Whitman College
WNDI 09
1
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
Paul and Nick - Aff Lab Addendum
AT: T .........................................................................................................................................................................2
AT “increase” T .........................................................................................................................................................3
AT: “Person” isn’t Human T .....................................................................................................................................4
AT: “Government Defined Programs” T ...................................................................................................................5
AT: Poverty Guidelines T ..........................................................................................................................................6
AT: T social services=material assets ........................................................................................................................7
AT: Prolonged Period T.............................................................................................................................................8
AT: Lack of Stability T..............................................................................................................................................9
AT: DA’s ................................................................................................................................................................. 10
AT: Healthcare DA 1/5 ............................................................................................................................................ 11
AT: Poverty Draft DA 1/2 ....................................................................................................................................... 16
AT: Rev DA 1/3 ...................................................................................................................................................... 18
AT: Federalism DA ................................................................................................................................................. 21
A2: Military Trade Off DA 1/4 ............................................................................................................................... 22
AT: Inflation DA 1/4 ............................................................................................................................................... 25
AT: Money DA 1/4 .................................................................................................................................................. 29
China/ India DA 2AC .............................................................................................................................................. 33
AT: CP’s .................................................................................................................................................................. 34
AT: Courts CP 1/3 ................................................................................................................................................... 35
Impact Turn ............................................................................................................................................................. 38
AT: Microfinance CP 1/2 ........................................................................................................................................ 39
AT: States CP 1/3 .................................................................................................................................................... 41
Solvency deficit ....................................................................................................................................................... 42
50 States Fiat Bad .................................................................................................................................................... 44
State Spending DA .................................................................................................................................................. 45
California DA 2AC 1/2 ............................................................................................................................................ 46
AT: XO CP 1/2 ........................................................................................................................................................ 48
AT: FBO CP ............................................................................................................................................................ 50
No Solvency 1/2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 52
Multi-Actor Fiat Bad ............................................................................................................................................... 53
EU Relations Turn 1/2 ............................................................................................................................................. 54
Biopower Turn ......................................................................................................................................................... 56
Hyde AT: Constitution Amendment CP 1/4 ............................................................................................................ 57
AT: K’s .................................................................................................................................................................... 61
AT: Security K 1/2 .................................................................................................................................................. 62
AT: Nietzsche K 1/6 ................................................................................................................................................ 64
A/T Pity/Suffering Cont. ......................................................................................................................................... 65
A/T Pity/Suffering Cont. ......................................................................................................................................... 66
AT: Capitalism K 1/2 .............................................................................................................................................. 70
Cap Good – Socialism  Extinction 1/2 ................................................................................................................ 72
Cap Good – Socialism  Extinction 2/2 ................................................................................................................ 73
Cap Good – Growth – Warming Module ................................................................................................................ 74
Cap Good – Growth – Warming Module ................................................................................................................ 75
Cap Good – Growth – Space Module ...................................................................................................................... 76
AFF Cards ............................................................................................................................................................... 77
Patriarchy Internals 1/3 ............................................................................................................................................ 78
Aff Framework ........................................................................................................................................................ 81
D Dev....................................................................................................................................................................... 82
Whitman College
WNDI 09
2
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
AT: T
Whitman College
WNDI 09
3
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
AT “increase” T
First, we meet-Repealing the Hyde Amendment would cause a direct increase to abortion
funding
Bioethics Defense Fund, 1/23/09, “Save your Hyde (Ammendment)!”, DA-7/23/09,
http://www.bdfund.org/SaveYourHyde.asp
Under the Obama administration, the Hyde Amendment at risk of failing for the first time, thus allowing
your tax dollars to fund elective abortions. In other words, your federal tax dollars will not only pay for
Medicaid abortions for the reasons of life, rape or incest; rather, your tax dollars will be used to abort untold
numbers of unborn children under Medicaid for any reason or no reason.
If the Hyde Amendment is repealed, it will allow more abortions to take place under the
funding of Medicaid.
NCHLA, 4-08, http://www.nchla.org/datasource/ifactsheets/4FSHydeAm22a.08.pdf
According to an estimate by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the cost to the federal government of funding
poor women’s abortions in FY 1994 if the Hyde Amendment were repealed would have been between
$62.5 million and $75 million for 312,000 abortions. This estimate is very low. Others estimate that
500,000 or more abortions would have been funded by Medicaid in FY 1994 if the Hyde Amendment
were repealed.
Second, the counterinterpretation is that the aff must make greater a social service
Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 09, “increase” DA-7/23/09,
to become progressively greater
Standards
1.
2.
Intent to define- our source comes from a dictionary which has the intent to define words and so
it needs to be viewed as a higher source than the negatives
Ground- Our interpretation gives fair ground to both aff and neg. the affirmative’ s definition
limits the ground of arguments that we can make.
We meet the counterinterpretation because our plan makes greater the availability of
abortion funding
Third, topicality is not a voting issue
1.
2.
3.
4.
Reasonability, as long as we are reasonably topical good is good enough.
Don’t vote on potential abuse
We don’t steal ground
We promote education
Whitman College
WNDI 09
4
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
AT: “Person” isn’t Human T
(ask them in cross x if they are people, if they say yes they concede you are topical)
A. We meet- We solve poverty by insuring that people have more money. This means
people would have more money to spend on their pets. This is a social service for animals.
B. Counter interpretation:
Dictionary.com, Dictionary.com, Online dictionary, 2009,
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/person
per-son [pur-suh n] ,
-noun
A human being as distinguished from an animal or thing.
C. Reasons to prefer:
1. Education – The resolution is clearly in the context of Social Services for
people. It is a unfair research burden for the Aff to find evidence of Social
Services in the context of animals.
2. Ground – We give the Neg plenty of links to Aff ground. There are plenty of
arguments against the actions of humans that they can run.
3. Breadth and Depth – There is much more written about humans and you can
research it in depth.
D. DA’s to their interpretation:
1. It’s stupid and kills education- not debating about humans is ridiculous the
education and concerns of our own species come first.
2. Steals aff ground- The resolution calls for a debate about how Social Services
impact humans, not animals. By limiting the debate to animals, the Negative
functionally moots Aff ground.
3. Destroys all predictability- a debate executed by humans should be about humans,
anything else is totally unpredictable.
E. Vote aff on reasonability, as long as we are reasonably topical we should not be voted
down, and the reasons above
Vote aff on reasonability:
1. We are reasonably topical. Don’t vote on potential abuse.
2. Competing definitions are biased against the aff. Reasonability is fair to both teams
3. Promotes broader topic education and discourse.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
5
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
AT: “Government Defined Programs” T
A. We meet- repealing the Hyde Amendment increases access to abortion funding through
government services
Counterinterpretation- Social services as currently defined by the government are a
barrier to improvement in quality of life as the poor, we should redefine social services to
provide material assistance not “service”
Andrew Morris, Assistant Professor of History at Union College, 20 04, Penn State University Press, “The
Voluntary Sectors Work on Poverty”, 21 July 2009,
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_policy_history/v016/16.4morris.html
While the War on Poverty, and particularly the Community Action Program, has been remembered as an attack on the bureaucracies and
political structures that underserved the poor, it is less widely recalled that traditional, voluntary agencies were also a direct target of that
critique. Richard Cloward's stance typified this outlook. Cloward, a professor at the Columbia University School of Social Work, had
become increasingly convinced in the late 1950s that social welfare institutions, and the people who staffed them,
were barriers, rather than aids, to the progress of poor people . In 1963, he singled out voluntary-sector "family
service" agencies as examples of how the poor had been abandoned by the institutions intended to
serve them. By the early 1960s, the functions of these agencies were centered primarily on counseling and other therapeutic services,
and were staffed largely by professional social workers. This trend, Cloward argued, had produced "a general
disengagement from the poor" by these agencies whose origins had been in serving the impoverished .
By the 1960s, Cloward pointed out, most of those served by family agencies were lower middle class and were served with
"service" rather than material assistance. The desire of professional social workers to work with less
deprived people, the increased role of the state in social provision, and the cultural gap between
middle-class social workers and the often minority poor all conspired to distance these voluntary
agencies from those most in need
B. Standards1. Breadth vs. depth- our interpretation allows us to research more possible ways to
solve the current poverty crisis. The negative only allows nine different case topics.
If we want to have more education in the round we need to learn about more than
nine different types of cases
2. Ground- we provide a reasonable amount of ground on both sides of the debate.
They can still run all of their generic disads and counterplans on us.
C. No voter – As long as we are reasonably topical, there is no reason to vote on potential
abuse.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
6
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
AT: Poverty Guidelines T
We Meet: Our plan makes it so the USFG can provide funding through Medicaid for
abortions; those using Medicaid are in poverty
We Meet: Look to the first line of our Kay 94 evidence, it says “Medicaid-eligible women,
who by definition are living in poverty” we have a built in answer to this T
Counter Definition:
We only need a broad definition of poverty, anything more specific creates debates about
the definition itself and not solving this critical social issue
Offman 07
Craig Offman, Reporter for National Post, 27 November 2007, “Grim Reports on Poverty: Assessments Clouded by
Differeing Definitions of Poor”, 20 July 2009,
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T6997959588&format=G
NBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T6997959592&cisb=22_T6997959590&treeMax=true&tree
Width=0&csi=10882&docNo=1
"If we don't have a basic definition, how can we properly alleviate it?" said Mr. Veldhuis. "It's critical
that we have best measure possible so we can analyze how we're doing," Campaign 2000's national coordinator, Ann Decter, said that a lack of direction from Statistics Canada has created a lot of debate.
"You spend more time talking about which measures and less about measures that might change
lives," she said. Still, she added, LICO is the most broadly accepted term. Lyn Whitham, vice-president of
marketing and communication for the United Way of Greater Toronto, also said that her group was aware
of the definition debate. "Whether you use LICO or LIM," she said, "We're Still Talking About The
Reality Of People's Lives."
Standards:
Limits: their claims on Limits are ludicrous; we only provide social services to
Medicaid-eligible women, not the entire United States
Ground: this argument is based on the assumption that we provide for the entire
United States population which we obviously do not.
Predictability: We fall under the guidelines of the federal definition of poverty there
is no increased research burden for the neg
Counter Standards:
Limits: the Negative tries to over limit the Affirmative ground until there is none
left, this destroys competitive equity
Education: our definitions allows for more Affirmative Cases increasing education
about the social services topic
Potential Abuse is not a Voter: I have the potential to burn all their evidence but
that doesn’t mean I will, until we cheat forget about Topicality
T is not a Voter for: Competitive Equity, Education and Reasonability
Whitman College
WNDI 09
7
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
AT: T social services=material assets
A. We meet their definition by allowing women to get abortions we save them huge a
mounts of money this means that are plan results in an increase of material assets.
B. Counter-interpretation:
Social Services are federal government sponsored facilities and benefits to improve
life and living conditions
Business Dictionary 09
Business Dictionary, 2009, “Social Services Definition”, 20 July 2009,
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/social-services.html
Benefits and facilities such as education, food subsidies, health care, and subsidized
housing provided by a government to improve the life and living conditions of the
children, disabled, the elderly, and the poor in the national community.
C. we meet our definition, abortions are health care, and would improve living
conditions.
D. prefer our definition:
i. it’s from a contextual, real world dictionary, not some random
professor.
ii. It’s better for education, we get to learn about a variety of plans.
Healthcare is a huge issue right now we should get to debate about it.
iii. we give you lots of neg ground. You get all of your links to health services.
E. don’t look to their definition:
i. it over limits the debate down to just 2 plans, housing and giving money to the
poor. A broad topic is key to having a fun and varied debate. If you can’t
handle researching more that 2 cases you shouldn’t be in debate.
ii Destroys almost all aff ground, we should be able to run more than 2 cases.
F. T is not a voter as long as the aff is reasonably topical. Don’t vote on potential
abuse.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
8
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
AT: Prolonged Period T
We meet. People affected by plan are already in poverty or would be in poverty for a
prolonged period if not for plan.
We meet. The violation says that we exclude people who experience brief stints of poverty.
The negative told us that we meet their definition.
