You are on page 1of 22

DDI 2008 1

KO lab Updates

KO updates, 7-29-08
KO updates, 7-29-08.......................................................................................................................................................1
US STRONG SUPPORTER OF NUCLEAR INCENTIVES NOW..............................................................................2
US STRONG SUPPORTER OF NUCLEAR INCENTIVES NOW..............................................................................3
Corn ethanol =/= food inflation......................................................................................................................................4
DOE Bad.........................................................................................................................................................................5
AT: Menand/Tetlock Study.............................................................................................................................................6
A2: Kato..........................................................................................................................................................................8
Mass Transit decreases FF..............................................................................................................................................9
Hemp unpopular............................................................................................................................................................10
2AC Heidegger Frontline (1/).......................................................................................................................................11
2AC Heidegger Frontline (2/).......................................................................................................................................12
2AC Heidegger Frontline (3/).......................................................................................................................................14
2AC Heidegger Frontline (4/).......................................................................................................................................16
2AC Heidegger Frontline (5/).......................................................................................................................................18
Mass transit PIC solvency.............................................................................................................................................19
A2: NASA tradeoff DA.................................................................................................................................................20
Sovereignty K links.......................................................................................................................................................21
Sovereignty K links.......................................................................................................................................................22
DDI 2008 2
KO lab Updates

US STRONG SUPPORTER OF NUCLEAR INCENTIVES NOW


Federal government is a strong supporter for nuclear energy now

World Nuclear Association, June 8 "Nuclear power in the USA" http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html[JWu]

After much preliminary debate the Energy Policy Act 2005 comfortably passed both houses - 74-26 in the Senate
and 275-156 in the House. It included incentives for the nuclear power industry including:

* production tax credit of 1.8 c/kWh from the first 6000 MWe of new nuclear plants in their first 8 years of
operation (same as for wind power on unlimited basis),
* federal risk insurance of $2 billion to cover regulatory delays in full-power operation of the first six advanced
new plants,
* rationalised tax on decommissioning funds (some reduced),
* federal loan guarantees for advanced nuclear reactors or other emission-free technologies up to 80% of the
project cost,
* the Price Anderson Act for nuclear liability protection extended for 20 years.
* support for advanced nuclear technology.

Also $1.25 billion was authorised for an advanced high-temperature reactor (Next Generation Nuclear Plant) at the
Idaho National Laboratory, capable of cogenerating hydrogen. Overall more than $2 billion was provided for
hydrogen demonstration projects.

In 2006 it was spelled out that the 6000 MWe eligible for production tax credits would be divided pro-rata among
those applicants which filed COL applications by the end of 2008, which commence construction of advanced plants
by 2014, and which enter service by 2021.

In October 2007 DOE announced that it would guarantee the full amount of loans covering up to 80% of the cost of
new clean energy projects including advanced nuclear power plants under the 2005 Energy Policy Act. The first
round of loan guarantees will go to renewable energy and advanced gas (eg IGCC) projects, those for nuclear still
needed to be authorised by Congress.

Federal government providing strong incentives for nuclear now

IPS 1-14-08 Matthew Cardinale, http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-7377468/U-S-GOVERNMENT-


INCENTIVES-SPUR.html [JWu]

WAYNESBORO, Ga., Jan. 14, 2008 (IPS/GIN) -- More than a dozen corporations have filed or are planning to file
the paperwork required to open new nuclear power plants, primarily in the southern United States.
Residents and environmental activists have become in a locked bitter dispute with large U.S. energy corporations
and the federal government over the safety of nuclear power, even as nuclear power incentives offered under the
George W. Bush Administration have drawn the interest of energy giants such as Southern Company, Entergy, and
Florida Power and Light.
"There's a whole suite of incentives being pumped out by the federal government to try and cajole the utilities back
into the game," said Glenn Carroll of Nuclear Watch South.
The U.S. Congress last month passed $38.5 billion in loan guarantees to the nuclear industry. "If they can't pay back
the loan or don't want to pay back the loan, the government will guarantee the banks up to 80 percent," Carroll said.
DDI 2008 3
KO lab Updates

US STRONG SUPPORTER OF NUCLEAR INCENTIVES NOW


Federal government providing strong nuclear support now

UPI 7-2-08 "Government invests in clean tech" energy-daily.com/reports/Analysis_


Government_invests_in_clean_tech_999.html [JWu]

Department of Energy officials said Monday the department will provide $30.5 billion in loan guarantees for clean
technology, a quick follow-up to an announcement at the end of June that the department will invest $90 million in
geothermal technologies. The U.S. Department of Agriculture also recently awarded $1.5 million for energy
efficiency projects.

