://www.crosscut.com/politicsgovernment/15855/Gauging+the+biofuels+backlash/ [adit] Of course, most politicians like magic bullets. Obama backs ethanol subsidies. (Of course he does. His home state of Illinois trails only Iowa in corn production.) McCain opposes them. (Of course he does. They don't grow a whole lot of corn in Arizona.) Congress has showered ethanol subsidies on farm states since 1978. Virtually no one talks seriously about conservation. Nobody wants to be President Jimmy Carter, virtuously putting on a cardigan sweater rather than turning up the White House thermostat. But someone has to do it. Without curbing future demand, future production — even if it's based on switchgrass or wood waste rather than offshore oil — won't get us where we need to go. 9.

Case outweighs- Loss of U.S. air power means the U.S. won’t be able to respond to new conflicts around the globe or sustain U.S. hegemony- that’s Dunlap 06. And U.S. hegemony collapse will lead to regional nuclear wars and rampant terrorism- that’s Ferguson 04. And loss of U.S. readiness will lead to widespread global conflict- that’s Moore 97. This outweighs the DA because widespread global conflict means the U.S. will soon be facing not just one Iran- but 20, and this time without the military to deal with them. And global anarchy outweighs the DA because regional nuclear wars and rampant terrorism will give nations like Iran total freedom of action to use and develop nuclear weapons.

10.

Air power solves Iran attack- a strong air force means the U.S. will be able to neutralize Iran before it has a chance to react- that’s Dunlap 06. And U.S. air power is key to deterring other nations from seeking nuclear weapons and challenging U.S. power- that’s also Dunlap.

11.

Iran attack assumes ground troop use- Their Iran invasion impact assumes U.S. ground troop usedoesn’t apply to aff world of strong air power.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

12.Link Turn- Military funding massively unpopular—lobbies protest Huffington post, Anti-War Movement Successfully Pushes Back Against Military Confrontation With Iran, 6/24/08 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-weisbrot/anti-war-movement-success_b_114545.html [adit]s Who says there's no anti-war movement in the United States? In the past two months, the antiwar movement has taken on one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the United States in an important fight. And so far, the anti-war movement is winning. Here's the story: On May 22, a bill was introduced into Congress that effectively called for a blockade of Iran, H. Con. Res. 362. Among other expressions of hostility, the bill calls for: "prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran..." This sounded an awful lot like it was calling for a blockade, which is an act of war. A dangerous proposition, especially given all the efforts that the Bush-Cheney administration has taken to move us closer to a military confrontation with Iran, the bluster and the threats, and the refusal to engage in direct talks with the Iranian government. The last thing we need is for the war party to get encouragement from Congress to initiate more illegal and extremely dangerous hostilities in the Persian Gulf. If the bill were to pass, the Bush Administration could take it as a green light for a blockade. It's hard to imagine the Iranians passively watching their economy strangled for lack of gasoline (which they import), without at least firing a few missiles at the blockaders. Whereupon all hell could break loose. By June 20 this bill was zipping through Congress, with 169 co-sponsors, soon to accumulate more than 200 Representatives. Amazingly, it was projected to appear quickly on the House Suspension Calendar. This is a special procedure that allows the House of Representatives to pass non-controversial legislation by a super-majority. It allows the bill to avoid amendments and other procedural votes, as well as normal debate. An aide to the Democratic leadership said the resolution would pass Congress like a "hot knife through butter." 13.

Election too far off- There are 4 more months until the election, during which time any amount of factors could occur to upset the election.

14.

Their link author is unqualified- Caldwell is the president of a company, not a political analyst and not qualified to analyze successful presidential strategies.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

15. Plan helps Obama- Energy is McCain’s only opportunity to create distance from Bush – the plan blocks any chance of him generating a “change” narrative Scott Horsley, NPR business correspondent, 5/13/2008, “McCain Targets Independents with 'Green' Effort,” http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90411556 But for the moment, McCain's tone is very different as he tries to reach out to independent and moderate voters at campaigns stops in the Pacific Northwest. McCain visited a watershed center outside Seattle on Tuesday, where he stressed his commitment to environmental protection. McCain even planned a nature walk around Washington's Cedar River Reservoir, with reporters and photographers in tow, and held a roundtable discussion with a group of Washington state conservation advocates. Sally Jewell heads the Seattle-based outdoor gear company REI, a cooperative with 3.5 million active members. "We have members that span from the far right to the far left of the political spectrum," she said. "But I think the one thing they all appreciate is a healthy environment." By wrapping himself in the fleece vest of environmentalism, McCain hopes to reach out to that constituency. He repeated his pledge to combat greenhouse gases by limiting the amount of these gases that companies can emit and encouraging those who emit less to sell their permits to others. This "cap-and-trade" system is similar to plans proposed by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton — albeit with less stringent limits on carbon pollution. McCain's Green Campaign Aimed at Moderate Voters "McCain simply cannot win in November if he can't consolidate the center and win the swing independents who determine every presidential election," said Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political analyst. "His task is tough enough because of President Bush's unpopularity, the unpopularity of the Iraq war and the tanking of the economy. If he gets too identified with the right wing of his own party, he's going to alienate those swing independents, and he'll lose the election." McCain is closely identified with President Bush in his support for the Iraq war and an economic policy built on tax cuts. But Sabato says so far, that has not been the drag on McCain's campaign that it might be. "Right now, he has that maverick image, and he's running 20 to 25 points better than the Republican brand," Sabato added. "The Democrats' job is to make sure that doesn't continue. McCain's job is to make sure that it does." The environment is one area where McCain can put some daylight between his views and President Bush's. Speaking on Monday in Portland, Ore., McCain subtly criticized the president for not doing more to combat global warming. "I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges," he said. McCain also went out of his way to praise Oregon's Democratic governor and to promise more bipartisan cooperation if he is elected president. "We need to draw on the best ideas of both parties and on all the resources a free market can provide," he said.

A2 Specific LinksOil Indpendence Unpopular 1. Card powertagged- says theres skepticism, not dislike, among critics, not the public, about the feasibility of total energy independence, none of which will have an effect on the election. Budget Cuts 2. Card powertagged- says Obama fighting for DOD budget cuts, not AFRL meaning it would come from ground forces, and neglects to mention anything about increased military spending affecting his election

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Heidegger 1. Perm- Do the plan and embrace indivdual Askesis. 2. Alternative Energy spills over to the civilian sector- that’s Air Force Link 08 3.

The Plan is no “quick fix”- Solar technology and other alternatives will transform society to help the poor while remaining in harmony with the environment (Habib Rahman, 5/10/07, The Weston Town Crier, “Empowering the World’s Poor”, http://www.wickedlocal.com/weston/archive/x1432252352) Last Sunday, Peter Haas, a lifelong Weston resident and co-founder of AIDG, presented one vision of empowering the world’s poor by developing economically viable environmentally friendly businesses in the developing world. It has successfully established several renewable energy projects in Guatemala and, contingent on funding, is hoping to start similar operations in the Dominican Republic and Haiti. AIDG was founded in 2004 by Peter Haas and his friend Benny Lee, also a Weston resident. Two other lifelong Weston friends joined the board of directors – Adam Hyde and Grey Lee. AIDG’s mission is simple – empower the poor in developing countries by creating indigenous small self-sustaining businesses that generate green energy. To this end, they have interns and volunteers, primarily students from top colleges like Berkeley, MIT and Stanford, work with local villagers, helping develop renewable energy plants. This summer a group of 10 Weston High School students and two chaperone teachers will go on a Teco-Tour to Guatemala under the auspices of AIDG. The students will travel through the country and work on renewable energy projects with local villagers. The operations are by design small and have to be affordable to locals, most of whom live on less than $2 a day. "Our goal is to transform society one village at a time," Haas said. Here is a sampling of some of the products developed by AIDG. Biodigesters are appropriate technologies that take advantage of the energy naturally present in animal waste and kitchen trash. As these wastes break down, whether in the ground, a compost heap, landfill or biodigester, they release methane, a potent greenhouse gas. In contrast to the other waste storage and disposal methods mentioned, a biodigester traps the methane and stores it for heating, cooking or lighting. A turbine to generate hydroelectric power was developed by AIDG. AIDG is currently working on three different sized hydroelectric projects – custom designs that provide 5 to 50 kilowatts of electricity (one kilowatt is like ten 100-watt light bulbs burning at once; a more standardized design which can produce 1 to 3 kilowatts; and a "pico-hydro" turbine which produces 50 to 100 watts, enough for basic lighting and cell phone charging for a family. Solar heating is one of the oldest uses of solar energy. AIDG’s low-cost collector can easily meet the hot water needs of a small family. Slow sand filtration is an inexpensive chemical-free method of water purification. For communities with access to sand, this filtration technique is one of the most cost effective and environmentally friendly forms of water treatment available.

4.

Policy Framework Good- debates about real world issues key to education on alternative energy effects today, not generic arguments about technology and control that are wholly disconnected from the real world.

5.

Alt will be co-opted- corporations or right-wing or media who still desire to control and use tech will co-opt the alt.

6. Double Bind- the kritik will either be forced to engage in management and control to avoid being co-opted or will be co-opted by corporations and the media. 7.

Alt overgeneralizes tech- Tech has good uses that the K ignores, including medical use, food production, and disaster relief.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

8. Oil use main cause of environmental destruction- prefer our specific warrants over their generic and abstract “Control” root cause evidence. (Trade Environment Database Projects, December 1996, W. Corbett Dabbs, “Oil Production and Environmental Damage”, http://www.american.edu/TED/projects/tedcross/xoilpr15.htm#r0) Although much of the world depends on the production or the trade of oil to fuel its economies, these activities can cause severe damage to the environment, either knowingly or unintentionally. Oil production, and/or transportation, can disrupt the human population, and the animal and fish life of the region. Oil waste dumping, production pollution, and spills wreak havoc on the surrounding wildlife and habitat. It threatens the extinction of several plants, and has already harmed many land, air, and sea animal and plant species. The effects of oil on marine life are cause by either the physical nature of the oil (physical contamination and smothering) or by its chemical components (toxic effects and accumulation leading to tainting). Marine life may also be affected by clean-up operations or indirectly through physical damage to the habitats in which plants and animals live. The animals and plants most at risk are those that could come into contact with a contaminated sea surface: marine animals and reptiles; birds that feed by diving or form flocks on the sea; marine life on shorelines; and animals and plants in mariculture facilities. Runoffs from petroleum processing and petrochemical plants have dumped tons of toxic wastes into nearby waters. Gas and oil pipelines have stanched many creeks and rivers, swamping prime pastures and cropland. Furthermore, entire bays and lagoons along coasts have been fouled by oil spills and runoff of toxic chemicals. The environmental damage that is a result of oil retraction and production can also directly effect human life in the region. Damage can include pollution of water resources and contamination of the soil. Humans are effected by environmental devastation because it is damaging to vegetation, livestock, and to the health of the human body itself. Oil spills can interfere with the normal working of power stations and desalination plants that require a continuous supply of clean seawater and with the safe operation of coastal industries and ports. 9.

Our use of control good- military readiness key to stopping and dettering war and genoicide saving millions of lives and stopping other nations from building even more harmful technology.

10. Double Bind- Either alt engages in control and management to decide what is “authentic” technology, or alt overgeneralizes tech and control as all evil. 11.

Generic Impact- the neg impact is too generic, they can’t explain why using alternative energies would harm the environment.

12.

Alt Fails on oil- Alt can’t solve for current oil use ensuring environmental destruction now.

13.

Alternatives better than oil- McWhorter specifically indicts oil as a bad source of energy, K alt can’t solve Aff shift to oil.

14. Even if science isn’t perfectly objective, we shouldn’t reject it – it’s impossible to always give a perfectly unbiased representation of the world, and science is key to making the public understand and to achieving effective climate change mitigation. David Demeritt, Department of Geography King’s College London, 6/1/2001,

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name (“The Construction of Global Warming and the Politics of Science,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91(2), 2001, p. 307–337, Blackwell Publishers, InformaWorld) Still, blindness does have its benefits, even for a progressive environmental politics. Although it is fashionable in many circles to bemoan the reductionism of science as an unmitigated evil, it is important to recognize where we would be without it. 7 Physically reductionist computer-simulation models have been crucial in identifying the physical effects of continued GHG emissions on the climate system. Their alarming red-orange visualizations of a future hothouse earth have played a vital role in bringing these risks to widespread public attention. To be sure, troubling exclusions are built into this epistemic community. The discipline and expertise required to participate meaningfully in its scientific debates restrict not only who is authorized to speak but also what and how things can be spoken about. 8 Important as it is to be reflexive about the exclusions that abstraction necessarily entails, there can be no escaping them entirely, for knowledge is always situated, partial, and incomplete (Haraway 1991, 183–201). Thus a climate model, no matter how sophisticated, can only ever provide a partial window on a much more complicated reality that it must, as a form of abstract reasoning, reduce to some analytically simplified set of physical processes. One way to distinguish the practice of abstraction involved in this kind of physical reductionism from a more general sense of Reductionism is to say that Reductionism commits the “epistemic fallacy” (Bhaskar 1978, 36). It loses sight of the fact that its abstractions are merely analytical constructions, conveniently isolated from the flux of totality, and reduces reality to the terms of its own analytical abstractions. 9 This distinction between pernicious Reductionism and the physical reductionism

of science has occasionally been lost on science critics within cultural studies and critical human geography. All too often, social constructionist critiques of particular scientific abstractions come across, whether intended as such or not, as rejections of science and refutations of its specific knowledge claims. Such antiscience polemicism can be as sweepingly Reductionist as the very thing it opposes. Although the particular abstractions of global climate modeling may not tell us everything that we need to know, they deserve more credit than they sometimes receive from their critics. Physical process modeling has certain undeniable advantages. For one thing, the physically reductionist abstractions that it involves render the world analytically manageable. Only by dramatically simplifying the messy social relations driving GHG emissions and focusing narrowly on their physical and chemical properties have scientists been able to understand the effects of increasing GHG concentrations on the climate system. Oversimplistic as this way of seeing may be, it is still probably something that we cannot do without. Climate models provide one of the most important tools for exploring the physical relationships among GHG emissions, concentrations, and climate changes. The task, therefore, is to better appreciate the partial insights that these models provide without falling into Reductionism and losing sight of the limitations of physical process modeling .

15.

Control inevitable- Control systems are inevitable in modern day society, and even if the US was to wholly reject control, other nations would engage in it anyway.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Military States Counterplan Answer 1. Perm-Do-Both- states investing in military infrastructure will overwhelm the politics link, people won't focus Bush's policy toward the military and focus on state actions 2. Counterplan Flaw- states can't fund the air force, if they do the supreme court will strike down. 3. Federal action is necessary for research and product regulation for economies of scale. Adler, Jonathan H., Jonathan H. Adler is Associate Professor of Law and Associate Director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, "Jurisdictional Mismatch in Environmental Federalism" (July 2005). Case Research Paper Series in Legal Studies 05-18 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=770305 [Alex Kats-Rubin] While there do not appear to be economies of scale in environmental regulation, as such, there may well be economies of scale in other aspects of environmental protection. There are two readily apparent contexts in which economies of scale may justify federal action. First, economies of scale could justify substantial federal support of scientific research, data collection, and technical analyses on environmental issues. Second, economies of scale may justify federal regulation of products bought and sold in interstate commerce.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

4. Scientific research should be handled by the federal government. Adler, Jonathan H., Jonathan H. Adler is Associate Professor of Law and Associate Director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, "Jurisdictional Mismatch in Environmental Federalism" (July 2005). Case Research Paper Series in Legal Studies 05-18 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=770305 [Alex Kats-Rubin] There are definite economies of scale in some types of scientific research that can inform the development of environmental policy at all levels of government. While much of the information required for effective environmental protection is local in nature, much of the relevant scientific knowledge will apply nationwide. In this respect, much scientific research has aspects of a public good. The weather conditions and topographical features that influence ozone formation will vary from place-to-place, but the underlying chemical reactions and effects of ozone on human respiratory systems and other living organisms will not. Insofar as the latter is relevant for environmental policy decisions in all areas affected by ozone pollution, it may be more efficient to conduct such research at the federal level and make it available to those jurisdictions where such information can be put to good use. Were each state required to conduct its own environmental scientific research, there could be much duplication and inefficiency. In addition, there are likely to be scale economies in the resources and technical expertise required for some forms of scientific research. Even where a given problem is particularly local in nature, such as the protection of a municipal drinking water system, there is still a case for federal research – or at least federally supported and coordinated research – into the risks posed by various contaminants, likely sources of contamination, means of decontamination, and the like. Relatedly, it makes sense for the federal government to provide “expertise” on the technical aspects of regulation, investigating such matters as regulatory design and implementation. Duplicating this sort of research at the state level would serve little purpose and divert resources from other environmental priorities.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

5. California Disadvantage A. Uniqueness and Internal Link - California’s budget is on the brink of collapse – increased spending devastates regulations San Jose Mercury News 7-11-2008 (http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_9848677) If nothing else, the California budget imbroglio has brought the Capitol's stark ideological conflict - very liberal Democrats vs. very conservative Republicans and no more than a handful of even semi-moderates - into razor-sharp focus. With the Democrats now insisting on more than $8 billion in new taxes, mostly on business and the affluent, to cover much of the state's whopping budget deficit, and Republicans rejecting them as damaging to the state's struggling economy, the stage is set for a cage fight. And that wouldn't be such a bad thing. The ideological warriors have been sparring for years, but each year have avoided a toe-to-toe slugfest over taxes and permanent spending cuts by conjuring up new accounting gimmicks or ways to borrow money. 'Line in the sand' However, this year, with the structural deficit magnified by recession, the dueling factions seem poised to settle it once and for all. "We don't want another temporary fix," Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata said Wednesday as he and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass described their budget, financed largely with new taxes, as a "line in the sand." "We can't cut any more," Bass said. "This budget defines what Democrats say we need to do to keep California on an even keel." The Democratic budget not only raises taxes by $8.2 billion a year, mostly by adding higher income tax rates for upper-income taxpayers, but it restores many of the spending reductions that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had proposed in May. And that, Republicans say, makes the Democratic budget a non-starter - which is no idle threat since at least some GOP votes would be needed to pass both the budget and any new taxes. Assemblyman Roger Niello of Sacramento, a Republican point man on the budget, described it as "a massive tax increase in a very weak economy" and "a dysfunctional solution." But he and other GOP lawmakers haven't been willing to get specific on their spending cuts. And where's the governor? This vague reaction implies that he's wandering in no-man's land as legislators prepare for political war: "You have to be open-minded, and that's the only way we can get a compromise done. So, I'm openminded, but I'm against tax increases." Without a budget, California will run out of cash in another month or so, unable to pay the bills it could legally pay and probably forced to float a short-term, high-interest loan. But despite the hoopla, the lack of a budget is less important than bringing this perpetual, tiresome wrangle to at least a semi-permanent conclusion, no matter how long it takes. Democrats contend their budget does that with billions of dollars in permanent new taxes. But if enacted, it could spawn even worse problems because it increases the state's reliance on volatile income taxes on the affluent. Under fixed spending formulas, especially for education, an economic recovery could send revenues soaring in a few years, locking in higher levels of spending that could not be sustained when the economy cooled again.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

b. Alternative Energy is expensive Michael Kanellos, Staff Writer for CNET, 1/24/2007, “Why it's not easy being green”, http://news.cnet.com/Why-its-not-easy-being-green/2100-11395_3-6152851.html BB Second, installing an alternative-energy infrastructure isn't cheap, despite the influx of venture money into the field and the strong demand for technologies such as solar. If oil drops below $55 a barrel, most biofuel concepts will be unprofitable, Arvizu projected. Even if oil doesn't drop that low, it will cost a lot to get an ethanol-solar-wind society off the ground. To meet the Department of Energy's goal of making ethanol 30 percent of the U.S. transportation fuel budget, fuel manufacturers will have to invest $100 billion in refineries. To make wind power 20 percent of the source of the electricity in the U.S., it will take $500 billion in infrastructure investments. C. California is key to the US economy Ray Haynes, California Assembly member representing Riverside and Temecula, 9-2-2003; “Who’s Dragging Down Who?”, http://theamericashow.net/archives/Columns/Haynes/20030902HaynesDragging.html I think it is important people know what is happening in California government. One in seven people who live in the United States live in California. California constitutes ten per cent of the entire national economy, and it is the fifth (or sixth or seventh or eighth) largest economy in the world (our ranking shrinks each year Davis stays in office). When California’s economy hiccups, it causes a national economic earthquake. A large, diverse, and powerful economic actor is important not just to those of us who live here, but to those who walk the halls of Washington power as well. Government at any level can’t do much to help the economy. The economy is driven by people’s needs and the endless effort of private companies to meet those needs. Government, however, can screw it up. Using tax and regulatory policy, and government subsidies, government impacts individual preferences by increasing the price of one product or service (or decreasing another), and shifting limited social resources to governmentpreferred activities. If these preferred activities aren’t beneficial to the economy as a whole, government causes the economy to falter. Jobs are lost, people are hurt, and the economy shrinks. Given these facts, it would be important to cover any government function that affects ten per cent of the economy. Sacramento should be the focus of a lot of media attention.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

D. Extend Mead 2004, that turns Counterplan Solvency

6. 50 State Fiat is illegitimate and a voting issue for the following reasons: 1. Not real world – the 50 states have no method of uniform policy action. It’s object fiat. 2. Their education claims are false: 1. No policymaker can choose between USFG and state action 2. Process debates detract from topic-specific education 3. Federalism disads and state-specific turns solve their claims 3. No literature basis – there’s no evidence for or against the states acting together – and they’ll always have more specific state-key warrants 4. Infinitely regressive – justifies regional, local, and individual counterplans 5. Counter-interpretation – reciprocity – they can use the USFG or a part thereof to enact a policy – still gives them alternate agent ground

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

AT Topicality Tax Credits 1. We Meet: more companies model off the government use of alternative energy to be able to apply for current tax credits 2. Counter-Interpretation- incentive is a stimulus that incites action The Chambers Dictionary 2006, 10th edition, Chambers Harrap Publisher, Page 752 incentive- adj. inciting, encouraging, igniting(Milton), n. that which incites to action, stimulus 3. Prefer our dictionary definition it’s more predictable, than anything contextual definition they find on the internet. 4. They over limit, affs exclusive to tax credit doesn't contain education on other ways government promotes alternative energy 5. Our interpretation is key to fairness, with tax credits the negative could always win with states counterplan, leads arbitrary debate 6. Predictability- I mean come on 7. Literature and Clash check abuse 8. Competing Interpretations Bad leads to a race to the bottom 9. Reasonable- As long as we prove we are reasonably topical through negative groud and educational benefits T isn't a voter

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

2AC States CP (1/3) 1. Perm do both - The United States federal government should provide incentives to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for research, development, and implementation of solar powered satellites and The fifty states and territorial governments of the United States except California should provide incentives to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for research, development, and implementation of solar powered satellites. 2. Federal Government key A. Federal support is key to get the SPS project off the ground, the private sector will not until the technology seems less risky that’s Berger

invest

B. Reliability cannot be handled by private markets or state policies because government oversight is necessary, that’s Gruenspecht C. Leadership Key to solvency – The USFG must lead in order for the SPS program to solve for space colonization – that’s Glaser D. The Federal Government must do the plan to solve for hegemony, if the 50 states encourage different corporations, the US must act as a whole to solve – that’s Dolman 3. State action can’t solve – deters investment, compliance, cooperation, while encouraging litigation Benjamin K. Sovacool, Research Fellow in the Energy Governance Program at the Centre on Asia and Globalization, 6/08, “The Best of Both Worlds: Environmental Federalism and the Need for Federal Action on Renewable Energy and Climate Change” Contrary to enabling a well-lubricated national renewable energy market, inconsistencies between states over what counts as renewable energy, when it has to come online, how large it has to be, where it must be delivered, and how it may be traded clog the [*454] renewable energy market like coffee grounds in a sink. Implementing agencies and stakeholders must grapple with inconsistent state RPS goals, and investors must interpret competing and often arbitrary statutes. To pick just a few prominent examples, Wisconsin set its target at 2.2 percent by 2011, while Rhode Island chose sixteen percent by 2020. In Maine, fuel cells and high efficiency cogeneration units count as "renewables," while the standard in Pennsylvania includes coal gasification and fossil fueled distributed generation technologies. n244 Iowa, Minnesota, and Texas set their purchase requirements based on installed capacity, whereas other states set them relative to electricity sales. n245 Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, and Rhode Island trade renewable energy credits (RECs) under the New England Power Pool, whereas California and Texas use their own REC trading systems. Minnesota and Iowa have voluntary standards with no penalties, whereas Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania all levy different noncompliance fees. n246 The result is a renewable energy market that deters investment, complicates compliance, discourages interstate cooperation and encourages tedious and expensive litigation.

4. Timeframe – Every second that the States take longer than the Federal government will causes 100 Trillion deaths – that’s Bostron

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

2AC States CP (2/3) 5. Neg Fiat Bad A. Resolutional Bias – The word “should” in the resolution grants the affirmative fiat, but this doesn’t exist for the negative

B. Focus – negative fiat changes the focus of the debate from whether the plan is good or not to whether it is better than the counterplan C. Infinitely Regressive – the affirmative only gets the USFG, but the Negative gets the world and every actor in it

6. California DA A. California is key to the US economy Ray Haynes, California Assembly member representing Riverside and Temecula, 9-2-2003; “Who’s Dragging Down Who?”, http://theamericashow.net/archives/Columns/Haynes/20030902HaynesDragging.html I think it is important people know what is happening in California government. One in seven people who live in the United States live in California. California constitutes ten per cent of the entire national economy, and it is the fifth (or sixth or seventh or eighth) largest economy in the world (our ranking shrinks each year Davis stays in office). When California’s economy hiccups, it causes a national economic earthquake. A large, diverse, and powerful economic actor is important not just to those of us who live here, but to those who walk the halls of Washington power as well. Government at any level can’t do much to help the economy. The economy is driven by people’s needs and the endless effort of private companies to meet those needs. Government, however, can screw it up. Using tax and regulatory policy, and government subsidies, government impacts individual preferences by increasing the price of one product or service (or decreasing another), and shifting limited social resources to government-preferred activities. If these preferred activities aren’t beneficial to the economy as a whole, government causes the economy to falter. Jobs are lost, people are hurt, and the economy shrinks. Given these facts, it would be important to cover any government function that affects ten per cent of the economy. Sacramento should be the focus of a lot of media attention.

B. Economic collapse leads to global nuclear war Walter Russell Mead, former Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, World Policy Institute, 1992; "Depending on the Kindness of Strangers," New Perspectives Quarterly 9.3 (Summer 1992) pp. 28-30. Hundreds of millions – billions – of people have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced market principles – and drawn closer to the west – because they believe that our system can work for them. But what if it can’t? What if the global economy stagnates – or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India – these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 30s.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

2AC States CP (3/3) 7. Market forces ensure that states will race to the bottom – only national guidelines prevent. Neal D. Woods, Department of Political Science, University of South Carolina, March 2006, Interstate competition and environmental regulation: a test of the race-to-the-bottom thesis, Science Quarterly 87.1. Across a variety of policy realms, a good deal of recent literature has emphasized the role that interstate competition plays in the formation of state policy (Dye, 1990; Peterson and Rom, 1990; Peterson, 1995; Bailey and Rom, 2004). A foundational premise of this literature is that states engage in policy competition to attract taxpayers, industry, and other mobile units that benefit state economies (Tiebout, 1956). Industry is of high economic value to states, which have shown a willingness to pursue industrial plants through a wide variety of location incentives, including tax abatements, enterprise zones, and tax-free financing for pollution-control equipment (Eisinger, 1988). States thus attempt to reduce the cost of doing business in the state in order to maintain current industrial production within the state and attract new production. One way of reducing production costs may lie in minimizing regulatory burdens, thereby sparking a potential RTB in areas like environmental and workplace-safety regulation. Indeed, the potential for interstate policy competition has served as a lynchpin for theories of environmental policy (e.g., Lowry, 1992) and forms an explicit rationale for pollution-control laws. The legislative history of the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act, for instance, contains stark reference to the possibility of a RTB.

<pre> Without national guidelines for the prevention of significant deterioration, a State deciding to protect its clean air resources will face a double threat. The prospect is very real that such a State would lose existing plants to more permissive States. But additionally the State will likely become the target of "economic-environmental blackmail" from new industrial plants that will play one State off against another with threats to locate in whichever State adopts the most permissive pollution controls.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

2AC T- Only Tax incentives 1. We meet – We give NASA funding to build SPS 2. Counter Interpretation - Incentives Stimulate Action Bingel, 04 - senior manager of state and local taxes with Smart and Associates LLP(Gary, “Getting to the STATE'S CAPITAL: Negotiating Business Incentives”, Pennsylvania CPA Journal. Summer, proquest) When considering financial assistance from governmental authorities, it is important to keep in mind the definitions of "incentive" and "credit." "Incentive" is something that stimulates one to take action,1 and "credit" is to give deserved commendation for; to commend one for.2 These concepts are at the root of why governments give assistance to businesses in the form of incentives and tax credits. Incentive programs are usually offered to stimulate businesses to take some form of action, and are considered forward-looking. Tax credits are often offered to reward businesses that took some form of desired action, and are a reaction to steps already taken. There are some programs, however, that combine these concepts, such as negotiated tax credits and those that require preapproval, that are used to promote some future action. There are also incentives programs that, while negotiated and subject to preapproval, are only rewarded once a specified action, or promise, has been fulfilled. The following discussion will focus on true incentives programs, those that require preapproval and negotiation, as opposed to pure tax credits, which merely reward past behavior and that do not require any form of preapproval or negotiation.