Standards Debate:
Limits- there is a large difference between people who are briefly in poverty and
everyone in the US. Also, people outside of poverty have abortion access in the
status quo
Ground- Cross-apply limits debate. If the interp doesn’t limit they can’t claim
ground loss
Predictability- Medicaid is a government social service program. The federal
poverty guideline according to which they should research is our counterinterpretation, not a random one from “Knowledge Rush”
Counter-interp:
Poverty is defined as living on an annual salary of less then $10, 830 for a single person or
$22, 050 for a family of four
ATDN 09
AIDS Treatment Data Network, 9 July 2009, “2009 Federal Poverty Guidelines”, 21 July 2009,
http://www.atdn.org/access/poverty.html
The 2009 Federal Poverty Guidelines have been released to the Federal Register. These guidelines help
determine eligibility for a great number of programs. The Access Project Update #2 will cover this
topic, once again demonstrating real examples of how this information has led to people accessing the
treatment and care ( and lots of other things) they need. The Department of Health and Human
Services has a description of all the different programs that depend on these guidelines, and exactly
what the Federal Poverty Guidelines are. The 48 Contiguous States and DC
Persons in family Poverty guideline
1 $10,830
2 $14,570
3 $18,310
4 $22,050
5 $25,790
6 $29,530
7 $33,270
8 $37,010
For families with more than 8 persons, add $3,740 for each additional person.
We meet the counter-interp. Women in poverty are the ones unable to get an abortion.
Counter-standards:
Limits- We truly limit the topic to people in poverty, not above it
Ground- We provide key neg CP ground for non-poverty arguments
Predictability- The Federal definition is most predictable
Whitman College
WNDI 09
9
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
AT: Lack of Stability T
We meet. All women who experience any sort of financial instability are unable to receive
abortions. This means that our harms extend to those who are in a state of temporary
instability, and our plan allow abortions for anyone who receives Medicaid. The cutoff for
Medicaid is higher than the poverty line.
Standards:
Bright Line- doesn’t apply. Cross-apply the we meet
Ground- No ground loss. The small group of people who are almost in poverty are
not crucial to any neg ground. Make them give examples before voting for them on
pretend ground loss
Resolutional Integrity- Extend their bright line argument, there is not way to
concretely define living in poverty. However, the affirmative doesn’t stray from the
topic, instead we stray slightly from the arbitrary definition they provided.
PredictabilityCounter-interpretation:
Living in poverty is defined as not having the means to a stable lifestyle
Counter-standards:
This definition isn’t money-based
Whitman College
WNDI 09
10
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
AT: DA’s
Whitman College
WNDI 09
11
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
AT: Healthcare DA 1/5
Impact Turns
1. Public option kills competition and will lead to massive increases in uninsured
Ed Royce, U.S Representative CA-40 (R), 7-13-2009, “Public Option Will Kill Off Competition,” Investor
Business daily, http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332375735813137
However, recent history suggests nothing could be further from the truth. A government-backed insurance provider will
kill competition within the health care sector; it will quash the great progress made in our medical industry and inevitably
lead to taxpayers paying down the road. It was not long ago that we were talking about the manipulation of the mortgage market by
government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. For years their perceived government backing let Fannie and Freddie
borrow at rates reserved only for branches of the federal government. This government backing eventually led to the formation of a
duopoly in the secondary mortgage market and prevented other (fully private) firms from entering Fannie and Freddie's territory. This
failed public-private experiment, with the resulting arbitrage and overleveraging of 100-to-1, was at the heart of our mortgage meltdown
and the ensuing economic downturn. Another compelling illustration of what happens when government competes in a private market
can be found in Florida's homeowners' insurance market. In 2002, the state formed Citizens Insurance to offer homeowners' coverage to
residents that "fell through the cracks" in the existing market. After a few years in business, Citizens — created to be the state's insurer
of last resort — quickly became that of first resort. Today Citizens is the largest provider of homeowners' insurance in Florida,
dominating the little competition that remains by charging below-market rates that fail to reflect the given risk. It should be no surprise
that Citizens is not actuarially sound and if (when) it runs into financial trouble, the taxpayers will be asked to pay for their mistakes.
Fannie, Freddie and Citizens Insurance have taught us a resounding lesson: Government-backed competition in a private market
undoubtedly distorts markets, drives out competition and often leads to taxpayer assistance down the road. Should a "public
option" be inserted into the health care market and perform like other government programs, 120
million Americans would lose their current coverage, according to actuaries at the nonpartisan Lewin
Group. It's not hard to foresee employers dumping their private provider in search of less expensive,
government-subsidized coverage.
2. Surcharge would devastate the economy
James Pethokoukis, money and politics columnist for US News & World Report, 7-15-2009, “9 reasons Pelosi’s
healthcare surtax is disastrous,” Reuters, http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/07/15/9-reasons-pelosishealthcare-surtax-is-disastrous/
It pushes income tax rates above a key threshhold. Once you take into account state income taxes, the
top tax rate would sneak above 50 percent. Research by former White House economist Lawrence Lindsey has
found that rates above 40 percent really start to hit economic growth especially hard. It’s risky in a weak
economy. Democrats love the “consensus view” when it comes to climate change, so how about the economy? The consensus view is
for unemployment to hit double digits this year and stay high throughout 2010 and beyond as the economy staggers to its feet. Even
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said “it seems realistic to expect a gradual recovery, with more than the usual ups and downs and
temporary reversals.” In a “long recession” environment, do we really want a policy that, according to research that current White House
economic adviser Christina Romer conducted at Stanford University, is “highly contractionary.” It actually makes America’s
healthcare problem worse. Entitlements, including Medicare, will eventually bankrupt the economy unless
action is taken. Agreed. But lowering the potential U.S. growth rate will only make those problems worse
by generating lower tax revenue and making the overall pie smaller than it would be otherwise. Yet many economists think
government interventions in finance, housing, autos, energy and now healthcare will do just that. And adding layers of additional new
taxes helps how? It makes the tax code more lopsided and inefficient. As it is, the top 1 percent of Americans in terms of income pay 40
percent of taxes. Not only would this plan exacerbate this imbalance, it adds further complexity to the tax code. Most tax reformers favor
a simpler system with fewer brackets and deductions matched by a lower rate. Indeed, Howard Gleckman of the Tax Policy Center
points out the following: Many of the uber-rich are unlikely to pay much more in taxes than they do now, despite the rate increase.
Since we’d be returning to pre-1986 rates, we shouldn’t be surprised when the very wealthy reprise their pre-1986 sheltering behavior.
The hoary financial alchemy of turning ordinary income into capital gains, morphing individuals into corporations, and deferring
compensation will return. Remember, the targets of these tax hikes are the people who can most easily manipulate their income. The bad
old days of bull semen partnerships may not return, but I suspect the financial Merlins are already cooking up new shelters for what
promises to be a booming new market. It hurts U.S. competitiveness. America already has the second highest
corporate tax rate in the world. Under the House plan, the top U.S. income tax rate would be higher than the
OECD (advanced economies) average of 42 percent. France and Germany, by contrast, are looking to keep rates stable or lower
them. Pro-growth China doesn’t even tax investment income.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
12
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
3. Fees on insurers
Laura Litvan and Kristin Jensen, staff writers, 7-16-2009, “Insurers May Face Fees to Help Fund U.S. HealthCare Overhaul,” Bloomberg, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aIoDa2C7wCKo
Schumer and other Democratic members of the Senate Finance Committee , which is leading the effort to forge a
bipartisan compromise on health care, said they will probably assess fees on insurers, a plan that drew fire from the
industry. Industry leader UnitedHealth Group Inc. and rivals are facing pressure to contribute after drugmakers and hospitals agreed to
billions of dollars of cost savings. Lawmakers are struggling to find new sources of revenue as they
contemplate spending $1 trillion over 10 years to carry out the overhaul, President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority.
“We need the insurance companies to step up to the plate to be part of the solution,” Schumer said at a news conference in Washington
yesterday. Lawmakers are trying to reduce health-care costs and expand coverage to the 46 million Americans who lack insurance. So
far, the effort has mainly featured missed deadlines as the House and Senate race to pass their own versions of the legislation by an
August goal set by Obama, a Democrat. Obama vowed to hold the House and Senate to the deadline. “Deferring reform is nothing
more than defending the status quo,” the president said at the White House yesterday. “Those who would oppose our efforts should take
a hard look at just what it is that they’re defending.” Panel Clears Plan Obama scored a victory when the Senate Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions committee became the first congressional panel to vote on a plan, clearing its measure on a party-line, 13-10 vote
yesterday. That plan will be merged with one that comes out of the Senate Finance Committee. House Democrats unveiled their version
on July 14, calling for a public-health insurance plan, mandates on employers and individuals to purchase coverage, and additional taxes
on the wealthiest Americans to fund the overhaul. The three House committees with jurisdiction over health care are scheduled to work
today on the legislation. The Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means committees aim to finish their portions
of the bill by tomorrow or early next week, staff members said. Democratic leaders said they want to bring a unified bill to the House
floor for a vote before the August recess. Finance Panel Pressured The Senate Finance Committee may take longer, with Chairman
Max Baucus under pressure to curb his efforts to reach out to Republicans. The panel’s negotiations aren’t likely to get any easier with
the plan by the panel’s Democrats to tap the insurance companies. It was criticized by America’s Health Insurance Plans, a Washington
trade group that represents the industry. “As families and small businesses struggle during the current economic slowdown, now is not
the time to impose new fees on health-care coverage that will make coverage less affordable,” Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for the
group, said in an e-mailed statement. During their press conference, Democratic senators said insurers should pay at least $75 billion to
help finance the legislation. They cited industry earnings, with Robert Menendez of New Jersey saying the companies are making profits
“on the backs of American families across this country.” ‘Not Fair’ “Every other industry is kicking in,” Schumer, 58, said. “For the
insurance industry to stand aside is not fair.” Schumer said the top 10 U.S. health insurers saw profits jump by 428 percent between
2000 and 2007. “That profitability is enough to make big oil executives blush,” Schumer said. Yet two of the top three U.S. health
insurers reported that profits declined in the first quarter. The No. 1 insurer by sales, Minnetonka, Minnesota-based UnitedHealth, said
net income fell 1 percent from a year earlier as growing unemployment kept Americans from buying medical coverage. Indianapolisbased WellPoint Inc., the top health insurer by enrollment, said net income dipped 1.3 percent, mostly on investment losses. Only
Hartford Connecticut-based Aetna Inc. reported a jump in profit, a 1.4 percent increase. Aetna had the highest profit margin of the three
last year, at 4.5 percent. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index sub-index of six managed- care companies rose 0.2 percent yesterday.
‘Broad Support’ Schumer said there is “broad support” among Democrats on the finance committee to
include new fees on insurance premiums, and “some of the Republicans” have said they will consider
it. While he declined to discuss ways it might be structured, he said lawmakers want to find a way to prevent insurers from passing the
fees on to their consumers. “I personally wouldn’t have a problem” with imposing fees, said Senator Olympia
Snowe, a Maine Republican.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
13
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
4. Public option bad – hurts the insurance industry and won’t solve prices
Steve Chapman, Chicago Tribune Columnist, 7-16-2009, “The 'Public Option' Health Care Scam,” RCP,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/16/the_public_option_health_care_scam_97473.html
Microsoft's dominance of software didn't prevent the rise of Google, and Google's dominance of search engine traffic didn't prevent
Microsoft from offering Bing. If a few health insurance providers were suppressing competition at the
expense of consumers, you'd expect to see obscene profits. But net profit margins in the business run
about 3 percent, only slightly above the median for all industries. There are reasons, though, to think that the president's real
enthusiasm is not for competition but for government expansion. Free-market advocates want to foster competition
by letting consumers in one state buy coverage offered in other states. If WellPoint has more than half the business in Indiana, why not
let Indiana residents or companies go to California or Minnesota to see if they can find options that are cheaper or better? But the
administration and its allies show no interest in removing that particular barrier to competition. Maybe that's because it would reduce the
power of state regulators to boss insurance companies around. Nor does Obama believe in fostering competition in other health
insurance realms -- such as existing government health insurance programs. John Goodman, head of the National Center for Policy
Analysis, suggests letting Americans now enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
select a voucher to buy private coverage if they want. Don't hold your breath waiting for the administration to push that idea. Supporters
of the "public option" think it can achieve efficiencies allowing it to underprice existing insurers. But efficiency is to
government programs what barbecue sauce is to an ice-cream sundae: not a typical component. Nor is
there any reason to think Washington can administer health insurance with appreciably lower
overhead than private companies. Medicare supposedly does so, but that is partly because it doesn't have to engage in
marketing to attract customers, which this program would. It also spends less than private companies combating fraud and unwarranted
treatments -- a type of monitoring that spends dollars while saving more. As the Congressional Budget Office has pointed out, "The
traditional fee-for-service Medicare program does relatively little to manage benefits, which tends to reduce its administrative costs but
may raise its overall spending relative to a more tightly managed approach." False economies are one reason Medicare has done a poor
job of controlling costs. But a public program of the sort Democrats propose doesn't have to control costs,
because in a pinch it can count on the government to keep it in business. Competition is healthy, but
how are private companies supposed to compete with an operation that can tap the Treasury?