The Energy Department's loan-guarantee program is designed to encourage advanced energy projects that avoid,
reduce or sequester greenhouse gasses and other air pollutants. Renewable energy or energy efficiency projects,
nuclear power plants and nuclear fuel production facilities are all eligible for the program.

The loan guarantees will make it possible for a number of companies to finance new nuclear plants that would
otherwise be too expensive, said Adrian Heymer, senior director for new plant deployment at the Nuclear Energy
Institute, a policy organization that promotes pro-nuclear legislation.

"It lowers the overall cost of the project, eases the financing, reduces your risk and enables projects to go forward,"
Heymer told United Press International.
DDI 2008 4
KO lab Updates

Corn ethanol =/= food inflation


Corn ethanol is only responsible for a negligible rise in food prices
Reuters, December 11, 2007, “Corn Ethanol not Culprit for Food Inflation”,
(http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/45923/story.htm)
CHICAGO - US food inflation is rising but don't blame the ethanol-based boom in corn prices, the head of global agriculture and food-industry
research firm Informa Economics said Monday.
Memphis, Tennessee-based Informa, formerly called Sparks Companies, said a study based on 20 years of price data shows that
corn prices have minimal impact on the US Consumer Price Index for food, which has been on the rise.
The study, released on Monday, "debunks the concept that the ethanol expansion is the underlying and main significant
reason for food price increases," Bruce Scherr, Informa's chief executive, told Reuters in an interview.
"We're not saying that corn prices are cheap, that ethanol hasn't helped underpin the growth in the corn economy," Scherr said. "What we are
saying is to blame corn and corn-based ethanol for all of the inflation associated with food and food prices ... is
to grossly under-consider all the other forces at work."
The CPI for food, a broadly used gauge for inflation, is up almost 6 percent for the first nine months of 2007, with the food inflation pace at a 25-
year high, industry analysts said.
Many have blamed the rising price of food on raw commodity prices which have soared to multiyear highs in 2007.
Chicago Board of Trade corn futures rose to US$4.37-1/4 in February, the highest level in a decade. The catalyst was President George W. Bush's
State of the Union speech in January, which called for a more than five-fold expansion of US biofuels like corn-based ethanol to some 35 billion
gallons by 2017.
Scherr does not see the upward price trend "to be broken in the near future" given the world's demand for raw
commodities. But outlooks for bigger corn yields due to increased seed technology will push world production by 2015 to 2020 to levels that
will be better able to keep up with demand, he said.
The Informa study was funded by the Renewable Fuels Foundation, which is linked to the Renewable Fuels Association that groups ethanol
producers. But Scherr and Informa Senior Vice President Scott Richman said consumer food costs are far more complex in the long US food
chain than just corn costs.
For every dollar an American consumer spends on food, only 19 cents goes to a farmer, according to the US Department of Agriculture. The
balance -- 81 cents -- goes to labor, fuels, transportation, packaging, and other non-farm costs.
The study said greater impacts on food inflation than the price of corn have been these soaring non-farm costs,
including record oil prices and soaring consumer demand from the world economy, notably the emerging middle
class in Asia. The United States is the top world exporter of food, including wheat and corn.
"There's no one culprit ... that is causing an uptick in food price inflation this year," said Richman. "An uptick in the
price of corn is not causing people to have to pay substantially more overall at retail."
Ethanol demand has boosted corn prices. But given the competitive nature of the retail industry, much of the higher price of corn is
being absorbed into the margins of food processors and livestock producers, Richman said.
Of the projected record 2007 US corn crop of 13 billion bushels, about 43 percent will fed to livestock to produce meat and dairy products and 24
percent will be turned into ethanol.
Two years ago, feed demand took 55 percent of the crop while ethanol consumed only 14 percent.
But the Informa study said that historical and statistical data simply does not bear out a significant tie between corn
prices and food inflation as measured by the CPI.
"There has historically been very little relationship between corn prices and consumer food prices," the study says.
"It's a David and Goliath; the ethanol business is a David. The world economy and the shifting of demand curves --
that's what caught up in the pricing to the consumer far more than a 7 billion gallon corn-based ethanol industry,"
Scherr said.
DDI 2008 5
KO lab Updates