3. Limits - we allow for a variety of cases maintaining Aff ground, but limit the topic down to only those that give incentives that stimulate 4. Brightline – we have a clear brightline, either the incentive stimulates, or it is not an incentive 5. Predictability – they should be ready to debate this case, Gabrielle made a 96 page neg to it and we told them in lab yesterday 6. Contextuality – our definition is the only one in the round that has the intent to define, theirs is taken from an article 7. Reasonability – you are not going to vote us down as long as we are reasonably topical, make them prove in round abuse and ground loss 8. T is not a voter, clash checks

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

2AC Obama Good (1/3) 1. No link – We send satellites in to space to get energy for space colonies. Voters only care about energy policy because of its price, and the plan will not affect energy prices 2. McCain wins because of his economic policy appeals during the economic downturn James Pethokoukis, Staff Writer, 7-15, 2008 US News and World Report “4 Reasons the Weak Economy Is Now Helping McCain” http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/7/15/4-reasons-the-weak-economy-is-now-helping-mccain.html But I think we may now be at the point where this economic mess has started working in McCain's favor. The dynamic no longer seems to be a linear phenomenon in which a bad economy is good for Obama and a worse economy is even better. Rather, the situation has become chaotic and almost impossible to predict in view of all the emerging variables. But within the range of realistic possibilities, McCain may now have a roughly fifty-fifty shot at victory. Here's why: 1) Gas prices. Polls show the public wants lower gas prices and thinks oil drilling can help get them. And McCain and the Republicans have positioned themselves as the party of more energy and lower prices. They want to drill, and they want to build more nuclear plants. But instead of opening up new areas to drilling, Democrats want to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And who can forget Obama's response when asked what he thought of higher gas prices: "I would have preferred a gradual adjustment." One problem may be that Obama fashioned his energy plan when oil was a mere $60 a barrel. McCain seems to be smartly tweaking his policies on the fly—drilling, the gas tax moratorium—to appeal to voters furious about higher prices at the pump. 2) Stale Obamanomics. Like his energy policy, Obama's economic policy was crafted when the economy was clearly expanding, unemployment was below 5 percent, and the budget deficit was plunging. Now growth is sporadic at best, unemployment is rising sharply, and the deficit is likely to top a record $500 billion. Yet Obama still wants to raise investment, income, and payroll taxes while expanding spending. McCain, on the other hand, is talking about pro-growth tax cuts and balancing the budget by the end of his first term. Just as Obama's Iraq policy seems stuck in the past, so does his economic policy.3) The Fannie and Freddie fiasco. Up until the announcement of the Paulson-Bernanke bailout, the mortgage mess and credit crunch looked to many like examples of free-market failure. But Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are creations of a federal government trying to promote a specific economic policy—greater homeownership. And the artificial existence of these quasicorporate creatures has contributed mightily to the housing mess, explains economist Brian Wesbury, by dominating the mortgage market "using subsidized credit" and pushing "private firms toward the fringes of the securitization process and into territory which included subprime and Alt-A loans." In any event, the Fannie-Freddie mess could be used by Team McCain to vividly display the incompetency of big government at the exact time Obama is arguing for more government involvement in healthcare and energy. 4) A skeptical public. America doesn't think too much of its government right now. Approval ratings of President Bush and Congress are minuscule. Indeed, pollsters will tell you that bad economies make voters skeptical of government rather than pushing them to embrace it. A recent Zogby poll showed that 46 percent of Democrats favored corporate taxes over taxpayer-funded federal programs as the best way to spur economic growth. Recall that a big corporate tax cut is at the heart of the McCain economic program. A big risk for Obama is that he will mistake a dislike of the GOP for a love of bigger government and overreach on policy and rhetoric.

3. Uniqueness overwhelms the link – There is no way that McCain will be able to get an 18% swing off of the plan

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

2AC Obama Good (2/3) 4. Iran’s instability makes strikes the only to prevent nuclear weapons struggles, terrorism, and oil crises Rick Santorum 7/17/08 (The Philadelphia Inquirer, “The Elephant in the Room: Obama is right to talk tough on a nuclear-armed Iran”, http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/25548464.html) Over the past weeks much has been made of Barack Obama's hard right turn toward the center of the political spectrum. There's been no greater about-face than his embrace of the Bush Doctrine on the next likely foreign policy crisis - Iran. The Bush Doctrine refers to the strategy of preemptive warfare that President Bush set forth in 2002. It's the idea that the United States will not wait for menacing enemies to attack us; we will attack preemptively in certain cases. But how, you might ask, can the candidate of MoveOn.org and the antiwar-forever crowd be aligned with Bush on preemptive strikes against Iran? Here's how: Last month, Obama declared, "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon - everything." When a would-be commander in chief says "everything" three times in one sentence - and says so publicly - he is not just talking about continued diplomacy and sanctions. He's saying that he has not taken the military option off the table. With that statement, Obama, the definitive antiwar candidate, ended any serious debate over preemption in the post-9/11 world. And none too soon. International Atomic Energy Administration director Mohamed ElBaradei said last month that if Iran expelled the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency, Iran would need six months to produce a nuclear weapon. Couple that with last week's test firing of missiles capable of delivering that weapon to Israel, and it is no wonder you have seen a rash of stories about the Israelis training for strikes against Iran. Everyone hopes, of course, that the United States and the West might persuade Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions with measures short of military action. But things aren't looking too promising. Either way, the fundamental issue remains: Preemption or containment - is a nuclear-armed Iran acceptable if economic sanctions and diplomatic pressures fail? Obama's primary-season supporters would argue that a pre-emptive strike poses far greater danger than a nuclear Iran. Iran, the argument runs, can be "kept in a box," as happened with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Here are a few problems with that argument: Iran's ruling mullahs and their bombastic, hand-picked president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are not the Politburo and Nikita Khrushchev. For starters, Soviet leaders had absolute control over their weapons and launch codes. Given the leadership struggle among Iran's military, mullahs and political leadership, control of that nation's nuclear arms would be subject to ongoing internal power plays. This would increase the chance of an "unplanned" launch as well as a weapon falling into the hands of Islamic terrorists. We trusted the Soviets to act rationally and respond rationally to our actions. History proved we were right to do so. Given the radical nature of the Ahmadinejad's regime, his promise to "wipe Israel off the map" and his nation's close theological and military ties to terrorist organizations, we cannot expect the same from the Iranians. Today's nuclear chess game would have three or more nuclear powers, not just two, playing at the same time and exponentially increasing complexity and uncertainty. On top of that the game is being played in a region where brinkmanship and deception are standard operating procedures. Most important, Soviet leaders were avowed atheists; all that mattered to them was this life. Death and annihilation were not attractive options. Thus, the Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine made sense. Iran's leaders believe all that matters is the next life. Killing, or being killed by, infidels in defense of Islam is the surest way to get you there with a posse of virgins at your disposal. Thankfully, Bush, Obama and John McCain have all promised to use every means necessary to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. But if we fail to deliver on this promise, what Middle East ally would then trust us to protect them? The result - more nuclear nations. And if you think oil prices are high today, think about the power that a nuclear Iran would have to use oil as a weapon to drive the price to $250 a barrel or more. I have heard from many sources that our allies, including our Arab allies, ask us one question and one question only today: When are we going to give Israel the green light? Given McCain and Obama's comments to date, it appears that when that moment comes - and come I fear it will - both presidential nominees will stand behind President Bush and our allies. Or will they?

5. Their I/L is bias, its written by Liberals who want Obama in office.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

2AC Obama Good (3/3) 6. McCain is taking a less neoconservative stance towards Iran and foreign policy in general Michael Shear 3/27/08 (Washington Post staff writer, “McCain outlines foreign policy; In Speech He vows collaborative approach”, lexis) Sen. John McCain on Wednesday promised a collaborative foreign policy that would seek the input of allies abroad and would contrast sharply with the go-it-alone approach of the Bush administration. McCain (Ariz.) also refused to give ground on Iraq to his Democratic rivals, declaring that the continued U.S. presence there is a "moral responsibility" and that a "reckless" withdrawal would be an "unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a great nation." In his first extensive policy speech since securing the delegates needed to win the Republican presidential nomination, McCain delivered an impassioned argument that achieving democracy in Iraq is necessary for a peaceful world. "Those who argue that our goals in Iraq are unachievable are wrong, just as they were wrong a year ago when they declared the war already lost in Iraq," he said, without naming Democratic candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. "Those who claim we should withdraw from Iraq in order to fight al-Qaeda more effectively elsewhere are making a dangerous mistake." But even as McCain offered a defense of President Bush 's current war policy, he outlined a sharp critique of the administration's dealings with foreign allies. In a speech to the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles, McCain called himself a "realistic idealist" and outlined a worldview mirroring that of some Bush administration critics, who say the first task of the next president must be to repair relations around the world. "Today we are not alone," McCain said. "Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed." The speech drew a quick response from Obama spokesman Bill Burton. He castigated McCain for being "determined to carry out four more years of George Bush 's failed policies, including an open-ended war in Iraq that has cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars while making us less safe." In a statement, Clinton said: "While there is much to praise in Senator McCain 's speech, he and I continue to have a fundamental disagreement on Iraq." Clinton said that McCain, like Bush, opposes "a swift and responsible withdrawal from Iraq" and wants to "keep us tied to another country's civil war." Despite McCain's support for the Iraq war, he said the United States should take a different approach to future conflicts. In the speech, McCain renewed his call for a "global compact -- a League of Democracies" that would unite the world's free countries against tyranny, disease and environmental destruction. As he did in Europe last week, he played down unilateral action and stressed cooperation on global warming, torture of prisoners and trade. "We need to listen -- we need to listen -- to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies," McCain said. "When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them." Bush's foreign policy approach has moderated significantly in his second term, with greater outreach to European allies and a willingness to strike deals with countries such as North Korea. In essence, McCain suggested he would embrace Bush's policies on terrorism, Iraq and Afghanistan while extending his willingness to meet allies halfway. At the same time, McCain indicated he would sharply break with Bush's efforts to accommodate Russia, saying he would push to eject it from the Group of Eight club of industrial powers. Part of the opening of McCain's speech echoed the opening of an opinion piece he wrote in the Wall Street Journal in 2001 in support of the administration's anti-terrorism efforts. In both instances, the lengthy passage says that in war "the lives of a nation's finest patriots are sacrificed" and "commerce is disrupted, economies are damaged," among other nearly identical lines. McCain is often portrayed in the news media as a global John Wayne who would tread on the world stage with a Navy veteran's swagger and talk tough toward unfriendly governments in Iran and North Korea. But his record on foreign policy during two decades in the Senate is more nuanced. A skeptic about foreign interventions when he arrived in Congress in 1983, McCain later became a vocal advocate for unilateral U.S. action in Kosovo and the Middle East. In 1983, in opposition to President Ronald Reagan and others in his party, McCain argued for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Lebanon. But in 1999, he supported the use of ground troops to stop "ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo. And his full-throated backing of the Iraq war in 2002 is well known. McCain's rhetoric as he courted Republican voters in primaries was often laced with incendiary language. On Iran, he hinted at an eagerness to take military action, saying the only thing worse would be a "nuclear-armed Iran." But since becoming the presumptive Republican nominee, McCain has rarely used the language of the neoconservatives in Washington who pushed Bush to adopt a policy of preemptive strikes against foreign enemies. Instead, McCain has sounded more like the foreign policy "realists" who advised Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

2AC Fiscal Discipline (1/2) 1. Their Uniqueness card only says that the Blue Dogs opposed the bill, it does not say they opposed the spending 2. Congress is overriding defenders of fiscal discipline Belville News-Democrat, James Rosen, staff writer for McClatchy Newspapers 7/19/2008,“Senator who opposed expanding global AIDS program vows to keep up pressure”, Before voting 80-16 to pass the AIDS bill, the Senate defeated DeMint's amendments to cut its cost to $35 billion over five years and to prohibit funds from being used for alleged "coercive abortion and forced sterilization" in China or other countries.

3. No Link- Just because one alternative energy bill was earmarked doesn’t meant they all will be, and we fund directly to NASA, there will be no earmarks 4. No Link—Spending Trades-off Pay-go rules are in effect Increasing Alternative Energy incentives trades-off John Stephen, Republican candidate for Congress, Union Leader, 7/18/08, “John Stephen: On energy costs, Washington offers no real answers”, http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=John+Stephen%3A+On+energy+costs%2C+Washington+offers+no+real+answers &articleId=58250a2c-89b0-4696-925a-977411675a71 You see, extending the tax credits would mean that individuals and businesses would keep $19 billion more of their money, instead of sending it to Washington. Under the House rules, that money "loss" would have to be offset by new taxes or spending cuts. Now, no Congress in its right mind would hike taxes in an election year, so that means that to keep these incentives for renewable energy in place, Washington would have to do what the rest of America is doing to meet the rising costs of energy prices -- roll up its sleeves and make the tough decisions on spending.

5. No Evidence indicating an increase in earmarks collapses fiscal discipline 6. No Link- Alternative Energy can be funded without an increase States New Service 6/23/2008, “KIRK/BIGGERT: U.S. "MOON SHOT" PROGRAM TO GET OFF FOREIGN OIL "APOLLO ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ACT" ON SCALE OF NASA'S MOST SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM TO LOWER GAS PRICES, BOOST ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES AND IMPROVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY”, lexis With Chicagoland leading the nation in gas prices, U.S. Representatives Mark Kirk and Judy Biggert joined with environmental, business and research leaders today to announce new legislation dramatically boosting the federal government's commitment to energy independence. With the backdrop of Chicago's premier space museum, the Adler Planetarium, the legislation is modeled on NASA's $20 billion effort to land an American on the moon. The "Apollo Energy Independence Act" establishes long-term market incentives to spur breakthroughs for the development and deployment of alternative energies, vehicles and fuel. Increases in support for alternative energy are offset by spending reductions in earmark and subsidy programs to ensure the bill does not require additional borrowing or taxes.

7. No Threshold- Don’t say how much spending collapses fiscal discipline

2AC Fiscal Discipline (2/2) 8. Earmarks Happening now, there’s bipartisan love for it. Huffington Post, The internet newspaper, June 18, 2008, “Bipartisanship Thrives -- At Least When it Comes to Earmarks” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-bittle-and-jean-johnson/bipartisanship-thrives_b_107667.html) Earmarks -- the Rasputin of Congressional budget politics - are back on the scene. If you don't remember your late tsarist Russian history, Rasputin was the "mad monk" with scary eyes, decadent tastes and way too much influence over Tsarina Alexandra. Eventually he was poisoned, shot, beaten, and finally drowned by a group of dissident Russian nobles. He drank

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name enough poison to kill multiple humans and had three bullets in his back, but he still led his killers on a chase through St. Petersburg before they finally caught up with him, clubbed him and threw him in the Neva River. There were even rumors that he sat up during his cremation. The Congressional earmark industry is proving equally hardy despite repeated attempts to kill or at least weaken it, according to the Washington Post. The current House defense authorization bill contains almost $10 billion dollars of earmarks according to figures compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense. The Senate bill hasn't been approved yet, but Senators Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) Carl Levin (D-MI), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Mark Pryor (D-AR), and Mel Martinez (R-FL) are among those listed as requesting earmarks. Okay, so we have members from the House and the Senate, from the liberal northeast and the conservative south, men and the women, Democrats, Republicans, an Independent, and what can they finally agree on - the ritual of slipping those tasty little earmarks into the defense budget. And they've agreed to do this when the country is at war and faces a budget deficit approaching half a trillion dollars for this fiscal year.

9. The United States Economy is really resilient William B. Bonvillian is Legislative Director and Chief Counsel to Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Issues in Science and Technology, fall 2004-Meeting the New Challenge to U.S. Economic Competitiveness In the 1980s, when the United States faced significant competitive challenges from Japan and Germany, U.S. industry, labor, and government worked out a series of competitiveness policies and approaches that helped pave the way for the nation’s revitalized economic leadership in the 1990s. In the mid-1980s President Reagan appointed Hewlett Packard president John Young to head a bipartisan competitiveness commission, which recommended a practical policy approach designed to defuse ideological squabbling. Although many of its recommendations were enacted slowly or not at all, the commission created a new focus on public-private partnerships, on R&D investments (especially in IT), and on successful competition in trade rather than protectionism. This became the generally accepted response and provided the building blocks for the 1990s boom. The Young Commission was followed by Congress’s Competitiveness Policy Council through 1997. These efforts were successful in redefining the economic debate in part because they built on the experiences, well-remembered at the time, of industry and government collaboration that was so successful in World War II and in responding to Sputnik. Those are much more distant memories in this new century, but we should revisit the Young Commission model. The private sector Council on Competitiveness, originally led by Young, has assembled a group of leading industry, labor, and academic leaders to prepare a National Innovation Initiative, which could provide a blueprint for action. Legislation has been introduced in the Senate to establish a new bipartisan competitiveness commission that would have the prestige and leverage to stimulate government action. The U.S. economy is the most flexible and resilient in the world. The country possesses a highly talented workforce, powerful and efficient capital markets, the strongest R&D system, and the energy of entrepreneurs and many dynamic companies. That by itself will not guarantee success in a changing economy, but it gives the country the wherewithal to adapt to an evolving world. Challenges to U.S. dominance are visible everywhere. Strong economic growth is vital to the U.S. national mission, and innovation is the key to that growth. The United States needs to fashion a new competitiveness agenda designed to speed the velocity of innovation to meet the great challenges of the new century. Once that agenda has been crafted, the nation must find the political will to implement it.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

2AC Eco Managerialism (1/2) 1. Plan Focus - The Focus of the debate is the Affirmative plan, meaning that we get to weigh the impacts of our case against the impacts of the K. 2. Case Outweighs - The Aff outweighs the case because two scenarios of Nuclear war along with the deaths of 100 trillion people a second far outweighs the devaluing of nature 3. No Link – We don’t do anything involving the environment – we send SPS to space 4. K does not take out the case – even if we do link to the case, that does not make us wrong. They have a generic link. We just have to prove our impacts outweigh the impacts of acting 5. Alternative does not solve - The Alternative does not solve the case, we must act now to solve for SPS. Cross Apply Engdahl from the 1AC that we have a narrow window to get into space. Also Dolman, that we must act now before other nations beat us to it collapsing hegemony 6. Perm: Combine our scientific representations with the acknowledgment that science is shaped by social issues – this solves issues of expert knowledge and instrumentalism. David Demeritt, Department of Geography King’s College London, 6/1/2001, (“The Construction of Global Warming and the Politics of Science,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91(2), 2001, p. 307–337, Blackwell Publishers, InformaWorld) Unfortunately, public representations of science seldom acknowledge the irreducibly social dimension of scientific knowledge and practice. As a result, disclosure of the social relations through which scientific knowledge is constructed and conceived has become grounds for discrediting both that knowledge and any public policy decisions based upon it. This political strategy of social construction as refutation has been pursued by the socalled climate skeptics and other opponents of the Kyoto Protocol. It is premised upon an idealized vision of scientific truth as the God’s-eye view from nowhere. Rather than accepting this premise and being forced to deny that scientific knowledge is socially situated and contingent, the proper response to it is to develop a more reflexive understanding of science as a situated and ongoing social practice, as the basis for a more balanced assessment of its knowledge. A richer appreciation for the social processes of scientific knowledge construction is as important for scientists themselves as it is for wider public credibility of their knowledge. In the particular case of climate change, heavy reliance upon diverse, highly specialized, and multidisciplinary bodies of scientific knowledge highlights the problem of trust in knowledge and the expert systems that produce it. As phenomena, the global climate and anthropogenic changes to it would be difficult even to conceive of without sophisticated computer simulations of the global climate system. Although satellite monitoring systems as well as instrumental records and paleoclimatic evidence have also been important, particularly in the identification of historic changes in the climate to date, it is these powerful computer models that have been decisive in identifying the problem of future anthropogenic climate change and making it real for policy makers and the public. 2 Ordinary senses struggle in the face of phenomena so extensive in space and time and incalculable in their potential impacts. For the social theorist Ulrich Beck (1992), this dependence upon science to make tangible otherwise invisible environmental risks is characteristic of what he calls the modern risk society.

7. No Turn - The Criticism does not turn the case, SPS is not the root cause of economically using the environment, Biofuels and Wind power are far worse

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

2AC Eco Managerialism (2/2) 8. Science is key to causing change and understand the environment – the negs rejection of these reps prevents solving climate change. David Demeritt, Department of Geography King’s College London, 6/1/2001, (“The Construction of Global Warming and the Politics of Science,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91(2), 2001, p. 307–337, Blackwell Publishers, InformaWorld) One of my intentions in this article is to show how the technical practices of science have constructed the problem of global warming for us in materially and politically significant ways. This goal requires some discussion of the philosophical implications of such a constructionist argument. Demystifying scientific knowledge and demonstrating the social relations its construction involves does not necessarily imply disbelief in either that knowledge or the phenomena it represents . Given its vital role in helping to make sense of environmental problems such as climate change, there simply can be no question of doing without science. Rather, the challenge is how to understand and live with it better. In this regard, constructionist accounts of science are important but incomplete (Demeritt 1996). By calling attention to the social relations involved in producing scientific knowledge of the natural world, theories of social construction challenge empiricist, positivist, and realist epistemologies. 4 The practical and political implications of this philosophical critique have not always been articulated clearly.

9. Even if science isn’t perfectly objective, we shouldn’t reject it – it’s impossible to always give a perfectly unbiased representation of the world, and science is key to making the public understand and to achieving effective climate change mitigation. David Demeritt, Department of Geography King’s College London, 6/1/2001, (“The Construction of Global Warming and the Politics of Science,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91(2), 2001, p. 307–337, Blackwell Publishers, InformaWorld) Still, blindness does have its benefits, even for a progressive environmental politics. Although it is fashionable in many circles to bemoan the reductionism of science as an unmitigated evil, it is important to recognize where we would be without it. 7 Physically reductionist computer-simulation models have been crucial in identifying the physical effects of continued GHG emissions on the climate system. Their alarming red-orange visualizations of a future hothouse earth have played a vital role in bringing these risks to widespread public attention. To be sure, troubling exclusions are built into this epistemic community. The discipline and expertise required to participate meaningfully in its scientific debates restrict not only who is authorized to speak but also what and how things can be spoken about. 8 Important as it is to be reflexive about the exclusions that abstraction necessarily entails, there can be no escaping them entirely, for knowledge is always situated, partial, and incomplete (Haraway 1991, 183–201). Thus a climate model, no matter how sophisticated, can only ever provide a partial window on a much more complicated reality that it must, as a form of abstract reasoning, reduce to some analytically simplified set of physical processes. One way to distinguish the practice of abstraction involved in this kind of physical reductionism from a more general sense of Reductionism is to say that Reductionism commits the “epistemic fallacy” (Bhaskar 1978, 36). It loses sight of the fact that its abstractions are merely analytical constructions, conveniently isolated from the flux of totality, and reduces reality to the terms of its own analytical abstractions. 9

This distinction between pernicious Reductionism and the physical reductionism of science has occasionally been lost on science critics within cultural studies and critical human geography. All too often, social constructionist critiques of particular scientific abstractions come across, whether intended as such or not, as rejections of science and refutations of its specific knowledge claims. Such antiscience polemicism can be as sweepingly Reductionist as the very thing it opposes. Although the particular abstractions of global climate modeling may not tell us everything that we need to know, they deserve more credit than they sometimes receive from their critics. Physical process modeling has certain undeniable advantages. For one thing, the physically reductionist abstractions that it involves render the world analytically manageable. Only by dramatically simplifying the messy social relations driving GHG emissions and focusing narrowly on their physical and chemical properties have scientists been able to understand the effects of increasing GHG concentrations on the climate system. Oversimplistic as this way of seeing may be, it is still probably something that we cannot do without. Climate models provide one of the most important tools for exploring the physical relationships among GHG emissions, concentrations, and climate changes. The task, therefore, is to better appreciate the partial insights that these models provide without falling into Reductionism and losing sight of the limitations of physical process modeling. A2: Federalism 1. 2.

no link – if Russia was going to model US, they would have done it already causes race to the bottom – the federal government must control energy and environmental protection because it would cause states to make their own policies as weak as possible so that companies and other organizations will want to move in. AND Don’t let them cross apply the no race to bottom card here, that card is only for environment

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name 3. their 1nc 3 talks about how Russia is modeling china right now, not US. Unless china develops a system of checks and balances, there is no link. 4. the 1nc4 just says that if Russia splits up, a democratic split will be less violent than a split like that AND The only impact in this card is saying that Russians will use nukes in a civil war. Nowhere do they say it will escalate to global nuclear war 5. MOST IMPORTANTLY, they have no link! Putin is out of office. Dmitry Medvedev was elected and took his post on may 8th, 2008.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

***McCain will win now – he’s already jumped on the new pro-drilling GOP energy policy, which is popular with the public – this evidence assumes their link (turns) Larry Kudlow, National Review Online Economics Editor, “Drill, Drill, Drill is working”, 8-4-2008, http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Yjc3YzNkMWY2ZmMxY2M2MmQzZWRlNzE4MDA3ZWJkMjc= As Sen. John McCain and the GOP leadership nationalize the drill, drill, drill message, the Republican party might conceivably be riding a summer political rally. The question of offshore drilling, along with expanded domestic energy production, has suddenly become the biggest political and economic wedge issue of this election. Is there a Republican tsunami in the making? According to the major polls, Sen. McCain has overcome a big deficit to pull even with Obama. Meanwhile, according to a Rasmussen survey, Democratic party identification has slumped. While Republicans on the House floor shouted “vote, vote, vote” and “lower gas prices,” the Democratic majority turned off the lights, cameras, and microphones. Determined Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell offered unanimous-consent requests to vote on lifting the ban on deep-water exploration, and the Democrats objected. When McConnell asked Democrats if they’d overturn the ban at $4.50 a gallon, they replied “no.” When he raised the price to $5, $7, and $10, they cried “no,” “no,” and “no.” On the Stephanopoulos Sunday news show, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi underscored her refusal to allow a drilling vote. Asked about the Republican rebellion in the House, she said, “What you saw in the Congress this week was the war dance of the handmaidens of the oil companies.” She went on to say, “We are spending all of this time on a parliamentary tactic, when nothing less is at stake than the planet, the air we breathe, our children breathe.” Oh really? Voters have a much different view. Polls suggest that two-thirds to three-quarters of the nation wants to drill. To wit, while a just-released Obama campaign ad attacks McCain as a tool of big oil, McCain has taken his first-ever lead in a Rasmussen tracking poll. There is a voter revolt going on, and it reminds me of the anti-tax rebellion that lifted Ronald Reagan into office twenty-eight years ago. Is the conventional wisdom about to be swept away? As Republicans press home the drill, drill, drill message, might they pick up seats in Congress this year? And might the national clamor for a more realistic and balanced energy policy — one that includes more oil, natural gas, clean coal, nuclear, and the alternatives of wind, solar, and cellulosic — carry John McCain to a convincing victory over Obama? Without even realizing it, the GOP drilling offensive has become a new contract with America. And it appears to be working. The public is putting aside global warming and choosing instead new-energy production, a stronger economy, and more job creation. Voters want growth, not austerity. They want Ronald Reagan, not Thomas Malthus. And by resisting this grassroots call, the Democratic party is digging itself into one of the biggest political dry holes in history. New economic statistics highlight the damage done by the unprecedented oil-price shock. Only a year ago real gross domestic product was growing at 4 to 5 percent. Then came the dramatic rise of energy prices and down came the economy. GDP contracted slightly late last year and rose a miniscule 0.9 percent in this year’s first quarter. And although real growth picked up to nearly 2 percent in the second quarter, that number is suspect since the government does not count surging import prices from food and energy. Wall Street blames everything on the housing slump and the sub-prime credit crisis. Of course, these are significant. But the drop in housing starts, sales, and prices has been going on for nearly two years, without crunching down the economy. It’s the oil shock that has brought us perilously close to recession. In fact, despite a slight rise in GDP, nonfarm corporate payrolls have declined for seven consecutive months while private payrolls have fallen for eight straight months. A year ago the unemployment rate was 4.5 percent. Today it’s 5.7 percent. Topping it off, the inflation rate has climbed from 2 to 4 percent over the past year. Right now the recession call is still an open question. But the economic damage caused by skyrocketing energy prices is a no-brainer. When President George W. Bush eliminated the executive moratorium on offshore drilling a month ago, effectively launching the drill, drill, drill offensive, oil was close to $150 a barrel. Since then, the barrel price has dropped to nearly $120 as futures-market traders anticipate a major shift in federal drilling policy. Over at the Intrade pay-to-play prediction market, the probability of an offshore drilling bill passing in 2008 is now handicapped at 50 percent, up from 25 percent only a few days ago. Clearly, investors know market prices will move well before we see actual new energy supplies from offshore drilling. The likelihood of greater energy supply will incentivize those much-vilified traders to slash barrel prices much more, bringing relief at the pump and earning the gratitude of a whole nation. At the same time, those wrongheaded Democratic leaders, from Obama to Reid to Pelosi, will see their political fortunes plummet deep into bear-market territory.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