5. Health plan will raise taxes
Jonathan Karl and Z Byron Wolf, staff writers, 7-15-2009, “Senate Panel Approves a Health Care Bill, But
Will it Pass?,” ABC News, http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=8087650
To help pay for the health care plan, ABC News has learned Senate Democrats are considering new
taxes on health insurance and pharmaceutical companies. The new taxes could bring in more than
$100 billion, but were hotly opposed by the health industry. Senate Democrats are also considering a
new tax on soft drinks of 3 to 10 cents per can and a 1.5 percent increase in capital gains and dividends
taxes.
6. If the current version of health care reform passes, it will eventually push private
insurance companies gradually out of business since the government will be supplying the
same services for much cheaper. As a result, massive job loss will occur.
If the Hyde Amendment is not repealed, it does not matter if you pass health care reform
because you still do not solve for the abortion crisis.
Our case outweighs the negative. We solve for poverty, which in turn decreases the
amount of unhealthy people which is exactly what the negative tries to solve for, we solve
for racism, and global nuclear war due to solving the problem of a patriarchal mindset
through repealing the Hyde Amendment.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
14
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
Non Unique
Health reform won’t pass – CBO analysis
Lori Montgomery, staff writer, 7-16-2009, “CBO Chief Criticizes Democrats' Health Reform Measures,”
Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/07/16/AR2009071602242.html?hpid=topnews
Instead of saving the federal government from fiscal catastrophe, the health reform measures being drafted by congressional Democrats
would increase rather than reduce public spending on health care, potentially worsening an already bleak budget outlook, the director of
the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said this morning. Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee,
CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose "the sort
of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant
amount." "On the contrary," Elmendorf said, "the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs."
Though President Obama and Democratic leaders have said repeatedly that reining in the skyrocketing growth in spending on
government health programs such as Medicaid and Medicare is their top priority, the reform measures put forth so far
would not fulfill their pledge to "bend the cost curve" downward , Elmendorf said. Instead, he said, "The curve is
being raised." The CBO is the official arbiter of the costs of legislation, and Elmendorf's stark testimony is certain to
undermine support for the measures even as three House panels begin debate and aim to put a bill on the House floor before
the August recess. Fiscal conservatives in the House, known as the Blue Dogs, were already threatening to block
passage of legislation in the Energy and Commerce Committee, primarily due to concerns about the long-term costs of the House
bill. ad_icon Cost is also a major issue in the Senate, where some moderate Democrats have joined
Republicans in calling on Obama to drop his demand that both chambers approve a bill before the
August recess. While the Senate health committee approved its bill on Wednesday with no Republican votes, members of the Senate
Finance Committee were still struggling to craft a bipartisan measure that does more to restrain costs.
Moderate democrats oppose health reform in the Senate
Edwin Chen, staff writer, 7-15-2009, “Obama May Rely on Partisan Vote for Health-Care Bill (Update2),”
Bloomberg, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aCeUlWcoADZI
The Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate to 40 for the Republicans , and have a 255-178 advantage in the House,
with two vacancies. Daschle at the joint appearance said he “couldn’t agree more” with Dole’s warning about the political fallout from a
partisan vote. Moreover, he expressed doubt that Democrats alone could prevail, because that scenario
“assumes unanimity” among the party’s lawmakers, and that isn’t the case. Obama has yet to secure the
support of a pivotal group of Senate Democrats, which includes Evan Bayh of Indiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mary
Landrieu of Louisiana, and Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. In addition, Senators Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts
and Robert Byrd of West Virginia may miss votes because of poor health. In the Senate, it takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.
Time Running Out Time is running short for the House and Senate to pass versions of the legislation before
their August recess, a deadline Obama set for each chamber to act.
Health reform won’t pass – not bipartisan
Jonathan Karl and Z Byron Wolf, staff writers, 7-15-2009, “Senate Panel Approves a Health Care Bill, But
Will it Pass?,” ABC News, http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=8087650
The bill approved by the Senate Health panel has a public health insurance option and mandates for
employers and individuals. Approved along strict party lines, it does not deal with the controversial
question of financing health care reform, the details of which are being negotiated more slowly by the Senate Finance
committee. Senators on the health panel had been considering the measure for three weeks. In that time, they
considered 287 of 500 amendments filed. A total of 161 of those came from Republicans and were accepted. Thirty-six amendments
were accepted from Democrats. That effort led Sen. Chris Dodd, R-Conn., who is leading the panel in the absence of Sen. Ted
Kennedy, D-Mass., to say today, "while this is not a bipartisan bill, it is a bipartisan effort." But Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., the
ranking Republican on the committee, said the committee should scrap the bill and start over to agree to a
bipartisan measure that could gain support from Republicans. Anything less, he said, will ultimately be
rejected by the country. Republicans have also decried an expansion of Medicaid envisioned by Democrats. They say the real
financial brunt of such an expansion would fall on the states, which share the cost.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
15
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
( ) No health care – moderate democrats, the economy, Obama approval
John Mercurio, national journal writer, 7-15-2009, “Obama Returns To Find Health Care Mess,” National
Journal, http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/ps_20090715_6922.php
"Don't bet against us," Obama said Monday in the Rose Garden. "We are going to make this thing happen." But later, Politico reported,
the president joked with congressional Democrats in a closed-door meeting that he'd campaign next year for a key Senate Republican,
Charles Grassley of Iowa, if he'd endorse a Democratic health care plan. Attacks from the newly revitalized GOP
already are having an effect on conservative Democrats, who could ensure that the House health care
plan goes down in flames. In the first real sign of struggle for this young administration, Democrats are increasingly
worried that the recession, which propelled Obama into office and bolstered their congressional majorities, now could bury
their biggest priority -- comprehensive health care reform. On the same day Obama issued his Rose Garden rallying cry, his
own administration placed a huge obstacle in his path, announcing that the deficit through the first nine months of this
budget year hit a milestone in June, topping $1 trillion for the first time ever. That news didn't stop House Democrats, who on
Tuesday unveiled a 1,000-page bill that would create a new surtax on households making at least $350,000 a year. The new taxes would
raise around $540 billion over 10 years while enabling Obama to keep his campaign pledge not to raise taxes on those making $250,000
a year or less. Still, that's only enough to pay for half of the health care plan. And it provides more than enough fodder for Republicans
to use over the August recess in TV and radio ads attacking Democrats in competitive districts and states as tax-and-spend liberals who
want to create a government-run health care system. In fact, Republicans have already started framing the debate. On Tuesday, GOP
aides noted that Obama, while praising the House Democrats' overall plan in a statement, made no mention of tax hikes. "Seems like a
pretty solid indication that House Democrats are going to get BTU-ed by their liberal leadership yet again," said Michael Steel, a
spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner, referring to a controversial vote on a 1993 energy bill that cost many conservative
Democrats their House seats the following year. "They'll vote for a massive, job-killing tax hike (like the 'cap n' trade' national energy
tax) only to watch the Senate and White House ignore it. I wonder if they trust Lucy every time she offers to hold the football, too." As
polls show, Democratic leaders are increasingly on the defensive . A new CBS News survey shows Obama's
popularity down 11 percentage points since late April, and voters' opinion of his economic performance is down 9
points in the last month. Attacks from the newly revitalized GOP already are having an effect on
conservative Democrats, who, if they remain united in opposing the House plan, could ensure that it goes down
in flames. That is, unless Obama decides to act more aggressively -- a call being made with increasing degrees of urgency from his
allies in Congress. "At some point, the White House is going to have to weigh in," Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, told Bloomberg News.
"The heavy lifting will come when we get to the pay portion. That's when the White House is going to have to spend some political
capital."
Link Debate (don’t read with impact turns)
( ) Winners Win
Jonathan Singer, J.D. University of California @ Berkeley and editor of MyDD, 3-3-2009, “By Expending
Capital, Obama Grows His Capital,” MyDD, http://mydd.com/story/2009/3/3/191825/0428
"What is amazing here is how much political capital Obama has spent in the first six weeks," said
Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. "And
against that, he stands at the end of this six weeks with as much or more capital in the bank." Peter
Hart gets at a key point. Some believe that political capital is finite, that it can be used up. To an extent
that's true. But it's important to note, too, that political capital can be regenerated -- and, specifically, that
when a President expends a great deal of capital on a measure that was difficult to enact and then
succeeds, he can build up more capital. Indeed, that appears to be what is happening with Barack
Obama, who went to the mat to pass the stimulus package out of the gate, got it passed despite nearunanimous opposition of the Republicans on Capitol Hill, and is being rewarded by the American public as
a result. Take a look at the numbers. President Obama now has a 68 percent favorable rating in the NBCWSJ poll, his highest ever showing in the survey. Nearly half of those surveyed (47 percent) view him very
positively. Obama's Democratic Party earns a respectable 49 percent favorable rating. The Republican Party,
however, is in the toilet, with its worst ever showing in the history of the NBC-WSJ poll, 26 percent
favorable. On the question of blame for the partisanship in Washington, 56 percent place the onus on the
Bush administration and another 41 percent place it on Congressional Republicans. Yet just 24 percent blame
Congressional Democrats, and a mere 11 percent blame the Obama administration. So at this point, with
President Obama seemingly benefiting from his ambitious actions and the Republicans sinking further and
further as a result of their knee-jerked opposition to that agenda, there appears to be no reason not to push
forward on anything from universal healthcare to energy reform to ending the war in Iraq.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
16
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
AT: Poverty Draft DA 1/2
1. Link Turn -Despite minor setback, military modernization is under way
Matthew Cox, Staff writer for the Army Times, Thursday Jul 16, 2009, “Panel of experts gives ideas on future of
Army” http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/07/army_blueribbon_071609w/
Army modernization officials plan to brief Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Chiarelli on suggestions taken
from the Blue Ribbon Panel the service recently formed to ensure that the mistakes of the Future Combat
Systems effort don’t happen again, Lt. Gen. Stephen Speakes, deputy chief of staff for Army G8 said. “One
of the clear issues we had was we failed to integrate some of the very perceptive comments of citizens,
members of the defense establishment and members of the various intellectual establishments that operate
here in the [Washington, D.C. area] and beyond,” Speakes told an audience this morning at an Association of
the United States Army’s Institute of Land Warfare breakfast. “We shouldn’t be accused of that again. … We
have to reach out in the more effective way.” The panel members ranged from citizens with “very
sophisticated graduate degrees” to platoon sergeants and captains “who have seen combat, know it, feel it
and have a damn clear idea of what they want for the future,” Speakes said. The Army is in the middle of
restructuring its requirements and acquisition strategy for the Army Brigade Combat Team
Modernization program, formerly known as Future Combat Systems. Senior leaders launched the effort
in April in response to a decision by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to kill the Manned Ground Vehicles
portion of the Army’s FCS program in the fiscal 2010 defense budget. Gates spared the high-tech
communications network and the spin-out technologies slated for fielding in 2011, but canceled the
program’s family of 27-ton MGVs, criticizing the design as ill-suited to survive current battlefield
threats.
2. Troops numbers trade off with modernization
Edward F. Bruner, Specialist in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, 1-24-2006,
“Military Forces: What is the Appropriate Size for the United States?” Congressional Research Service Report,
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/60575.pdf
Other considerations may also influence the debate. Predicted federal deficits may create pressures to
restrain the overall budget, and competition between sectors may call forth “guns versus butter”
tensions. Within DOD, competition for funding will continue; many will argue that personnel costs must
be constrained so that research and procurement for the transformational weapons of the future will
be adequate.13 Some may be influenced by implications of the end strength debate for particular military
installations and defense industry employers.