DOE Bad
1. CP HAS ONLY 60% SOLVENCY—DOE IS INEFFICIENT

John S. Barry, 95 Heritage Foundation, "how to close down the DOE"


http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1061.cfm

The Department of Energy not only has strayed from its original mission of energy oversight, but also has failed to
conduct efficiently the services it now provides. Vice President Al Gore's National Performance Review reported
that due to inefficiencies as high as 40 percent within DOE's Environmental Management program, more than $70
billion could be lost over the next 30 years.2 Victor Rezendes testified that "DOE suffers from significant
management problems, ranging from poor environmental management... to major internal inefficiencies rooted in
poor oversight.... "3. These management problems and the inefficiencies that flow from them have been caused
largely by DOE's continual efforts to re-align itself and justify its existence.

2. DOE IS TOO BUREACRATIC AND WASTEFUL TO SOLVE

National Taxpayers Union, 2-21-03 Issue brief 142


http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release.php?PressID=210&org_name=NTU

A good start might also include the abolishment of the entire Department of Energy. Originally conceived as a way
to both unite energy-related agencies and eliminate superfluous programs, the DoE now stands as "one of the most
inefficient organizations in the federal government," according to the National Research Council.[7] Ironically, the
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, Spencer Abraham, was once a proponent of doing away with the DoE
and its $19 billion budget. As a Michigan Senator, Abraham had some very good reasons for his stance – reasons
which seem to have become less compelling since he was appointed Secretary. What Secretary Abraham no longer
seems willing to contemplate is that the functions of the DoE can easily be transferred to other departments and/or
agencies or the private sector. For instance, the DoE has responsibilities relating to nuclear weapons laboratories that
should instead be transferred to the Department of Defense. While in the Senate, Abraham vigorously supported
legislation in support of that goal: "Energy oversees everything from nuclear waste disposal to energy conservation
to corporate welfare . . . What is not unneeded or harmful in this would be better secured without Energy's wasteful
umbrella organization."[8] Now Secretary Abraham believes that "improved agency management" will correct the
problems of the redundant department.

3. FAILURE AND INEFFICIENCY MEANS YOU SHOULD PREFER NASA

John S. Barry, 95 Heritage Foundation, "how to close down the DOE"


http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1061.cfm

There are two ways to close down a federal department. The first is simply to shift the department's responsibilities
to other agencies and throw the old letterhead into the trash. The alternative is to eliminate, devolve, or privatize
responsibilities whenever possible, and transfer only essential responsibilities to other departments. This latter
approach is the one that should be used with the Department of Energy. DOE's history of failure and ineffectiveness
demands nothing less.
DDI 2008 6
KO lab Updates

