You are on page 1of 255

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/f-
news/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.”

<Insert card based on 2AC warrants>


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.

<Read evidence that says win for bush = win for McCain>
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.

<Read answers to bush will strike>


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
<Frame the analytic as prefer the specificity of our evidence, energy proposals are the only thing that can
tip the balance> <Read evd on House dems are being blamed for stalled energy proposals Pelosi blamed
for stall in alt eng, rep can still forge through opposition> <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-43c2-9051-
88c0309b685f%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 'policy-
enforcement' 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-43c2-9051-
88c0309b685f%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 Hell-
like 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 Iraq-
Pakistan 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 71-
year-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 <the in part> b: that is in position, operation, or power <the in party> c: inside 22: that
is directed or bound inward : incoming <the in train>3 a: extremely fashionable <the in thing to do> b: keenly aware of
and responsive to what is new and fashionable <the in crowd>

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 well-
supported 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 short-
term 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=la-
opinion-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 SAUDI-


ISRAEL 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 (Paris-
VIII) 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 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.............................................................................................................................................................................................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 (Paris-
VIII) 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 (Paris-
VIII) 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 (Paris-
VIII) 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. 107-
108)

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 anti-
Semitism. 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, subject-
object 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, over-
generalising 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 "un-
German" 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 mobilization-
workers [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 co-
optation. 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, 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 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 well-
supported 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 revenue-
neutral 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 revenue-
neutral 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 process-
specific 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) regulati-
ons. 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/politics-
government/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 use-
doesn’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 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.

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 Links-
Oil 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 open-
minded, 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 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.
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 invest
until the technology seems less risky that’s Berger

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.</p> <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 quasi-
corporate 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. no link – if Russia was going to model US, they would have done it already
2. 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 power-
dampening 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 Soviet-
American “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 post-
Second 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-cum-
protectionism. 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 long-
range 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 self-
immolation, 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-Israel-
from-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
inventions like the stove and the lightning rod
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
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: progress became meaningful only with reference
to real living individuals.

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 environmental-
justice 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 city-
suburb 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 African-
American 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 Illegitamite-


a. 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.</p> <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
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

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
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


challenging Medvedev, in a struggle for influence over Putin, suggested that, with gas as its only basis

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
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
West in the near future. The post-Soviet space is another story, however

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.
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. Cause-


1. 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 victimized-


1. 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 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. 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 environmental-
justice 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 city-
suburb 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 African-
American 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 Illegitamite-


a. 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
1. 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.)
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-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
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 it-
A. 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 isolation-
inner 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 solve-


A. 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, 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.
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.</p> <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, "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.
‘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 Burger-
Rehnquist 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.