3. Modernization is key to American primacy
James R. Blaker, a fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, and Steven J. Nider, director of foreign and
security studies at the Progressive Policy Institute, February 7, 2001, “Why it's Time to Revolutionize the Military”
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=124&subid=159&contentid=2980
The new administration's top defense priority should be the completion of the Pentagon's great unfinished
business of the 1990s: transforming the U.S. military into a leaner, faster, higher-tech fighting machine.
This transformation, known as the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA), is imperative if we are to meet
the dramatically changing threats of the 21st century. Begun nearly three decades ago, the RMA has hit a
wall, and the new president needs to revive it. Unless we streamline, modernize, and restructure our
forces, we risk becoming locked into a military structure that is unsuited to the demands that are now
being placed on it. Today hostile powers can find increasingly affordable ways to counter American
dominance, either through low-tech terrorism or high-tech cyberwarfare, thus weakening our massive
advantage in conventional forces.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
17
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
4. The collapsing economy is destroying hegemony
Immanuel Wallerstein, sociologist with degrees from Columbia University and is known for his work as a
historical social scientist and world-systems analyst. He is currently a senior research scholar with Yale’s Sociology
department, and Professor Suh Jae-jeong, professor of International Relations at Johns Hopkins University (Paul
H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies) of Northeast Asia and an expert on the international situation
surrounding the Korean Peninsula, Jan.8, 2009 “[New Year’s series] “This crisis is fundamental crisis of
capitalism”, Immanuel Wallerstein Interviews with Renowned sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein”
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/332037.html
Suh: We are now witnessing a very different world. The dollar, which has served as the world’s currency
since the Bretton Woods system and survived the 1970s crisis, is significantly weak. It is facing the
challenges of other currencies, particularly the Euro and the Japanese Yen, that are vying to become
the next global currency. The financial crisis fundamentally shook faith in the dollar, and some even
suggest that it has already collapsed as the world currency. On the other hand, the U.S. maintains an
unchallenged military power and spends a disproportionate amount on keeping up its military
dominance. Washington spends on its military as much as the rest of the world combined. And yet,
U.S. military power, however technically sophisticated it may be, has been proven itself to be rather
ineffective, and even useless, in theaters like Iraq and Afghanistan. All in all, the two main pillars of
U.S. hegemony have been shaken to the core. How do these changes affect the geopolitical cleavages?
5. Cross-Apply our Abu-Jamal 98 Evidence. Poverty would kill more people than any war
caused by challenged U S primacy would ever do
6. Cross-Apply our Rudasingwa 99 Evidence. If we don’t do the aff for the sake of keeping
recruitment high, we let poverty continue it would make the impact of war inevitable
7. Cross-Apply our Reardon 93 Evidence. Not doing the aff because it would decrease
military recruitment would make the U S a land where unchecked patriarchy exists
creating a nuclear holocaust
8. Their impact of war is inevitable if we don’t do aff because Patriarchy is the Root cause
of war
Betty Reardon, coordinator of the Peace Education Program at Columbia University, 1985,
SEXISM AND THE WAR SYSTEM, p. 7.
The profoundly sexist history of the human species indicates that the socially induced and prescribed
separations and differences between sexes are a very significant component of the inner psychic constructs.
They may well be the psychic origins of war, sexism, and all structures of violence and oppression.
Various feminists have pointed to the oppression of women by men as the first and most fundamental form of
structural oppression (see Reardon 1975 for citations from unpublished papers by feminist anthropologists).
It is clear that for both boys and girls the first socially encountered other, a person they perceive as being
different from themselves, is usually of the other sex; and our experience indicates that it is others, those
different from us, who threaten us and instigate the fear that gives rise to the notion of enemy and,
ultimately, the practice of war. Society reinforces and exacerbates this perception of otherness.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
18
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
AT: Rev DA 1/3
The rev isn’t coming because there is no alternative to capitalism
Harry Cook, retired professor of economics that taught at Southern Oregon University from 1966 to 1986, July 16,
2009, “Where is the alternative to capitalism?
Where I take issue with Cavanaugh is in his blaming this disaster on capitalism. Blaming this on capitalism
is like blaming the car for the accident. Both the car and capitalism have to be controlled. The
fundamental problem with capitalism is that it has several inherent social deficiencies (monopoly, consumer
deceit and environmental degradation) that have to be controlled for capitalism to work in the public interest
and not for the benefit of a few. (Problems in the international area are a whole new and different set of
issues beyond my scope here.) Conditions for control are an involved electorate and the election of a
president who understands these weaknesses of capitalism and will support enabling legislation and
appropriate regulatory power for the necessary federal agencies. Unfortunately, political reality is that the
foregoing is much easier said than done. The electorate is woefully uninformed, misinformed and uninvolved
and the probability of adequate regulation is very low. We will be lucky to muddle along in the future much
as we have in the past. The last 30 years of essentially Republican laissez faire policy has seen wages
virtually flat, while incomes at the top have skyrocketed. Credit default swaps are laissez faire at work. It
would be nice if there were the socialist alternative suggested by Cavanaugh, but it does not exist. There
is no country with an advanced economic system that is socialist (government ownership and control of
the means of production). All modern European economies are basically capitalist with a strong element
of government control and regulation. Moreover, it has never been analytically explained how
socialism would work; perhaps that is why the modern socialist government is nonexistent. No one, so
far, can explain how socialism would replace the market mechanism of capitalism, especially the
investment function. It is invariably blithely assumed that socialism could slide in and take over.
Cavanaugh clearly sees the need when he says, "We need an economic system that is democratically
controlled, ecologically sane and designed to provide for the use and needs of humanity." So true. I
couldn't agree more. The question is where is it?
Recent financial crisis not indicator of collapsing capitalism
Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor emeritus and professor emeritus of linguistics at MIT, October 2,5 2008,
“The Financial Crisis of 2008,” accessed 4/1/09, http://www.ainfos.ca/en/ainfos21598.html
So, for the financial system it will probably turn out pretty much as Stiglitz describes. It is the end of a
certain era of financial liberalization driven by market fundamentalism. The Wall Street Journal laments
that Wall Street as we have known it is gone with the collapse of the investment banks. And there will
be some steps toward regulation. So that's true. But the proposals that are being made, which are major
and severe, nonetheless do not change the structure of the underlying basic institutions. There is no
threat to state capitalism. Its core institutions will remain basically unchanged and even unshaken.
They may rearrange themselves in various ways with some conglomerates taking over others and some even
being semi-nationalized in a weak sense, without infringing much on private monopolization of decision
making. Still, as things stand now, property relations and the distribution of power and wealth won't
alter much though the era of neoliberalism operative for roughly thirty five years will surely be modified in
a significant fashion.
Capitalism is alive despite recession
Jerusalem Post, October 6, 2008, “Bill Gates,” accessed 4/1/09,
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1222017469499&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
The financial crisis in the US will not lead to the end of capitalism or a depression, Bill Gates told CNN
in a television interview broadcast Sunday. "It's a very interesting crisis," said the founder of Microsoft,
adding that the effect of the collapse of the subprime market needs "requires "some type of correction… but
fundamentally ... companies' willingness to invest, right now we haven't seen a huge disruption in that."
Responding to concerns about the US$700 billion bailout plan which US President George W. Bush signed
last week, Gates surmised that "it doesn't look like fixing these problems is going to derail the economy in
some dramatic way."
Whitman College
WNDI 09
19
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
Capitalism prevents war—empirically proven
Carl J. Schramm, CEO, June 28, 2006, “Capitalism spreads freedom even as democracy falters,” USA Today, p.
np
More than the export of democracy, it is the export of entrepreneurial capitalism that can produce a
new birth of peace and freedom around our globe. Entrepreneurial capitalism is based on individual
invention, and because wealth comes from one's own initiative, it advances human dignity. And here is
the good news. Virtually every country, whatever its political system, wants to embrace it. They have seen
the success of the American economy. It has been said that when goods cross borders, armies don't.
Today, China and India are the world's two largest countries racing toward entrepreneurial capitalism. They
are the example and test of that thesis. Several decades ago, their armies clashed. Now no one talks of
war, only of their economic emergence. Capitalism has promoted peace and, in China, better -- though
still inadequate -- respect for rights. If, with our assistance, Adam Smith's entrepreneurial capitalism
were to become ubiquitous, the cross-border investment in the success of our brothers and sisters
around the world, and theirs in us, would cause people everywhere to see the futility of ancient
struggles, whether based on plunder, conquest or theocratic fervor. In the insight of our invisible
founder is the secret for achieving a future of global peace.
Case Outweighs
A. our poverty impact outweighs extend our Abu-Jamal 98 card which says that we
will always win on time frame- the massive amount of deaths due to poverty are
happening right now. Every year we wait to implement our plan three times as
many people will die as did in the Nazi holocaust. Our time frame alone is enough to
outweigh.
B. also extend our Barndt 91 card that says that our racism impact outweighs all
others because we are on the brink of self-destruction, and if you extend our Lauren
96 card it says that regardless of the massive body count from self-destructive
racism, racism outweighs based on morals alone. Racial equality flows from simple
human dignity, that a human is an end in himself or herself not a merely a means to
an ends to be used as a pawn. Moral considerations should come before all else.
C. Last extend our Rearden 93 card that says that Patriarchal ideal of dominance is the
prime motivator behind arms races and the acquiring of nuclear weapons, thus
patriarchy will lead to all of your war scenarios since it is the root cause. Patriarchy
will also lead to a global nuclear holocaust.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
20
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
Marxist thought causes the worst forms of human exploitation and risk the end of
civilization
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and former congressional chief of staff to
Ron Paul, 5/19/2008 “Everything You Love You Owe to Capitalism” Daily Article
http://www.mises.org/story/2982
And yet, sitting on the other side of the table are well-educated people who imagine that the way to end the world's woes
is through socialism. Now, people's definitions of socialism differ, and these persons would probably be quick to say that they do
not mean the Soviet Union or anything like that. That was socialism in name only, I would be told. And yet , if socialism does
mean anything at all today, it imagines that there can be some social improvement resulting from the
political movement to take capital out of private hands and put it into the hands of the state. Other
tendencies of socialism include the desire to see labor organized along class lines and given some sort of coercive power over how their
employers' property is used. It might be as simple as the desire to put a cap on the salaries of CEOs, or it could be as extreme as the
desire to abolish all private property, money, and even marriage. Whatever the specifics of the case in question, socialism always
means overriding the free decisions of individuals and replacing that capacity for decision making with
an overarching plan by the state. Taken far enough, this mode of thought won't just spell an end to opulent
lunches. It will mean the end of what we all know as civilization itself. It would plunge us back to a primitive
state of existence, living off hunting and gathering in a world with little art, music, leisure, or charity. Nor is any
form of socialism capable of providing for the needs of the world's six billion people, so the population
would shrink dramatically and quickly and in a manner that would make every human horror ever
known seem mild by comparison. Nor is it possible to divorce socialism from totalitarianism, because if
you are serious about ending private ownership of the means of production, you have to be serious
about ending freedom and creativity too. You will have to make the whole of society , or what is left of it, into a
prison. In short, the wish for socialism is a wish for unparalleled human evil. If we really understood this, no one
would express casual support for it in polite company. It would be like saying, you know, there is really something to be said for malaria
and typhoid and dropping atom bombs on millions of innocents. Do the people sitting across the table really wish for this? Certainly
not. So what has gone wrong here? Why can these people not see what is obvious? Why can't people sitting amidst market-
created plenty, enjoying all the fruits of capitalism every minute of life, see the merit of the market but
rather wish for something that is a proven disaster ? What we have here is a failure of understanding.