The military’s environmental control is rooted in discourses of paternalism over nature Rachel Woodward, PhD in Geography, Queen Mary and Westfield College, Prof @ Newcastle, Discourses of Military Environmentailsm, January 2000, http://www.ncl.ac.uk/cre/publish/pdfs/WP48.pdf, BB This paper has been concerned with an analysis of military environmental discourses. I have sought to show how the activities of the armed forces on the defence estate are constructed through discourses which explain military activities and their potential impacts on the natural environment in specific ways. A discourse of crater-as-habitat legitimates the military presence in the countryside, and provides a narrative which constructs military activities as complementary to environmental protection. A discourse of paternalism in land management constructs the armed forces as the appropriate custodians of defence lands. A reading of discourses visible at a major inquiry into MoD proposals for the Otterburn Training area suggests that conservation and environmental protection are constructed according to the tenets of administrative rationalism which prioritises the role of the state and the expert, within specified hierarchies of the state, in determining what conservation might mean in practice. In short, military environmental discourses have been presented as frameworks in which the armed forces give meaning to the natural environment and the activities of the military upon it. In conclusion, I turn to address the question of the importance or significance of a consideration of military environmental discourses, first to academic debates and second to wider debates on militarism and environmentalism.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Hegemony 1NC/2AC Supplement Politics Impact Calc.....................................................................................................................................................................................1 Politics – A/T: Uniqueness Overwhelms the Link.......................................................................................................................................2 Politics – A/T: McCain Win Now................................................................................................................................................................5 Politics A/T: Won’t Strike............................................................................................................................................................................8 Politics A/T: Link Turn..............................................................................................................................................................................10 Politics A/T: Strikes Good..........................................................................................................................................................................11 AT: McCain Wins on Military...................................................................................................................................................................12 AT: Separation Key....................................................................................................................................................................................13 AT: Obama Will Strike...............................................................................................................................................................................14 AT: Bush will strike...................................................................................................................................................................................16 XTN: Industry Opposition.........................................................................................................................................................................39 Links: Cap and Trade.................................................................................................................................................................................42 Links: Cap and Trade.................................................................................................................................................................................43 AT: Regulations Help Businesses..............................................................................................................................................................44 Flight Bad – Econ/Environment................................................................................................................................................................45 Time to Exploooode...................................................................................................................................................................................48 Deep Eco 2NC Block ............................................................................................................................................................................52 Empire in the Sky – the Air Force is the ultimate manifestation of Hardt and Negri’s concept of Empire – They are enforcers of American imperial authority that travel across fixed boundaries and enforce the ideologies of the American constitution anywhere and everywhere in the world. The affirmative plan epitomizes the smoothing of the functioning of the Empire, as it allows these biopolitical angels to fly anywhere that U.S. seeks to control and strikes fear in the Oriental heathens as per their . The plan is the worst form of imperial expansion..........................................................................................................................................................56 The capitalist discourse of their Alic and their Mitchell and Cordle evidence reinforce the government’s ability to wield the invisible hand .......................................................................................................................................................................................................57 6.Empire expands racism to cultural and social spheres my determining different as inferior.............................................................60 1.Perm still links - any engagement with the discourse of the 1AC re-creates the harmful epistemologies of Empire which are indicted by Hardt and Negri. It will never be able to overcome our postmodern sovereignty and Peace Police links because it will still use the discourse of expansion........................................................................................................................................................62 2AC T – In ................................................................................................................................................................................................69 2AC: ASPEC..............................................................................................................................................................................................70 2AC: SAUDI OIL DISAD.........................................................................................................................................................................71 2AC: SAUDI OIL DISAD.........................................................................................................................................................................72 He’s A Nazi................................................................................................................................................................................................75 2AC Frontline............................................................................................................................................................................................83 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................84 Wolin, 90 - Distinguished Professor of History at the City University of New York Graduate Center - 1990 (Richard Wolin, The Politics of Being, P. 46) .........................................................................................................................................................................86 2AC Frontline............................................................................................................................................................................................86 2AC Frontline............................................................................................................................................................................................88 2AC Frontline............................................................................................................................................................................................89 Alt Sucks....................................................................................................................................................................................................91 Alt Sucks....................................................................................................................................................................................................92 Alt Sucks....................................................................................................................................................................................................93 Submission Turn........................................................................................................................................................................................94 Perm Solvency...........................................................................................................................................................................................95 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................95 He’s A Nazi ...............................................................................................................................................................................................96 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................96 He’s A Nazi ...............................................................................................................................................................................................97 Survival Key To Ontology.........................................................................................................................................................................99 Reg Neg CP..............................................................................................................................................................................................102 Strat Notes................................................................................................................................................................................................103 ***Counterplans/Net Benefits***...........................................................................................................................................................104 CP-Generic...............................................................................................................................................................................................105 Generic NB..............................................................................................................................................................................................106

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name XTN: Industry Opposition.......................................................................................................................................................................107 XTN: Reg Negs →Coaltions...................................................................................................................................................................108 CP-Patents................................................................................................................................................................................................109 Patents Bizcon Links................................................................................................................................................................................110 XTN: Reg Negs → Innovation................................................................................................................................................................111 CP-RPS....................................................................................................................................................................................................112 XTN: Reg Negs Solve.............................................................................................................................................................................113 CP-Brownfields........................................................................................................................................................................................114 CP-Feed-in Tariffs....................................................................................................................................................................................115 CP-Natives...............................................................................................................................................................................................116 XTN: Reg Neg Solves Natives................................................................................................................................................................117 CP-Nuclear...............................................................................................................................................................................................118 ***2NC Answers***...............................................................................................................................................................................119 AT: Courts Rollback.................................................................................................................................................................................120 AT: Takes Long Time...............................................................................................................................................................................121 AT: Conglianese.......................................................................................................................................................................................122 AT: Litigation...........................................................................................................................................................................................123 Consult Good...........................................................................................................................................................................................124 Deadlines Key..........................................................................................................................................................................................125 2AC – AT Incentives Encourage ............................................................................................................................................................126 Politics- Obama Good..............................................................................................................................................................................128 12.Link Turn- Military funding massively unpopular—lobbies protest..............................................................................................130 Heidegger.................................................................................................................................................................................................132 2AC States CP (1/3).................................................................................................................................................................................141 2AC States CP (2/3).................................................................................................................................................................................142 2AC States CP (3/3).................................................................................................................................................................................143 2AC T- Only Tax incentives.....................................................................................................................................................................144 2AC Obama Good (1/3)...........................................................................................................................................................................145 2AC Obama Good (2/3)...........................................................................................................................................................................146 2AC Obama Good (3/3)...........................................................................................................................................................................147 2AC Fiscal Discipline (1/2).....................................................................................................................................................................148 2AC Fiscal Discipline (2/2).....................................................................................................................................................................148 2AC Eco Managerialism (1/2).................................................................................................................................................................150 2AC Eco Managerialism (2/2).................................................................................................................................................................151 Hegemony 1NC/2AC Supplement...........................................................................................................................................................155 Hegemony is not sustainable...................................................................................................................................................................159 Current Hegemony doesn’t solve - Space................................................................................................................................................160 Counter-Balancing won’t Happen...........................................................................................................................................................161 Counter-Balancing won’t Happen...........................................................................................................................................................162 Counter-Balancing Won’t Happen...........................................................................................................................................................163 Counter-Balancing Won’t Happen...........................................................................................................................................................164 Hegemony Solves EU CB and NATO.....................................................................................................................................................165 Must Increase Hegemony Now................................................................................................................................................................166 Addressing Climate Solves Hegemony...................................................................................................................................................167 Hegemony Good Impacts – Indonesia Add-On.......................................................................................................................................168 Hegemony Good Impacts – Climate Solvency........................................................................................................................................169 Hegemony Good Impacts – Proliferation................................................................................................................................................170 Hegemony Good Impacts – NATO..........................................................................................................................................................171 Hegemony Good Impacts – UN, genocide, security, proliferation..........................................................................................................172 Hegemony Good Impacts – Middle East.................................................................................................................................................173 Hegemony Good Impacts – China...........................................................................................................................................................174 Hegemony Good Impacts – China Brink.................................................................................................................................................175 Hegemony Good Impacts – ASEAN 1/2.................................................................................................................................................176 Hegemony Good Impacts – ASEAN 2/2.................................................................................................................................................177 Multipolarity now....................................................................................................................................................................................178 Multipolarity Inevitable...........................................................................................................................................................................179 Multipolarity Inevitable...........................................................................................................................................................................180 Multipolarity Inevitable...........................................................................................................................................................................181

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name EU will counter-balance..........................................................................................................................................................................182 Hegemony Inevitable...............................................................................................................................................................................183 Hegemony Turns Itself.............................................................................................................................................................................184 T-Incentives..............................................................................................................................................................................................185 States CP: Feed in Tariff Solvency..........................................................................................................................................................186 States CP: Universities Solve ..................................................................................................................................................................187 Politics: Bush wont strike Iran.................................................................................................................................................................189 Israel Strikes =Global Nuke War.............................................................................................................................................................192 Israel Wont Strike.....................................................................................................................................................................................193 Israel and US wont strike Iran (good card)..............................................................................................................................................194 2AC: SCIENCE K (SS)...........................................................................................................................................................................195 2AC: SCIENCE K (SS)...........................................................................................................................................................................196 Xtra Topicality GT...................................................................................................................................................................................197 States CP Block GT.................................................................................................................................................................................198 The perm solves best. Multiple actors create movements for environmental justice.........................................................................198 Politics GT...............................................................................................................................................................................................204 Eco-Managerialism Kritik.......................................................................................................................................................................207 4.Solvency of Transportation Injustices is key to Sustainable Communities......................................................................................207 9.Alt Doesn’t Solve suburbian biopower- The entire concept of the suburb is rooted in controlling the lives of those in the inner city, cutting off transit and building large highways so they can’t intrude on the suburban lifestyle- that’s Frug 96.................................208 Case Answers...........................................................................................................................................................................................209 Politics KO...............................................................................................................................................................................................210 States CP KO...........................................................................................................................................................................................212 The perm solves best. Multiple actors create movements for environmental justice.........................................................................212 Spending..................................................................................................................................................................................................217 Situationism.............................................................................................................................................................................................219 at: states Politics - Day 1..........................................................................................................................................................................229 georgia......................................................................................................................................................................................................232 AT: Georgia Education T/O.....................................................................................................................................................................233 Georgia cutting education spending in the Squo ................................................................................................................................233 Medicad Will Take the cut Instead - Georgia ......................................................................................................................................233 Cutting Georgia Education Budget Now ............................................................................................................................................233 AT: Georgia Education T/O.....................................................................................................................................................................234 Georgia Economy’s tanked..................................................................................................................................................................234 Georgia Economy and Budget Tanked................................................................................................................................................234 general State Budgets ..............................................................................................................................................................................235 state Budgets Tubed.................................................................................................................................................................................236 State budgets jacked Now....................................................................................................................................................................236 State Budget DA Toast.........................................................................................................................................................................236 Huge State Budget Defecits Now .......................................................................................................................................................236 california..................................................................................................................................................................................................237 AT: California Budget Fight DA - no compromise..................................................................................................................................238 California Budget Compromise Doomed............................................................................................................................................238 .............................................................................................................................................................................................................238 Budget Crisis NOW and MULTIPLE Years Without budget Resolution Disprove the Case..............................................................238 Political Posturing Preventing a Budget Compromise.........................................................................................................................239 AT: California Budget Fight DA - no compromise..................................................................................................................................240 Impact Empiracly Denied....................................................................................................................................................................240 No Budget Compromise and RECENT Spending...............................................................................................................................240 AT: California Budget Fight DA - Econ Dead.........................................................................................................................................241 California Economy Tanked - Jobs......................................................................................................................................................241 AT: California Budget Fight DA - NO trade off......................................................................................................................................242 The Gubernator Will Target Jobs - Not ___.........................................................................................................................................242 Gubernator Will Target Employees - He Thinks it’s the Only Option.................................................................................................242 indiana......................................................................................................................................................................................................243 AT: indiana DA -Energy Policeis NOw ..................................................................................................................................................244 Multiple Indiana Environmental Policies Non-Unique the DA...........................................................................................................244 AT: indiana DA -Daniels win Now .........................................................................................................................................................245

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name Daniels Getting a Win From Alternative Energy Now .......................................................................................................................245 AT: Indiana DA - Econ Tanked................................................................................................................................................................246 Indiana economy Jacked - GM Moving...............................................................................................................................................246 texas.........................................................................................................................................................................................................247 at: texas DA - Renewables Now..............................................................................................................................................................248 Texas Funding Renewables Now.........................................................................................................................................................248 Texas Funding Renewables Now.........................................................................................................................................................248

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Hegemony is not sustainable Hegemony isn’t sustainable - China Elisabeth Economy, fellow Council on Foreign Relations, 2007, “China and Antiterrorism” The picture that emerges in the security realm is thus a mixed one. While China has not asserted itself as an alternative to U.S. leadership, the potential exists. Despite strengthened military ties between the U.S. and some regional actors, a strong reservoir of distrust and enmity exists toward the United States in many of the region’s publics. It is plausible that over time, China’s message of non-interference, cooperative security, and the diminution of the role of the U.S. that is implied by China’s approach will gain in popularity, although the United States may yet again broaden its approach to security and regain territory it has lost.

Hegemony is not sustainable – action is the only alternative. Robert Jervis, Adlai E. Stevenson professor of International Politics at Columbia University, 2007, “The Remaking of the Unipolar World” as published in The Washington Quarterly. The irony is that Washington seeks to change the rules of today’s unipolar world order. Preemption but is actually prevention, including preventive war. In extreme cases such as Iraq, the United States has justified the use of force by arguing that even though Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs, he would have developed them when conditions were propitious. It was better for the United States to act rather than wait for this to occur. This may be a political and psychological rationalization, but the argument does have a strong logic to it, especially if deterrence cannot cope with dedicated adversaries, most notably terrorists. When defense is also inadequate, the United States must use preventive measures. Preventive actions, however, even if effective in the short run, will only be a stopgap if international politics were to proceed on its normal trajectory. To bring lasting peace, stability, and prosperity, the system must not simply be preserved, as the Defense Guidance advocated; it must be transformed. Although the second element in this trilogy can perhaps be squared with a conservative view of the role of the hegemon, the other two cannot. Together, the three argue that even if the status quo is in some sense satisfactory, it is an illusion to believe that it can be maintained. One way or another, world politics will change drastically. The questions are who will change it and whether it will be for better or worse. In a way that should shock Henry Kissinger and other students of the order established by the Congress of Vienna, U.S. foreign policy should be more closely modeled after Napoleon than after Talleyrand and Metternich. The United States simply cannot maintain its hegemonic position through the policies advocated by realists and followed before September 11, 2001, so current doctrine argues that the United States must instead be a revolutionary power.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Current Hegemony doesn’t solve - Space Current US space technology and hegemony unable to solve terrorism and security Linda Bilmes (professor at Harvard University) and Joseph E. Stiglitz (professor at Columbia University), April 2008, “The Economic Costs of the Iraq War: An Appraisal Three Years After the Beginning of the Conflict” Why has a retrenchment in U.S. space dominance occurred? First, space weapons have little application to the overriding security threat of Islamist terrorism. Second, for the time being, a rapid rise of technological adversaries does not appear imminent. But the most compelling case against space weapons is that the U.S. space industry and associated military space leadership are incapable of delivering any space capability, let alone a space weapon. Space weapons advocates (and there are some in the military) have little chance when every space penny goes to funding overruns on such programs as the Space-Based Infrared System (intended to detect and track ballistic missiles) and Future Imagery Architecture (a planned constellation of reconnaissance satellites)— programs that are both five times more expensive than initially estimated. Those who are genuinely concerned with space security should take no comfort in these developments. We are confronted with an increasingly interconnected world served by global utilities, many of which are based in or rely upon space systems. The war on terrorism is actually a multi-decade war of ideas. Space is a vital component of the information distribution and collection systems that will make it possible to win that war. Yet, U.S. leadership in space security and industry seems incompetent to address these issues, particularly from a technically sophisticated standpoint. As such, not only U.S. security, but also global security is at risk.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Counter-Balancing won’t Happen Counterbalancing will not occur, but hegemony is not sustainable without further actions. Josef Joffe, fellow for Centre for Independent Studies, 8/5/2005, “Gulliver Unbound: Can America Rule the World?” This is surprising. Many observers expected sharp breaks with the past after the cold war, such as the end of American hegemony, the return to great-power balancing, the rise of competing regional blocs, and the decay of liberal multilateral regimes. Yet even without the Soviet threat and bipolarity, the United States, Western Europe, and Japan have reaffirmed their alliances, contained political conflict, expanded their trade and investment ties, developed new mechanisms for inter- governmental cooperation, and avoided the return to strategic rivalry and traditional balance-of-power politics. Continuity, not transformation, has been the hallmark of the post– cold war era. Change today is not revolutionary but incremental, a variation on an old theme: it mainly entails the expansion and integration of the 1940s order rather than something new. World politics is much like contemporary suburban sprawl, in which expansion is relentless but the basic model or organizational logic dates to the 1950s. Like suburban sprawl, contemporary world politics involves the unwieldy and unplanned growth of “more of the same.” The old roads and bridges, not built for today’s traffic, threaten breakdown and gridlock. But an entirely new system, absent an earthquake, is unthinkable. What we need are city planners who can insinuate some design into the sprawl, and engineers who can repair and expand basic infrastructure. The American postwar order has been hugely successful, built on a rich tradition of thinking and practice centered on how markets, society, democracy, and institutions can give shape to political order. The ability of the industrial democracies to dampen or overcome the underlying manifestations of anarchy (order built on balance of power) and domination (order built on coercive hegemony) explains the character and persistence of this order. Yet most observers have failed to recognize its institutional foundation—a logic in which the connecting and constraining effects of institutions and democratic polities reduce the incentives of great powers to engage in strategic rivalry or balance against American hegemony. Because of its distinctively open domestic political system, and because of the array of powerdampening institutions it has created to manage international political conflict, the United States has been able to remain at the center of an expanding, institutionalized, and legitimate political order

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Counter-Balancing won’t Happen Counter-balancing is ineffective to US hegemony William Thomas Allison, professor at the Australian Defence Force Academy, 9/24/2007, “Primacy and the Unipolar Moment: The Debate over American Power in an Asymmetrical World” as published in the Australian Army Journal How then do major powers bring about a multipolar system or at least begin to balance US hegemonic power? After all, it is an ‘ironclad rule of international history that hegemons always provoke, and are defeated by, the counter-hegemonic balancing of other great powers’. Hard-power, or military force, counter-balancing seems out of the question, considering the disparity between US military power and that of its distant military rivals. Moreover, the risk-reward calculus of such a strategy of counter-balancing would favor none of the potential challengers. Some argue that soft-balancing strategies that are non-military in nature, like diplomacy, international law, multilateral international institutions, or transnational organisations, can limit hegemonic, or in this case US, behavior. Such a peaceful approach does not overtly threaten or unnecessarily provoke the superpower. While this might be good on paper, such approaches have not had much success in recent years in counter-balancing US hegemony, mainly because of the impotency of international institutions.

Counter-balancing will not occur effectively. G. John Ikenberry, IR professor at Georgetown University, 4/28/2003, “Strategic Reactions to American Preeminence: Great Power Politics in the Age of Unipolarity” American unipolar power is unlikely to trigger a full-scale, traditional balance of power response. The major powers – Russia, China, Germany, France, Britain and Japan – will attempt to resist, work around, and counter American power -- even as they also engage and work with American power. But they are not likely to join in an anti-American countervailing coalition that will break the world up into hostile, competing camps. The balance of power is the most time-honored way of thinking about politics among the great powers. 2[2] In this classical view, when confronted with a rising and dominant state, weaker states flock together and build an alternative power bloc. The circumstances for this type of dramatic, order-transforming move do not exist -- and they are not likely to exist even if American power continues to rise relative to other major states and even if American policy antagonizes other states in the way that is has recently over the Iraq war. There are a variety of reasons why this is so. One is simply that a bloc of major states with sufficient power capabilities to challenge the United States is not possible to assemble. Another is that American power itself is not sufficiently threatening to provoke a counter- balancing response. To be sure, American power – and the policies and roles that this power enables – does worry other major states. Responding to it is their major geopolitical challenge. But counter-balancing responses – manifest in separate and competing security alliances and systematic policies of opposition – are both not feasible and not responsive to the distinctive challenges posed by unipolarity. What troubles the other major countries about American power cannot be remedied by the classic geopolitical tool of the balance of power.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Counter-Balancing Won’t Happen There is nothing to counter-balance US Hegemony. G. John Ikenberry, IR professor at Georgetown University, 4/28/2003, “Strategic Reactions to American Preeminence: Great Power Politics in the Age of Unipolarity” Third, there is no other rival global ideology to the American liberal vision. Other countries may not like specific features of America’s ideological commitment to democracy, open markets, and the globalization of the world system, but alternative worldviews are not yet in sight. No other state offers a vision of world order that would facilitate the creation of a counter-American global coalition. Fourth, the recent exercise of American military power – in Afghanistan and Iraq – has shown the world how extraordinary and effective that power is. In effect, the exercise of power has created even more power – or at least revealed that power to the world. The United States can take down entire regimes without sustaining high costs of manpower or national treasure. The cost of war has gone down, particular in the areas where war is most likely. This expands the realms in which American military power can be projected. The inability of other great powers to do the same further intensifies the power disparities. Finally, although the Cold War is over, the American system of client states and security ties is still in place across Europe and East Asia. Many of these security protection agreements grew out of the bipolar struggle with the Soviet Union, but they were not disassembled with the collapse of the Soviet Union. This means that there is an entire global system of formal and informal security ties that continue to make states dependent on the United States for protection. These states – who exist in all regions of the world – have reasons to remain tied to the United States. There are no good substitutes for military junior partnership. Japan is a good example. It may not like to be so tied to the United States for security protection but it is in a security box. All the other alternatives are more risky and costly. This legacy of the Cold War reinforces the structure of hierarchy inherent in a unipolar order.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Counter-Balancing Won’t Happen Counter-balancing will never happen and is counterproductive for other countries G. John Ikenberry, IR professor at Georgetown University, 4/28/2003, “Strategic Reactions to American Preeminence: Great Power Politics in the Age of Unipolarity” The first facet of American power is its traditional power assets – material capabilities that allow it to pursue its objective and get other states to go along with it. One aspect of material capabilities is the sheer size of the American military establishment. As mentioned earlier, American military expenditures are greater than the next fourteen countries combined – and if current trends continue, the United States military expenditures will be equal to the rest of the world combined by 2007. The advanced technological character of much of this military power makes this power disparity even greater. This mass of military power makes it difficult if not impossible for a group of states to develop capabilities that could balance or counter the United States. But other considerations further increase the difficulties of organizing a counter-balancing coalition. First, there are collective action problems. States might like to see the formation of a counter-unipolar coalition but they would prefer other states do the work of organizing it and covering its costs. This is the problem of “buck passing” – the collective action problem that makes it less likely that a coalition will form. There is also the problem of regional blocking problems. If particular great powers do decide to amass greater military power to challenge the United States, other major states in their region are likely to be threatened by this move and challenge it. For example, if Japan were to undertake military mobilization to counter the United States, it would find a hostile East Asian neighborhood awaited it. These considerations make counter-balancing unlikely. 5[5] Other material power assets also work to America’s advantage – namely, security protection, markets, and nuclear weapons. Alliance security protection that the United States has the capacity to extend to states in all four corners of the world provides a positive incentive to cooperate with the United States. This incentive is of two sorts. One is simply that American security protection reduces the resources that these countries would otherwise need to generate to cover their own protection. It is a cost-effective way to deal with the elemental problem of national security. If it means working with the United States and not offering opposition to it, the forgoing of this option of opposition is a cost that is more than compensated by the value of the security protection itself. The second benefit of security protection, at least for some states, it that it means that these states won’t need to face the regional challenges that might come if they provided for their own security. Germany and Japan are the best examples of this. By positioning themselves under the American security umbrella, Germany and Japan were able to reassure their worried neighbors that they would not become future security threats to their respective regions. The United States is able to provide security to so many countries because it has the economic and military capabilities to do so on a worldwide basis. Indeed, it might well be that economies of scale exist for a versatile and high-tech military power such as the United States.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Hegemony Solves EU CB and NATO US hegemony prevents EU counter-balancing and saves NATO. Christopher Layne, Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University, 6/1/2008, “It's Over, Over There: The Coming Crack-up in Transatlantic Relations” The United States is determined to maintain its regional hegemony in Europe, and thus to keep NATO intact, in order to prevent the EU from emerging as a rival pole of power in the international system. However, US strategy has changed subtly. During the Cold War, the US needed large numbers of troops in Western Europe to keep the Europeans from being at each other's throats; contain Germany; deter the Soviet Union; and prevent Western Europe from developing the capabilities to act autonomously in the realms of foreign and security policy. One might term the US strategic role in Europe during this period as one of 'positive hegemony.' Today, however, although the American goal of preventing the emergence of an independent pole of power on the Continent has remained constant, the means of attaining it have changed. The US no longer deems it necessary to maintain a huge military presence on the Continent to control Europe. Instead of positive hegemony, the United States has now embraced a policy of negative hegemony.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Must Increase Hegemony Now US must end proliferation now, we are on the brink of nuclear attacks Shultz et al., George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger, and Sam Nunn, Mr. Shultz, a distinguished fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford, was secretary of state from 1982 to 1989. Mr. Perry was secretary of defense from 1994 to 1997. Mr. Kissinger, chairman of Kissinger Associates, was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977. Mr. Nunn is former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 1/4/2007, “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons”, Published in the Wall Street Journal. North Korea’s recent nuclear test and Iran’s refusal to stop its program to enrich uranium—potentially to weapons grade—highlight the fact that the world is now on the precipice of a new and dangerous nuclear era. Most alarmingly, the likelihood that non-state terrorists will get their hands on nuclear weaponry is increasing. In today’s war waged on world order by terrorists, nuclear weapons are the ultimate means of mass devastation. And non-state terrorist groups with nuclear weapons are conceptually outside the bounds of a deterrent strategy and present difficult new security challenges. Apart from the terrorist threat, unless urgent new actions are taken, the U.S. soon will be compelled to enter a new nuclear era that will be more precarious, psychologically disorienting, and economically even more costly than was Cold War deterrence. It is far from certain that we can successfully replicate the old SovietAmerican “mutually assured destruction” with an increasing number of potential nuclear enemies worldwide without dramatically increasing the risk that nuclear weapons will be used. New nuclear states do not have the benefit of years of step-by-step safeguards put in effect during the Cold War to prevent nuclear accidents, misjudgments, or unauthorized launches. The United States and the Soviet Union learned from mistakes that were less than fatal. Both countries were diligent to ensure that no nuclear weapon was used during the Cold War, by design or by accident. Will new nuclear nations and the world be as fortunate in the next 50 years as we were during the Cold War?

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Addressing Climate Solves Hegemony Addressing climate change restores US hegemony. Washington Quarterly, publication concerning United States actions past, present, and future, 4/1/2008 “Real Leaders Do Soft Power: Learning the Lessons of Iraq” Second, Washington can restore the legitimacy of U.S. leadership by showing a greater willingness to take into account the views of its necessary partners. The administration’s about-face on North Korea and Iran and support for global initiatives on HIV/AIDS and malaria are valuable steps in the right direction. Yet, more could be done, starting with a leadership role in addressing climate change, supporting the International Criminal Court, and reducing the salience of nuclear weapons in U.S. strategy to bolster the flagging nonproliferation regime. The United States has a unique capacity to foster peace and stability in the world, but its unique role and capabilities do not justify an unconstrained version of U.S. exceptionalism. If the United States wants others to live by the rules and be “responsible global stakeholders,” it must accept the need to do the same.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Hegemony Good Impacts – Indonesia Add-On Hegemony solves Indonesian economy and prevents instability. John T. Dori, former Research Associate in The Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation, 2006, “Indonesia's Economic and Political Crisis: A Challenge for U.S. Leadership in Asia” Indonesia's present economic and political crisis presents a key challenge to U.S. leadership in Asia. Indonesia has been devastated by an economic crisis comparable to the U.S. Great Depression. At the same time, Indonesia is beginning a political reform process that many Indonesians hope will reverse the effects of years of strict political authoritarianism and economic autocracy. By offering targeted assistance, the United States can help Indonesians to emerge from their crisis and perhaps to build the world's third-largest democracy. By helping in Indonesia's economic recovery, the United States can lessen the impact of Asia's economic crisis on the U.S. economy. Although offering humanitarian food assistance and necessary economic advice to prevent a second Indonesian political crisis, the United States also should encourage Indonesians to consolidate free-market economic reforms that promote transparency in the financial sector and reduce the government's role in the economy. The United States also can offer advice to help new political parties to learn democratic skills. Just as important, it should rebuild ties to Indonesia's military as it promotes reform in that institution.

Indonesia key to US security John T. Dori, former Research Associate in The Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation, 2006, “Indonesia's Economic and Political Crisis: A Challenge for U.S. Leadership in Asia” Indonesia is important as well to the security of the United States. Indonesia sits astride strategic sea lanes connecting the Indian and Pacific Oceans through which passes 40 percent of the world's shipping, including 80 percent of Japan's oil supply and 70 percent of South Korea's. Indonesia has been suspicious of China's intentions in the region and has worked within ASEAN to convince China to modify its claims to most of the South China Sea. In recent years, the United States and Indonesia have affirmed their interest in regional security by engaging in military exercises, some in Australia. And, as the world's largest Muslim state, Indonesia has been a welcome moderating force in the Islamic world. The United States should champion reforms that revive Indonesia's economy and encourage its transition to a democratic political system.