AT: Menand/Tetlock Study


No link to Menand - Tetlock only criticizes the experts who are qualified in only one field-
we use multiple varied source- at best we lose marginal probability
Daneil Drezner, Associate professor of international, Tufts University, 2005,
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/002441.html
It was no news to Tetlock... that experts got beaten by formulas. But he does believe that he discovered something
about why some people make better forecasters than other people. It has to do not with what the experts believe but
with the way they think. Tetlock uses Isaiah Berlin’s metaphor from Archilochus, from his essay on Tolstoy, “The
Hedgehog and the Fox,” to illustrate the difference. He says: Low scorers look like hedgehogs: thinkers who “know
one big thing,” aggressively extend the explanatory reach of that one big thing into new domains, display bristly
impatience with those who “do not get it,” and express considerable confidence that they are already pretty
proficient forecasters, at least in the long term. High scorers look like foxes: thinkers who know many small things
(tricks of their trade), are skeptical of grand schemes, see explanation and prediction not as deductive exercises but
rather as exercises in flexible “ad hocery” that require stitching together diverse sources of information, and are
rather diffident about their own forecasting prowess. A hedgehog is a person who sees international affairs to be
ultimately determined by a single bottom-line force: balance-of-power considerations, or the clash of civilizations,
or globalization and the spread of free markets. A hedgehog is the kind of person who holds a great-man theory of
history, according to which the Cold War does not end if there is no Ronald Reagan. Or he or she might adhere to
the “actor-dispensability thesis,” according to which Soviet Communism was doomed no matter what. Whatever it
is, the big idea, and that idea alone, dictates the probable outcome of events. For the hedgehog, therefore, predictions
that fail are only “off on timing,” or are “almost right,” derailed by an unforeseeable accident. There are always little
swerves in the short run, but the long run irons them out. Foxes, on the other hand, don’t see a single determining
explanation in history. They tend, Tetlock says, “to see the world as a shifting mixture of self-fulfilling and self-
negating prophecies: self-fulfilling ones in which success breeds success, and failure, failure but only up to a point,
and then self-negating prophecies kick in as people recognize that things have gone too far.” Tetlock did not find, in
his sample, any significant correlation between how experts think and what their politics are. His hedgehogs were
liberal as well as conservative, and the same with his foxes. (Hedgehogs were, of course, more likely to be extreme
politically, whether rightist or leftist.) He also did not find that his foxes scored higher because they were more
cautious—that their appreciation of complexity made them less likely to offer firm predictions. Unlike hedgehogs,
who actually performed worse in areas in which they specialized, foxes enjoyed a modest benefit from expertise.
Hedgehogs routinely over-predicted: twenty per cent of the outcomes that hedgehogs claimed were impossible or
nearly impossible came to pass, versus ten per cent for the foxes. More than thirty per cent of the outcomes that
hedgehogs thought were sure or near-sure did not, against twenty per cent for foxes. The upside of being a
hedgehog, though, is that when you’re right you can be really and spectacularly right. Great scientists, for example,
are often hedgehogs. They value parsimony, the simpler solution over the more complex. In world affairs, parsimony
may be a liability—but, even there, there can be traps in the kind of highly integrative thinking that is characteristic
of foxes. Elsewhere, Tetlock has published an analysis of the political reasoning of Winston Churchill. Churchill was
not a man who let contradictory information interfere with his idées fixes. This led him to make the wrong
prediction about Indian independence, which he opposed. But it led him to be right about Hitler. He was never
distracted by the contingencies that might combine to make the elimination of Hitler unnecessary. (emphases added)
I'll need to read the book to see the methodology by which Tetlock distinguished hedgehogs from foxes, but let's
assume that his finding is correct. What does this imply for the study of international relations? Potentially a lot --
from my vantage point, the incentives in the IR discipline are heavily skewed towards the hedgehogs.
Methodologically, the growing sophistication of formal, statistical, and even qualitative techniques make it
increasingly difficult for any one scholar to keep up their abilities in more than one area. Professionally, our field
rewards the hedgehogs, the ones who come up with "the big idea" that can explain it all. As a result, my field has a
lot of hedgehogs, which means that we may not be of much use when it comes to policy relevance. Is this a bad
thing? I'm sure that many commenters will instinctively say, "yeah!" but it's not so clear cut. First, if the point of the
academy is to nourish unpopular but important ideas, then it's a good thing we have a lot of hedgehogs, because
every once in a while they will produce the kind of insight that helps to understand Really Big Truths. Second,
asking IR scholars for accurate predictions about the future might be like asking meterologists for an accurate
weather forecast three months ahead. That's impossible -- there are just too many variables. It might be that what
political scientists do best is not predicting future events but rather explaining the past and present in a way that
provides limited but useful insights into the very near future.
DDI 2008 7
KO lab Updates

AT: Kato

Risk in the international system is inevitable—the goal should be to weigh the impacts of action
vs inaction in the face of a particular threat.
Harvard Nuclear Study Group, 1983, Living with Nuclear Weapons, p.16-7
When President John F. Kennedy was shown irrefutable evidence of the Soviet missile
emplacement – U-2 photographs of the missile bases in Cube – he and his advisors discussed the
matter for six days before deciding on an American response to the challenge. The decision, to
place a naval blockade around the island, was not a risk-free response. This, Kennedy honestly
admitted to the nation the night of October 22, 1962: My fellow citizens, let no one doubt this is
a difficult and dangerous effort on which we have set out. No one can foresee precisely what
course it will take… But the great danger of all would be to do nothing. Why did the president
believe that “to do nothing” about the missiles in Cuba would be an even greater danger than
accepting the “difficult and dangerous” course of the blockade? He accepted some risk of war in
the long run, by discouraging future Soviet aggressive behavior. Inaction might have led to an
even more dangerous future. This the president also explained that night in his address to the
nation: [This] sudden, clandestine decision to station weapons for the first time outside Soviet
soil – is a deliberate provocative and unjustified change in the status quo which cannot be
accepted by this country if our courage and our commitments are ever to be trusted by either
friend or foe. The 1930’s taught us a clear lesson: Aggressive conduct, if allowed to grow
unchecked and unchallenged, ultimately leads to war. The American government managed the
1962 crisis with skill and restraint – offering a compromise to the Soviets and giving them
sufficient time to call back their missile-laden ships, for example – and the missiles were
withdrawn from Cuba. The president carefully supervised American military actions to ensure
that his orders were not misunderstood. He did not push his success too far or ignore the real
risks of war. The point here is not, to make the blockade a model for American action in the
future: different circumstances may call for different policies. Rather the point is to underline the
persistence of risk in international affairs. Every proposed response to the Soviet action – doing
nothing, enforcing the blockade, or invading Cuba – entailed some risk of nuclear war.
Kennedy’s task – and we think his success – was to weigh accurately the risks entailed in each
course and decide on policy accordingly.
DDI 2008 8
KO lab Updates