That is to say, a failure to connect causes with effects. This is a wholly abstract idea. Knowledge of cause and effect does not
come to us by merely looking around a room, living in a certain kind of society, or observing statistics. You can study roomfuls of data,
read a thousand treatises on history, or plot international GDP figures on a graph for a living, and yet the truth about cause and effect can
still be evasive. You still might miss the point that it is capitalism that gives rise to prosperity and freedom. You
might still be tempted by the notion of socialism as savior. Let me take you back to the years 1989 and 1990. These
were the years that most of us remember as the time when socialism collapsed in Eastern Europe and Russia . Events
of that time flew in the face of all predictions on the Right that these were permanent regimes that would never change unless they were
bombed back to the Stone Age. On the Left, it was widely believed, even in those times, that these societies were actually doing quite
well and would eventually pass the United States and Western Europe in prosperity, and, by some measures, that they were already
better off than us. And yet it collapsed. Even the Berlin Wall, that symbol of oppression and slavery, was torn down by the people
themselves. It was not only glorious to see socialism collapse. It was thrilling, from a libertarian point of view, to see how states
themselves can dissolve. They may have all the guns and all the power, and the people have none of those, and yet, when the people
themselves decide that they will no longer be governed, the state has few options left. It eventually collapses amid a society-wide refusal
to believe its lies any longer. When these closed societies suddenly became open, what did we see ? We saw lands
that time forgot. The technology was backwards and broken. The food was scarce and disgusting. The medical
care was abysmal. The people were unhealthy. Property was polluted. It was also striking to see what had happened to the culture
under socialism. Many generations had been raised under a system built on power and lies, and so the cultural infrastructure
that we take for granted was not secure. Such notions as trust, promise, truth, honesty, and planning for the future — all pillars of
commercial culture — had become distorted and confused by the ubiquity and persistence of the statist curse. Why am I going through
these details about this period, which most of you surely do remember? Simply to say this: most people did not see what you saw. You
saw the failure of socialism. This is what I saw. This is what Rothbard saw. This is what anyone who had been exposed to the teachings
of economics — to the elementary rules concerning cause and effect in society — saw. Now, if the proper lessons of the collapse had
been conveyed, we would have seen the error of all forms of government planning. We would have seen that a voluntary society will
outperform a coerced one anytime. We might see how ultimately artificial and fragile are all systems of statism compared to the robust
permanence of a society built on free exchange and capitalist ownership. And there is another point: the militarism of the Cold War had
only ended up prolonging the period of socialism by providing these evil governments the chance to stimulate unfortunate nationalist
impulses that distracted their domestic populations from the real problem. It was not the Cold War that killed socialism;
rather, once the Cold War had exhausted itself, these governments collapsed of their own weight from internal
rather than external pressure.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
21
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
AT: Federalism DA
1. Federalism is dead
Brian Garst, February 25, 2009, “The Stimulus Marks,” Conservative Compendium, accessed 4/1/09,
http://conservative-compendium.com/wordpress/2009/02/stimulus-marks-the-death-of-federalism/
If federalism wasn’t dead already, the “stimulus” killed it. That is, the relationship between the federal
government and the states has become so distorted compared to the original conception held by our
founders that it would make little practical difference if we just went ahead and abolished the concept
of states altogether. The Constitution designed a system in which the states share sovereignty with a federal
government. According to Madison, the powers of the federal government were to be “few and defined,”
while those remaining with the states would be “numerous and indefinite.” This is no longer so. No longer
dependent on their constituents for financial support, the states become rent-seekers looking to game the
federal system. The federal government now has the final say in most areas which used to be the sole
responsibility of the states. Criminal law, an area left exclusively to the respective states, is becoming
ever more federalized. Obeying the laws of California and growing pot for medical use is no protection
from federal agents. Whatever one might think of this behavior, it’s the voters of California who should get
the final say.
2. Supreme court refuses to support federalism
Rick Hills, law professor at NYU, March 5, 2008, “The Roberts Court,” PrawfsBlog, accessed 4/1/09,
http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2008/03/the-roberts-cou.html
The bad news for the friends of federalism is that the 4-4 decision was likely the result of Chief Justice
Roberts’ recusal: It is difficult to believe that Roberts who joined Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in
Gonzales v Oregon, would tolerate state tort claims rooted in the allegation that a manufacturer
committed fraud against the FDA. Robust state power, in short, is probably on the short side of a 5-4
split.
3. US style federalism gets modified not modeled
Heinz Klug, Professor at Wisconsin Law, 2000, “Model and Anti-Model,” 2000 Wisconsin Law Review, p. 597
Similar efforts may be seen in the creation of federal arrangements in Canada, India, and Nigeria, where
despite different political contexts and origins, the basic geographic distribution of power - emanating from
the national government and limited in its distribution to the sub-units - inverted the original federal form
created in the United States. Even in the Federal Republic of Germany, where United States influence over the
constitution-making process was quite direct (especially on the issue of federalism), the constitution-makers drew on
local forms to evolve a completely different structure. The German structure consists of regional units, or Lande,
that participate directly in the creation of national legislation and implement federal policy as well as legislation
within their own jurisdictions. While not necessarily serving as a simple anti-model in these cases, it is clear that
even in the field of federalism, in which the United States was the originating model, subsequent constitutionmakers have sought their own particular forms.
4. The DA doesn’t turn case; plan doesn’t result in economic growth.
5. The Maina 07 evidence is terrible. The card has no warrants, and only describes the
status quo, and does not create a link to case.
6. Rudasingua 99 is specific to Rwanda and doesn’t link to case because it isn’t in the
context of the US.
7. All of the impacts are specific to poverty in general, which we solve.
8. We outweigh. The moral obligation of women’s rights and racism mean that plan is
more important than starvation.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
22
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
A2: Military Trade Off DA 1/4
Turn
1)
The Poverty Draft is racist and discriminatory
Third World Traveler Washington Newsletter, Februrary ‘05, Accessed July 10, 2009
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/War_Peace/Economic_Draft.html
With recruiting costs rising to $15,000 per recruit, the Pentagon must employ its recruiters where they have
the best prospect for success. A February 2001 study for the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral
and Social Sciences reveals the recruiters' game plan. The study "suggested that categorizing potential
recruits based on their career decision-making patterns and their parents' socioeconomic status may be useful
for targeting recruiting strategies. For example,...more financially constrained, goal-oriented youth may
respond more positively to the educational or financial benefits available through military service. "This
focus on financially vulnerable youth in the "lower middle class" is a key part of recruiting efforts today.
Technology in the form of computer-assisted tracking of teens in "financially constrained" urban areas,
where unemployment is high and opportunities for advancement is limited, has become standard practice.
But this is just the beginning: the pursuit goes well beyond electrons and beyond local high schools. It goes
into shopping malls frequented by "financially restrained" families, to weekend events, and even into youth
"hangouts." Focus on Low Income Neighborhoods Traditionally, "financially constrained" translated into
minority enclaves where many regard the military as a way to improve one's prospects honorably. But when
recruiters consciously target a neighborhood or school-or as the Boston Globe put it, "saturates life at ...a
working class public school,"-the public issue shifts from the opportunities available to fulfill the aspirations
of teens to the fairness of a system that intentionally exploits the economic aspirations of others. Recruiting
inducements include money for college (up to $70,000), scholarships, job training, and some very large-as
much as $15,000-bonuses for enlisting. Once they sign a few new enlistees, recruiters know and play on two
teen propensities to pull in more and more recruits: peer pressure to "join the herd" by doing what their
friends do, and the inability to fully comprehend consequences in formulating long-term plans. The fact that
military recruiters are an insistent economic "presence" in carefully targeted locales gives credence to the
charge that the Pentagon's tactics for filling the forces amounts to an "economic draft."
!!! if the following cards are in your 1AC just extend them!!!
2)
Racial justice is a moral imperative. Human dignity demands that we treat people
as ends in themselves, never as a means to an end.
Paul Gordon Lauren, Regents Professor, University of Montana, Power and Prejudice, 1996, p. 321.
Yet despite these many problems and centuries of wrestling to find solutions, normative questions about
the ought rather than simply the is of global politics and diplomacy remain before us. Indeed, such
questions are particularly pressing and acute in the area of racial discrimination. Race was the subject
that placed the whole issue of human rights upon the international agenda in the first place, and for a vast
majority in the world race remains the most critical and universal test of how people deal with other
people on the basis of an ethical standard. The principle of racial equality itself flows from a basic
ethical concept, that of human dignity which implies in its simples terms that every human being is an
end in himself or herself, not a mere means to an end, and should be treated as such. Thus, it is only
natural for people to ask whether the conduct of politics and diplomacy supports or opposes racial
discrimination, which is the very negation of the principle of equality. This should not be at all
surprising, for as scholar Stanley Hoffman writes in his penetrating book Duties Beyond Borders: On the
Limits and Possibilities of Ethical International Politics, :“We must remember that states are led by
human beings whose actions affect human beings with and outside: considerations of good and evil, right
or wrong, are therefore both inevitable and legitimate.”
Whitman College
WNDI 09
3)
23
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
Societal racism culminates in genocide
Manning Marable, Dir. Inst for Af. Am. Studies @ Columbia, 2000, How Capitalism Underdeveloped Black
America, p. 253
Over a decade has passed since the Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders
published its devastating indictment against white racism. “What white Americans have never fully
understood—but what the Negro can never forget—is that white society is deeply implicated in the ghetto.
White institutions created it, white institutions maintain it, and white society condones it.” With the failure of
the Black Power Movement and the political collapse of white liberalism, the direction of America’s
political economy and social hierarchy is veering toward a kind of subtle apocalypse which promises to
obliterate the lowest stratum of the Black and Latino poor. For the Right will not be satisfied with
institutionalization of bureaucratic walls that surround and maintain the ghetto. The genocidal logic of
the situation could demand, in the not too distant future, the rejection of the ghetto’s right to survival
in the new capitalist order. Without gas chambers or pogroms, the dark ghetto’s economic and social
institutions might be destroyed, and many of its residents would simply cease to exist.
4)
The impact of racism outweighs all others.
Joseph Barndt, Dismantling Racism: The Continuing Challenge to White America, 19 91, p. 155-56
To study racism is to study walls. We have looked at barriers and fences and limitations, ghettos and prisons.
The prison of racism confines us all, people of color and white people alike. It shackles the victimizer as
well as the victim. The walls forcibly keep people of color and white people separate from each other; in our
separate prisons we are all prevented from achieving the human potential that God intends for us. The
limitations imposed on people of color by poverty, subservience, and powerlessness are cruel, inhuman,
and unjust; the effects of uncontrolled power, privilege, and greed, which are the marks of our white
prison will inevitably destroy us as well. But we have also seen that the walls of racism can be
dismantled. We are not condemned to an inexorable fate, but are offered the vision and the possibility of
freedom. Brick by brick, stone by stone, the prison of individual, institutional, and cultural racism can
be destroyed. You and I are urgently called to join the efforts of those who know it is time to tear
down, once and for all, the walls of racism. The danger of self-destruction seems to be drawing ever
more near. The results of centuries of national and worldwide conquest and colonization, of military
buildups and violent aggression, of overconsumption and environmental destruction may be reaching
the point of no return. A small and predominantly white minority of global population derives its
power and privilege from sufferings of the vast majority of peoples of color. For the sake of the world
and ourselves, we dare not allow it to continue.
5)
American hegemony sparks resentment and terrorism.
Christopher Layne, Professor of International Studies at the University of Miami. ‘07. pg 70
Experts on terrorism understand the political motives that drive the actions of groups like al Qaeda. In his
important recent study of suicide terrorists, Robert A. Pape found that what “nearly all suicide terrorist
attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw
military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland.”56 Pape found that “even al
Qaeda fits this pattern: although Saudi Arabia is not under American military occupation per Se, a principal
objective of Osama bin Laden is the expulsion of American troops from the Persian Gulf and the reduction
of Washington’s power in the region.”57 This finding is seconded by Scheuer, who describes bin Laden’s
objectives as: “the end of U.S. aid to Israel and the ultimate elimination of that state; the removal of U.S. and
Western forces from the Arabian Peninsula; the removal of U.S. and Western military forces from Iraq,
Afghanistan, and other Muslim lands; the end of U.S. support for oppression of Muslims by Russia, China,
and India; the end of U.S. protection for repressive, apostate Muslim regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
Egypt, Jordan, et cetera; and the conservation of the Muslim world’s energy resources and their sale at higher
prices.”58 Simply put, it is American primacy, and the policies that flow from it, that have made the United
States a lightning rod for Islamic anger.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
6)
24
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
Case Turns and Outweighs the DA
Because our plan reduces poverty thus killing recruitment we solve back for our Third
World Traveler Washington Newsletter 05, Lauren 96, Marable 2000, and Barndt 91
Cards
7)
Recruitment is so high the military is decreasing its benefits
Tom Vanden Brook, May 8, ’09, USA TODAY
Along with lower bonuses, the Guard is trimming other incentives. Budget documents released Thursday show the
Pentagon proposes reducing education benefits for Army National Guard members from $285 million in 2009 to $201 million in
2010. National Guard soldiers have a dual mission: They respond to emergencies in the states and serve abroad, including combat in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The eight-year obligation often includes a one-year combat tour, Zachary said. The poor economy is prompting more
young people to consider the National Guard, said James Martin, a retired Army colonel and expert on military culture at Bryn Mawr
College in Pennsylvania. Many view it as a solid part-time job that can help pay for college or provide job training , he said.