Indonesia on the brink now. John T. Dori, former Research Associate in The Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation, 2006, “Indonesia's Economic and Political Crisis: A Challenge for U.S. Leadership in Asia” But the current calm could prove illusory. Predictions of dire food shortages as early as this fall raise the prospect of renewed violence and rioting that could lead to a second Indonesian political crisis. The United States should do what it can to help Indonesia to avoid further economic dislocation and violence, and to safeguard and advance the tentative steps toward economic and political reform that have been made since President Suharto's ouster.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Hegemony Good Impacts – Climate Solvency Hegemony is key to global climate change solvency. Lynn M. Wagner, editor for the International Institute for Sustainable Development's Reporting Services (IISD RS) Division, 2008, “Identifying US Preferences and a Way Forward in the Ozone, Climate and Forests Regimes” The three books demonstrate the importance of norm entrepreneurs and leaders for effective international environmental policy. Hoffmann's computer simulation indicates that a norm entrepreneur who only reaches 30 percent of agents can still produce an outcome in which 70 percent of agents accept the norm. Hoffmann also suggests that a hegemon may act as a norm entrepreneur, although he finds that US entrepreneurial activity on climate change has caused instability in the global governance of climate change. Davenport presents suggestions for how the willingness of the United States to take on a leadership role could be increased. Could the same actions increase US willingness to change its entrepreneurial activity? Humphreys' proposal to negotiate a convention on transnational corporations would benefit from consideration of what would be involved for a norm entrepreneur or leading state to take it up. He suggests that the very "revitalization of the charter as an active instrument for accountability will stimulate citizen [End Page 141] engagement and participatory democracy" (p. 231), although Hoffmann's simulation on norm creation suggests that the first step should come from a norm entrepreneur. Similarly, Davenport suggests that, under current circumstances, US leadership is required for effective agreements to emerge. What would need to precede the development of a charter to ensure that it would have US support? The case studies presented in these three books illustrate the difficulties in assessing costs, benefits and underlying norms for the negotiator and analyst alike, but they also indicate that that they do change. The negotiators' changing positions in international talks about ozone depletion, climate change and forests are admirably charted and analyzed in these three books, and point to potential actions and some hope for those who would like see the development of effective environmental policies.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Hegemony Good Impacts – Proliferation Hegemony key to stop proliferation Shultz et al., George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger, and Sam Nunn, Mr. Shultz, a distinguished fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford, was secretary of state from 1982 to 1989. Mr. Perry was secretary of defense from 1994 to 1997. Mr. Kissinger, chairman of Kissinger Associates, was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977. Mr. Nunn is former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 1/4/2007, “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons”, Published in the Wall Street Journal. Nuclear weapons today present tremendous dangers, but also an historic opportunity. U.S. leadership will be required to take the world to the next stage—to a solid consensus for reversing reliance on nuclear weapons globally as a vital contribution to preventing their proliferation into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world. Nuclear weapons were essential to maintaining international security during the Cold War because they were a means of deterrence. The end of the Cold War made the doctrine of mutual Soviet-American deterrence obsolete. Deterrence continues to be a relevant consideration for many states with regard to threats from other states. But reliance on nuclear weapons for this purpose is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Hegemony Good Impacts – NATO US leadership is key to NATO and EU security. Richard Holbrooke and Ronald D. Asmus, Richard Holbrooke, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Ronald D. Asmus is executive director of the German Marshall Fund's Transatlantic Center in Brussels. 3/14/2006, “Next Step for NATO”, published in the Washington Post. In the new global security environment, NATO has to address the gravest threats to its members' collective security. But now those threats come thousands of miles from the European heartland, not just a few yards away on the East Berlin side of Checkpoint Charlie. If NATO does not take on more of these problems, we will all be less safe, and the alliance will again risk becoming irrelevant. This does not mean that NATO should, or could, become a globo-cop; not every security problem in the world is of direct concern to NATO, and not every issue can be solved by it. Nor is this a call for a new age of Western imperialism; we are talking here of dealing with issues of national security vital to all NATO members -- issues that happen to lie outside NATO's traditional area of concern but on which NATO can make a difference. In fact, NATO has put its toe in some global waters by (belatedly) taking over a major mission in Afghanistan authorized by the United Nations, starting a modest training mission for Iraq, flying relief missions to the earthquake zone in Pakistan, and beginning (again, belatedly) to discuss a significant, U.N.-authorized role in Darfur. These are all commendable actions, but NATO has not yet crossed the Rubicon and explicitly embraced a more global mission. Each individual NATO action thus becomes the arena for an internal battle royal. It is time for a formal policy decision, which should be made soon and then announced at the NATO summit eight months from now in Riga, Latvia. For NATO to make this mission leap, there must be real European support and effective U.S. leadership. In principle, a more global NATO would pursue precisely the kind of goals embraced in Europe's own security strategy. Defending Europe by dealing with these new threats is a core European -- and U.S.-Canadian -foreign policy objective. A case in point is Iran, where policy is now weakened because it is divided among several institutions, no single one of which contains all the Western nations whose security is endangered by Tehran's nuclear program. It should be stressed in this regard that involving NATO does not necessarily mean military action; it means, however, a seriousness of diplomatic and political purpose backed by the threat of collective action.

US hegemony key to NATO. Christopher Layne, Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University, 6/1/2008, “It's Over, Over There: The Coming Crack-up in Transatlantic Relations” This article is structured as follows. First, I discuss the historical roots of the current tensions in transatlantic relations. Second, I argue that the real source of transatlantic conflict is America's role as a global — and European — hegemon, and the concomitant gap in hard-power capabilities between the United States and Europe. Third, I show that, although US primacy is the major cause of transatlantic friction, the very fact of American hegemony is what explains why NATO still is in business more than a decade after the Cold War's end. I conclude that, although NATO essentially is obsolete as a military alliance, US power will not be retracted from Europe any time soon. As long as there is a consensus among the American foreign policy elite that the US should be a global hegemon NATO will continue to be perceived as an indispensable instrument both of US geopolitical preeminence, and America's containment of European power.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Hegemony Good Impacts – UN, genocide, security, proliferation US leadership key to the UN and solving genocide, proliferation, and US security. Linda S. Jamison, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, 4/5/2007, “Leadership vs. Stewardship: Advice for the New UN Ambassador” The United Nations is the most successful international institution ever established, and that stature has allowed the international body to set norms and standards of international behavior that one country could never impose on its own. The 62-year history of the United Nations has proven that shaming human rights abusers, curbing weapons proliferation, stopping genocide, conducting peacekeeping, and mitigating conflict are best done when the world stands together, even when the outcome is insufficient or the problem goes unsolved. The United Nations was never intended to solve the world’s problems. It was envisioned as a mechanism to manage and mitigate conflict by providing a forum for dialogue to save the world from catastrophe. But regardless of any successes that the United Nations has had over the years, it needs the might and will of the world’s superpower behind it — at every level. The United Nations needs U.S. leadership in order to be a more effective body, and the United States needs the United Nations to help counter violence and threats to peace. No degree of raw power can ever substitute for the agility of leadership and the ability to bring the world together for the greater good of humanity.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Hegemony Good Impacts – Middle East US leadership causes Middle Eastern peace. Daniel C. Kurtzer, S. Daniel Abraham Visiting Professor of Middle East Policy Studies at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Aªairs, served as U.S. Ambassador to Egypt from 1997 to 2001 and U.S. Ambassador to Israel from 2001 to 2005, August 2008, Shortsighted Statecraft Washington's Muddled Middle East Policy Strong U.S. leadership in the Arab-Israeli peace process can make a difference. A coherent strategy in Iraq can be formulated so as to disengage and withdraw U.S. forces, instead of pursuing the illusion of a "victory" that remains undefined after more than five years of war. And although engagement with Iran will not instantly end Tehran's nuclear ambitions and ongoing support of terrorism, it is surely preferable to waiting until military action becomes the only option available. Smart, sustained diplomatic engagement may make the challenge of choosing enemies -- and bolstering ties with friends -- much easier for the next president.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Hegemony Good Impacts – China Collapse of US leadership causes US-Sino military conflict. Flynt Leverett and Jeffrey Bader, Flynt Leverett is a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at The Brookings Institution. Jeffrey Bader is director of the Brookings China Initiative, 2006 “Managing China-U.S. Energy Competition in the Middle East” The bid by the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) to acquire Unocal earlier this year triggered not only a hostile reaction in the U.S. Congress but also growing interest and debate within the foreign policy community about the rapid growth in China’s energy demand and the prospect for competition between the United States and China for access to global oil and gas resources.1 Henry Kissinger has gone so far as to argue that competition over hydrocarbon resources will be the most likely cause for international conflict in coming years. China’s hunt for oil is clearly influencing its foreign policy toward its neighbors, such as Russia, Japan, and the Central Asian states, and toward regions as far afield as sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America.3 As China seeks access to global energy resources, its status as a rising power is already enabling it to exercise influence in ways that make it more difficult for the United States and the West to achieve their goals on a number of issues. The potentially explosive combination of a China less willing to passively accept U.S. leadership and the prospect of competition between China and other states for control over vital energy resources poses particularly critical challenges to U.S. interests in the Middle East. Chinese engagement in the Middle East has expanded economically, politically, and strategically over the last several years. Since the late 1990s, Beijing’s policies toward the region have been closely linked to the objectives of the three major, state-owned Chinese energy companies—the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), the China National Petrochemical Corporation (Sinopec), and CNOOC—to seek access to Middle Eastern oil and gas, frequently on an exclusive basis. Since 2002, the Middle East has become the leading arena for Beijing’s efforts to secure effective ownership of critical hydrocarbon resources, rather than relying solely on international markets to meet China’s energy import needs. There is every reason to anticipate that China will continue and even intensify its emphasis on the Middle East as part of its energy security strategy. China will likely keep working to expand its ties to the region’s energy exporters over the next several years to ensure that it is not disadvantaged relative to other foreign customers and to maximize its access to hydrocarbon resources under any foreseeable circumstances, including possible military conflict with the United States. It seems doubtful that Chinese energy companies’ fledgling efforts to lock up petroleum resources will succeed in keeping a critical mass of oil reserves off an increasingly integrated and fluid global oil market. Nevertheless, China’s search for oil is making it a new competitor to the United States for influence in the Middle East. If not managed prudently, this competition will generate multiple points of bilateral friction and damage U.S. strategic interests in the region.

US leadership on climate key to US-Sino relations Elizabeth C. Economy, C. V. Starr Senior Fellow and Director for Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, 10/2007, “The Great Leap Backward?”. Given this reality, the United States -- and the rest of the world -- will have to get much smarter about how to cooperate with China in order to assist its environmental protection efforts. Above all, the United States must devise a limited and coherent set of priorities. China's needs are vast, but its capacity is poor; therefore, launching one or two significant initiatives over the next five to ten years would do more good than a vast array of uncoordinated projects. These endeavors could focus on discrete issues, such as climate change or the illegal timber trade; institutional changes, such as strengthening the legal system in regard to China's environmental protection efforts; or broad reforms, such as promoting energy efficiency throughout the Chinese economy. Another key to an effective U.S.-Chinese partnership is U.S. leadership. Although U.S. NGOs and U.S.-based MNCs are often at the forefront of environmental policy and technological innovation, the U.S. government itself is not a world leader on key environmental concerns. Unless the United States improves its own policies and practices on, for example, climate change, the illegal timber trade, and energy efficiency, it will have little credibility or leverage to push China

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Hegemony Good Impacts – China Brink US-Sino relations are strained now. Maryann Kelton, professor at the School of Political and International Studies, University of Flinders, 2008, “US Economic Statecraft in East Asia” There are those in Congress, however, who do not share the same sanguine view. Testimony provided during the 2005 Congressional Armed Services Committee revealed the depth of fear derived from Chinese expansion (US House Armed Services Committee, 2005). This was reinforced later in the year by the Pentagon's annual report assessing Chinese military expansion. Reputedly, this report was delayed by some four months as the State and Defense Departments debated the assessment. Though State argued for a more benign interpretation, the Pentagon promoted a more threatening analysis. Clearly, the hawks in the administration had bought into an analysis that played on the development of China's nuclear arsenal and the accumulation of missiles that could target the majority of the US mainland. More broadly, Kurt Campbell interpreted the change ominously: I think we will look back on 2001–04 as the high point in US-Sino relations. We are entering a new period where trade tensions, macro-economic disputes and strategic worries are animating the larger picture

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Hegemony Good Impacts – ASEAN 1/2 US hegemony trades off with China in ASEAN countries, leadership key to security and economic interests. Maryann Kelton, professor at the School of Political and International Studies, University of Flinders, 2008, “US Economic Statecraft in East Asia” The recurring pattern of US interest in establishing preferential trade agreements in the Asia Pacific region is, where possible, to overlay trade agreements upon the established system of security arrangements. The overarching purpose of the economic and security linkage is to shore up US engagement in a region where China is regarded, particularly by the Pentagon, as an increasing threat to US hegemony. It is a method by which the US can reinforce its dominance as the hub of both security and economic arrangements. As FTA negotiations are subject to political and bureaucratic influences, where the domestic elite value US relations over any Congressional attempt to exacerbate the US gains in an agreement, the FTA will most likely be signed. Thus, for the US linkage strategy to be set in place, the regional domestic elite payoffs must be perceived as significant enough to override any losses sustained through a separate neo-mercantilist agenda.

US leadership and action key to maintaining ASEAN relations and solve security issues – economic ties. Maryann Kelton, professor at the School of Political and International Studies, University of Flinders, 2008, “US Economic Statecraft in East Asia” The US is aware that China has already signed an agreement with ASEAN that aims to create free trade by 2010. ASEAN countries are keen to ensure that their specialized high-end manufactures have assured and established markets in China prior to the internationalization of local Chinese products. With increasing skill development with also a commensurate rise in labor costs ASEAN countries need to ensure preferential access to Chinese markets as early as possible. Although some of the ASEAN states experienced their highest growth in Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in 2004, both China (with US$72 billion) and Hong Kong remained as the largest and second largest recipients of FDI. ASEAN thus has a particular interest in fostering its associations with the US as it competes with China (and increasingly India) in this marketplace. Specifically, it has interests in liberalizing its domestic economy and taxation regulations in raising its magnetism for US FDI. For ASEAN, the necessity for a rapid recovery to the Asian Financial Crisis also heightened the FDI imperative and sharpened ASEAN's interest in trade agreements with the US. Responding to questions regarding the competition for influence in Southeast Asia and an appropriate US response to Chinese clout in the region, the USTR argued that the US ‘should be active in our own right. Our response to others’ activism should be activism, not negativism'. US relations with Malaysia demonstrate the extent to which the US has prioritized its anti-terrorism agenda and its preparedness to use its economic statecraft to serve those ends. US–Malaysian relations have endured a roller coaster ride over the past decade. Tensions relaxed after early support for the US post-September 11; however, they were revived after the US invasion of Iraq. Malaysia perceived the US operations as damaging to normative behavior in international system and as an assault against Muslims. However, Malaysia has actively cooperated with the US in the apprehension of alleged Islamic extremists and suspects in nuclear proliferation networks. Consequently, the US remains prepared to weather criticisms over its defense policy in order to retain Malaysian cooperation in anti-terrorist activities. Integral in maintaining this level of Malaysian support has been continued US attention to trade matters. The US signed off on TIFA arrangements in 2004 and launched FTA negotiations in March 2006. The US remains Malaysia's largest single country export market with export increases of 5.3% recorded in 2006. The US is the fourth largest investor in Malaysia and its trade deficit since 1992 endures.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Hegemony Good Impacts – ASEAN 2/2 US leadership tied to ASEAN states combating terrorism, WMD, proliferation, and economic collapse. Maryann Kelton, professor at the School of Political and International Studies, University of Flinders, 2008, “US Economic Statecraft in East Asia” Coupled with these twin processes, the rise of fundamentalist terrorist networks with destructive intent beyond local concerns is of increasing disquiet in the US. These non-conventional and transnational groups operating within the region present an increasing threat to the US. US military presence in the Middle East, regarded as both a slur against sovereignty and religion for some Islamic radical and political groups, is being utilized as a recruiting force in Southeast Asia. Where in the past local groups, such as those insurgent clusters with secessionist interests in The Philippines and Southern Thailand, may have operated in isolation there are escalating fears that these groups are being infiltrated by those with grander intent (Wright-Neville, 2006). Terrorist bombings on western targets in the Balinese resorts of Jimbaran Bay in October 2005 following on from previous attacks in Bali, the Jakarta Mariott, and Kuningan bombings stand as testimony to the capacity of local networks to inflict violence within the region. Moreover, there exist mounting fears in Washington that the next major attack on the US may originate in Southeast Asia (Dibb, 2006). Thus, the region assumes greater prominence for the US. Accordingly, Philip Crane, Chair of the US House of Representatives Subcommittee on Trade, stated that: the importance of the ASEAN region to American political, economic and security is increasing. US policy must continue to recognize our growing interests in the region, and do more to expand our engagement of ASEAN and its member nations (Crane, 2003). Shortly after her appointment with USTR, Schwab confirmed that Southeast Asia remained a ‘top priority’ for both economic and strategic reasons (Office of the USTR, 2006c). Acknowledgement of this importance had previously been reflected in the US Enterprise for ASEAN Initiative (EAI) and the ASEAN Cooperation Plan (ACP) in 2002, which aimed to facilitate greater cooperation between the US and the ASEAN states. Two-way trade amounted to US$120 billion and ASEAN collectively was the US' fifth largest trading partner. In particular, these agreements aimed to improve trade and investment flows between the two groups. Initially, the EAI plan embodied proposals to allow individual ASEAN states to develop TIFA arrangements and then eventually FTAs. The US also assisted Cambodia with accession to the WTO (a prerequisite for an FTA with the US) and signaled its willingness to aid Laos and Vietnam in this process. Opportunity was provided for the ASEAN states to act individually in the negotiation of agreements. Already in place were TIFA agreements signed with The Philippines, Thailand, and Indonesia, and by May 2003, the ‘model’ FTA with Singapore was signed (US Department of State, 2002b). By August 2006, the US and ASEAN had agreed to a ‘Joint Vision Statement on the Enhanced Partnership’ not only to strengthen the EAI but to cooperate more closely on transnational security threats which included terrorism, WMD (weapons of mass destruction) proliferation, drug trafficking, and illegal migration (Office of the USTR, 2007). Moreover, that a number of ASEAN states oversee the security of crucial sea-lanes including the Straits of Malacca intensifies the magnitude of the security agenda. The US administration has thus argued that a strong US–ASEAN relationship ‘is a force for stability and development in the Southeast Asian region’ (US Department of State, 2002a).

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Multipolarity now Multipolarity NOW. Parag Khanna, senior research fellow in the American Strategy Program of the New America Foundation., 1/27/2008, “Hegemony is a Thing of the Past: Waving Goodbye to Hegemony”, published in the New York Times At best, America’s unipolar moment lasted through the 1990s, but that was also a decade adrift. The post-cold-war “peace dividend” was never converted into a global liberal order under American leadership. So now, rather than bestriding the globe, we are competing — and losing — in a geopolitical marketplace alongside the world’s other superpowers: the European Union and China. This is geopolitics in the 21st century: the new Big Three. Not Russia, an increasingly depopulated expanse run by Gazprom.gov; not an incoherent Islam embroiled in internal wars; and not India, lagging decades behind China in both development and strategic appetite. The Big Three make the rules — their own rules — without any one of them dominating. And the others are left to choose their suitors in this post-American world. The more we appreciate the differences among the American, European and Chinese worldviews, the more we will see the planetary stakes of the new global game. Previous eras of balance of power have been among European powers sharing a common culture. The cold war, too, was not truly an “East-West” struggle; it remained essentially a contest over Europe. What we have today, for the first time in history, is a global, multi-civilizational, multi-polar battle.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Multipolarity Inevitable Multipolarity is inevitable – US acceptance of it allows for primacy in the multipolar system William Thomas Allison, professor at the Australian Defence Force Academy, 9/24/2007, “Primacy and the Unipolar Moment The Debate over American Power in an Asymmetrical World” as published in the Australian Army Journal Christopher Layne offers an intriguing alternative to hard-power and soft-power counter-balancing. In what he terms ‘leash-slipping’, Layne suggests that US hard- power is a ‘non-existential’ threat to the autonomy and interest of other powers. Other powers see US hegemony as a real threat to their security interests. Moreover, Layne holds that traditional balance-of-power politics is still alive and well, and because of this other powers will act to counter-balance the hegemon regardless of the nature of the hegemonic threat. In order to obtain the ability to act independent of the United States to pursue security objectives, other powers must build up military capabilities to act regionally without the need or behest of the United States. As more states attain such capability, they can more easily ‘slip free of the hegemon’s leash-like grip and compel the United States to respect their foreign policy interests’. For Layne, ‘leash-slipping’ is not a hard-power counter to US power because it is does not counter an ‘existential’ threat. Layne argues that successful ‘leash-slipping’ would restore a multipolar system and bring the brief American unipolar moment to an end. However, the United States can stave off this counter-balancing by adopting ‘an offshore strategy of self restraint’. In order to lessen the fear of American power, the United States will have to restrain its use of military force, accommodate the ‘rise of new great powers, and abandon the myth that American national security is dependent upon a globalised image of itself for the traditional metrics of great power grand strategy’. Thus, accepting a multipolar system, unilaterally practicing ideological restraint, and depending less upon unilateral use of force—offshore balancing—will perhaps ensure US primacy in a more accommodating multipolar system

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Multipolarity Inevitable Multi-polarity is inevitable – India, China, Japan and regional powers will counter-balance. William Thomas Allison, professor at the Australian Defence Force Academy, 9/24/2007, “Primacy and the Unipolar Moment: The Debate over American Power in an Asymmetrical World” as published in the Australian Army Journal So, if the United States does not speak for the international community even though it says it does, is not then the United States a rogue state? Or, as Huntington suggests, a rogue superpower? While many would not consider the United States a military threat to their national existence, they do see the United States, in Huntington’s words, as ‘a menace to their integrity, autonomy, prosperity, and freedom of action’. The major powers view the United States as ‘intrusive, inter- ventionist, exploitive, unilateralist, hegemonic, hypocritical, and applying double standards’, and using financial, cultural, and intellectual imperialism to pursue its own goals while stifling those of the major powers. The world’s business is US business. Thus, for a major power like India, the United States has the capability to veto or at least bring together enough international pressure to prevent India from pursuing any number of regional and international strategies. For India, the United States is a political and diplomatic threat, as it is for China, Russia, Japan, and the regional powers of the Middle East. 9 Around the same time as Huntington proposed the uni-multipolar system as a more accurate view of the new world order, Coral Bell took Krauthammer’s unipolar concept even further, suggesting that the ‘unipolar moment’of American power will last at least another four decades—much longer than a ‘moment’. For Bell, the gap that US peer competitors had to overcome to transform the unipolar system into a multipolar system is currently insurmountable. For a major power such as China, Russia, or Europe to challenge American supremacy, many diverse obstacles would have to be overcome. In fact, for Bell, multipolarism may not be the best option in the long run. A return to a bipolar system with either China or Russia as the balancing superpower is much more likely. Like Krauthammer, Bell points to the United States preference for apparent multilateralism in the way the United States approaches its unipolar vision: ‘The unipolar world should be run as if it were a concert of powers’. The postSecond World War, US-made organisations now must be used to at least give the appearance of multilateralism and legitimacy to US action. Witness using the United Nations Security Council to impose sanctions or condemn the action of another major power. It helps ease the burden of the unilateralist impulse to use multilateral organisations to put the stamp of international legitimacy on US-desired action. Thus, the United States uses the pretence of concert as part of its unipolar strategy. Lately, the United States seems to be doing this quite poorly.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Multipolarity Inevitable Multi-polarity and the collapse of hegemony inevitable. Parag Khanna, senior research fellow in the American Strategy Program of the New America Foundation., 1/27/2008, “Hegemony is a Thing of the Past: Waving Goodbye to Hegemony”, published in the New York Times It is 2016, and the Hillary Clinton or John McCain or Barack Obama administration is nearing the end of its second term. America has pulled out of Iraq but has about 20,000 troops in the independent state of Kurdistan, as well as warships anchored at Bahrain and an Air Force presence in Qatar. Afghanistan is stable; Iran is nuclear. China has absorbed Taiwan and is steadily increasing its naval presence around the Pacific Rim and, from the Pakistani port of Gwadar, on the Arabian Sea. The European Union has expanded to well over 30 members and has secure oil and gas flows from North Africa, Russia and the Caspian Sea, as well as substantial nuclear energy. America’s standing in the world remains in steady decline. Why? Weren’t we supposed to reconnect with the United Nations and reaffirm to the world that America can, and should, lead it to collective security and prosperity? Indeed, improvements to America’s image may or may not occur, but either way, they mean little. Condoleezza Rice has said America has no “permanent enemies,” but it has no permanent friends either. Many saw the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as the symbols of a global American imperialism; in fact, they were signs of imperial overstretch. Every expenditure has weakened America’s armed forces, and each assertion of power has awakened resistance in the form of terrorist networks, insurgent groups and “asymmetric” weapons like suicide bombers. America’s unipolar moment has inspired diplomatic and financial counter movements to block American bullying and construct an alternate world order. That new global order has arrived, and there is precious little Clinton or McCain or Obama could do to resist its growth.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

EU will counter-balance EU will counter-balance US hegemony. Christopher Layne, Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University, 6/1/2008, “It's Over, Over There: The Coming Crack-up in Transatlantic Relations” Three considerations predict that the EU will counter-balance the US in coming years. First, EU military capabilities constitute a hedge against future American policies. Although 'the US may be a benign hegemon today, there is no reason to assume it will always be so' (Posen, 2004, 9). Second, Europe is concerned about how its overall political and economic position in the international system is affected by American power (Art, 2004, 180). Indeed, there is 'a growing sense among many Europeans that the current and deeply uneven distribution of power leaves them far too dependent on an America whose views on world politics it does not necessarily share' (Cox, 2005, 226). Third, by investing itself with the capability to act autonomously of the United States in the realm of security, the European Union can also gain bargaining power to force the US to respect European interests abroad rather than running roughshod over them. As Barry Posen (2004, 9) has said, the EU's drive to build-up its own military capabilities is consistent with the expectation that in a unipolar world, those actors that can do so 'will at a minimum act to buffer themselves against the caprices of the US and will try to carve out the ability to act autonomously should it become necessary.' If the EU's drive to gain military independence from Washington through the European Security and Defence Policy (EDSP) is successful, the result would be the creation of a new pole of power in the international system which would (along China's rise) restore multipolarity — and bring American hegemony to an end.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Hegemony Inevitable Hegemony is inevitable – soft power uncontestable Josef Joffe, fellow for Centre for Independent Studies, 8/5/2005, “Gulliver Unbound: Can America Rule the World?” Nonetheless, history and theory suggest that this cannot last. In the international system, power will always beget counter-power, usually by way of coalitions and alliances among the lesser players, and ultimately war, as in the cases of Napoleon, Wilhelm II. and Adolf I. Has this game already begun? The answer is 'no, but…'. It is 'no' for two reasons. First, America irks and domineers, but it does not conquer. It tries to call the shots and bend the rules, but it does not go to war for land and glory. Maybe, America was simply lucky. Its 'empire' was at home, between the Appalachians and the Pacific, and its enemies-Indians and Mexicans-easily bested. The last time the US actually did conquer was in the Philippines and Cuba a hundred years ago. This is a critical departure from traditional great power behaviour. For the balance-of-power machinery to crank up, it makes a difference whether the others face a usually placid elephant or an aggressive T. rex. Rapacious powers are more likely to trigger hostile coalitions than nations that contain themselves, so to speak. And when the U.S. attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, it was not exactly invading an innocent like Belgium. Nonetheless, Mr. Big is no pussycat, and he does throw his weight around. Why is it so hard to balance against him? My answer: Counter-aggregations do not deal very well with the postmodern nature of power. Let's make no mistake about it. 'Hard' power-men and missiles, guns and ships-still counts. It remains the ultimate, because existential, currency of power. But on the day-to-day transaction level, 'soft power' is the more interesting coinage. It is 'less coercive and less tangible'. It grows out of 'the attraction of one's ideas. It has to do with 'agenda setting', with 'ideology' and 'institutions', and with holding out big prizes for cooperation, such as the vastness and sophistication of one's market. 'Soft power' is cultural-economic power, and very different from its military kin. The US has the most sophisticated army in the world. But it is in a class of its own in the soft-power game. On that table, none of the others can match America's pile of chips; it is American books and movies, universities and research labs, American tastes high and low that predominate in the global market. This type of power-a culture that radiates outward and a market that draws inward-rests on pull, not on push; on acceptance, not on imposition. Nor do the many outweigh the one. In this arena, Europe, Japan, China and Russia cannot meaningfully 'gang up' on the US like in an alliance of yore. All of their movie studios together could not break Hollywood's hold because if size mattered, India, with the largest movie output in the world, would rule the roost. Nor could all their universities together dethrone Harvard and Stanford. For sheer numbers do not lure the best and the brightest from abroad who keep adding to the competitive advantage of America's top universities. Against soft power, aggregation does not work. How does one contain power that flows not from coercion but seduction? Might it work in the economic sphere? There is always the option of trading blocs-cumprotectionism. But would Europe (or China or Japan) forego the American market for the Russian one? Or would Europe seek solace in its vast internal market alone? If so, it would forgo the competitive pressures and the diffusion of technology that global markets provide. The future is mapped out by DaimlerChrysler, not by a latter-day 'European Co- Prosperity Sphere'. This is where the game has changed most profoundly. Its rivals would rather deal with America's 'soft power' by competition and imitation because the costs of economic warfare are too high-provided, of course, that strategic threats do not re-emerge. To best Gulliver, Europe et. al. must do their work-out at home.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Hegemony Turns Itself Hegemony creates the threats it tries to solve. Robert Jervis, Adlai E. Stevenson professor of International Politics at Columbia University, 2007, “The Remaking of the Unipolar World” as published in The Washington Quarterly. The U.S. position in the world is without precedent, but the basic impulses animating it are not. Having established order within its large sphere, a hegemon will find itself threatened by whatever is beyond its reach. The very extent of the hegemon’s influence means that all sorts of geographic and ideological disturbances can threaten it. Frontiers can be expanded, but doing so just recreates them. Despite the fact that or perhaps because it lacked what would now be referred to as peer competitors, the Roman empire was never able to establish stable frontiers, and although the United Kingdom in the nineteenth century was able to develop tolerable working relationships with European states, its empire expanded beyond the original intention in part because of the inability to control and limit its holdings in Africa and Asia. Having established trading outposts, it was driven to further expansion not only by competition with other European states, but by the difficulties of establishing local order.7 For the United States, the frontier is ideological rather than geographic, but the basic point is the same: preservation of a desirable and ordered zone requires taming or subduing areas and ideologies of potential disturbance. Hegemony thus also ironically magnifies the sense of threat. The very fact that the United States has interests throughout the world leads to the fear that undesired changes in one area could undermine its interests elsewhere. Most changes will harm the United States if they do not improve its situation. Furthermore, U.S. hegemony means that even those who share its values and interests have incentives to free ride on its efforts, knowing that Washington cannot shirk its role. Thus, although the United States has few intrinsic interests in the borderlands around China and Japan is strong enough to carry much of the weight in this region, U.S. fears about the rise of China follow a certain logic.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

T-Incentives Interpretation: Incentives are Financial Environment Canada, 2008-07-25 http://www.ec.gc.ca/cmap-cea/default.asp?lang=En&n=C7074DD7-1 For the purpose of the Credit for Early Action Program, a direct climate change incentive is defined as a financial contribution for the demonstration or implementation of a project. However, there are many programs that were not based on the provision of direct climate change incentives (e.g. loan guarantees, tax incentives, etc.), or that were not intended to directly result in reductions (e.g. research and development, feasibility study, efficiency audit, etc). Participation in these types of programs on its own would not make the action ineligible.