A2: Kato
Fear and securitization of war is good – leads to social unity and peace
J. A. H. Futterman, Ph.D. from UT-Austin and Physicist at the University of California's Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, “Obscenity and Peace: Meditations on the Bomb,” 1990-94,
http://www.dogchurch.com/scriptorium/nuke.html, UK: Fisher
But the inhibitory effect of reliable nuclear weapons goes deeper than Shirer's deterrence of adventurer-conquerors. It
changes the way we think individually and culturally, preparing us for a future we cannot now
imagine. Jungian psychiatrist Anthony J. Stevens states, [15] "History would indicate that people cannot rise above
their narrow sectarian concerns without some overwhelming paroxysm. It took the War of
Independence and the Civil War to forge the United States, World War I to create the League of
Nations, World War II to create the United Nations Organization and the European Economic Community. Only
catastrophe, it seems, forces people to take the wider view.Or what about fear? Can the horror which we
all experience when we contemplate the possibility of nuclear extinction mobilize in us sufficient libidinal
energy to resist the archetypes of war? Certainly, the moment we become blasé about the possibility
of holocaust we are lost. As long as horror of nuclear exchange remains uppermost we can recognize that nothing is
worth it. War becomes the impossible option. Perhaps horror, the experience of horror, the consciousness of horror, is our only hope. Perhaps
horror alone will enable us to overcome the otherwise invincible attraction of war." Thus I also
continue engaging in nuclear weapons work to help fire that world-historical warning shot I mentioned above,
namely, that as our beneficial technologies become more powerful, so will our weapons technologies, unless
genuine peace precludes it. We must build a future more peaceful than our past, if we are to have a future at all, with
or without nuclear weapons — a fact we had better learn before worse things than nuclear weapons are invented. If
you're a philosopher, this means that I regard the nature of humankind as mutable rather than fixed, but that I think
most people welcome change in their personalities and cultures with all the enthusiasm that they welcome death —
thus, the fear of nuclear annihilation of ourselves and all our values may be what we require in
order to become peaceful enough to survive our future technological breakthroughs.[16]Of course,
we could just try for a world-wide halt to scientific research and technological change. This is obviously not
desirable because technological change serves humanity like biological diversity serves life in general -- it gives us
ways to cope with new challenges to our existence. For example, medical scientists deliberately forced the smallpox
virus into virtual extinction. Nor is halting technological change possible, because the demand for such change is so
great — people want the new stuff so much that they actually buy it. The fear of nuclear annihilation may be
what we require in order to become peaceful enough to survive our future technological
breakthroughs.In other words, when the peace movement tells the world that we need to treat each other more
kindly, I and my colleagues stand behind it (like Malcolm X stood behind Martin Luther King, Jr.) saying, "Or else."
We provide the peace movement with a needed sense of urgency that it might otherwise lack.
DDI 2008 9
KO lab Updates

Mass Transit decreases FF


Mass transit decreases fossil fuel consumption
Warren Redlich, Albany lawyer elected to Guilderland Town Board, 7-3-06, http://www.wredlich.com/stop-
wasting-money/2006/09/global-warming-gas-taxes-mass-transit.html, [CXia]

Mass transit has many benefits. Heavy use of mass transit dramatically reduces our consumption of
gasoline. Japan and Europe are, again, great examples of this. It's one thing to discourage consumption
by raising taxes or otherwise making life more difficult for drivers, but it also helps a lot to give them an
alternative.