Jordan O'Brien, 18, from the Indianapolis suburb of Nora, joined the Guard in April to help pay his tuition at Ball State University. O'Brien hopes
for a $10,000 signing bonus but said he's disappointed that's down from the $20,000 he first discussed with a recruiter. "This will help my
parents out by not having to pay for my school, especially the way the economy is going right now," O'Brien said.
8)
No Heg Now
Aaron L. Friedberg, Former Deputy National Security Adviser for Vice President Dick Cheney, August ‘07,
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Are present and planned budgets and U.S. force levels sufficient to meet these three distinct challenges? Schmitt and Donnelly,
both fellows at the American Enterprise Institute, believe the answer is a resounding no. Schmitt, Donnelly, and the contributors
to their edited volume, Of Men and Materiel, are especially worried when it comes to smaller and medium-sized future
threats: wars against irregular opponents or an enemy such as Iran. Since 9/11, defense spending has grown
considerably, but much of the money has gone to cover the extraordinary costs of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon has continued to pursue the broad priorities imposed by former Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld. Driven by his vision of future warfare, Rumsfeld downplayed ground forces in favor of those designed to
maintain command of the air, the sea, and space. Intent on building truly "revolutionary" weapons, Rumsfeld and his inner
circle of "transformationists" cut back procurement for some of the armed services' pet projects, such as the air force's F-22 fighter
and the army's massive Crusader artillery system, preferring to spend more on research and development for "generation-after-next"
systems. Although some of these cuts may have had merit, the end result of Rumsfeld's transformation program, claim
the authors, is a U.S. military establishment that is simply too small and too focused on the distant future to meet
the challenges it confronts today and will likely face tomorrow.
9)
Lack of equipment has killed readiness
Paul McLeary, April 23, ‘09, Aerospace Daily and Defense Report, Accessed July 10, 2009
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/MARINES042309.xml&headline=Marines%20Equip
ment%20Woes%20Increasing%20Problem&channel=defense
Due to the strains of simultaneously fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan while running other missions around the world, the U.S.
Marine Corps is nearly tripling the planned utilization rates of many of its aircraft platforms , Gen. James Amos, Assistant
Commandant of the Marine Corps, told the Senate Armed Services Committee April 22. The F/A-18C and D; the KC-130; the EA-6B; and the
MV-22 Osprey are all “flying at utilization rates far beyond those for which they were designed,” the general warned,
adding that as the platforms begin to wear out from overuse, the Corps is looking at an increasing deficit of available
aircraft for training and future employment. “These shortfalls include all modifications, intermediate maintenance events, depot maintenance,
transition/procurement aircraft, and aircraft damaged beyond repair,” Amos said. As far as all of the Corps’ ground, sea and air gear goes, the
general pointed to the recent experience of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade’s deployment to Afghanistan as an example of how the Corps
is currently sending units to fight. Equipment assets were pulled from a variety of sources, including more than 55 percent coming
via new procurement provided by Marine Corps Systems Command, 27 percent from within the Central Command area of operations,
“including items made available from units retrograding from Iraq,” and about 4 percent from the Logistics Command and the
USMC’s Prepositioned Program in Norway. Even with all that, “14 percent of 2nd MEB’s equipment needed to be drawn from our nondeployed
operating forces.” With the tempo of deployments likely to remain largely unchanged in the near-term, Amos warned that
this mix-and-match approach isn’t sustainable if the Corps is to maintain its readiness between deployments .
Whitman College
WNDI 09
25
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
AT: Inflation DA 1/4
1.) No internal link- Increased spending doesn’t increase inflation
Casey B. Mulligan, economics professor @ University of Chicago, 6-10-2009, “Inflation and Government
Spending,” http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/inflation-and-the-size-of-government/
The Bush and Obama administrations have added, and continue to add, much to the United States’
national debt. Both Republicans and Democrats spend too much of taxpayers’ money, but excessive
government spending does not mean that inflation will necessarily — or even probably — follow. The
Treaty of Versailles gave Germany debts that amounted to years of the nation’s gross domestic product,
whereas 2008-9 bailout mania has so far given us debt that amounts to “only” several months’ G.D.P.
Moreover, thanks to the emergence of payroll taxation and income tax withholding, the capacity of
governments to tax its citizens without resorting to inflation is much greater than it was before World
War II. Neither inflation nor war will be needed to settle the debts that Presidents Bush and Obama are
giving us. Last year the Federal Reserve Board’s Song Han and I published a study of 80 countries where we
looked at the correlation between inflation and government spending. We found inflation to be similar (or
even somewhat less) in countries whose governments spend more for nonmilitary purposes as compared to
countries whose governments spent less. Our study found significant positive correlations between
inflation and government spending only in cases when military spending grew — as it does during
wartime. But the government spending growth we have seen in 2008 and 2009 comes from the nonmilitary
part of the budget.
2.) Non-Unique Massive government spending sparking hyperinflation now
Ivan Eland, Staff Writer for Anti-War, 7-10-2009, “To Mitigate Economic Armageddon,”
http://original.antiwar.com/eland/2009/07/09/to-mitigate-economic-armageddon%C2%A0slash-the-defense-budget/
The U.S. government is deeper in debt than it has been since just after World War II. When Bill
Clinton, who actually reduced the federal deficit as a portion of GDP, left office, the Congressional Budget
Office projected an $800 billion dollar yearly budget surplus for the years 2009 to 2012. Now CBO projects
an annual budget deficit of a whopping $1.2 trillion. Although Republicans are blaming Barack Obama
for this gargantuan budget gap, George W. Bush is responsible for 53 percent of the total, according to the
New York Times. Another 37 percent is due to the recession of the early part of the decade and the global
meltdown that began in late 2007. Obama is responsible for only 10 percent of the total. Yet the reason that
Obama’s portion is so small is because George W. Bush, a big-government Republican, was in office for
eight years, and Obama has been in office less than six months. Obama has been spending at a
phenomenal rate — on a pork-filled stimulus bill and an expansive domestic agenda. Thus, Obama is
guilty of making Bush’s legacy of massive red ink even worse. Obama’s budget would double the
projected deficit over the next 10 years. By 2019, federal spending is projected to be an eye-popping
quarter of the nation’s GDP. By contrast, for four decades federal taxation has averaged about 18 percent
of GDP. These massive deficits, accumulating as a monstrous national debt, could cause hyperinflation
and the prolonged economic stagnation (stagflation) that would make the 1970s look like an economic
picnic.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
26
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
3.) Non-Unique Massive deficits and lack of growth now
Jeanne Cummings, Staff Writer for Politico, 7-14-2009, “Experts: Obama Too Optimistic on Economy,”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/14/politics/politico/main5157452.shtml
President Barack Obama’s economic forecasts for long-term growth are too optimistic, many economists
warn, a miscalculation that would mean budget deficits will be much higher than the administration is
now acknowledging. The White House will be forced to confront the disconnect between its original, upbeat predictions and the
mainstream consensus about how the economy is likely to perform in a new budget forecast to be unveiled next month. Christina
Romer, chairwoman of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, said in a POLITICO interview that the administration - like
many independent economists - did not fully anticipate the severity and pace of this recession. She said
the White House will be updating its official forecasts. The new numbers will come as part of a semiannual review that, under ordinary
circumstances, is the kind of earnest-but-dull document that causes many Washington eyes to glaze over. This time, however, the
new forecasts - if they are anything like what many outside economists expect - could send a jolt
through Capitol Hill, where even the administration’s current debt projections already are prompting
deep concerns on political and substantive grounds. Higher deficit figures also would arrive at a critical moment in the
health care debate, as lawmakers are already struggling to find a way to pay for the president’s nearly $1 trillion reform package.
Alternately, if Obama clings to current optimistic forecasts for long-term growth, he risks accusations that he is basing his fiscal plans on
fictitious assumptions - precisely the sort of charge he once leveled against the Bush administration. White House officials rebuff such
suggestions, saying the midyear correction is precisely intended to keep their economic program reality based. But a series of
POLITICO interviews in recent days with independent economists of varied political stripes found widespread disdain for Obama’s first
round of assumptions, with some experts invoking such phrases as “rosy” and “fantasy.” Obama’s current forecasts envision 3.2
percent growth next year, 4 percent growth in 2011, 4.6 percent growth in 2012 and 4.2 percent growth in 2013. The administration is
already under intense pressure over its economic calculations on the most politically sensitive statistic: employment. The administration
once vowed to use stimulus policies to keep the jobless rate below 8 percent; it is now just shy of 10 percent. Deficit figures do not
pack the same emotional punch as unemployment lines do. But they matter greatly to policymakers and the financial markets as a
measure of whether the country can afford Obama’s big agenda. And the general public is paying attention, too. In a June NBC/Wall
Street Journal poll, a bare majority - 51 percent - of respondents approved of Obama’s handling of the economy, down from 56 percent
in February. In addition, 58 percent said the president and Congress should focus on keeping deficits down, even if that delays an
economic recovery, the poll found. “They used a rosy forecast, and that’s understandable because a quick recovery makes the rest of
the agenda possible. It creates the basis for the revenues you need for health care and climate change,” said Robert Shapiro, a former
Clinton economic adviser. “But it’s also dangerous and risky because if the forecast doesn’t come true, you’ve undermined the basis for
the rest of your policies,” he added. White House officials note that at the time of their forecasting, the depth of the crisis was less clear.
For instance, the global reach of the downturn wasn’t fully apparent late last fall. Another challenge was that the slowdown “was going
from a relatively normal recession into something much worse, and we were at a pivot point, if not a turning oint,” Romer said. “There
was just inherently a lot of uncertainty. None of us has a crystal ball, especially at a time when there is a lot of new information coming
in. That’s when you have to be ready to update. That’s certainly what a lot of forecasters have done and what we will do, as well,” she
added. Those outside forecast adjustments have been almost universally in a downward trend. White House officials began to lay the
groundwork for the politically ill-timed revisions when Vice President Joe Biden recently conceded the administration had “misread” the
economic indicators in January about how bad the economy actually was. Obama later amended those remarks, saying the White House
had “incomplete” information, which led to their miscalculations. Either way, those admissions appear to pave the way for a significant
rewrite of the White House’s economic outlook, starting with it growth predictions. “Those numbers will prove to be much, much too
optimistic,” said J.D. Foster, a former economic adviser in the Bush administration. To appreciate the potential problems that can arise
once those numbers are changed, consider this: The White House projected revenues for 2012 are forecast at $3.1
trillion. But if growth is just 2 percent, rather than around 4 percent, as some economists now expect,
that income would hover around $2.4 trillion - adding another $700 billion to the projected deficit of
$581 billion. “That would be a significant change in the deficit,” said Foster, who did the math. There is a case for
hewing close to the administration’s original, out-year conclusions, said some economists. The president’s hope for a burst of new
economic activity around “green” jobs in the energy and environment sectors and the kick-in of the infrastructure phase of the stimulus
package could provide some healthy growth, economists say. “The question is, what will drive the growth? It’s not likely to be the
housing market or another tech bubble. We don’t know what it is going to be, but it doesn’t make sense to assume it won’t be anything,”
said James Horney, an economist with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Still, it’s not clear whether another optimistic
outlook will sell on Capitol Hill. Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Economy.com and a frequent adviser to Capitol Hill, said
the worsening economic picture makes passage of health care reform even more essential. “It’s so important for
policymakers to show that they will address the long-term fiscal pressures on the economy and budget
very, very soon,” he said, including the rising costs of Medicare and Medicaid that are overwhelming the federal budget.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
27
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
4.) Non-UniqueMassive spending now and more coming
Martin Crutsinger, Staff Writer for AP, 7-14-2009, “U.S. budget gap tops $1 trillion,”
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20090714_U_S__budget_gap_tops__1_trillion.html
WASHINGTON - Nine months into the fiscal year, the federal budget deficit has topped $1 trillion for
the first time. The imbalance is intensifying fears about higher interest rates and inflation, and
already pressuring the value of the dollar. But there also is concern about trying to reverse the deficit, by
reducing government spending or raising taxes, in the midst of a harsh recession. The Treasury Department
said yesterday that the deficit in June totaled $94.3 billion, pushing the total since the federal budget year
started in October to nearly $1.1 trillion. The gap last month was the first deficit for any June since 1991.