Violation—The aff makes it easier to get patents. That’s not a financial Incentive Standards: A. Limits—The neg provides the best limits for debate by limiting incentives to financial. The aff justifies ANYTHING that increases alternative energy, this unlimits the topic and destroys predictability. There is no way the negative can research so many affs destroying clash B. Bright line- the neg provides a strong brightline for what is and isn’t topical, the aff blurs this by allowing for so many cases. Strong brightlines are key to predictability and effective clash because they eliminate guess work we can know before the round what is and isn’t topical. And strong brightlines are a prerequisite to predictable limits Topicality is a voting issue for fairness and education

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

States CP: Feed in Tariff Solvency States use feed in tariffs now Renewable Energy World, 5/3/08 http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=51725 In a week of state action on feed-in tariffs, Rhode Island legislators have become the first on the east coast to launch debate on the policy. The tiny state's move could have a big impact on other states on America's eastern seaboard. Germany leads the world in wind and solar energy development as a result of its feed-in tariff policies. Recently, several states in America's heartland have introduced bills to replicate Germany's success. Minnesota has a long history of progressive public policy and HF 3537 follows that tradition. Rhode Island Representative Raymond Sullivan, Jr. (D-District 29) introduced H 7616 to create the Rhode Island Renewable Energy Sources Act Tuesday, February 26, 2008. The bill is co-sponsored by Representatives Patrick O`Neill (D-District 59), David Segal (D-District 2), Arthur Handy (D-District 18), and Thomas Winfield (D-District 53). O'Neill is Deputy Majority Leader. ".

States can reverse auction Reverse auctions made easy, 2005 http://www.reverseauctionsmadeeasy.com/detail.asp?Opt=Yellowie&PageCode=1090 All Branches of Government, Agencies, City and State governmental departments, as well as thousands of private sector businesses from around the world are reaping the benefits of reverse auctioning. In fact, many City and State governments have mandated the use of reverse auctions to achieve cost savings for their taxpayers and have changed their laws to allow for the use of such competitive bidding events.

States can provide electricity feed in tariffs-Minnesota proves New rules project, Minnesota Feed-In Tariff Could Lower Cost, Boost Renewables and Expand Local OwnershipJanuary 2008 http://www.newrules.org/de/feed-in-tariffs.pdf In Minnesota, the federal production tax credit, the state’s 1994 renewable electricity incentive, and the state’s community-based energy development (CBED) tariffs fostered an expansion of the wind industry, from 290 MW in 1999 to 900 MW in 2006, an 18% annual growth rate. As of November 2007, only a quarter of Minnesota’s wind capacity is majority locally-owned.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

States CP: Universities Solve University research solves innovation, especially well if patents aren’t in the way Kira R. Fabrizio, Emory University Business School, “Opening the Dam or Building Channels: University Patenting and the Use of Public Science in Industrial Innovation”, 1-30-06, http://gbspapers.library.emory.edu/archive/00000255/01/GBS-OM-2006-001.pdf Patenting a research result necessarily grants the assignee the right to exclude all others from the use of the patented invention. For upstream inventions, the primary use of which is as an input to other research, this exclusion presents the possibility of hampering the innovative performance of the downstream researchers. Cho, Illangasekare, Weaver, Leonard, and Merz (2003) report that more than half of laboratory directors interviewed reported deciding not to develop a clinical test due to upstream patents, often university patents. How restrictive the limitations on use are depend on the terms of the licenses made available and the ease with which a firm can negotiate a license. Due to the early-stage nature of many patented university research results and the desire to promote development, patented university research results are often licensed in a restrictive or exclusive manner, severely limiting the set of firms who can access and exploit the knowledge.8 Exclusivity may be necessary to provide incentives for the development of unproven, early-stage research by a firm. However, in many cases exclusivity or high licensing fees cut off avenues for research that would have been pursued with free access to the upstream innovation. As Colyvas, Crow, Gelijns, Mazzoleni, Nelson, Rosenberg, and Sampat (2002) state, “The uncertainty surrounding how embryonic inventions might develop, not only makes their development risky, but also makes it difficult to choose the ‘right’ licensee ex ante.” In some instances this acutely limits the downstream research performed by university and firm scientists. Jamey Marth, the University of California researcher who developed the research mouse so useful for gene function research, was prevented from sharing the mouse with other scientists in his own department because the University of California had not signed a license for use of the mouse with DuPont, which held the patent rights. Marth felt that the limitation on sharing the mouse slowed or halted the research of colleagues that were denied access (Allen, 1998).

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Private sector research key for alternative energy investments Barry Bozeman, Dan Sarewitz, Center for Science Policy and Outcomes October 18, 20 Public Failures and Short Time Horizons: Energy R&D.Human beings pay attention to unborn generations, but they do not doso out of economicrationality. Pricing will not account for consequences that areexpected to emerge in the distantfuture. Thus, there is clearly a public role in guaranteeing thelong-term perspective even if thereis no short-term market failure. This type of problem has emerged mostconspicuously in the areaof environmental protection. For example, the price of gasoline in thepast did not reflect thepublic health costs associated with high levels of lead in the air;currently gas prices do notaccount for the long-term global environmental costs associated withclimate change. In the caseof lead, government action created a public success—mandatoryintroduction of lead-freegasolines—in the absence of market signals. For climate change, thenecessary regulatory andR&D investments have yet to be made, so here we see both publicfailure and market failurearising from short time horizons.The market-failure paradigm has provided a politically robustrationale for long-terminvestment in research where no foreseeable application exists. Oddlyenough, the paradigm hasbeen less successful as a justification for public research investmentwhere the long-termapplication is clear, but the short-term incentives for private sectorinvolvement are weak. Thisirony reflects the apparent repugnance in market failure dogma tochoose "winners and losers."The consequences are starkly illustrated in the case of energy R&D.The energy crises of the 1970s demonstrated that the long-term U.S.dependence onforeign sources of oil could have far-reaching economic and politicalconsequences. MorePage 2322recently, the growing awareness of the connections between fossil fueluse and global climatechange have created a compelling long-term incentive to switch toother types of less-pollutingenergy technologies. In the face of these two realities, trends inboth public and privateinvestment in energy R&D are quite amazing: they have declined byalmost two-thirds, in realdollars, since the late 1970s (Dooley, 1999, Fig. 4).The reasons for this lack of investment are clear: over short timehorizons, the markethas been working quite well. In particular, and contrary to generalexpectations, oil prices havebeen fairly stable as a result of aggressive exploration, enhancedextraction technologies, openglobal markets, and the willingness of the U.S. to intervenemilitarily to protect access to oilsupplies. In market-failure thinking, continued low energy pricesjustify neither aggressive publicfunding of energy R&D, nor government regulatory action to promoteefficiency, which couldstimulate private sector R&D. Absent the price-pressures of oilembargoes, there has been littlemotive to innovate. Annual energy technology patents, for example,have been declining sincethe 1980s (Margolis and Kammen, 1999).Reduced commitment to research and innovation seems to be reflected inboth energyproduction and consumption trends. In 1970, fossil fuels accounted forninety-three percent of allU.S. energy production. This proportion declined five percent over thenext five years—duringthe first energy crisis—but only eight percent more over thesucceeding fifteen years. (EnergyInformation Administration, 2000). On the consumption end, energyintensity (energy use perunit of economic output) declined 2.4 percent per year in the 1980s;in the 1990s the averageannual decline was only 1.5 percent (Energy Information Administration, 2001).Given the ongoing volatility of politics in the Middle East, and giventhe increasing evidencethat carbon emissions influence the behavior of the global climate, itis difficult not to see thedeclining public investment in research on alternative energy sourcesand more efficient energytechnologies as deeply problematic. This declining investmentdocuments a continued failure toPage 2423overcome the short-term thinking in government energy R&D policy thatis made possible by awell-functioning market that continues to deliver stable energysupplies and low prices.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Politics: Bush wont strike Iran Wont strike--US is adopting a new diplomatic policy with Iran CNN 7/16/08, http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/16/us.iran/index.html The Bush administration has decided to break with previous policy by sending one of its most senior diplomats to engage Iran's top nuclear official, the White House announced Wednesday. The move could dramatically alter the three-decade stand-off between the U.S. and Iran. Some western nations and Israel suspect Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons and want Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment. Iran says it wants to develop nuclear power to produce electricity. Undersecretary of State William Burns will accompany a European Union delegation during a meeting with Saeed Jalili, Iran's top nuclear official, in Switzerland on Saturday, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. The delegation meeting with the Iranians will be led by the European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana. The delegates will discuss an incentives program meant to encourage the Islamic republic to drop its nuclear enrichment program, Perino said. Watch Amanpour report on the U.S. decision to send Burns » The U.S. decision to attend the talks is not "linked in any way" to Iran's missile tests last week, a senior administration official told CNN. The official said the meeting "had been pending before" the tests occurred. See why the U.S. is worried about Iran's missiles » But State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters Wednesday that the president and his national security team decided only recently to send Burns to the meeting. Perino said the "one time" participation of the United States in the meeting is meant to show the United States and other permanent members of the United Nation's Security Council are united in the "long standing principle that Iran -- in order to take advantage of the incentives package that was quite generous -- has to halt its nuclear enrichment." Watch why the White House is sending an envoy » A group dubbed the "P5 + 1," which consists of representatives from the permanent members of the Security Council -- the United States, Britain, France, China, and Russia -- and Germany, has been negotiating over Iran's controversial nuclear program. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "believes it's a smart step to take. There is no change in the substance but it sends a strong signal," McCormack said. "It sends a strong signal to our P5+1 partners. It sends a strong signal to the world. It sends a strong signal to the Iranian government that the United States is committed to diplomacy, to finding a diplomatic solution to this issue." McCormack said Burns will be under strict orders to listen to what Iran has to say but not engage in one-on-one discussions with the Iranian negotiator. Burns will also hammer home the point that any direct talks between the United States and Iran will occur only after Iran suspends its enrichment program, McCormick said. "Iran needs to suspend its uranium enrichment and reprocessing related activities. Should they take that single step, the United States and its partners in the P5+1 will meet with the Iranian delegation any time, any place, anywhere to talk about a variety ... of subjects, but certainly our focus will be on the Iranian nuclear program," McCormack said. McCormack brushed aside criticism that the United States is giving up too much to Iran. "Is this a new tactic? Yes. Does it send a signal? Yes. Is the substance [of the U.S. position] any different? No," McCormack said.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Bush wont strike iran—high oil prices make war too costly Juan Cole, American professor of modern Middle Eastern and South Asian history at the University of Michigan, 7/31/08 http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/07/31/iran/index.html Pundits and diplomats nearly got whiplash from the double take they did when George W. Bush sent the No. 3 man in the State Department to sit at a table on July 19 across from an Iranian negotiator, without any preconditions. When Bush had addressed the Israeli Knesset in May, he made headlines by denouncing any negotiation with "terrorists and radicals" as "the false comfort of appeasement." What drove W. to undermine John McCain by suddenly adopting Barack Obama's foreign policy prescription on Iran? Back in mid-July, the Geneva talks were attended by representatives of the five veto-wielding nations on the United Nations Security Council, including the U.S., along with a delegate from Germany and chief European Union negotiator Javier Solana. E.U. parleys with Tehran have been going on for years, but the presence of undersecretary of state for political affairs William Burns signaled a new seriousness to Washington's commitment to the diplomatic track. What the U.S. and its European allies were offering Iran at the Geneva meeting was termed a "freeze for freeze" deal. Iran would not attempt to improve on its rudimentary ability to enrich uranium to low levels, or go beyond running 3,000 centrifuges, in return for a pause in the spiral of economic sanctions imposed on Iran by the U.N. Security Council. The blogosphere and Op-Ed pages were rife with speculation about the reason for Bush's startling reversal. Former National Security Council staffer and Columbia University Iran expert Gary Sick implied that Vice President Dick Cheney and the hawks had lost control of Iran policy to foreign policy realists such as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in a behind-the-scenes Oval Office rumble. His thesis was supported by the howls of outrage against Bush's "appeasement" of Iran published in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages by former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton and by the American Enterprise Institute's Michael Rubin, both prominently associated with the neoconservative movement and with propagandizing for the Iraq war. As usual, the neocon doth protest too much. Burns conducted no real negotiations with the Iranian delegation, simply restating Washington's insistence that Iran cease its enrichment activities. His presence at the negotiations was mainly symbolic. Still, on the symbolic level of politics, Washington's change of direction was momentous. Bush had clearly executed a "Rockford" or reverse 180 of the sort you see stunt drivers pull off in spy movies. And the reason for that reversal of course was, indeed, reality -- not just a recognition of the limits of the U.S. military, but a taste of $5-per-gallon gas. Bush and Cheney, both oilmen, invaded one oil-rich country and said its reconstruction would be paid for by a flood of cheap oil. Now, ironically, one of the main reasons they have had to scale back their ambitions for a second oil-rich country, Iran, is the crushing effect of expensive oil on the U.S. and world economy. It was just a year ago that war with Iran seemed imminent. Last August David Wurmser, a major neoconservative figure who had just left Cheney's staff revealed that the vice president was talking about having Israel hit Iran's nuclear research facilities. At the same time, Afghanistan expert Barnett Rubin went public with what he was told by a Bush administration insider -- that Cheney would make a big push for a strike on Iran in the fall of 2007. Journalist Seymour Hersh reported that Cheney was attempting to reconfigure the Iraq war as a struggle with Iran. And, indeed, Cheney did make threats against Iran at institutions of the Israel lobby such as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. In December 2007, however, the intelligence community pushed back. Key findings from the National Intelligence Estimate, released that month, showed that Iran had mothballed any weapons-related research since early 2003. The Cheney push for one more war was effectively blocked. In recent months, several major developments have strengthened the case for dealing with Iran diplomatically rather than militarily. The U.S. military is more overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan than ever. The resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the tribal areas of northwest Pakistan has required a significant increase in the number of U.S. and NATO troops during the past year. Iranian proxies in Iraq and Afghanistan could easily target U.S. bases with Katyusha rockets in retaliation for any U.S. strike on the nuclear research facilities at Natanz near Isfaha

Wont strike--US is adopting a diplomatic policy towards Iran Guardian, 7/17/08, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/17/usa.iran ‘The US plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years as part of a remarkable turnaround in policy by President George Bush. The Guardian has learned that an announcement will be made in the next month to establish a US interests section - a halfway house to setting up a full embassy. The move will see US diplomats stationed in the country. The news of the shift by Bush who has pursued a hawkish approach to Iran throughout his tenure comes at a critical time in US-Iranian relations. After weeks that have seen tensions rise with Israel conducting war games and Tehran carrying out longrange missile tests, a thaw appears to be under way. The White House announced yesterday that William Burns, a senior state department official, is to be sent to Switzerland on Saturday to hear Tehran's response to a European offer aimed at resolving the nuclear standoff.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name Burns is to sit at the table with Iranian officials despite Bush repeatedly ruling out direct talks on the nuclear issue until Iran suspends its uranium enrichment programme, which is a possible first step on the way to a nuclear weapon capability. A frequent complaint of the Iranians is that they want to deal directly with the Americans instead of its surrogates, Britain, France and Germany. Bush has taken a hard line with Iran throughout the last seven years but, in the dying days of his administration, it is believed he is keen to have a positive legacy that he can point to. The return of US diplomats to Iran is dependent on agreement by Tehran. But President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad indicated earlier this week that he was not against the opening of a US mission. Iran would consider favourably any request aimed at boosting relations between the two countries, he said.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Israel Strikes =Global Nuke War Iran-Israel war dooms the world The standard, 5/7/08, http://www.eastandard.net/InsidePage.php?id=1143989584&cid=16&j=2008&m=7&d=12 The world is on a hair-trigger alert. If the trigger were pulled, it would most likely be by Israel’s finger, and the target President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Iran. Like two bulls, the two states are snorting at, and daring each other. They share a kraal - Middle East. But they are not just enraged bovines, scratching the bowl of dust that is their land across the Red and Mediterranean seas, with hooves. The consequence of their locking horns, given the ping-pong game they are playing with each other with a chilling threat of selfimmolation, is too grim for the world. Sadly, as the events of the last few weeks showed, both remain inflexible. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad openly threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. He casts doubts on historic accuracy of the Holocaust, the genocidal elimination of six million Jews by the Nazis during World War II. He is also cleaning up the Iranian military of moderate officials. Inspection of his nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) showed Iran’s nuclear capacity had been scaled up; something her President has not made secret about, save to argue it is for civilian use as energy source. Israel is reported to be polishing the trigger for what they deem a pre-emptive raid on Iran — like it did in 1981 when it tore to smithereens Iraqi’s nuclear reactor in Osirak. Israel’s top intelligence officer told the Knesset Iran was on the threshold of the "point of no return’’, and its nuclear arsenal was at its best and highest ever. Israel at first said it had no "plans to attack nuclear facilities in Iran." Her language changed a few days later: "Under no circumstances would Israel be able to tolerate nuclear weapons in Iranian possession". Islamic terrorists Meanwhile its military conducted open rehearsals for D-day. It is not yet clear if the US — which is playing safe for fear its installations and personnel would be targeted by Islamic terrorists — is prodding Israel. Several facts are incontestable even as Africa gives it the cursory glance because of the feeling it is a domestic affair. The first is the potential harm nuclear war portends for the world. Two, the world’s powerful family of nations has exacerbated the situation by arrogating itself the mandate of policing the rest of the world even as it selfishly accumulates that which it does not want the rest to have. Thirdly, all too often, they have flexed the muscles even where dialogue would do. Fourthly, the world would indiscriminately weep if the Middle East implodes, what with the Al-Qaeda like ghosts stalking the globe. It would not matter who reacts to the fear of catastrophe first, Iran or Israel. The ingredient is out there for all to see: Israel’s siege mentality and Iran’s extremism. Above all, the question remains what the US will do with its superior nuclear arsenal should Israel and Iran lock horns and bring down the kraal. The argument has been made that the way out of this gridlock is for Iran to be allowed to pursue civilian nuclear programme under international supervision. After all, 30 countries are already in this category. Africa must join the push for a diplomatic solution to the impasse’. Finally, the solution must be peaceful, a strike by either nation spells doom for the world. As Albert Einstein the great physicist, taught the world: "The discovery of nuclear reactions need not bring about the destruction of mankind any more than the discovery of matches."

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Israel Wont Strike Israel wont strike—US isn’t on board The examiner, 4/3/08 http://www.examiner.com/x-243-Progressive-Politics-Examiner~y2008m8d3-US-attempts-to-dissuade-Israelfrom-Iranian-attack David Ignatius has a column in todays Washington Post, reassuring all the move to act militarily against Iran has ebbed in recent days. The U.S. intent to open a diplomatic mission in Tehran and the stream of Bush Administration figures arguing against military force are sure signs the more temperate voices in the White House are prevailing. Ignatius contends the White House is also working to dissuade the Israelis from any plans they have to strike at purported Iranian targets: U.S. opposition to an Israeli military strike now is based on four factors, the official said. First, a strike would retard the Iranian nuclear program without destroying it. (One intelligence estimate is that an attack would delay the Iranians by just two months to two years.) Second, a strike would rally support for the unpopular government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he faces growing economic difficulty. Third, an attack would undermine U.S. policy in Iraq, when the United States appears to be making some progress, and in Afghanistan. And, finally, a strike against Iran, as with any military action, would have unpredictable consequences. About one of those unpredictable consequences....you think gas is expensive now? Imagine what would happen if Iran was struck. Disruption in the marketplace, concern over longer term supply, other Middle Eastern states contraction, disruption in the flow of oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz. Four dollar a gallon gasoline would seem like a bargain.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Israel and US wont strike Iran (good card) Their analysts are wrong—US or Israel wont strike Iran Washington post, 3/8/08, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080102872.html Analysts speculate about the danger of a U.S. or Israeli military attack on Iran before the Bush administration departs office next January. But if you read the tea leaves carefully, the evidence is actually pointing in the opposite direction. One sign that the diplomatic track is dominant for now is that the administration plans to announce late this month that it will open an interest section in Tehran, a senior official disclosed Thursday. This will be an important symbol, as it will be the first American diplomatic mission in Iran since the U.S. Embassy there was seized in 1979. The official described it as an effort to "reach out to the Iranian people." The Iranian government has long had an interest section in Washington. The administration's wariness of military options is also clear from recent efforts to dissuade Israel from attacking Iranian nuclear facilities. Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, traveled to Israel in early June; he was followed in late June by Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Both officials explained to their Israeli counterparts why the United States believes an attack isn't necessary now, because the Iranians can't yet build a nuclear weapon, and why an attack would damage U.S. national interests. McConnell and Mullen also informed the Israelis that the United States would oppose overflights of Iraqi airspace to attack Iran, an administration official said. The United States has reassured the Iraqi government that it would not approve Israeli overflights, after the Iraqis strongly protested any potential violation of their sovereignty. "We have made our position abundantly clear to the Israelis and indeed to the world, not just in our public statements but in our private conversations, as well," said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell. Though the administration has often been portrayed as divided over military options against Iran, an official denied there are now any sharp rifts. "There is uniformity across the U.S. government about the way to proceed with Iran," the official said. "Everyone from this White House, including the vice president's office, is in agreement that the military option is not the best option at this point, and we should pursue diplomatic and economic pressures." U.S. opposition to an Israeli military strike now is based on four factors, the official said. First, a strike would retard the Iranian nuclear program without destroying it. (One intelligence estimate is that an attack would delay the Iranians by just two months to two years.) Second, a strike would rally support for the unpopular government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he faces growing economic difficulty. Third, an attack would undermine U.S. policy in Iraq, when the United States appears to be making some progress, and in Afghanistan. And, finally, a strike against Iran, as with any military action, would have unpredictable consequences. In evaluating the Iranian nuclear threat, the United States and Israel are using different intelligence. U.S. analysts believe Iran can't produce a bomb before the end of 2009 and probably not until the 2010--2015 time frame, according to a senior U.S. intelligence official. The Israelis, however, fear that Iran could enrich enough uranium for a weapon sometime next year. By late 2009, the Israelis warn, the Iranians could produce the 1,000 kilograms of low-enriched uranium that could quickly be converted to the 25 kilos of highly enriched fuel needed for a bomb. Reassuring the Israelis of U.S. resolve toward Iran will be a tricky challenge for the next administration. A pro-Israel think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, has already tried to lock in a consensus policy through a high-level task force that included advisers to both presidential campaigns. .

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

2AC: SCIENCE K (SS) 1. NO LINK – WE USE SCIENCE TO DEVELOP SOLUTIONS TO SAVE PEOPLE BY GETTING THEM OFF THE ROCK, NOT DESTROYING THEM IN A NUCLEAR BLAST – THEIR EVIDENCE DOESN’T ASSUME THE GOOD SIDE OF SCIENCE 2. ALT CAN’T SOLVE THE LINK – AFFIRMING “ANYTHING THAT GOES” INCLUDES THE BAD FORMS OF TECHNOLOGY THAT THEY KRITIK 3. NO LINK – SCIENTIFIC WORLD-VIEWS ARE MERELY A CASUAL NARRATIVE OF REALITY – NO IMPACT ON OUR JUDGEMENTS OF VALUE TO LIFE Nicholas Rescher, prof philosophy @ U Pittsburgh, 1993, “A System of Pragmatic Idealism”

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

4. PERM: DO THE PLAN AND AFFIRM “ANYTHING GOES”

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

2AC: SCIENCE K (SS) 5. TURN – SCIENCE IS THE OPPOSITE OF DOMINATION – IT LIBERATES AND IMPROVES LIVES Bronner 04 Stephen Eric Bronner, Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University, 2004, Reclaiming the Enlightenment: Toward a Politics of Radical Engagement, p. 21-23 Something will always be missing: freedom will never become fully manifest in reality. The relation between them is asymptotic. Therefore, most philosophes understood progress as a regulative ideal, or as a postulate,13 rather than as an absolute or the expression of some divine plane or the foundation for a system.’4 Even in scientific terms,

progress retained a critical dimension insofar as it implied the need to question established certainties. In this vein, it is misleading simply to equate scientific reason with the domination of man and nature.15 All the great figures of the scientific revolution —Bacon, Boyle, Newton—were concerned with liberating humanity from what seemed the power of

seemingly intractable forces. Swamps were everywhere; roads were few; forests remained to be cleared; illness was rampant; food was scarce; most people would never leave their village. What it implied not to understand the existence of bacteria or the nature of electricity, just to use very simple examples, is today simply inconceivable. Enlightenment figures like Benjamin Franklin, “the complete philosophe,”’6 became famous for a reason: they not only freed people from some of their fears but through

they also raised new possibilities for making people’s lives more livable. Critical theorists and postmodernists miss the point when they view Enlightenment intellectuals in general and scientists in particular as simple apostles of reification. They actually constituted its most consistent enemy. The philosophes may not have grasped the commodity form, but they empowered people by challenging superstitions and dogmas that left them mute and helpless against the whims of nature and the injunctions of tradition. Enlightenment thinkers were justified in understanding knowledge as inventions like the stove and the lightning rod

inherently improving humanity. Infused with a sense of furthering the public good, liberating the individual from the clutches of the invisible and inexplicable, the Enlightenment idea of progress required what the young Marx later termed “the ruthless critique of everything existing.” This regulative notion of progress was never inimical to subjectivity. Quite the contrary:

to real living individuals.

progress became meaningful only with reference

6. PLAN DOESN’T CAUSE THE IMPACTS – SURE, WE HAVE A TECHNOLOGICAL MINDSET, BUT WE FOCUS ON USING SCIENCE TO PREVENT NEEDLESS DEATH AND SUFFERING 7. *ALT CAN’T SOLVE CASE – REJECTING SCIENCE MEANS ALLOWING MILLIONS TO DIE BECAUSE OF COLLAPSE OF HEG OR LACK OF SPACE COL

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Xtra Topicality GT 1. No definition or interpretation made distinguishing incentives for AE and AE incentives, unpredictable definition. 2. Extra topical advantages good- gives neg more ground to run case turns and Das off of- their tix link proves. 3. Reasonability good- No abuse from what they claim as extra topical and AE incentives isn’t a term of art, people define AE and incentives not AE incentives, means no threshold for xtra T and forces voting on dumb arguments.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

States CP Block GT If they answer racism with we fiat what you do, more on state fiat bad. EJ movements seek state action, unlikely because racist.