Mass transit reduces fossil fuel consumptions and help solve global
warming.
Robert Reich, professor of public policy @ University of California-Berkeley, 6-4-08, “Let’s Get Serious about
Public Transit”, http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/06/04/reich_public_transit/, [CXia]
For years, policy makers have wondered just how high gas prices would have to go before drivers
switch to public transportation. Now we know: it's around $4 a gallon, because millions of Americans
are switching to buses, trains and subways to go to work. Rather than bemoaning the spike in gas prices,
we should be celebrating. Public transit not only reduces congestion but also reduces the nation's energy
needs and cuts carbon emissions that bring on global warming.
DDI 2008 10
KO lab Updates

Hemp unpopular
hemp unpopular
National Families in Action, 2000, "A Guide to the Drug Legalization Movement",
http://www.nationalfamilies.org/legalization/legalization_from_here.html
Now, chances are very good we're going to win all these initiatives and on top of two other medical marijuana
initiatives, hopefully in November we're going to have seven victories. And, we think it's very important to project
that kind of "we win every time on this issue." Because that puts increasing pressure on the Federal Government.
That's what got Al Gore to talk about medical marijuana when Dick [Evans] and his friends put it to him in New
Hampshire.
So, that leads me to an unpleasant conclusion. What is the impact of another kind of initiative that didn't go through
this process and that is going to lose overwhelmingly in November on the same day that all these carefully crafted
initiatives win? And I'm unfortunately referring to an initiative that Jack's going to talk about in a couple of minutes.
It's on the ballot in Alaska. That initiative is not strategic, because that initiative can't possibly win, based on public-
opinion polling that's been available there for some time.
So, what's going to happen? The government's going to say, "well, people are split on drug reform. You know they
might want a few initiatives over here, but then they lost that other one up there." And, if we continue to put
initiatives on the ballot that are unpopular and lose, if we continue to have demonstrations that occur in Boston
Commons every year in which fifty to seventy thousand people get together and smoke dope in a public park -- and
everybody else in Massachusetts who might be thinking of coming over to our side on an initiative vote that will
occur six weeks after the next demonstration thinks to themselves, well this is just a bunch of junkies in the park -
that's not going to help any of us get to a goal as fast as we want to get to it.
DDI 2008 11
KO lab Updates

2AC Heidegger 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.

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 ontological structure of rethinking
relies on human agency; B. Reacting to death can bring responsibility back to human
existence which forms our ethical obligation to save lives. This is particularly true for
health assistance.

Brent Dean Robbins, doctoral student in clinical psychology at Duquesne University, 1999 [“Medard Boss,”
http://mythosandlogos.com/Boss.html]

"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
DDI 2008 12
KO lab Updates

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.

2AC Heidegger Frontline (2/)

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.
Nuremberg proves we need international action to stop genocidal arms races. 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
DDI 2008 13
KO lab Updates

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.
DDI 2008 14
KO lab Updates

2AC Heidegger Frontline (3/)


Turn – Authenticity – A. 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.

B. The 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, which is especially true in Africa given the history of colonialism.
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
DDI 2008 15
KO lab Updates

"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?”
DDI 2008 16
KO lab Updates

2AC Heidegger Frontline (4/)

Perm – do the plan and all parts of the alternative that don’t include rejecting the Aff.
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.
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
DDI 2008 17
KO lab Updates

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 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.
DDI 2008 18
KO lab Updates

2AC Heidegger Frontline (5/)

8. No impact and the alternative fails – Either the Alt opposes all action and the
permutation solves or it only opposes the plan which doesn’t spillover. Don’t believe the
hype – the plan does not justify “all forms of violence”. Heidegger’s critique is sloppy when
it lumps Stalinism together with Western rationalism, and 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.
DDI 2008 19
KO lab Updates

Mass transit PIC solvency


Mass transit reduces the amount of pollution by being an alternative to private transport.

Stephanie Corson, philosopher at USF. No date. “Private Transportation vs. Mass Transit:
The Environmental Aspects,” Mass Transit in Tampa.
http://www.cas.usf.edu/philosophy/mass/Stephanie.html [Takumi
Murayama]
For the last few decades, air pollution has become an increasingly evident problem. Many of the pollutants
in the air such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons are produced by
automobiles. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare has estimated that automobiles account for
approximately 48% of the carbon monoxide, 32% of the nitrogen oxides, and 59% of the hydrocarbons in the
atmosphere. These pollutants have an adverse effect on the environment and on humans. A mass transit
system is more beneficial to the environment because it reduces the amount of pollution released into
the air by providing an alternative to private transport that can be used by many. Mass transit systems
are also more energy efficient modes of transportation than automobiles.