The deficit has been propelled by the huge sum the government has spent to combat the recession and
financial crisis, combined with a sharp decline in tax revenue. Paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
also is a major factor. "This is a difficult pill to have to swallow," said Richard Yamarone, director of
economic research at Argus Research Corp. in New York. "The economy and banking system need these
funds to recover, yet it will ultimately hit Americans' wallets hard. It's a necessary evil." The country's
soaring deficits are making Chinese and other foreign buyers of U.S. debt nervous, which could make
them reluctant lenders down the road. That could force the Treasury Department to pay higher interest
rates to make U.S. debt attractive longer-term. "These are mind boggling numbers," said Sung Won Sohn,
an economist at the Smith School of Business at California State University. "Our foreign investors from
China and elsewhere are starting to have concerns about not only the value of the dollar but how safe
their investments will be in the long run." Government spending is on the rise to address the worst
financial crisis since the Great Depression and an unemployment rate now at 9.5 percent. Congress
already approved a $700-billion financial bailout and a $787-billion economic stimulus package to try
to jump-start a recovery, and there is growing talk among some Obama administration officials that a
second round of stimulus may be necessary. This has many Republicans and deficit hawks worried that
the U.S. could be setting itself up for more financial pain if interest rates and inflation surge. They also are
raising alarms about additional spending the administration is proposing, including its plan to reform
health care. President Obama and other administration officials, including Treasury Secretary Timothy
Geithner, have said the U.S. is committed to bringing down the deficits once the country has emerged
from the current recession and financial crisis.
5) Impact inevitable- Massive increases in spending coming
Ivan Eland, Staff Writer for Anti-War, 7-10-2009, “To Mitigate Economic Armageddon,”
http://original.antiwar.com/eland/2009/07/09/to-mitigate-economic-armageddon%C2%A0slash-the-defense-budget/
Yet a liberal Democratic president and Congress seem determined to pass an ambitious domestic
program, including expanded health care coverage — even after two costly wars and an irresponsible
expansion of Medicare under Bush have already led the nation into financial ruin. The big
entitlements, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, will eventually have to be cut, but politicians are
too scared to do so now. The biggest chunk of the non-entitlement budget is defense spending — sucking
up almost $700 billion a year, including the cost of the two wars. Thus, defense spending must be slashed.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
28
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
6) No impact-Inflation inevitable – Fed policy ensure
Henry Blodget, Staff Writer for Business Insider, 4-15-2009, “Brace For Hyper-Inflation,”
http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-why-bernanke-wont-keep-his-crazy-promise-about-fightinginflation-2009-4
The economy is cratering, so the Fed is printing money. When the Fed prints money, this eventually produces
inflation (more dollars, same amount of goods). Ben Bernanke assured us yesterday that, this time, the Fed's moneyprinting won't eventually lead to inflation because the moment the economy begins to recover , the Fed
will stop printing money and start burning it. Specifically, the Fed will start selling assets instead of buying them and
thus shrink the money supply. Unfortunately, Ben is unlikely to keep this promise. Why? Several reasons: First, it will
be hard to confidently assert that the economy is in full recovery . Remember, in 2007, Ben (and most other people)
thought the economy was in great shape as far as the eye could see. He and most other observers missed that disastrous turning point.
So why do we think he'll correctly spot the next one? Especially because, if he blows it by jacking up rates too early, he'll kill the
recovery. Second, there will be intense political pressure to MAKE SURE that the economy is in riproaring health before hammering consumers and businesses by raising interest rates . Everyone loves low
interest rates. And they'll only stop screaming about your taking them away when they're fat and happy (which will be long after
inflation really gets going). Third, the US government desperately needs low interest rates to fund its soon-tobe-monstrous debt load, so there will be another source of pressure on Ben to keep rates low . When we
finish with all this stimulus, we're going to owe a boatload of money. We're really going to allow our Fed chief to send interest rates to
the moon and jack up our refinancing costs? Fourth, many of the assets that Bernanke has been buying to print
money won't be easy to sell. This time around, the Fed isn't just buying easy-to-sell Treasuries. It's buying trash mortgage
assets, et al. To reduce the money supply, it will need to sell them to someone. But who? In the latest issue of
the Institutional Risk Analyst, Chris Whalen hammers this last point home. Chris thinks we're now officially addicted to low
interest rates and that Bernanke will be both unwilling and unable to raise them significantly when the
time comes. And the failure to raise, them, of course, will lead to hyper-inflation.
7.) Massive international spending inevitable making global inflation inevitable
Dick Morris, Staff Writer for Newsmax, 3-5-2009, “Coming Next Year: Obama’s Inflation,”
http://www.newsmax.com/morris/Obama_stimulus_inflation/2009/03/05/188690.html
Since the spending and borrowing splurge is not confined to Washington but is being mimicked all over the world,
the inflation will not strike just one country but will be global in scope. The first global inflation in our history
(except, perhaps, right after World Wars I and II), it will confront our policymakers with yet another unprecedented challenge and send
them back, once more, to their economics texts. There, they will find that the only remedy for global inflation is global recession, a la
Paul Volker. Having just emerged from a ruinous depression, nobody will be in the mood for more unemployment, but that is just what
will have to happen to cool off the inflation and break the inflationary psychology that is likely to set in. The point of this gloom
and doom is that all this pain is entirely preventable. It will be caused by Obama's excessive spending and trilliondollar-plus deficits. This spending, of questionable utility in overcoming this recession/depression, is so far out of line
with what the economy can handle that it will do more harm than good when the inflation hits . Proof
that Obama spending will have little impact on the depression is the vast increase in money supply with no commensurate improvement
in the economy. Providing money, via spending hikes or tax cuts, does not guarantee that the money will be spent .
Tax cuts can be saved and spending increases, while surely spent once (on the initial project), can lose their multiplier effect rapidly as
wage-earners on the government payroll bank their money just like those who get tax cuts will do. Getting out of this economic mess
depends on consumer and business confidence, a faith that Obama is eroding with his looming tax increases as rapidly as he tries to
kindle it with his excessive spending. None of this should come as any news to Obama. He probably knows all this. But he is
determined to pass his agenda of bigger government, nationalized healthcare and vastly greater
spending even at the price of inflation and subsequent recession. He puts ideology first and the economy a distant
second. The stock market has figured out his priorities and is responding accordingly. One can only hope that voters also eventually
realize what is going on.
8). No spillover- no reason why abortion being covered under Medicaid spills over to other
programs. Their link evidence assumes a massive increase in spending of new programs.
9.) No impact- the poorest sectors of the economy are those benefiting from the aff. This
population has little to no impact on the global economy
10.) We Outweigh- Extend Abu Jamal, Rudasingwa- we poverty is the internal link to
their impact and kills more, Lauren indicates we have a moral imperative to stop racism,
and Reardon indicates patriarchal mindsets are the root cause of the threat of extinction
Whitman College
WNDI 09
29
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
AT: Money DA 1/4
Non unique
The economy is in the tank and there is massive spending now
David Smick, chairman and CEO of Johnson Smick International, Inc., a Washington, D.C. policy advisory firm
July 16, 2009 “Anti-capitalism chokes the engine of growth”
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/16/news/economy/anti_capitalism_economy_growth.fortune/?postversion=2009071
613
Only a fool would bet against the American people's ingenuity and persistence in figuring a way out of our
economic mess. But the last year has been humbling all the same. Some of our most common
assumptions, including the certainty of monetary and fiscal stimulus, are being challenged. For
example, for decades economists including Milton Friedman have argued that if policymakers in the 1930s
had not run such a restrictive monetary policy, things might have turned out differently. Likewise,
Keynesians add that if Congress hadn't tried to balance the budget in 1936, the Great Depression might have
ended a lot sooner. Today, no one can accuse policymakers of committing such blunders. The U.S. is
running the Niagara Falls of fiscal and monetary policies, yet the results to date have been
discouraging. Begin with prices, which have been dropping fast. From August 2008 to June 2009, the
Consumer Price Index dropped from 5.3% to negative 1%. During the comparable period in 1929-30, the CPI
dropped from zero to only a negative 1.8%. From July 2008 to June 2009, unemployment jumped from 5.8%
to 9.5%. During the comparable period from 1929-30, the rate jumped from 2.3% to only 5% (and later grew
much higher). In other words, prices are dropping and unemployment is rising at a rate worse than
during the beginning years of the Great Depression. This is happening despite extraordinarily
aggressive fiscal and monetary stimulus, which is sure to have serious unintended consequences,
including budget deficits and debt almost beyond belief. The world is fixated on U.S. long-term interest
rates, which have increased dramatically since the beginning of the year. Why did rates rise despite rising
joblessness and a weakening economy? The Chinese argue that global financial markets fear that the
Federal Reserve will eventually monetize the Obama Administration's quadrupled budget deficits,
producing higher inflation.
High unemployment and reduced consumer spending keeping the market down
Don Lee, writer for the LA Times, July 16, 2009 “Inflation, led by energy prices, shows slight rise in June”
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-economy16-2009jul16,1,1398094.story
Still, even small price increases will cut into the spending power of workers whose earnings have
flattened as unemployment has surged. In June, average weekly earnings, seasonally adjusted, fell 1.2%
from May after taking into account inflation and reduced work hours, the department said in a separate report
Wednesday. "Consumers are going to be under pressure," said Jared Franz, an economist at T. Rowe
Price Group in Baltimore. But he said things were still looking brighter than in the fourth quarter of last
year.
Global economy falling behind and independent of the US
Alex Carrick, Chief economist with CanaData, July 17, 2009, “Chinese demand and U.S. consumers key to
recovery” http://dcnonl.com/article/id34567
Then there is the matter of who is in charge anymore when it comes to global economic leadership. The
world traditionally looks to the United States. It is no longer clear that the U.S. will be as dominant as it
has been previously. The European Union (EU) is just as big a market by population and gross domestic
product (GDP). However, the EU’s largest economy, Germany, is seriously lagging in growth
expectations due to durable-goods export weakness. The same is true for Japan. Brazil, India and
China — three of the four BRIC nations — are large enough to play important roles. Russia, the fourth
BRIC member, will continue to suffer until its oil and natural gas export sales improve.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
30
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
Link debate
Increasing government spending is key to speedy economic recovery
Don Lee, writer for the LA Times, July 16, 2009 “Inflation, led by energy prices, shows slight rise in June”
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-economy16-2009jul16,1,1398094.story
Reporting from Washington -- Inflation jumped slightly more than expected last month, mainly as a
result of an uptick in energy prices, adding to the arguments over President Obama's economic policies and
cutting into the spending power of consumers who are struggling with stagnant wages and rising
unemployment. The government reported Wednesday that so-called core inflation, which excludes volatile
energy and food prices, rose a seasonally adjusted 0.2% in June from the prior month and a modest 1.7%
from a year earlier. The rise was small enough to lend support to Obama's staunch view that high levels
of federal spending are needed to stimulate economic recovery and pose no immediate threat of
runaway inflation. At the same time, the monthly increase was also one-tenth of a percentage point higher
than most analysts had forecast, which inflation hawks are likely to seize on as supporting their concern.
Beyond the political debate, the report suggests that the risk of deflation -- a general downward spiral in
prices and economic activity -- is waning.