1. Perm- do both- balance of power and double solvency. The perm solves best. Multiple actors create movements for environmental justice. Lao Rhodes, Edwardo, Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University, Environmental Justice in America: A New Paradigm, Pages 5-116, 2003, Indiana University Press 'To have even a remote chance of affecting the problem of environmental justice, policy initiatives must be concurrently brought forth at several levels of government and within several nongovernmental organizations. Besides a national approach to environmental justice policy, both state and local initiatives will be necessary to carry out the details of many environ mental justice solutions. Large classes of environmental justice problems require flexibility and a familiarity with the specifics of particular problems that can only be achieved at a level of primary operation below the federal government. As the history of environmental regulation in this country clearly shows, broad, one-size-fits-all national policies and de- tailed national regulations do not work well at the local level, where some of the problems must be solved. Local councils, local community groups, education on environmental policies and risks, and local remedies appear the most promising avenues of solution for many of these problems. At the same time, these policy solutions, regardless of level, must ad- dress not only issues of how the business of environmental activity is con- ducted, but—just as important-—these solutions must take into consideration that different levels—federal, state, regional, and local—may be mixed in the execution of any comprehensive policy plans. Furthermore, this execution will occur at levels and with parties where and with whom the issue of the social impact of environmental policies has previously nut been of ‘primary interest. · This consideration also includes a necessary redelinition of just what an environmental activity is and who has policy standing in such issues. Standing refers to stakeholders in an environmentaljustice problem. Many stakeholders, both in and out of government, may not even be aware of their standing. For example, the involvement of federal, state, and local agencies such as the military and many social service agencies—in environmental activities often goes unappreciated, and yet they must deal with the environmental consequences of those activities. Thus, a necessary component of any policy response must include focused education of parties outside the traditional environmental governmental and nongovernmental communities.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

2. Federal government key to EJ- 8 distinct warrants including States can’t control environmental degradation and the Govt. is key to equally allocating incentives. Kristin Shrader-Frechette, Environmental Justice: Creating Equality Reclaiming Democracy, Oxford University Press, 2002. Such questions are problematic in part because state or federal decision-makers often can allow apparent environmental injustice in the name of the greater good. Today the DOE wishes to open the Yucca Mountain high-level nuclear waste facility, but nearby residents of Nevada and Native Americans do not want the dump. In such situations, many ethicists and policy-makers say it is necessary for the federal government to have controlling power 1. To protect the environment and to avoid “the tragedy of the commons” 2. To gain national economies of scale 3. To avoid regional disparities 4. To compensate the victims of one region for spillovers from another locale 5. To facilitate “ the politics of sacrifice” by imposing equal burdens on all areas. Although historically American political philosophy has relied on the presumption of decentralized decision-making, reasons such as the previous five have led to congressional legislation overriding the presumption. Largely within the last several decades, responsibility for environmental policy has shifted from states and local governments to the federal government, in part because the federal government has been able to act more efficiently, the states have been unable to control environmental degradation, and the federal government has been more able to control powerful vested interests.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

3. States fail- the states are the same bodies that created the oppressive dichotomy of the suburbs in the first place, giving them control of the plan would kill long term enforcement Frug, Jerry, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, and a leading academic authority on local government law 48 Stan. L. Rev. 1071 (1995-1996) Geography of Community, The; [adit] Yet, important as it has been, the federal government is not the public entity that is most responsible for the kind of suburbanization that has spread across America. As Richard Ford has persuasively argued, state law has been an even more significant contributor to the division of America's metropolitan region into a multitude of cities that all-too-easily can be distinguished from each other by describing their residents' racial, ethnic, or class status." 10 This fea- ture of suburban life is not simply a product of suburban growth. To achieve any significant level of homogeneity, suburbs need state-granted autonomy: the right to incorporate as a separate municipality; immunity from annexation by the central city; the privilege of engaging in exclusionary zoning; the ability to legislate and provide services solely in their own self-interest; the authority not only to tax the real property located within city boundaries but to spend the revenue collected solely on local residents, State legislatures and courts have been the source of these suburban powers through their formulation of local government law. Every state in the nation has given suburbs at least some of these powers, and many states have given suburbs all of them." 1 But the very fact that there are suburbs in America that lack some of these powers demon- strates that the idea of suburban autonomy cannot be deduced from the nature of a suburb; a state has to decide to confer it. That they have largely done so has defined the meaning and importance of the citysuburb and suburb-suburb boundaries throughout the country. One reason that state decision making on these issues has been so decisive is that the United States Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of every one of these aspects of suburban autonomy. State law also enabled the central cities to adopt the theory of urban planning that required the separation of business from residential neighborhoods.'13 And it was state law that empowered these cities to condemn inner-city residential neighborhoods to make way for progress as that theory defined it. The decision to allow cities to embrace this version of urban planning was not only discretionary but controversial, as powerful criticisms of the policy, by Jane Jacobs and many others, suggest.'14 Moreover, states did not simply follow the federal lead when it allowed cities to pursue these zoning, urban renewal, and housing policies; sometimes states authorized these activities even before the federal government's programs began."5 Yet, at the same time, state law has denied many central cities the power to enact legislation that might have helped increase the diversity, or at least alter the decline, of city neighborhoods-for example, the power to tax commuters, to impose rent control, or to prohibit racial discrimination." 16

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

4. States succumb to external pressure- Union bias and governmental racism kill effective enforcement and long term solvency (Paul McLennan, December 07, Labor Notes, “Bus Rider and Transit Union Alliance to Fight Racism in Atlanta”, http://labornotes.org/node/28) EJRC Director Dr. Robert Bullard asserts that understanding racism is central to understanding the financial difficulties MARTA faces today. TRANSIT RACISM In his book Highway Robbery: Transportation Racism and New Routes to Equity, Bullard notes that MARTA is regional in name only. In fact, MARTA is supported by a sales tax from only two counties and the city of Atlanta. Suburban counties, including two that have seats on the MARTA board, refused to join the system, in order to deny Atlanta's African-American majority access to their neighborhoods and the jobs which have historically followed whites out of the city. MARTA is the largest transit system in the country that receives no operating help from the state, yet the state has four members on MARTA's board. MARTA represents two problems to the new Republican majority in Georgia's state capitol. First, it is primarily an Atlanta public institution, which means that the AfricanAmerican community is in control of millions of dollars in resources. Second, ATU represents the only public sector workers in the state with a collective bargaining agreement.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

5. 1AC critiques State action- 50 State use implies individual action by each state, can’t FIAT totally uniform state action, encourages differing levels of allocation and enforcement, encouraging isolationism critiqued by affirmative. 6. 50 State Fiat Illegitamitea. Kills Debate- The purpose of the debate should be to debate the issues and merits of using mass transit as a means of dealing with issues of racism, not a completely unrealworld decision of wether the govt. or the states should do the plan. b. Isolates self from the other- by avoiding any meaningful debate over the affirmative and forcing an irrelevant decision, the neg keeps the Other at a distance, acknowledging it’s existence while simultaneously ignoring it’s issues. c. Kills education- Forcing the judge to make a decision that will never be repeated in real life means we don’t learn anything, turning debate into a meaningless game. d. Can’t FIAT uniform state action- the 50 states have never and can’t work together uniformly, fiating uniformity kills reak world and undermines individual purpose of states e. Role of ballot as activist is to ignore States CP- need to focus on substance of plan rather than it’s outer shell. f. Voting issue for fairness and education, even if you don’t vote them down at least reject the argument.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

7. *Market forces ensure that states will race to the bottom – only national guidelines prevent, turns States because pollution major cause of minority death Neal D. Woods, Department of Political Science, University of South Carolina, March 2006, Interstate competition and environmental regulation: a test of the race-to-the-bottom thesis, Science Quarterly 87.1. Across a variety of policy realms, a good deal of recent literature has emphasized the role that interstate competition plays in the formation of state policy (Dye, 1990; Peterson and Rom, 1990; Peterson, 1995; Bailey and Rom, 2004). A foundational premise of this literature is that states engage in policy competition to attract taxpayers, industry, and other mobile units that benefit state economies (Tiebout, 1956). Industry is of high economic value to states, which have shown a willingness to pursue industrial plants through a wide variety of location incentives, including tax abatements, enterprise zones, and tax-free financing for pollution-control equipment (Eisinger, 1988). States thus attempt to reduce the cost of doing business in the state in order to maintain current industrial production within the state and attract new production. One way of reducing production costs may lie in minimizing regulatory burdens, thereby sparking a potential RTB in areas like environmental and workplace-safety regulation. Indeed, the potential for interstate policy competition has served as a lynchpin for theories of environmental policy (e.g., Lowry, 1992) and forms an explicit rationale for pollution-control laws. The legislative history of the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act, for instance, contains stark reference to the possibility of a RTB.

<pre> Without national guidelines for the prevention of significant deterioration, a State deciding to protect its clean air resources will face a double threat. The prospect is very real that such a State would lose existing plants to more permissive States. But additionally the State will likely become the target of "economic-environmental blackmail" from new industrial plants that will play one State off against another with threats to locate in whichever State adopts the most permissive pollution controls.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Politics GT 1. Don’t evaluate the neg impacts- the negative scenario for nuclear war is a “Worst comes to Worst” scenario that needs to be seen as secondary in evaluating the plan (Nicholas Rescher, Prof. Philosophy at Pittsburg University, 1983, “Risk: A Philosophical Introduction to the Theory of Risk Evalutation and Management, p. 50) The "worst possible case fixation" is one of the most damaging modes of unrealism in deliberations about risk in real-life situations. Preoccupation about what might happen "if worst comes to worst" is counterproductive whenever we proceed without recognizing that, often as not, these worst possible outcomes are wildly improbable (and, more often than not, do not deserve to be viewed as real possibilities at all). The crux in risk deliberations is not the issue of loss "if worst comes to worst" but the potential acceptability of this prospect within the wider framework of the risk situation, where we may well be prepared "to. take our chances," considering the possible advantages that beckon along this route. The worst threat is certainly something to be borne in mind and taken into account, but it is emphatically not a satisfactory index of the overall seriousness or gravity of a situation of hazard.

2. Case outweighs- A. We need to consider the case impacts first- addressing our own sense of isolation from the otherized inner city minority is a necessity for truly understanding race relations and methods of liberation. We need to take the first step to decolonizing our mind of racism by building a bridge between the rich suburbs and poor inner city- That’s Simpson 08 and Scott 99. B. Our impacts are systemic- every minute more minorities are killed from pollution from Mass transit or race on race violence enforced by the isolation of the suburbs- that’s Frug 96 and Bullard 04- this outweighs their .00001% chance of their wildly improbable impacts happening. 3. The role of the judge should be as an activist- we can’t change anything within 6 months, need to think of long term and how to engage with real world issues instead of dumb politics disads.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

4. Russian oil hegemony causes Dutch Disease destroying stability, making econ collapse inevitable and leading to war Vladimir Shlapentokh PhD in economics at Soviet Academy of Sciences, professor of sociology at MSU November 6, 2006 “Intoxicated by high oil prices: Political Dutch disease afflicting the Kremlin”, Oil & Gas Journal,

Dutch disease As suggested by many economists, Dutch disease--a country's excessive dependence on the export of raw materials--can have serious economic consequences as a country becomes increasingly dependent on that raw materials sector. Other branches of the economy, such as manufacturing, often decline because of the concentration of such resources as oil or gold, as happened in 16th century Spain. A sudden fall in the price of the raw materials could bring an economic collapse. Seemingly, the Russian leaders, like their colleagues in Venezuela and Iran, see the world through the prism of oil revenues. It goes without saying that one of the first victims of the political Dutch disease is democracy. However, an even more dangerous consequence of the political Dutch disease is the leader's loss of a sober assessment of reality. Under the impact of their technological achievements, both Stalin and Khrushchev, with their skewed visions of reality, moved the country closer to a major war. Putin's euphoria over oil prices may not be as great as his predecessors' enthusiasm, but his aggressiveness in foreign policy in general, and toward the US and Russia's neighbors in particular, has clearly increased since 2005. The shift occurred in late 2005 when Moscow brandished its gas weapon against Ukraine and indirectly against Europe. Russia's foreign policy has hardened (despite some cooperative gestures toward the West) and influenced several international conflicts, including issues surrounding North Korea, Iran, and the Middle East. The conspicuous demonstrations in July of friendship with Venezuela's Chavez, another political leader inebriated by oil revenues, and the readiness to sell him weapons despite American protests

Medvedev's proposal to make the ruble fully convertible in an attempt to renew the currency's international status was another result of the country's oil fever. Medvedev talked contemptuously about "the financial were clear signals of unfriendliness toward the US. Russian media treated Moscow's attitudes toward Chavez as an obvious demonstration of disregard toward American concerns. Dmitry

irresponsibility of the United States," citing the country's growing national deficit. He also denounced the International Monetary Fund's attempt to promote market reforms, forgetting that only a few years ago Russia had scrounged for credits from this bank. Oil fever has not infected all Russians. The level of enthusiasm among the general public and particularly among experts does not match the levels observed after Sputnik and cosmonaut Gagarin were launched into space, to say nothing of the excitement after the 1945 war victory. Among the most persistent critics of the oil frenzy is Egor Gaidar who suggested that the leadership's oil delirium and its disregard for the instability of oil prices were dangerous to the country. Several independent politicians and journalists have seconded Gaidar's critique of the Kremlin's "hydrocarbon doctrine," demonstrating concern for the "time bomb in our political system." Concerned about the Kremlin's "muddled vision of the world," some independent minds in Russia, such as Dmitry Muratov, the editor of Novaya Gazeta, insisted: "The intellect of the government changes inversely with the price of oil." n6 Leonid Radzikhovsky, a famous liberal journalist, wrote about the inverse correlation between the level of democracy and the price of oil. What is more, even Vladislav Surkov, until now the Kremlin's leading ideologue

, the Russian economy would inevitably reveal its fake prosperity in the "post-hydrocarbon era." Russia is not the only country in the world that is obsessed with oil. Every country, in one way or another, is challenging Medvedev, in a struggle for influence over Putin, suggested that, with gas as its only basis

preoccupied with oil. While the US, Europe, China, and India are concerned about fuel supply and the adverse influence of high oil prices on the economy and standard of living, several countries, including Russia, have turned their oil resources into weapons for achieving their domestic and foreign goals. As the experiences of Stalin and Khrushchev showed, Russian leaders sometimes overstretch the potential of their advantages and lose a sober perspective of reality. Mesmerized by his clout, Putin may accept "the invitation" of the Russians to stay in power after 2008. Today, 51% of the Russians would vote for him if he decided to try for a third term, which he promised not to do. In the foreign arena, Putin has already shown less willingness to cooperate with the West and the US in particular. His foreign policy may harden even more. However, it is unlikely that Moscow will demonstrate direct hostility toward the

. The idea that oil will allow Russia to take control over Ukraine, Georgia, and Belorussia is deeply engrained in the minds of Kremlin politicians. We can expect an exacerbation of the political developments in the post-Soviet space, which will undoubtedly complicate relations with the West. Aside from the damage to Russia's international relations, the oil delirium is more problematic to the country's long-term national interests. The over-confidence in oil revenues may lead to a decline in the spirit of entrepreneurship, to a refusal to modernize industry, or even to an acceptance of deindustrialization. The obsession with high oil prices explains why the Kremlin sees few obstacles to the country's continued move toward an authoritative regime. It also explains the Kremlin's conspicuous disregard for the growing problem of corruption in society. With the vision of the Russian leadership blurred, it may become increasingly insensitive to various destructive tendencies in the country. The impact of the price of oil on political decision-making in Russia is crucially important to the world and should be closely monitored. West in the near future. The post-Soviet space is another story, however

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

5. No Spillover- 3 reasons- A. Boggs 06 is talking about many concessions to the democrats for a trend of support, not 1 indirect concession, means plan would have already passed. B. Boggs 06 talking when dems take power, since then Bush/Dems have argued over economy, oil, and other issues. C. Dems won’t pass now especially, their ev. cites as firm and doesn’t indicate any hint of change and need to be seen as loyal to Obama/party. 6. Drilling will take at least 10 years to go into effect Newsday, 6-22-08, Lexis, http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4263338251&f ormat=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4263338257&cisb=22_T4263338256&tr eeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=306890&docNo=1 Yes and no. More offshore drilling could reduce the nation's reliance on foreign oil - though only a bit and no time soon. And it could drive down the price of gas - again, though only a bit and no time soon. It takes 10 to 20 years for oil to go from discovery to the gas pump.

7. Doesn’t end foreign oil dependence- Puzzli and Hughes 08 just say drilling domestic would be good, not would mean transition away from foreign oil and most likely to transition away from Middle East given volatility of the region. 8. IL evidence completely powertagged- Hargreaves 07 doesn’t mention the west, doesn’t mention the US at all, and doesn’t mention instability at all, especially not in the context of oil. 9. Impact evidence too old and assumes foreign aggression- Doesn’t assume the past and ongoing centralization policies of Vladmir Putin, takes place under the instability of Boris Yeltsin and the early post-Soviet Union years, and assumes foreign aggression.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Eco-Managerialism Kritik 1. Kritik way too generic- A. the Kritik has no specific links whatsoever to the affirmative plan and we never advocate either a spillover of alternative energy to the rest of society for Global Environmental Sustainability as their Luke evidence talks about or directly controlling the environment for human needs. The plan only advocate use of Alternative energies on a localized scale to stop the killing of minorities in our cities. B. The impact is talking about technology hypnotizing humanity and then leading to it’s destruction. Again our only use of technology is harmless transit for the purpose of transcending cultural barriers to escape the dominant dichotomy of the city and suburban structure. We break out using buses, not control using weapons. 2. Perm- do the plan and engage in ecological populism. 3. Plan is a perquisite to Populism- they concede that society now is engrained in racism and isolation from the other because of the structure of the suburb and design of the city - that’s Frug 96, Garret and Taylor 99, and Kuszwa 02. This means that were the alternative too occur, it would be even more divided and racist than the status quo because it would be free to do with other races as the community decides without the state ensuring order. Mass transit is key to defeating the racism enmeshed in society- that’s Simpson 08, Clarke 96, and Frug 96. 4. Solvency of Transportation Injustices is key to Sustainable Communities Julian Agyeman, Professor of Environmental Policy and Planning at Tufts University, Sustainable Communities and the Challenge of Environmental Justice, New York University Press, 2005, Page 40-182 Transportation justice, a response to discriminatory transportation planning, has addressed a wide range of issues over the past century, including bus and rail segregation, highway development, transit design," toxic freight, airport expansion, and neighborhood street safety( Jenbrock and Schweitzer 1999; Conservation Law Foundation Bullard and Johnson 1997; Bullard et al. 1.004). Historically, large-scale highway projects have had a significant impact on minority and income neighborhoods while facilitating increased automobile use emissions by wealthier suburban residents (Bullard and Johnson __ Bullard et al. 1.004). Activists are continuing to work to gain within transportation systems, particularly urban transit. In many the difference in transit quality between services for suburban commuters and urban residents is analogous to the segregation fought in bus boycotts of the 1950s and the Freedom Riders campaign in 1960s (Bullard and Johnson 1997). Many just sustainability advocates point to transportation as the number-one issue to address in sustainable cities, and gradually federal, state, and local transportation agencies have included nonautomotive modes as relevant parts of transportation systems (Newman and Kenworthy 1999). One of the first steps in doing this, in controlling urban transportation futures for people, especially the disadvantaged, is to reframe the concept of transportation to the broader and more productive concept of access. By thinking in terms of access, we can think inclusively about the ways of bringing things to people and people to things. 5. Case outweighs- C/A from Politics- evaluate systemic over generic K with unrelated impact. 6. Our impacts function on the same level as the K- can evaluate against

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

7. Alternative fails – Ecological populism relies on a variety of subjective views A. may lead to conflict and disagreement B. People love fossil fuels- Support for gas tax holiday proves most likely outcome is greater consumption. 8. Plan solves alternative- Struggles over racism and mass transit become intertwined, resulting in grass roots movements for equality and change- that’s McLennan 07. 9. Alt Doesn’t Solve suburbian biopower- The entire concept of the suburb is rooted in controlling the lives of those in the inner city, cutting off transit and building large highways so they can’t intrude on the suburban lifestyle- that’s Frug 96.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Case Answers Grp Alt Cause Grp middle 2 args dismissive. Reduce deaths Ej movements solve. Link last arg to states enforcement They say subsidies inefficient 1. Subsidies given after enforcement, current obviously fail. 2. Only inefficient because subsidies primarily sent to rich suburbs- Plan distributes equally and proves why states fail. 3. Plan doesn’t only give subsidies. Group Alt. Cause1. Transport causes 28-30% of pollution, especially centralized in inner cities- that’s Bullard 04. 2. Don’t claim to solve all pollution, not a reason to reject, solve this instance of pollution. 3.* Plan causes community integration and EJ movements key to solve, Frug 96 and McLennan 07. They say women victimized1. No warrants in card, no trends in card saying women commonly victimized at bus stops, just more than men. 2. Victimization because of violence from inner cities- more transit key solve, Frug 96.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Politics KO 1. Don’t evaluate the neg impacts- the negative scenario for nuclear war is a “Worst

comes to Worst” scenario that needs to be seen as secondary in evaluating the plan (Nicholas Rescher, Prof. Philosophy at Pittsburg University, 1983, “Risk: A Philosophical Introduction to the Theory of Risk Evalutation and Management, p. 50) The "worst possible case fixation" is one of the most damaging modes of unrealism in deliberations about risk in reallife situations. Preoccupation about what might happen "if worst comes to worst" is counterproductive whenever we proceed without recognizing that, often as not, these worst possible outcomes are wildly improbable (and, more often than not, do not deserve to be viewed as real possibilities at all). The crux in risk deliberations is not the issue of loss "if worst comes to worst" but the potential acceptability of this prospect within the wider framework of the risk situation, where we may well be prepared "to. take our chances," considering the possible advantages that beckon along this route. The worst threat is certainly something to be borne in mind and taken into account, but it is emphatically not a satisfactory index of the overall seriousness or gravity of a situation of hazard.

2. The role of the judge should be as an activist- we can’t change anything within 6 months, need to

think of long term and how to engage with real world issues instead of dumb politics disads. 3. Case outweighs- A. We need to consider the case impacts first- addressing our own sense of isolation

from the otherized inner city minority is a necessity for truly understanding race relations and methods of liberation. We need to take the first step to decolonizing our mind of racism by building a bridge between the rich suburbs and poor inner city- That’s Simpson 08 and Scott 99. -this outweighs their .00001% chance of their wildly improbable impacts happening. 4. Uniqueness Overwhelms link- Obama has too high a lead and too small link- Obama is

leading the presidential race by 18 points, no one cares about mass transit and even if they did it would be overshadowed. 5. Democrats take non-nuclear and non-oil energy- their Caldwell evidence says a successful

Republican platform would be built on domestic drilling and nuclear energy, NOT other alternatives, which go to the democrats.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

6. Plan goes Obama- The plan dooms McCain by moving toward Obama talking points – it

undercuts the GOP message – Iran rapprochement proves Kevin Drum, journalist/columnist for Washington Monthly, Washington Monthly, 7-17-08, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_07/014112.php Am I off base, or is it sort of weird that there's been so little followup to the news that the Bush administration plans to open an "interests section" in Tehran? None of the big U.S. newspapers has so much as mentioned this story yet, which either means they don't think it's a big deal (unlikely) or that not a single one of them has been able to confirm the original Guardian report (also unlikely). Over at The Corner, where I figured they'd be going ballistic, the news has been met with nothing more than a shrug. Now, sure, an interests section is not an embassy (we already have one in Cuba, for example), but this would still be a pretty stunning turnaround, wouldn't it? Especially since the rapprochement appears to be mutual. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has indicated he's open to a U.S. proposal and an Iranian spokesman later confirmed that Iran is open to direct talks. How cordial! So why the radio silence? At the very least, shouldn't the talking heads be talking about the political implications of this news? Barack Obama favors direct talks with Iran and John McCain doesn't, and now here comes George Bush apparently clearing the deck for direct talks. So what does McCain do now? He'll tap dance a bit, of course, claiming that Bush is not doing precisely what Obama proposed (which is true), but he's certainly moving in that direction. Doesn't this cut McCain's legs out from under him? Doesn't it make Obama look more prescient and presidential? Shouldn't this at a minimum be a fascinating topic for fact-free cable news speculation and talk radio bloviation? I think so! 7. Iran too far off*- were McCain to even win the election the escalation to nuclear war would be

far to drawn out for predictions now.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

States CP KO 1. Perm- do both. The perm solves best. Multiple actors create movements for environmental justice. Lao Rhodes, Edwardo, Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University, Environmental Justice in America: A New Paradigm, Pages 5-116, 2003, Indiana University Press 'To have even a remote chance of affecting the problem of environmental justice, policy initiatives must be concurrently brought forth at several levels of government and within several nongovernmental organizations. Besides a national approach to environmental justice policy, both state and local initiatives will be necessary to carry out the details of many environ mental justice solutions. Large classes of environmental justice problems require flexibility and a familiarity with the specifics of particular problems that can only be achieved at a level of primary operation below the federal government. As the history of environmental regulation in this country clearly shows, broad, one-size-fits-all national policies and de- tailed national regulations do not work well at the local level, where some of the problems must be solved. Local councils, local community groups, education on environmental policies and risks, and local remedies appear the most promising avenues of solution for many of these problems. At the same time, these policy solutions, regardless of level, must ad- dress not only issues of how the business of environmental activity is con- ducted, but—just as important-—these solutions must take into consideration that different levels—federal, state, regional, and local—may be mixed in the execution of any comprehensive policy plans. Furthermore, this execution will occur at levels and with parties where and with whom the issue of the social impact of environmental policies has previously nut been of ‘primary interest. · This consideration also includes a necessary redelinition of just what an environmental activity is and who has policy standing in such issues. Standing refers to stakeholders in an environmentaljustice problem. Many stakeholders, both in and out of government, may not even be aware of their standing. For example, the involvement of federal, state, and local agencies such as the military and many social service agencies—in environmental activities often goes unappreciated, and yet they must deal with the environmental consequences of those activities. Thus, a necessary component of any policy response must include focused education of parties outside the traditional environmental governmental and nongovernmental communities.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

2. Federal government key to EJ- 8 distinct warrants including States can’t control environmental degradation and the Govt. is key to equally allocating incentives. Kristin Shrader-Frechette, Environmental Justice: Creating Equality Reclaiming Democracy, Oxford University Press, 2002. Such questions are problematic in part because state or federal decision-makers often can allow apparent environmental injustice in the name of the greater good. Today the DOE wishes to open the Yucca Mountain high-level nuclear waste facility, but nearby residents of Nevada and Native Americans do not want the dump. In such situations, many ethicists and policy-makers say it is necessary for the federal government to have controlling power 1. To protect the environment and to avoid “the tragedy of the commons” 2. To gain national economies of scale 3. To avoid regional disparities 4. To compensate the victims of one region for spillovers from another locale 5. To facilitate “ the politics of sacrifice” by imposing equal burdens on all areas. Although historically American political philosophy has relied on the presumption of decentralized decision-making, reasons such as the previous five have led to congressional legislation overriding the presumption. Largely within the last several decades, responsibility for environmental policy has shifted from states and local governments to the federal government, in part because the federal government has been able to act more efficiently, the states have been unable to control environmental degradation, and the federal government has been more able to control powerful vested interests.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

3. States fail- the states are the same bodies that created the cities and used urban planning in the first place, giving them control would kill long term enforcement and links back to the Kritik- even if they kick the K we still get the link and impact for states Frug, Jerry, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, and a leading academic authority on local government law 48 Stan. L. Rev. 1071 (1995-1996) Geography of Community, The; [adit] Yet, important as it has been, the federal government is not the public entity that is most responsible for the kind of suburbanization that has spread across America. As Richard Ford has persuasively argued, state law has been an even more significant contributor to the division of America's metropolitan region into a multitude of cities that all-too-easily can be distinguished from each other by describing their residents' racial, ethnic, or class status." 10 This fea- ture of suburban life is not simply a product of suburban growth. To achieve any significant level of homogeneity, suburbs need state-granted autonomy: the right to incorporate as a separate municipality; immunity from annexation by the central city; the privilege of engaging in exclusionary zoning; the ability to legislate and provide services solely in their own self-interest; the authority not only to tax the real property located within city boundaries but to spend the revenue collected solely on local residents, State legislatures and courts have been the source of these suburban powers through their formulation of local government law. Every state in the nation has given suburbs at least some of these powers, and many states have given suburbs all of them." 1 But the very fact that there are suburbs in America that lack some of these powers demon- strates that the idea of suburban autonomy cannot be deduced from the nature of a suburb; a state has to decide to confer it. That they have largely done so has defined the meaning and importance of the citysuburb and suburb-suburb boundaries throughout the country. One reason that state decision making on these issues has been so decisive is that the United States Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of every one of these aspects of suburban autonomy. State law also enabled the central cities to adopt the theory of urban planning that required the separation of business from residential neighborhoods.'13 And it was state law that empowered these cities to condemn inner-city residential neighborhoods to make way for progress as that theory defined it. The decision to allow cities to embrace this version of urban planning was not only discretionary but controversial, as powerful criticisms of the policy, by Jane Jacobs and many others, suggest.'14 Moreover, states did not simply follow the federal lead when it allowed cities to pursue these zoning, urban renewal, and housing policies; sometimes states authorized these activities even before the federal government's programs began."5 Yet, at the same time, state law has denied many central cities the power to enact legislation that might have helped increase the diversity, or at least alter the decline, of city neighborhoods-for example, the power to tax commuters, to impose rent control, or to prohibit racial discrimination." 16

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

4. States succumb to external pressure- Union bias and governmental racism kill effective enforcement and long term solvency (Paul McLennan, December 07, Labor Notes, “Bus Rider and Transit Union Alliance to Fight Racism in Atlanta”, http://labornotes.org/node/28) EJRC Director Dr. Robert Bullard asserts that understanding racism is central to understanding the financial difficulties MARTA faces today. TRANSIT RACISM In his book Highway Robbery: Transportation Racism and New Routes to Equity, Bullard notes that MARTA is regional in name only. In fact, MARTA is supported by a sales tax from only two counties and the city of Atlanta. Suburban counties, including two that have seats on the MARTA board, refused to join the system, in order to deny Atlanta's African-American majority access to their neighborhoods and the jobs which have historically followed whites out of the city. MARTA is the largest transit system in the country that receives no operating help from the state, yet the state has four members on MARTA's board. MARTA represents two problems to the new Republican majority in Georgia's state capitol. First, it is primarily an Atlanta public institution, which means that the AfricanAmerican community is in control of millions of dollars in resources. Second, ATU represents the only public sector workers in the state with a collective bargaining agreement.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