Alternative energy not key–automobiles contribute to more than a half of smog

Stephanie Corson, philosopher at USF. No date. “Private Transportation vs. Mass Transit:
The Environmental Aspects,” Mass Transit in Tampa.
http://www.cas.usf.edu/philosophy/mass/Stephanie.html [Takumi
Murayama]
Smog is an urban air pollution composed of exhaust emissions, smoke, and other gases. It contains
pollutants which affect people's health. Some, such as carbon monoxide, are toxic enough to cause serious
illness. Others can cause coughing, wheezing, and chest discomfort at relatively high concentrations. It is
also harmful to crops and reduces visibility. Higher temperatures in the surrounding atmosphere, such as
would be produced by the greenhouse effect, could lead to higher levels of smog. Smog itself can create a
blanket over cities that traps heat, thus producing a kind of mini-greenhouse effect. In the United States,
automobiles contribute more than one half of the pollutants that form smog.
DDI 2008 20
KO lab Updates

A2: NASA tradeoff DA


Science Daily, 6-23-08,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080622001251.htm,
Junaid

NASA-French space agency oceanography satellite launched


June 20 from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., on a
globe-circling voyage to continue charting sea level, a
vital indicator of global climate change. The mission will
return a vast amount of new data that will improve weather,
climate and ocean forecasts. With a thunderous roar and
fiery glow, the Ocean Surface Topography Mission/Jason 2
satellite arced through the blackness of an early central
coastal California morning at 12:46 a.m. PDT, climbing into
space atop a Delta II rocket. Fifty-five minutes later,
OSTM/Jason 2 separated from the rocket's second stage, and
then unfurled its twin sets of solar arrays. Ground
controllers successfully acquired the spacecraft's signals.
Initial telemetry reports show it to be in excellent health.
"Sea-level measurements from space have come of age," said
Michael Freilich, director of the Earth Science Division in
NASA's Science Mission Directorate, Washington. "Precision
measurements from this mission will improve our knowledge of
global and regional sea-level changes and enable more
accurate weather, ocean and climate forecasts." Measurements
of sea-surface height, or ocean surface topography, reveal
the speed and direction of ocean currents and tell
scientists how much of the sun's energy is stored by the
ocean. Combining ocean current and heat storage data is key
to understanding global climate variations. OSTM/Jason 2's
expected lifetime of at least three years will extend into
the next decade the continuous record of these data started
in 1992 by NASA and the French space agency Centre National
d'Etudes Spatiales, or CNES, with the TOPEX/Poseidon
mission. The data collection was continued by the two
agencies on Jason 1 in 2001.
DDI 2008 21
KO lab Updates

Sovereignty K links
State granted sovereignty remains something to be taken away at will—plan is no exception

Peter d'Errico, Legal Studies Department, University of Massachusetts/Amherst, 97


"American indian sovereignty: now you see it, now you don't." umass.edu/legal/derrico/nowyouseeit.html

When we enter into the realm of "federal Indian law," we need to keep in mind that we are traveling in a semantic
world created by one group to rule another. The terminology of law is a powerful naming process. In working with
this law, we will use the names that it uses, but we will always want to keep in mind that the reality behind the
names is what we are struggling over.
According to the theory of sovereignty in federal Indian law, "tribal" peoples have a lesser form of "sovereignty,"
which is not really sovereignty at all, but dependence. In the words of Chief Justice John Marshall in Cherokee
Nation v. Georgia (1831), American Indian societies, though they are "nations" in the general sense of the word, are
not fully sovereign, but are "domestic, dependent nations." The shell game of American Indian sovereignty -- the
"now you see it, now you don't" quality -- started right at the beginning of federal Indian law. The foundation of
federal Indian law is the assertion by the United States of a special kind of non-sovereign sovereignty.
In 1973, the federal district court for the district of Montana stated the underlying principle in the case of United
States v. Blackfeet Tribe, 364 F.Supp. 192. The facts were simple: The Blackfeet Business Council passed a
resolution authorizing gambling on the reservation and the licensing of slot machines. An FBI agent seized four
machines. The Blackfeet Tribal Court issued an order restraining all persons from removing the seized articles from
the reservation. The FBI agent, after consultation with the United States Attorney, removed the machines from the
reservation. A tribal judge then ordered the U.S. Attorney to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt of
the tribal court. The U.S. Attorney applied to federal court for an injunction to block the contempt citations. The
Blackfeet Tribe argued that it is sovereign and that the jurisdiction of the tribal court flows directly from this
sovereignty. The federal court said:
No doubt the Indian tribes were at one time sovereign and even now the tribes are sometimes described as being
sovereign. The blunt fact, however, is that an Indian tribe is sovereign to the extent that the United States permits it
to be sovereign -- neither more nor less. [364 F.Supp. at 194.]