5. 1AC critiques State action- Isolates self from the other- by avoiding any meaningful debate over the affirmative and forcing an irrelevant decision, the neg keeps the Other at a distance, acknowledging it’s existence while simultaneously ignoring it’s issues. 6. 50 State Fiat Illegitamitea. Kills Debate- The purpose of the debate should be to debate the issues and merits of using mass transit as a means of dealing with issues of racism, not a completely unrealworld decision of wether the govt. or the states should do the plan. b. Kills education- Forcing the judge to make a decision that will never be repeated in real life means we don’t learn anything, turning debate into a meaningless game. c. Can’t FIAT uniform state action- the 50 states have never and can’t work together uniformly, fiating uniformity kills reak world and undermines individual purpose of states d. Role of ballot as activist is to ignore States CP- need to focus on substance of plan rather than it’s outer shell. e. Voting issue for fairness and education, even if you don’t vote them down at least reject the argument.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Spending Uniqueness and link Ev. don’t show trends- the uniqueness card doesn’t mention Fiscal discipline and both cards just talk about Bush/the blue dogs blocking specific bills, not specific to energy or overall fiscal trends 2. C/A Case outweighs 3. No Fiscal Discipline—Congress is unwilling to cut programs Gregory Bresiger, managing editor of Traders Magazine and a writer for the Mises Institute, the Free Market and the New York Post, 7/04/08, “The non-issue that should be an issue”, SmallGovTimes, http://www.smallgovtimes.com/story/08jul04.non.issues/) Indeed, Democrats say little or nothing in the federal budget can be cut. The government must expand its responsibilities. It must provide health care and financial security for all. Also, there must be more spending for national security. Still, there is little serious discussion about what all this would cost, though sometimes, even in the heat of partisan battles, some truth emerges. "Our country is in a sinkhole of debt, and it is almost as if we have adopted a philosophy of 'all you can spend' around here. Spending is out of control," says Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyo) in criticizing the Democrats' recently proposed federal budget. Nevertheless, despite making an effective case that red ink is endless, Enzi should look at his own party. Republicans, who controlled Congress for 12 years until the end of 2006, haven't been much better than Democrats. Republicans used to talk about reducing the welfare state. I remember when candidate Ronald Reagan in 1980 promised to end the Energy and Education departments. Some Republicans, who themselves have caught the entitlement-spending/social-engineering bug, now propose the creation of a federal department of families. Indeed many Republicans, who once said they were against the welfare state, now brag they are better at running the welfare state than the Democrats. I remember a speech on this theme given by George Will to the Security Traders Association some two years ago. ("Wonderful speech," I told Will as he walked out and started to gloat at what he thought was another compliment. "Yes, sir. Now I know why I'm a libertarian!" Deflated, the Republican welfare statist growled and hurried away.) 1.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

4. Earmarks Happening now despite no FD, there’s bipartisan love for it. Huffington Post, The internet newspaper, June 18, 2008, “Bipartisanship Thrives -- At Least When it Comes to Earmarks” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-bittle-and-jeanjohnson/bipartisanship-thrives_b_107667.html) Earmarks -- the Rasputin of Congressional budget politics - are back on the scene. If you don't remember your late tsarist Russian history, Rasputin was the "mad monk" with scary eyes, decadent tastes and way too much influence over Tsarina Alexandra. Eventually he was poisoned, shot, beaten, and finally drowned by a group of dissident Russian nobles. He drank enough poison to kill multiple humans and had three bullets in his back, but he still led his killers on a chase through St. Petersburg before they finally caught up with him, clubbed him and threw him in the Neva River. There were even rumors that he sat up during his cremation. The Congressional earmark industry is proving equally hardy despite repeated attempts to kill or at least weaken it, according to the Washington Post. The current House defense authorization bill contains almost $10 billion dollars of earmarks according to figures compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense. The Senate bill hasn't been approved yet, but Senators Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) Carl Levin (D-MI), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Mark Pryor (D-AR), and Mel Martinez (R-FL) are among those listed as requesting earmarks. Okay, so we have members from the House and the Senate, from the liberal northeast and the conservative south, men and the women, Democrats, Republicans, an Independent, and what can they finally agree on - the ritual of slipping those tasty little earmarks into the defense budget. And they've agreed to do this when the country is at war and faces a budget deficit approaching half a trillion dollars for this fiscal year. 5. *Transit use will help solve economic problems by decreasing roadway congestion and increasing fuel efficiency (Transit Riders Alliance, 08, “Why Transit? The Economy”, http://www.transitridersalliance.org/whytransit/economy.asp) Our current transportation system is broken, forcing people to make long, expensive car trips, often delayed by highway congestion. Roadway congestion cost Americans $78 billion in 2005 alone! A world-class transit network will strengthen critical connections by making travel more affordable and more productive and, often faster. 6. No evidence earmarks hurt FD.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Situationism 1.

Perm- do the plan and embark on a local kritik of Capitalism from the within itA. if we win low risk or small link, should still be able to solve with Alt. while solving for minority B. Alt. should be able to overcome residual link, if can’t proves alt can’t solve. C. Plan required for alt- Even if plan  Collective isolation, better than total isolation- sets alt. up to question our assumptions, impossible without encountering the Other.

2. The Perm solves best- we are so enmeshed in Capitalism and Capitalism in us that it is impossible to truly create an outside social sphere; rather we must recognize our failings and constantly criticize Capitalism from within it (Ilan Kapoor, Prof. of Environ Studies @ York University, 2008 '4 [Third World Quarterly 25.4, "Hyper- self-reflexive development? Spivak on representing the Third World 'Other'" p. 637]) Taking Derrida’s lead, Spivak insists that deconstruction and critique are only made possible by what is already there, by what inevitably surrounds and inhabits you. ‘The only thing one really deconstructs are things in which one is intimately mired. It speaks you. You speak it’ (1990a: 135). You can never represent or act from an ‘outside’, since you are always already situated inside discourse, culture, institutions, geopolitics. Spivak thus describes her deconstructive approach as the persistent critique of ‘a structure that one cannot not (wish to) inhabit’ (1993: 60). Not surprisingly, she warns against the total repudiation of one’s ‘home’, arguing, as we have already noted, that it amounts to a disavowal of one’s complicities and results in claims of purity, transparency or triumphalism. Instead, she advocates negotiation from within. The point is to take seriously that with which one is familiar, to acknowledge that one is seduced by it, even as one engages in a persistent critique of it. In a sense, Spivak is cautioning the likes of postdevelopment critics such as Escobar against throwing the baby out with the bathwater by being uncompromisingly ‘anti-development’ and arguing for ‘alternatives to development’ (Escobar 1995: 215). If development were that dominant and oppressive, then how could the critic claim to be outside it (this is unacknowledged complicity) or represent the subaltern social movement as pure and untangled (which amounts to essentialization and romanticization) or indeed posit a utopic alternative (i.e. from where would such an alternative arise if not from the bowels of development itself? and how could it miraculously escape from creating it’s own disciplining/power structutres?)? Hence Spivak motions: ‘let us become vigilant about our own practice and use it as much as we can rather than make the totally counter-productive gesture of repudiating it’ (1990a: 11). It is possible to work within the belly of the beast and still engage in persistent critique of hegemonic representations. Development may indeed be a shady business, but this does not mean one cannot retrieve from within it an ethico-political orientation to the third world and the subaltern. Thus, for instance, the World Bank and IMF may well be ‘imperialistic’ organizations, but they are too important and powerful to turn our backs on; instead, we can engage them unrelentingly from all sides to try to make them accountable to the subaltern. ‘Acknowledging Complicity’ Acknowledging complicity is the most obvious implication from the above analysis of Spivak’s work. Because we are all ‘subject-effects’ (1988b: 204), that is, inescapably positioned in a variety of discourses, our personal and institutional desires and interests are unavoidably written into our representations. We need, then, to be unscrupulously vigilant (i.e. hyper self-reflexive) about our complicities. Acknowledging one’s contamination, for Spivak, helps temper and contextualize one’s claims, reduces the risk of personal arrogance or geoinstitutional imperialism, and moves one toward a non-hierarchal encounter with the Third World/subaltern.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

‘Unlearning one’s privilege as loss’ A concomitant step is the ‘careful project of un-learning our privilege as our loss’ (Spivak 1990a: 9; cf. 1988a: 287). In a sense, for Spivak, one cannot do ‘fieldwork’ without first doing one’s ‘homework’. The itinerary toward representing the Other ‘over there’, requires scrutiny of the ‘here’ (Visweswaran 1994: 112). Or it necessitates reversing the gaze, re-imaging what we mean by the ‘field’ or the ‘there’. Thus, Spivak characterizes her teaching in the West (at Columbia University) as fieldwork, in a deliberate attempt to anthropologize the West (1993: 278; 1997: 5; 2003a: 620). What this means, in effect, is casting a keen eye on the familiar and the taken-for-granted. It is not enough to try and efface oneself, to benevolently try and step down from one’s position of authority; in fact, as Spivak has reminded us, this gesture is often a reinforcement of privilege, not a disavowal of it (cf. Alcoff 1991: 25). Rather, the idea is to retrace the history and itinerary of one’s prejudices and learned habits (from racism, sexism, and classism to academic elitism and ethocentricism), stop thinking of oneself as better or fitter, and unlearn dominant systems of knowledge and representation. This is what Spivak calls a ‘transformation of consciousness – a changing mind set’ (1990a: 20), and what others have variously penned as ‘decolonization’ (Fanon), ‘conscientization’ (Freire), and ‘accountable positioning’ (Haraway). 3.

Difference between consumption and consumer- even outside the capitalist system consumption would be necessary, alternative can’t distinguish between consumer and consumption.

4.

City structure is bad, but action needed- the city and suburb were clearly designed to enforce racist relations of isolationism, but waiting for cap to end isn’t going to help- need to act to help minorities now.

5.

C/A case outweighs- need to evaluate impacts happening now over abstract and long timeframe.

6.

Link is the squo- Plan redefines urban borders- Now we engage in a form of collective isolationinner city minorities are caught in a cycle of poverty and race on race violence as suburbs look on from the safety of the spectacle, going about their daily lives disengaged from each other with social interactions negated of all substance- that’s Frug 96 and Debord 67- don’t accept their generic evidence on urbanization, plan is key to redefining borders of isolation by allowing city-suburb transit- only by engaging with the terrifying other without knowing anything about them can we hope to redefine our relationship with each other- that’s Frug 96, and this evidence should be especially preferred because it assumes the elitist design of the city.

7. Alternative encourages Isolation from the Other A. The alternative fails by ignoring debate’s own exclusionary flaws- spreading, racial, class, and gender inequalities, and coaching/financial inequalities all serve to exclude others from Debate. - and this turns the alternative- Creating a new space outside of capitalism fails if only some people will participate- creates a new social elite in a space utterly isolated from the suffering Other, further encouraging the problems criticized by the plan. 8.

Alternative can’t solveA. creating a space outside capitalism fails if capitalism continues unabated on the inside- means alternative can’t solve the impact. B. Policy debate numbers are dwindling now- combined with current exclusionary policies means debate will always be localized and not wide-scale enough to solve.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

C. Policy Debate Engrained in Capitalist dynamics- Debate revolves around the W in a hyper competitive environment where those with funding prosper and where Critisicsms and Narratives are used as mere tools to win the debate.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name 9.

Alt Spillover Double Bind- The alternative solvency evidence says that multiple councils would be needed to solve- Either debate as a council will attempt to spillover and fail because of co-option by Corporations and the above reasons, or Debate won’t spillover and will remain isolated from the rest of society as a social elite.

10.

No guarantee of Alt. solvency- book written in 1967, no sign of when cap will fall due to localized debate challenging conceptions or how alt solves for impacts. Proves alt too decontextualized from real world too solve.

11.

No Racism Impact- we try to solve racism by bridging the gap between the poor and the suburbs, they overgeneralize plan to fit into Capitlalism’s network and thereby portray it as inherently evil.

12.

No nuke war impact- Nuke war is just vaguely related to the city structure at the end of the link evidence, no scenario given or why its related.

13.

No Enviro destruction Impact- plan doesn’t seek to encourage capitalist control of the environment, plan just engages in small scale use of AEs for cleaner mass transit- alt. cant solve this in any given timeframe.

14.

Plan leads to community integration- prefer our specific evidence on mass transit to their generic urbanization, those are Frug 96 and Transit Riders Alliance 08.

15.

Plan solvency proven- Atlanta proves that we can overcome barriers to achieve true social change through grass root movements, that’s McLennan 07.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Politics 8. *Plan helps Obama- Energy is McCain’s only opportunity to create distance from Bush – the plan blocks any chance of him generating a “change” narrative Scott Horsley, NPR business correspondent, 5/13/2008, “McCain Targets Independents with 'Green' Effort,” http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90411556 But for the moment, McCain's tone is very different as he tries to reach out to independent and moderate voters at campaigns stops in the Pacific Northwest. McCain visited a watershed center outside Seattle on Tuesday, where he stressed his commitment to environmental protection. McCain even planned a nature walk around Washington's Cedar River Reservoir, with reporters and photographers in tow, and held a roundtable discussion with a group of Washington state conservation advocates. Sally Jewell heads the Seattle-based outdoor gear company REI, a cooperative with 3.5 million active members. "We have members that span from the far right to the far left of the political spectrum," she said. "But I think the one thing they all appreciate is a healthy environment." By wrapping himself in the fleece vest of environmentalism, McCain hopes to reach out to that constituency. He repeated his pledge to combat greenhouse gases by limiting the amount of these gases that companies can emit and encouraging those who emit less to sell their permits to others. This "cap-and-trade" system is similar to plans proposed by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton — albeit with less stringent limits on carbon pollution. McCain's Green Campaign Aimed at Moderate Voters "McCain simply cannot win in November if he can't consolidate the center and win the swing independents who determine every presidential election," said Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political analyst. "His task is tough enough because of President Bush's unpopularity, the unpopularity of the Iraq war and the tanking of the economy. If he gets too identified with the right wing of his own party, he's going to alienate those swing independents, and he'll lose the election." McCain is closely identified with President Bush in his support for the Iraq war and an economic policy built on tax cuts. But Sabato says so far, that has not been the drag on McCain's campaign that it might be. "Right now, he has that maverick image, and he's running 20 to 25 points better than the Republican brand," Sabato added. "The Democrats' job is to make sure that doesn't continue. McCain's job is to make sure that it does." 9. The environment is one area where McCain can put some daylight between his views and

President Bush's. Speaking on Monday in Portland, Ore., McCain subtly criticized the president for not doing more to combat global warming. "I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges," he said. McCain also went out of his way to praise Oregon's Democratic governor and to promise more bipartisan cooperation if he is elected president. "We need to draw on the best ideas of both parties and on all the resources a free market can provide," he said. 10. Their link author is unqualified- Caldwell is the president of a company, not a political analyst

and not qualified to analyze successful presidential strategies.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

11. No voter switch- their link evidence says nothing about Obama’s voters switching sides or not

voting because of the plan, ensuring Obama will hold his lead. Spending 6. *Environmental Spending saves the economy Mark Lynas, a climate change writer and activist, author of the acclaimed book 'High Tide' and fortnightly columnist for the New Statesman. He was selected by National Geographic as an 'Emerging Explorer' for 2006, 7/17/2008, “A Green New Deal”, http://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2008/07/lynas-towards-economy-climate,BB The Green New Deal Group is not talking about incremental changes, however. It is calling for nothing less than a return to pre-war Keynesianism - complete with big increases in public investment spending and much tighter controls on international finance - with a "war economy" social mobilisation harnessed, this time not towards fighting fascism, but towards heading off ecological crisis. What is novel is that this call is directed not just at stabilising the climate, but also at stabilising the economy - lower interest rates and higher government spending are aimed at ending the credit crunch as much as tackling the oil and climate crunches.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

7. The United States Economy is really resilient William B. Bonvillian is Legislative Director and Chief Counsel to Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Issues in Science and Technology, fall 2004-Meeting the New Challenge to U.S. Economic Competitiveness In the 1980s, when the United States faced significant competitive challenges from Japan and Germany, U.S. industry, labor, and government worked out a series of competitiveness policies and approaches that helped pave the way for the nation’s revitalized economic leadership in the 1990s. In the mid-1980s President Reagan appointed Hewlett Packard president John Young to head a bipartisan competitiveness commission, which recommended a practical policy approach designed to defuse ideological squabbling. Although many of its recommendations were enacted slowly or not at all, the commission created a new focus on public-private partnerships, on R&D investments (especially in IT), and on successful competition in trade rather than protectionism. This became the generally accepted response and provided the building blocks for the 1990s boom. The Young Commission was followed by Congress’s Competitiveness Policy Council through 1997. These efforts were successful in redefining the economic debate in part because they built on the experiences, wellremembered at the time, of industry and government collaboration that was so successful in World War II and in responding to Sputnik. Those are much more distant memories in this new century, but we should revisit the Young Commission model. The private sector Council on Competitiveness, originally led by Young, has assembled a group of leading industry, labor, and academic leaders to prepare a National Innovation Initiative, which could provide a blueprint for action. Legislation has been introduced in the Senate to establish a new bipartisan competitiveness commission that would have the prestige and leverage to stimulate government action. The U.S. economy is the most flexible and resilient in the world. The country possesses a highly talented workforce, powerful and efficient capital markets, the strongest R&D system, and the energy of entrepreneurs and many dynamic companies. That by itself will not guarantee success in a changing economy, but it gives the country the wherewithal to adapt to an evolving world. Challenges to U.S. dominance are visible everywhere. Strong economic growth is vital to the U.S. national mission, and innovation is the key to that growth. The United States needs to fashion a new competitiveness agenda designed to speed the velocity of innovation to meet the great challenges of the new century. Once that agenda has been crafted, the nation must find the political will to implement it. 8. No threshold- Never indicates how much pork triggers impact.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

States 7. *Market forces ensure that states will race to the bottom – only national guidelines prevent, turns States because pollution major cause of minority death Neal D. Woods, Department of Political Science, University of South Carolina, March 2006, Interstate competition and environmental regulation: a test of the race-to-the-bottom thesis, Science Quarterly 87.1. Across a variety of policy realms, a good deal of recent literature has emphasized the role that interstate competition plays in the formation of state policy (Dye, 1990; Peterson and Rom, 1990; Peterson, 1995; Bailey and Rom, 2004). A foundational premise of this literature is that states engage in policy competition to attract taxpayers, industry, and other mobile units that benefit state economies (Tiebout, 1956). Industry is of high economic value to states, which have shown a willingness to pursue industrial plants through a wide variety of location incentives, including tax abatements, enterprise zones, and tax-free financing for pollution-control equipment (Eisinger, 1988). States thus attempt to reduce the cost of doing business in the state in order to maintain current industrial production within the state and attract new production. One way of reducing production costs may lie in minimizing regulatory burdens, thereby sparking a potential RTB in areas like environmental and workplace-safety regulation. Indeed, the potential for interstate policy competition has served as a lynchpin for theories of environmental policy (e.g., Lowry, 1992) and forms an explicit rationale for pollution-control laws. The legislative history of the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act, for instance, contains stark reference to the possibility of a RTB.

<pre> Without national guidelines for the prevention of significant deterioration, a State deciding to protect its clean air resources will face a double threat. The prospect is very real that such a State would lose existing plants to more permissive States. But additionally the State will likely become the target of "economic-environmental blackmail" from new industrial plants that will play one State off against another with threats to locate in whichever State adopts the most permissive pollution controls.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

The Perm solves best- we are so enmeshed in Capitalism and Capitalism in us that it is impossible to truly create an outside social sphere; rather we must recognize our failings and constantly criticize Capitalism from within it (Ilan Kapoor, Prof. of Environ Studies @ York University, 2008 '4 [Third World Quarterly 25.4, "Hyperself-reflexive development? Spivak on representing the Third World 'Other'" p. 637]) Taking Derrida’s lead, Spivak insists that deconstruction and critique are only made possible by what is already there, by what inevitably surrounds and inhabits you. ‘The only thing one really deconstructs are things in which one is intimately mired. It speaks you. You speak it’ (1990a: 135). You can never represent or act from an ‘outside’, since you are always already situated inside discourse, culture, institutions, geopolitics. Spivak thus describes her deconstructive approach as the persistent critique of ‘a structure that one cannot not (wish to) inhabit’ (1993: 60). Not surprisingly, she warns against the total repudiation of one’s ‘home’, arguing, as we have already noted, that it amounts to a disavowal of one’s complicities and results in claims of purity, transparency or triumphalism. Instead, she advocates negotiation from within. The point is to take seriously that with which one is familiar, to acknowledge that one is seduced by it, even as one engages in a persistent critique of it. In a sense, Spivak is cautioning the likes of postdevelopment critics such as Escobar against throwing the baby out with the bathwater by being uncompromisingly ‘anti-development’ and arguing for ‘alternatives to development’ (Escobar 1995: 215). If development were that dominant and oppressive, then how could the critic claim to be outside it (this is unacknowledged complicity) or represent the subaltern social movement as pure and untangled (which amounts to essentialization and romanticization) or indeed posit a utopic alternative (i.e. from where would such an alternative arise if not from the bowels of development itself? and how could it miraculously escape from creating it’s own disciplining/power structutres?)? Hence Spivak motions: ‘let us become vigilant about our own practice and use it as much as we can rather than make the totally counter-productive gesture of repudiating it’ (1990a: 11). It is possible to work within the belly of the beast and still engage in persistent critique of hegemonic representations. Development may indeed be a shady business, but this does not mean one cannot retrieve from within it an ethico-political orientation to the third world and the subaltern. Thus, for instance, the World Bank and IMF may well be ‘imperialistic’ organizations, but they are too important and powerful to turn our backs on; instead, we can engage them unrelentingly from all sides to try to make them accountable to the subaltern. ‘Acknowledging Complicity’ Acknowledging complicity is the most obvious implication from the above analysis of Spivak’s work. Because we are all ‘subject-effects’ (1988b: 204), that is, inescapably positioned in a variety of discourses, our personal and institutional desires and interests are unavoidably written into our representations. We need, then, to be unscrupulously vigilant (i.e. hyper self-reflexive) about our complicities. Acknowledging one’s contamination, for Spivak, helps temper and contextualize one’s claims, reduces the risk of personal arrogance or geoinstitutional imperialism, and moves one toward a non-hierarchal encounter with the Third World/subaltern. ‘Unlearning one’s privilege as loss’ A concomitant step is the ‘careful project of un-learning our privilege as our loss’ (Spivak 1990a: 9; cf. 1988a: 287). In a sense, for Spivak, one cannot do ‘fieldwork’ without first doing one’s ‘homework’. The itinerary toward representing the Other ‘over there’, requires scrutiny of the ‘here’ (Visweswaran 1994: 112). Or it necessitates reversing the gaze, re-imaging what we mean by the ‘field’ or the ‘there’. Thus, Spivak characterizes her teaching in the West (at Columbia University) as fieldwork, in a deliberate attempt to anthropologize the West (1993: 278; 1997: 5; 2003a: 620). What this means, in effect, is casting a keen eye on the familiar and the taken-for-granted. It is not enough to try and efface oneself, to benevolently try and step down from one’s position of authority; in fact, as Spivak has reminded us, this gesture is often a reinforcement of privilege, not a disavowal of it (cf. Alcoff 1991: 25). Rather, the idea

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

is to retrace the history and itinerary of one’s prejudices and learned habits (from racism, sexism, and classism to academic elitism and ethocentricism), stop thinking of oneself as better or fitter, and unlearn dominant systems of knowledge and representation. This is what Spivak calls a ‘transformation of consciousness – a changing mind set’ (1990a: 20), and what others have variously penned as ‘decolonization’ (Fanon), ‘conscientization’ (Freire), and ‘accountable positioning’ (Haraway).

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

at: states Politics - Day 1 Politics Impact Calc.....................................................................................................................................................................................1 Politics – A/T: Uniqueness Overwhelms the Link.......................................................................................................................................2 Politics – A/T: McCain Win Now................................................................................................................................................................5 Politics A/T: Won’t Strike............................................................................................................................................................................8 Politics A/T: Link Turn..............................................................................................................................................................................10 Politics A/T: Strikes Good..........................................................................................................................................................................11 AT: McCain Wins on Military...................................................................................................................................................................12 AT: Separation Key....................................................................................................................................................................................13 AT: Obama Will Strike...............................................................................................................................................................................14 AT: Bush will strike...................................................................................................................................................................................16 XTN: Industry Opposition.........................................................................................................................................................................39 Links: Cap and Trade.................................................................................................................................................................................42 Links: Cap and Trade.................................................................................................................................................................................43 AT: Regulations Help Businesses..............................................................................................................................................................44 Flight Bad – Econ/Environment................................................................................................................................................................45 Time to Exploooode...................................................................................................................................................................................48 2AC T – In ................................................................................................................................................................................................69 2AC: ASPEC..............................................................................................................................................................................................70 2AC: SAUDI OIL DISAD.........................................................................................................................................................................71 2AC: SAUDI OIL DISAD.........................................................................................................................................................................72 He’s A Nazi................................................................................................................................................................................................75 2AC Frontline............................................................................................................................................................................................83 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................84 2AC Frontline............................................................................................................................................................................................86 2AC Frontline............................................................................................................................................................................................88 2AC Frontline............................................................................................................................................................................................89 Alt Sucks....................................................................................................................................................................................................91 Alt Sucks....................................................................................................................................................................................................92 Alt Sucks....................................................................................................................................................................................................93 Submission Turn........................................................................................................................................................................................94 Perm Solvency...........................................................................................................................................................................................95 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................95 He’s A Nazi ...............................................................................................................................................................................................96 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................96 He’s A Nazi ...............................................................................................................................................................................................97 Survival Key To Ontology.........................................................................................................................................................................99 Reg Neg CP..............................................................................................................................................................................................102 Strat Notes................................................................................................................................................................................................103 ***Counterplans/Net Benefits***...........................................................................................................................................................104 CP-Generic...............................................................................................................................................................................................105 Generic NB..............................................................................................................................................................................................106 XTN: Industry Opposition.......................................................................................................................................................................107 XTN: Reg Negs →Coaltions...................................................................................................................................................................108 CP-Patents................................................................................................................................................................................................109 Patents Bizcon Links................................................................................................................................................................................110 XTN: Reg Negs → Innovation................................................................................................................................................................111 CP-RPS....................................................................................................................................................................................................112 XTN: Reg Negs Solve.............................................................................................................................................................................113 CP-Brownfields........................................................................................................................................................................................114 CP-Feed-in Tariffs....................................................................................................................................................................................115 CP-Natives...............................................................................................................................................................................................116 XTN: Reg Neg Solves Natives................................................................................................................................................................117

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name CP-Nuclear...............................................................................................................................................................................................118 ***2NC Answers***...............................................................................................................................................................................119 AT: Courts Rollback.................................................................................................................................................................................120 AT: Takes Long Time...............................................................................................................................................................................121 AT: Conglianese.......................................................................................................................................................................................122 AT: Litigation...........................................................................................................................................................................................123 Consult Good...........................................................................................................................................................................................124 Deadlines Key..........................................................................................................................................................................................125 2AC – AT Incentives Encourage ............................................................................................................................................................126 Politics- Obama Good..............................................................................................................................................................................128 Heidegger.................................................................................................................................................................................................132 2AC States CP (1/3).................................................................................................................................................................................141 2AC States CP (2/3).................................................................................................................................................................................142 2AC States CP (3/3).................................................................................................................................................................................143 2AC T- Only Tax incentives.....................................................................................................................................................................144 2AC Obama Good (1/3)...........................................................................................................................................................................145 2AC Obama Good (2/3)...........................................................................................................................................................................146 2AC Obama Good (3/3)...........................................................................................................................................................................147 2AC Fiscal Discipline (1/2).....................................................................................................................................................................148 2AC Fiscal Discipline (2/2).....................................................................................................................................................................148 2AC Eco Managerialism (1/2).................................................................................................................................................................150 2AC Eco Managerialism (2/2).................................................................................................................................................................151 Hegemony 1NC/2AC Supplement...........................................................................................................................................................155 Hegemony is not sustainable...................................................................................................................................................................159 Current Hegemony doesn’t solve - Space................................................................................................................................................160 Counter-Balancing won’t Happen...........................................................................................................................................................161 Counter-Balancing won’t Happen...........................................................................................................................................................162 Counter-Balancing Won’t Happen...........................................................................................................................................................163 Counter-Balancing Won’t Happen...........................................................................................................................................................164 Hegemony Solves EU CB and NATO.....................................................................................................................................................165 Must Increase Hegemony Now................................................................................................................................................................166 Addressing Climate Solves Hegemony...................................................................................................................................................167 Hegemony Good Impacts – Indonesia Add-On.......................................................................................................................................168 Hegemony Good Impacts – Climate Solvency........................................................................................................................................169 Hegemony Good Impacts – Proliferation................................................................................................................................................170 Hegemony Good Impacts – NATO..........................................................................................................................................................171 Hegemony Good Impacts – UN, genocide, security, proliferation..........................................................................................................172 Hegemony Good Impacts – Middle East.................................................................................................................................................173 Hegemony Good Impacts – China...........................................................................................................................................................174 Hegemony Good Impacts – China Brink.................................................................................................................................................175 Hegemony Good Impacts – ASEAN 1/2.................................................................................................................................................176 Hegemony Good Impacts – ASEAN 2/2.................................................................................................................................................177 Multipolarity now....................................................................................................................................................................................178 Multipolarity Inevitable...........................................................................................................................................................................179 Multipolarity Inevitable...........................................................................................................................................................................180 Multipolarity Inevitable...........................................................................................................................................................................181 EU will counter-balance..........................................................................................................................................................................182 Hegemony Inevitable...............................................................................................................................................................................183 Hegemony Turns Itself.............................................................................................................................................................................184 T-Incentives..............................................................................................................................................................................................185 States CP: Feed in Tariff Solvency..........................................................................................................................................................186 States CP: Universities Solve ..................................................................................................................................................................187 Politics: Bush wont strike Iran.................................................................................................................................................................189 Israel Strikes =Global Nuke War.............................................................................................................................................................192 Israel Wont Strike.....................................................................................................................................................................................193 Israel and US wont strike Iran (good card)..............................................................................................................................................194 2AC: SCIENCE K (SS)...........................................................................................................................................................................195 2AC: SCIENCE K (SS)...........................................................................................................................................................................196

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name Xtra Topicality GT...................................................................................................................................................................................197 States CP Block GT.................................................................................................................................................................................198 Politics GT...............................................................................................................................................................................................204 Eco-Managerialism Kritik.......................................................................................................................................................................207 Case Answers...........................................................................................................................................................................................209 Politics KO...............................................................................................................................................................................................210 States CP KO...........................................................................................................................................................................................212 Spending..................................................................................................................................................................................................217 Situationism.............................................................................................................................................................................................219 at: states Politics - Day 1..........................................................................................................................................................................229 georgia......................................................................................................................................................................................................232 AT: Georgia Education T/O.....................................................................................................................................................................233 AT: Georgia Education T/O.....................................................................................................................................................................234 general State Budgets ..............................................................................................................................................................................235 state Budgets Tubed.................................................................................................................................................................................236 california..................................................................................................................................................................................................237 AT: California Budget Fight DA - no compromise..................................................................................................................................238 AT: California Budget Fight DA - no compromise..................................................................................................................................240 AT: California Budget Fight DA - Econ Dead.........................................................................................................................................241 AT: California Budget Fight DA - NO trade off......................................................................................................................................242 indiana......................................................................................................................................................................................................243 AT: indiana DA -Energy Policeis NOw ..................................................................................................................................................244 AT: indiana DA -Daniels win Now .........................................................................................................................................................245 AT: Indiana DA - Econ Tanked................................................................................................................................................................246 texas.........................................................................................................................................................................................................247 at: texas DA - Renewables Now..............................................................................................................................................................248

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

georgia

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

AT: Georgia Education T/O

Georgia cutting education spending in the Squo Aaron Sheinn, @ The Atlanta Journal­Constitution, 8/2/’8[State's budget feels the pinch, ln]  Gov. Sonny Perdue on Friday told state agencies they're going to get 6 percent less money than planned, as he and legislative leaders  moved to answer an expected $1.6 billion shortfall in the state budget.  Perdue said the agencies' allotments would be cut by 6 percent  through the end of the 2009 fiscal year, with two exceptions: K­12 and Medicaid.  Schools will absorb a 2 percent cut while 5 percent  will be cut from the state's Medicaid program, Perdue spokesman Bert Brantley said.     "In the May and June revenue numbers,  Georgia really started to feel the economic conditions that are prevalent around the country," Brantley said. "This is not unlike what  Georgia families are doing. They're seeing their budgets strained as well."  State tax collections were down 9.4 percent in June, the  final month of fiscal 2008. They were off 1.1 percent for the year. The state had to use $600 million in reserves to make ends meet.

Medicad Will Take the cut Instead - Georgia Aaron Sheinn, @ The Atlanta Journal­Constitution, 8/2/’8[State's budget feels the pinch, ln] "It's the problem of trying to balance a billion-dollar-plus deficit and just depending on budget cuts," he said. Any plan to deal with  shortfalls should have three components: budget cuts, tax increases and revenues, Essig said.  State services will suffer, he said,  especially Medicaid. If the cut to Medicaid includes eligibility or reimbursement rates, he said, "it's going to have a negative effect on some of the most vulnerable citizens."  Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle commended Perdue.  "Responsible governing requires the courage to  make tough decisions. Just as many Georgia families are making sacrifices in this economy, our state must also seek out ways to stay  financially healthy. 

Cutting Georgia Education Budget Now Augusta Chronicle 8/1/’8 [Governments are simply going to have to cut back, ln] But, as with the mayor, school board members must be looking to the state with trepidation: The Georgia Budget and Policy Institute this week called for a special legislative session to deal with a possible $2 billion shortfall in the state's 2009 fiscal year unless state  revenues miraculously turn around.  Since education is a huge portion of any state's budget, it's likely schools won't escape the pain.  Gov. Sonny Perdue has told every state agency to find 3.5 percent in cuts ­ and, says the independent Georgia Budget and Policy  Institute, that would mean $287 million in cuts to K-12 and $80 million in higher education.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

AT: Georgia Education T/O

Georgia Economy’s tanked Georgia Politics Unfiltered 7/31/’8 [Democrat Chris Strickland Calls For Priority Based Spending, ln] "No one cuts their mortgage payment or their water bill by 5% during tough times. The House should do what our households do ­­  cut out the frivolous expenses entirely, and fully fund the important necessities of Georgia taxpayers."The Hall County Democrat  also disputed Rep. Mills' answer to turn collection agents loose across the state to gather up money owed to the state by residents and  business owners."The problem with Georgia's budget is a weakened economy, compounded with the tax­and­spend policies of the  current House leaders," Strickland said. "Proposing penalties such as revoking driver's licenses for delinquent tax payers is not a  reasonable solution."James Mills suggested to that a way for the state to solve its budget problems, which resulted in Gov. Perdue  dipping into the state's reserves, is to start revoking the business and drivers' licenses of individuals who are behind in their taxes.  [Source: Access North Georgia.com, , July 30, 2008]"Any tax system is going to have a percentage of delinquent taxpayers, and  relying on 100% immediate and complete compliance to balance the budget is unrealistic. The only way to balance our budget is to  convince the incumbent legislators in the State House to cut expenses," Strickland countered. Newstex ID: GPU­0001­27084548

Georgia Economy and Budget Tanked The Atlanta Journal-Constitution7/30/’8 [Economy derails state budget, ln]  The slumping economy has legislative leaders reconsidering the $700 million in new spending they approved last spring.  That  means hundreds of new jobs will probably be axed, about $150 million in tax cuts could be delayed, and everything ­­­ including pay  raises for 200,000 teachers and state employees ­­­ is on the table for trimming.  One budget think tank said Tuesday the state could face a shortfall of more than $2 billion.  "The numbers are sobering," said Senate Appropriations Chairman Jack Hill (R­Reidsville).  "The $700 million we approved in new spending for fiscal 2009, we're fixin' to go over that with a fine­tooth comb."  Lawmakers, in  concert with Gov. Sonny Perdue's office, hope to develop a plan in the next few weeks. At least one of the proposals could force a  special legislative session this fall.  "I'd rather be upfront right now and tell people what's going to happen and then be surprised if we  have some growth and we don't have to affect all these programs," Hill said.  State tax collections were down 9.4 percent in June, the  final month of fiscal 2008. They were off 1.1 percent for the year. The state had to use $600 million in reserves to make ends meet. 

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

general State Budgets

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

state Budgets Tubed State budgets jacked Now Aaron Sheinn, @ The Atlanta Journal­Constitution, 8/2/’8[State's budget feels the pinch, ln] "In the May and June revenue numbers, Georgia really started to feel the economic conditions that are prevalent around the country,"  Brantley said. "This is not unlike what Georgia families are doing. They're seeing their budgets strained as well."  State tax collections were down 9.4 percent in June, the final month of fiscal 2008. They were off 1.1 percent for the year. The state had to use $600 million  in reserves to make ends meet. "In the May and June revenue numbers, Georgia really started to feel the economic conditions that are prevalent around the country," Brantley said. "This is not unlike what Georgia families are doing. They're seeing their budgets strained as well."  State tax collections were down 9.4 percent in June, the final month of fiscal 2008. They were off 1.1 percent for the year. The state had to use  $600 million in reserves to make ends meet.

State Budget DA Toast Augusta Chronicle 8/1/’8 [Governments are simply going to have to cut back, ln] Mayor Deke Copenhaver isn't so worried about Augusta. The city has been insulated from much of the country's economic woes, and  in fact had a $5 million surplus last year and a 4 percent growth in the tax digest.  What worries him more is the condition of the  federal and state budgets ­ and the tendency of those governments to kick their problems down to the local level.  Indeed, the federal government expects a record $482 billion deficit next year; New York Gov. David Paterson said that state's budget deficit has risen $1.4 billion in just the last 90 days; and some are so worried about the Georgia budget that they're calling for a special session of the  legislature.  In this kind of climate, you can't blame city officials for requesting a tax increase. And, after all, the cost of fuel alone is causing headaches for governments all over.  Welcome to our world. It's tough all over. Governments aren't experiencing anything  that individuals aren't. The difference is, citizens cut back on spending during tough times. Companies downsize, cut expenses to the  bone, even go under. 

Huge State Budget Defecits Now Data in Image 8/1/’8 [California sacks 22,000 state workers, ln] But a leading official in the state challenged the decision to cut pay. California has one of the largest economies in the world and it has  no way to pay contractors for many of the services it provides. Some 30 American states face budget deficits caused by rising costs and falling revenues in a slumping economy but California's is by far the largest. Mr Schwarzenegger, told reporters he had signed an  executive order on the staff and pay cuts. "Today I am exercising my executive authority to avoid a full­blown crisis and keep our state  moving forward," he said. "This is not an action I take lightly but we do not have a budget and, as governor, I have a responsibility to  make sure our state has enough money to pay its bills." California's state financial controller, John Chiang, a Democrat, has vowed not  to implement the pay cuts, saying to do so could risk legal action.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

california

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

AT: California Budget Fight DA - no compromise California Budget Compromise Doomed NPR 8/4/’8 [Unemployment on the Rise; Calif. May Cut Salaries, ln]

Dr. MALVEAUX: Governor Schwarzenegger is characteristically guilty of political posturing, frankly. First of all, the cut ­ the wage  to the minimum federal wage, as opposed to the minimum California wage, which is eight dollars, clearly takes people who are already  at the bottom back a step. And it's posturing. It is. He is attempting to get people to pressure the legislature, and what he needs to do is sit down and work with Karen Bass and the rest of the Democrats in the legislature. The money is there, but the budget has not been approved. It isn't that California doesn't have the money. And California has often run on these kinds of deficits. There've been  many, many occasions when they ran with these kinds of challenges. He is making a point. The layoffs are more defensible than the  notion that he's going to cut. But the cuts that he is proposing are not likely to be held up. The state treasurer says that he is not going  to cut people's wages. He is not going to give people checks that are lower than the checks they are entitled to. So, basically, you know,  Brother Schwarzenegger has the uncanny ability to place himself at the center of a storm, and he's done it again. And obviously, it is  going to generate headlines, and it may cause the legislature some distress. I think that, though, they are in very good with the Karen  Basses and the others there. And I expect that they will have a budged approved by the 1st of September.

Budget Crisis NOW and MULTIPLE Years Without budget Resolution Disprove the Case Bond Buyer 8/1/’8 [Far West Bond­Watch, ln] California's fiscal 2008­2009 budget is a month and a half late today. Negotiations continue between legislative leaders and Gov.  Arnold Schwarzenegger.  They have less than two weeks to come up with a budget in time to avoid an issue of revenue anticipation  warrants that would increase the state's cash­flow borrowing costs for the current fiscal year, according to Tom Dresslar, a spokesman  for state Treasurer Bill Lockyer.  "The current thinking is that Aug. 12 is the date when we would have to proceed full speed ahead"  with a Raw issue, Dresslar said yesterday.  Lockyer would prefer to issue to issue the $10 billion of short­term debt as revenue  anticipation notes because they would garner lower interest rates and would allow the state to forgo the purchase of an expensive credit  enhancement facility.  But the state cannot issue the Rans until it has the "revenue certainty" that a budget would provide, Dresslar  said.  California faces an estimated $15 billion budget deficit for the coming year. The Republican governor has proposed a  combination of spending cuts and lottery bonds to close the gap, while the Democratic majority would prefer a combination of tax increases and smaller spending cuts to balance the budget. GOP lawmakers oppose tax hikes and are pushing for budget reform that  would limit spending growth in the future to prevent future deficits.  Lockyer says the governor's lottery bond plan would not provide  the revenue certainty that would avoid a Raw issue because it would require a vote of the public.  California budgets require approval  by a two-thirds majority in the Legislature, resulting in frequent budget impasses. The state has only passed budgets by its June 15  constitutional deadline four times in the past 20 years. Last year's budget was not approved until Aug. 24.  Schwarzenegger  increased pressure on legislators yesterday by signing an executive order that would lay off as many as 22,000 temporary state workers,  cut wages for 200,000 state workers to the federal minimum wage of $6.55 an hour, and prohibit overtime.  "Our state faces a looming cash crisis," Schwarzenegger. "It's my responsibility to make sure that the state keeps running and that we continue to pay  our bills." 

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Political Posturing Preventing a Budget Compromise Contra Costa Times 8/3/’8 [Spending reform is key to this and future state budgets, ln] WITH ALL THE POLITICAL posturing inside and outside Sacramento, it is difficult to forecast just when or how California's budget will be approved. What is more predictable is the widespread dissatisfaction that is likely to result.  Balancing a budget that  is $15.2 billion out of whack is no easy chore even for fiscal experts who are selflessly committed to ensuring the long­term well  being of Californians.  It is next to impossible for a group of highly partisan, nearsighted lawmakers who are wedded to their own agendas. Unfortunately, that is the makeup of much of the California Legislature.  Republican lawmakers are adamantly opposed to any tax increases. Democrats are almost as fervently against real spending cuts. That is why there is much speculation about additional  borrowing, raiding special dedicated funds and more bookkeeping legerdemain. 

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

AT: California Budget Fight DA - no compromise

Impact Empiracly Denied Dan Glaister, @ The Guardian, 8/2/’8 [Schwarzenegger lays off 10,000 California workers to ease budget crisis, ln] California, the nation's largest state and one of the world's largest economies, regularly fails to agree a budget by the annual July 1  deadline. Officials from the governor's office claimed the lay­offs could save the state up to $100m a month, while the pay cuts would  save up to $1.2bn a month if applied to all 200,000 eligible workers.

No Budget Compromise and RECENT Spending Oroville Mercury Register 8/1/’8 [Governor orders cuts amid fiscal crisis, ln] Democratic and Republican lawmakers remain divided over how to close a $15.2 billion deficit, with Democrats favoring $8.2 billion  in new taxes on corporations and the state's wealthiest residents. Republicans want a spending cap and oppose tax increases.  Adding to the fiscal mess has been an unprecedented number of wildfires this year, costing the state far more for emergency response than  it had budgeted.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

AT: California Budget Fight DA - Econ Dead

California Economy Tanked - Jobs NPR 8/4/’8 [Unemployment on the Rise; Calif. May Cut Salaries, ln] From NPR News, this is News & Notes. I'm Tony Cox. There's mixed economic news this week. The economy is growing and gas  prices are dropping, but unemployment and underemployment are at a four-year high. And in California, state workers are caught in a budget squeeze. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said he had no choice but to cut 10,000 jobs and slash the salaries of 200,000  other workers to minimum wage. Here to help us to make sense of what's happening is author and economist Dr. Julianne Malveaux.  She is the President of Bennett College. Good doctor, how are you? Dr. JULIANNE MALVEAUX (President, Bennett College): I'm wonderful, Tony. How are you? COX: I'm fine, thank you very much. It is the first day of the workweek, but it seems there are more grim numbers coming out of Wall Street, unemployment at a four-year high, as we said. At the same time, though, Dr. Malveaux, we hear that the economy is actually  growing in certain sectors. So, how significant are the unemployment and underemployment numbers? Dr. MALVEAUX: Well, the unemployment and underemployment numbers are extremely significant, especially when you look at  not only the four­year high, but the fact that we have been shedding jobs for seven straight months. Some of the companies that  people consider benchmark companies ­ General Motors, Starbucks, and others ­ are having a hard time.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

AT: California Budget Fight DA - NO trade off The Gubernator Will Target Jobs - Not ___ Oroville Mercury Register 8/1/’8 [Governor orders cuts amid fiscal crisis, ln] SACRAMENTO (AP) ­­ Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Thursday, trying to avoid a "full­blown" financial crisis in California,  eliminated thousands of part­time and temporary positions and ordered that up to 200,000 state workers receive the federal minimum wage.

Gubernator Will Target Employees - He Thinks it’s the Only Option

Oroville Mercury Register 8/1/’8 [Governor orders cuts amid fiscal crisis, ln] The administration estimates that immediately terminating the contracts and suspending overtime would save the state as much as $80 million a month. The deferred wages for full­time employees would take several weeks to implement, saving the state anywhere from  $300 million to $1 billion a month starting in late August, depending on how many employees are determined to be essential to public  safety and would be exempt from the executive order.  Department heads were ordered to develop a list by Friday of exempt employees.  Before he signed the order, Schwarzenegger said he understood the effect it will have on thousands of people and apologized to state  employees.  "It is a terrible situation to be in," he said. "I don't think any governor wants to be in this situation."  But the governor also said

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

indiana

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

AT: indiana DA -Energy Policeis NOw

Multiple Indiana Environmental Policies Non-Unique the DA The Courier-Journal 7/31/’8 [Thompson has ideas for state to go 'green', ln] Thompson said the state needs to "take a different approach to creating green jobs that will be good paying and that will help our  economy and just as significantly will be of help to our environment."  "I believe with the right leadership we can turn Indiana green,"  she said.  After reviewing Thompson's proposals, Daniels campaign spokesman Cam Savage said that "all ideas are welcome." He then ticked off environmental highlights from Daniels' first term.  "Indiana has made tremendous progress, including developing  the world's first clean-coal power plant in Edwardsport, the nation's second-largest wind farm in Benton County and the world's largest soy-diesel plant in Claypool," Savage said. 

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

AT: indiana DA -Daniels win Now

Daniels Getting a Win From Alternative Energy Now The Courier-Journal 7/31/’8 [Thompson has ideas for state to go 'green', ln] Daniels has not yet unveiled any new policy proposals in his campaign. But even before Thompson's announcement yesterday, state  Republicans were touting some of the governor's accomplishments with green technology.  According to the state GOP, Indiana is now home to nearly 20 biofuel plants producing ethanol and biodiesel. Those companies have made Indiana a top­five producer of  biofuels in the nation.  The state's fleet of automobiles includes 941 vehicles than can run on E85, an ethanol­gasoline mix, and 1,881  vehicles that can use biodiesel. Also, Indiana now has 100 E85 pumps ­ the third­highest number in the nation.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

AT: Indiana DA - Econ Tanked

Indiana economy Jacked - GM Moving South Bend Tribune 7/27/’8 [Governors not in control of the economy, ln] No matter who was governor, however, it would be impossible now to convince General Motors to increase commercial Hummer production in Mishawaka.  Indiana still depends heavily on the automotive industry.  That's one reason why the Indiana's jobless rate went up so much in the most recent report ­ a report before any impact from the Monaco closings.    The governor promises to do all  that he can to help those left unemployed by Monaco. He will. Long Thompson, if she were governor, would do all that she could.  What governor wouldn't?  We will hear a battle of statistics during the campaign for governor. Daniels will search out the positive in  seeking to convince voters that he was effective in getting Indiana braced for the downturn. Long Thompson will draw attention to the  negative in seeking to convince voters that Daniels didn't keep promises to improve the economy.  Daniels now cites statistics showing  Indiana's jobless rate is better than that in adjoining states.  Long Thompson cites statistics showing that Indiana's jobless rate increase  in June was the largest in the nation.  While Daniels talks of improvements in state rankings for favorable business climate, Long  Thompson says Indiana has slipped in state rankings of gross domestic product.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

texas

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

at: texas DA - Renewables Now

Texas Funding Renewables Now ABC 6/3/’8 [Wind power testing site gets green light,  http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=resources/lifestyle_community/outdoors&id=6182274] "As the nation's top wind energy producer, Texas is proud to welcome this crucial blade-testing center," Governor Rick Perry said, who served as keynote speaker at the AWEA conference. "The construction of this facility is more tangible proof of our state's ongoing commitment to renewable energy and its growing role in our increasingly diverse energy portfolio. Texas is proud to be to be a global leader in this rapidly expanding field."

Texas Funding Renewables Now ABC 6/3/’8 [Wind power testing site gets green light,  http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=resources/lifestyle_community/outdoors&id=6182274] The University of Houston has completed an agreement with the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory  (NREL) to design, construct and operate a state-of-the-art wind turbine blade testing facility in Ingleside, Texas. UH will receive  technical and operational assistance from NREL as well as $2 million in equipment for the Gulf Coast testing site. Construction is  expected to be completed in 2010. The Texas­NREL Large Blade Research and Test Facility (LBR&TF) will be able to perform full­ scale testing of turbine blades up to 70 meters in length. UH is the general manager of the Lone Star Wind Alliance (LSWA), a public/private partnership of universities, government agencies and corporate partners formed to support the economic development of  renewable wind energy throughout Texas and the nation. The Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) between  UH and NREL was announced Tuesday, June 3, at the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) WINDPOWER 2008 conference  taking place in Houston.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

States fail- they use infrigment of states rights rhetoric to paralyze federal action as they reinforce discriminatory institutions woven into the fabric of society hayward reynolds 94, prof. emeritus at Capital university, "deconstructing state action' ohio law review , lexis Both the Burger-Rehnquist Courts and the Court in The Civil Rights Cases n18 acted to stymie social and political changes through the use of a formalistic concept of state action which ignored the gross inequities and inequalities implicit in the very fabric of our [*851] social and economic institutions. This formalistic concept was applied in a manner and degree woefully inconsistent with and destructive of the moral, social, and legal ideas documented in the Bill of Rights and incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, this concept focuses attention on the character of the defendant as a public or private actor and diverts attention from the positive substantive values of equality and liberty inherent in the Constitution and our every day ideas, aspirations, and language. This formalist approach ignores the incongruity between our formalist rhetoric of equality and liberty and the harsh reality of discriminatory patterns of everyday behavior. It denies the cancer within our lives and a social system that threatens to destroy us. This formalist doctrine of state action is also derived from eighteenth and nineteenth century ideas about the state n19 and the individual which are inappropriate in the modern welfare state. The older notions of the minimalist state which riveted attention on excesses of official power are simply inadequate to meet the problems of correcting gross social and economic inequalities that have resulted, in part, from the failure of the minimalist state to curb "private actions" which greedily imposed discriminatory class structures in order to acquire and maintain privilege, power, and wealth. Under these eighteenth and nineteenth century views of the state and the individual, individuals entered into a social contract whereby they conferred the power to protect themselves and their property on the state which was charged with the task of maintaining peace and order. Under this social compact, individuals retained their personal, autonomous power to pursue their private needs and interests. This private autonomous sphere of activity was protected from the power of the state by stipulating that all actions were either public or private. The state was deemed to have power over the realm of public activities and the individual retained power over activities in the private realm. n20 Under this conceptual framework, individuals were to be wary of too much power in the hands of the state and also wary of state intrusions into the realm of privacy. Attention was focused on restraining the power of the state and the corollary problem of locating the mythical dividing line between the public and private spheres of action. This [*852] distinction is analogous to the mythical line dividing state action from private action. The continuing search for the line that separates state action from private action is a relic of a now discredited past. In our society, our Federal Constitution is perceived as a social contract. This contract limits the official powers of the federal government to the regulation of certain public matters by retaining powers within the private realm in the form of fundamental constitutional rights, and the powers of the states to regulate the everyday affairs of their respective citizens. n21 In this traditional, conceptual framework or formalist ideology, the reserved states' powers become associated with the realm of privacy reserved by the individual. The retention of power by the individual over their private affairs combines with reserved state powers in common resistance to abuses of power by the federal government. The claims of invasion of state reserved powers almost always have assertions of private autonomy of individuals at their core. n22 Given this combination of state and private interests, it can be argued that the Fourteenth Amendment federalized the protection of fundamental rights and effectively

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

ceded the police power to the federal government. This police power can be conceived of as the power to regulate private interactions and to restructure social institutions and social practices that interfere with the enjoyment of the basic rights of equality and liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Under the banner of states' rights, its advocates have been legitimating discriminatory and oppressive actions indigenous to our social institutions and modes of social behavior. The shielding of the realm of private actions from federal regulatory power allows the perpetuation of institutionalized discrimination and becomes the chief function of the formalist state action requirement. n23 This reality appears once the formalist exterior of the state action doctrine is pierced and its political and value core is exposed. The political and value agenda exposed is the protection and affirmation of vested rights in the form [*853] of power, wealth, and privilege entrenched in the discriminatory operations of our social institutions.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Under the guise of private action outside the realm of Federal authority, the state has undermined all the basic rights affirmed in the Constitution hayward reynolds 94, prof. emeritus at Capital university, "deconstructing state action' ohio law review , lexis Despite these powerful arguments and the social realities, recently decided U. S. Supreme Court cases, including Freeman v. Pitts, n11 give clear and convincing evidence of the BurgerRehnquist Courts' reactionary agenda. This agenda includes the continued validation of the use of the state action requirement to curtail attempts to effect meaningful social and economic reforms under the auspices and authority of The Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Burger-Rehnquist Court, just as the Court did in The Civil Rights Cases n12 100 years ago, has chosen to use the state action doctrine to neutralize the socially revolutionary purposes and effects of the civil rights' movements of the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's. The Court since 1970 has used the formalistic state action doctrine to protect and facilitate private discrimination and oppression, while at the same time it has adamantly denounced official government discrimination. n13 The state action requirement as enunciated by the Court in 1883 and by the Burger-Rehnquist Courts has provided a tool whereby the basic human rights affirmed by the Bill of Rights, the Fourteenth Amendment, the Declaration of Independence, and our political and social ethos can be ignored, undermined, and destroyed by so-called private actions.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

The federal government is key to protecting the rights of all citizens hayward reynolds 94, prof. emeritus at Capital university, "deconstructing state action' ohio law review , lexis Since 1970, the Court has, under the impetus of the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush administrations, sought to undermine and reverse the modern, revolutionary notion of federalism that was developed and implemented during the period of 1937 to 1970. The Burger-Rehnquist Courts' approach can be seen as a counter-revolutionary attack on the socially responsive, pragmatic concept of federalism that was developed during the liberal era of 1937 to 1970. The Court's action can be seen as a renewal of the states' rights arguments that plagued constitutional jurisprudence during the nineteenth century and which were not rejected until 1937 in the revolutionary case of NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation. n14 Similarly, the Court's decision in The Civil Rights Cases in 1883 can be seen as the rejection [*850] of a new type of federalism growing out of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments and the post-civil war statutes n15 passed by Congress. This new post-civil war notion of federalism established a relationship between the federal government and the citizens of each of the several states which made the federal government the protector and elucidator of the fundamental rights and privileges of citizens of the United States. n16 This new federalism rejected the invidious states' rights argument which claimed that the states were the exclusive protectors of the fundamental rights of their citizens under the notion of reserved state powers. This new federalism projected by the post-civil war amendments and statutes was a denial of the states' rights ideal of interposition of the states between their citizens and the federal government.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

The idea of states rights is only used to reinforce social and economic institutions that protect the privileges of the wealthy while discriminating against the lower classes hayward reynolds 94, prof. emeritus at Capital university, "deconstructing state action' ohio law review , lexis From the founding of our republic to the present day, the concepts of retained states' powers and states' rights have been devices to protect the interests of the wealthy and powerful by preserving the social and economic institutions that operate in the service of these interests. By invoking states' rights, parties were indirectly advocating that social and economic matters should be left to the realm of private affairs supposedly governed by invisible and natural processes.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

Only the Federal Government has the power and influence to change the discriminatory state policies that are engrained into the fabric of society hayward reynolds 94, prof. emeritus at Capital university, "deconstructing state action' ohio law review , lexis Restricting federal power, legislative and judicial, under the Fourteenth Amendment by imposing a barrier to the regulation of alleged private, discriminatory actions is tantamount to insuring that there [*848] will be no basic changes in our social and economic institutions which might threaten existing power, privilege, and wealth. Realistically, Congress is the only governmental body that could formulate universal and uniform policies to correct the injustices and inequalities welded into the framework of our social and economic institutions and their operational practices. It was Congress that, after the Civil War, took the lead in passing legislation to rectify the wrongs of racial discrimination. n4 Congress again passed civil rights legislation in the 1960's to counteract the evils of race and gender discrimination. n5

FILE NAME DDI 2008 CM Your Name

State action ensures no true change as social and political institutions continue to impose discrimination and exploitation on the lower classes hayward reynolds 94, prof. emeritus at Capital university, "deconstructing state action' ohio law review , lexis The fourth purpose was to promote the understanding that the effective basis of discrimination and exploitation lies in the day-to-day operation of our social and economic institutions. Moreover, this institutionalized discrimination and exploitation of less privileged groups has been insulated from needed change by choosing to view these practices and institutions as involving private action which is outside the purview of the Fourteenth Amendment's transformative powers. In this context, the state action requirement plays a crucial role in protecting and preserving institutionalized discrimination and exploitation which in no realistic sense can be understood to involve merely private matters. If we are to seek and achieve some meaningful semblance of equality and liberty, we must do away with the state action requirement and its underlying formalistic ideology.