US granted sovereignty is not sovereignty at all—it's colonialism

Peter d'Errico, Legal Studies Department, University of Massachusetts/Amherst, 97


"American indian sovereignty: now you see it, now you don't." umass.edu/legal/derrico/nowyouseeit.html

The fundamental premise of "American Indian sovereignty" as defined in federal Indian law is that it is not
sovereignty. Federal power truncates "tribal sovereignty" in myriad ways too numerous to list here. Federal Indian
law is perhaps the most complex area of United States law (including tax laws). In civil and criminal law both, the
range and scope of "tribal sovereignty" is fragmented into overlapping and contradictory rules premised on one
foundation: the "plenary power" of the United States. That such "plenary power" is nowhere stated in the U.S.
Constitution is no more than a small nuisance to the judges who have declared its existence. Administrative agencies
and Congress alike grasp firmly to their judicially-created prerogatives of total power over their "wards," in whose
"trust" they act as they see fit.

Federal Indian law is the continuation of colonialism. On the basis of a non-sovereign "tribal sovereignty," the
United States has built an entire apparatus for dispossessing indigenous peoples of their lands, their social
organizations, and their original powers of self-determination. The concept of "American Indian sovereignty" is
useful to the United States because it denies indigenous power in the name of indigenous sovereignty.
DDI 2008 22
KO lab Updates

Sovereignty K links
State power prevents any sovereignty and excludes Native lifestyles

Peter d'Errico, Legal Studies Department, University of Massachusetts/Amherst, 97

"American indian sovereignty: now you see it, now you don't." umass.edu/legal/derrico/nowyouseeit.html

Indigenous peoples around the world are attacking the supremacy of state governments. From an indigenous
perspective, state sovereignty is a claim that violates their own pre-existing self-determination. Western
jurisprudence has done a great deal to exclude "non-state societies" from the domain of law, because they lack
hierarchical authority structures. If indigenous peoples follow the model of state sovereignty -- which they are being
told they cannot do because they are not states -- they may find that when they attain this goal they have sacrificed
the underlying goal of self-defined self-determination.

STATE ACTION DESTROYS INDIAN SOVEREIGNTY AND REPLICATES THEIR DESTRUCTION

Peter d'Errico, Legal Studies Department, University of Massachusetts/Amherst, 97

"American indian sovereignty: now you see it, now you don't." umass.edu/legal/derrico/nowyouseeit.html

In this crisis it is tempting for a people to take on the ways of the state. These ways can be taught. They are in fact
the most basic part of the curriculum of the modern state education system. It is not accidental that "education" has
been a primary vehicle for destruction of indigenous peoples. "Education" defined by colonizing states has aimed at
eradication of indigenous traditions, at destruction of "confidence and commitment between persons who recognize
and affirm" indigenous communities. When such education is complete, it is safe for the state to allow a
"recognition" of "traditions," because "traditions" have become static relics of the past, no longer part of everyday
relations. "Ethnic diversity" then becomes window-dressing, decoration, new clothes for the emperor. The American
state can tolerate and even promote the "diversity" of Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, African-Americans, and,
yes, Native-Americans. It would be possible for the American state to exist even if there were no "Americans" at all
and everyone was a hyphen-American.

Ultimately, it is land -- and a people's relationship to land -- that is at issue in "indigenous sovereignty" struggles. To
know that "sovereignty" is a legal-theological concept allows us to understand these struggles as spiritual projects,
involving questions about who "we" are as beings among beings, peoples among peoples. Sovereignty arises from
within a people as their unique expression of themselves as a people. It is not produced by court decrees or
government grants, but by the actual ability of a people to sustain themselves in a place. This is self-determination.

Self-determination of indigenous peoples will be attained "through means other than those provided by a conqueror's
rule of law and its discourses of conquest." [Williams, 327.] The "anachronistic premises" [Id.] of the current system
of international law -- "discovery" and "state sovereignty" -- must be discarded in order to understand self-
determination clearly and see a way to manifest it. This is the real struggle of indigenous peoples: "to redefine
radically the conceptions of their rights and status.... to articulat[e] and defin[e] [their] own vision within the global
community." [328.] On the plus side for all of us, this struggle has the "potential for broadening perspectives on our
human condition." [Id.] As Phillip Deere said, "It is a mistake to talk about an American Indian way of life. We are
talking about a human being way of life." [Deere.]