Deficits don’t indicate economy decline
David Smick, chairman and CEO of Johnson Smick International, Inc., a Washington, D.C. policy advisory firm
July 16, 2009 “Anti-capitalism chokes the engine of growth”
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/16/news/economy/anti_capitalism_economy_growth.fortune/?postversion=2009071
613
But nothing about budget deficits is simple. The truth is the deficit in recent decades has actually been an
unreliable economic predictor. For example, interest rates (the 10-year Treasury bond yield) never
dropped below 5.25% the entire eight years of the Clinton Administration, which produced budgetary
surpluses. Yet at one point during the deficit-ridden George W. Bush administration, long-term
interest rates declined to nearly 3% -- and at a time when the economy was prosperous. Running a
permanent policy of large budget deficits is a risky way to operate an economy. But remember Warren
Buffett's warning several years ago about America's budget deficits? He bet big on a dollar free-fall, arguing
that foreign investors would flee the U.S. in droves. Buffett for a time lost a reported $1 billion dollars on the
bet (before the dollar switched direction again, which is the volatile nature of a reserve currency). Why has
the deficit been such an inefficient barometer? The experts underestimated America's ability to import
capital and to innovate. Foreigners were indeed concerned about America's deficits. Turned out they
cared even more about the attractiveness of U.S. asset markets relative to those elsewhere. America
traditionally has been a magnet for global investment and savings. Several years ago, a World Economic
Forum survey concluded that despite debt, deficits, and a low savings rate, the U.S. still ranked first in
global competitiveness and as a target for the world's capital. The reasons: labor market flexibility,
higher education, a benign political environment largely free of class warfare, innovative strategies, quality
of corporate management, and predictable legal and patent systems. China ranked 34th.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
31
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
Impact debate
A) Protectionism coming now—high unemployment
Oxford Analytica, independent strategic-consulting firm for Oxford University, 07.16.09, “Trade Protectionism
Shadows Recession” http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/15/trade-protectionism-doha-business-oxford.html
The World Trade Organization (WTO) is now forecasting a fall of 10% in the volume of world trade this
year--a post-war record, and slightly worse than its previous 9% estimate. While developed countries'
exports are expected to be 14% lower than in 2008, the reduction in developing-country exports will
probably be only 7%. Trade in cars and machinery, and primary and intermediate products, has
dropped most sharply. Resistance to Protectionism The WTO is now producing quarterly reports that
track member countries' tariff increases, new non-tariff and anti-dumping measures and financial
measures that favor domestic goods and services over imports. Its April report found that governments
had kept protectionist pressures under control throughout 2009, but "significant slippage" had occurred
since the beginning of this year. The latest report, just issued, shows that "resort to high-intensity
protectionist measures" (i.e., blatant breaches of WTO trade rules) has still been contained, but shows no
improvement in the general picture. Is the Worst Yet to Come? Even if economic decline is leveling out,
unemployment will continue to increase in months ahead. Rising unemployment figures, sometimes
dismissed as a lagging indicator of economic trends, in fact are a strong leading indicator of social
pressures that can drive governments to restrict or distort trade. WTO Director General Pascal Lamy
believes "the stress test of the multilateral trading system is still to come."
B) Protectionism kills economic recovery
New York Times, 3-10-2009, “Mr. Obama’s Trade Agenda”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/opinion/11wed1.html
In tough times, there is a strong temptation to turn inward. With so many Americans already out of
work, why shouldn’t the country raise trade barriers to protect its workers from foreign competition?
The answer is clear: Trade will play an important role in the world’s eventual recovery, transmitting
economic growth from one country to the next. Protectionism leads to further protectionism, and
yielding to its temptation could unleash destructive trade wars that would crush any chance of
recovery.
Impact defense
The US economy is resilient
Sean McKibbon, economic analyst, January 14, 2009, “Obama Stimulus Plan Will Likely Soften Blow From
U.S. Recession, CBOC Report Says,” CEP News, accessed 4/1/09, http://www.actionforex.com/latest-news/useconomy/obama-stimulus-plan-will-likely-soften-blow-from-u.s.-recession,-cboc-report-says-2009011475063/
The CBOC report forecasts the U.S. current account deficit will improve to $346 billion in 2009 on the back
of a combination of weak oil prices and weak import growth. Exports will grow, but weakly, slackening from
the 8.1% growth observed in 2008 to an anticipated 2.1% in 2009, the report says. "The United States is
quickly dealing with the crisis engulfing its financial sector; and while an economic recovery is many
months away, the flexible nature of the economy should enable it to eventually emerge largely intact. It
is important to remember that the U.S. economy is incredibly resilient, as evidenced by its ability to
emerge relatively unscathed from terrorist attacks, accounting scandals, wars, and a contested
presidential election in the first half of this decade alone," the report says.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
32
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
Case Outweighs
a. Our impacts outweigh. Ext our Reardon 93 card that states that unchecked
patriarchy leads to global nuclear war which leads to extinction. Also ext our
Reardon 85 card that says patriarchy is the root cause of war. We solve for
patriarchy so we solve for extinction.
b. Also ext our Creech 05 Card which states that abortion is essentially racism as it
was strategically used to eliminate the African American population. Barndt 91
states that the impact of racism outweighs all others. You should stick an
independent voter on this because according to our Marable 00 card states that
racism results in genocide, the deliberate, systematic, elimination of a group of
people. Ext our Lauren 96 card saying that this is morally imparitive and we should
treat everyone equally.
c. Last, ext our Abu-Jamal 98 card stating that poverty is the equivalent to an ongoing
nuclear war- it kills millions every year. Since we solve for poverty, we save millions
from being killed every year.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
33
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
China/ India DA 2AC
China
No Internal Link
China will not lash out upon criticism for human rights policies
Ming Pao, Hong Kong Newspaper, August 8, 2008, BBC Worldwide Monitor- Political, Lexis
China's human rights situation is one of the focuses of controversy of the Beijing Olympics. Human rights
groups in the West lambasted China for failing to fulfil its promise to improve human rights.
Subsequently, state leaders attending the Beijing Olympics are also placed under pressure. Apart from Bush,
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd also pledged to discuss human rights issues with the Chinese leaders
before embarking on his journey to Beijing. Pei Minxin, an American Chinese scholar and senior research
fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said in an interview with Reuters that he believed
China will handle the relevant issues with ease and play down the Western leaders' remarks because
overreaction only brings about more news stories and are counter productive. Pei said, "If the
government's reaction is relatively calm and measured, public sentiments will also be restrained."
Impact Turn
Pressure on China is important and yield improvements in human rights – empirically
disproves the impact to the disad
Washington Post, February 24, 2009, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/02/23/AR2009022302412.html
No doubt there is a predictable rhythm both to U.S. protests and to Beijing's responses. That hardly makes
them unimportant. By publicly stating its objection to the imprisonment of peaceful dissidents or the crushing
of opposition in places such as Tibet, the United States reinforces the principle that such practices are
unacceptable anywhere in the world. It gives hope to those who are bravely fighting for change and causes
average Chinese to question their government. It also can produce results -- as has been demonstrated time and
again when Chinese political prisoners have been released thanks to American pressure
Case outweighs: Even if they win their impact, extend Reardon 93’, Global Nuclear War
outweighs war between China and The US. Also, extend Abu Jamal 98’, cross apply it with
Reardon 93, same impact.
India
No Link
Pressure on human rights doesn’t hurt relations.
Washington Post, February 24, 2009, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/02/23/AR2009022302412.html
HILLARY RODHAM Clinton says she was only "stating the obvious" when she played down the
importance of U.S. pressure on China about human rights issues during a visit there over the weekend.
In fact, her comments understated the significance of what a secretary of state says about such matters, and
how those statements might affect the lives of people fighting for freedom of expression, religious rights and
other basic liberties in countries such as China. When reporters asked whether she intended to raise
human rights questions during her first visit to Beijing as a Cabinet secretary, Ms. Clinton affected a
world-weary air. "We know what they are going to say because I've had those kinds of conversations
for more than a decade with Chinese leaders," she said. "We have to continue to press them. But our
pressing on those issues can't interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis
and the security crisis."
Case outweighs: Extend Reardon 93’, Global Nuclear War outweighs nuclear war between
India and The US. Also, extend Abu Jamal 98’, cross apply it with Reardon 93, same
impact.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
34
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
AT: CP’s
Whitman College
WNDI 09
35
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
AT: Courts CP 1/3
Perm: Do Both
Court and Congressional action solves best
Stephen E Gottlieb and David Schultz, professors of law at Hamline University, 1996, “Legal Functionalism
and Social Change: A Reassessment of Rosenberg's ‘The Hollow Hope,” Journal of Law and Politics,
A. Two Models of Judicial Efficacy Rosenberg begins by stating clearly the inquiry which he seeks to
pursue: "To what degree," he asks, "and under what conditions, can judicial processes be used to produce
political and social change[?]"33 Rosenberg finds two models of court action in the scholarly literature, the
"dynamic" and "constrained" models. Not only does he endeavor to test these two models of judicial
behavior empirically, but he also aims to discover the particular conditions under which courts can act
effectively, if, indeed, they can do so at all. Courts are, Rosenberg concludes, more nearly "constrained"
institutions than "dynamic" ones, and they can effect change only when others reinforce their
rulings and provide incentives for compliance. Rosenberg finds in the literature two views of the judicial
role. Some scholars view the Court as a "dynamic" institution, able to affect society directly and indirectly.34
The Court's independence enables it to engage in social reform in ways that other branches of
government cannot.35 Others see the Court as a "constrained" institution, little able to work change in
society on any level.36 Rosenberg submits these two models to empirical analysis, asking if the evidence
proves that the Court can implement "policy change with national impact."37 He concludes that the evidence
does not support such a claim. The judiciary is not nearly so independent from other branches as
supporters of the dynamic model would suggest. Further, judicial efficacy is hindered by the limited
reach of the constitutional rights which the Court is authorized to enforce and by the Court's limited
resources for developing and actively implementing visions of social change.38 In short, Rosenberg
concludes, t he Court is far more "constrained" than it is "dynamic." 39 Such a "constrained" Court cannot
influence policy without outside assistance. Only when others provide incentives to comply with the
Court's vision, 4 0 when that vision can by implemented in the market, 4 1 or when the Court's decisions
are used by others as "leverage, or a shield, cover, or excuse" to implement reform, 4 2 can judicial
action play a role in major attempts to reform society. Alone, the Court can do little.
Courts are ineffective alone – they require other branches to enforce their decisions
Gerald N. Rosenburg, University of Chicago political science and law professor, 2008, The Hollow Hope, Can
Courts Bring About Social Change, p. 420
This study has examined whether, and tinder what conditions, courts can produce significant social
reform. Contrasting two functional and historically derived views of the courts, three constraints and four conditions were developed.
They were successful in understanding the mostly disappointing results of attempts to use the courts to produce significant social reform
in civil rights, abortion, women’s rights, the environment, reapportionment, criminal rights, and same-sex marriage. Their success,
particularly in the paradigmatic cases of Brown and Roe, suggests general applicability. The findings show that, with the addition of the
four conditions, the constraints derived from the Constrained Court view best capture the capacity of the courts to produce significant
social reform. This is the case because, on the most fundamental level, courts depend on political support to
produce such reform (Constraint II). For example, since the success of civil rights in fields such as voting and
education depended on political action, political hostility doomed court contributions. With same-sex
marriage, lack of support led to the enactment of legal barriers. With women’s rights, lack of
enforcement of existing laws, in addition to an unwillingness to extend legal protection, had a similar dampening
effect. And with abortion and the environment, hostility from many political leaders created barriers to implementation. This finding
appears clearly applicable to other fields. Courts will also be ineffective in producing change given any serious
resistance because of their lack of implementation powers (Constraint Ill). The structural constraints of the
Constrained Court view, built into the American judicial system, make courts virtually powerless to
produce change. They must depend on the actions of others for their decisions to be implemented . With
civil rights, little changed until the federal government became involved. With women’s rights, we still lack a serious government effort,
and stereotypes that constrain women’s opportunities remain powerful. Similarly, the uneven availability of access to legal abortion
demonstrates the point, as does the backlash against same-sex marriage. Where there is local hostility to change, court
leaders will be ignored. Community pressure, violence or threats of violence and lack of market
response all serve to curtail actions to implement court decisions. This finding, too, appears applicable across
fields.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
36
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
Courts cant ensure funding for their decisions
Gerald N. Rosenburg, University of Chicago political science and law professor, 2008, The Hollow Hope, Can
Courts Bring About Social Change, p. 18-19
A further obstacle for court effectiveness, assert believers in the Constrained Court view, is that significant
social reform often requires large expenditures. Judges, in general prohibited from actively politicking
and cutting deals, are not in a particularly powerful position to successfully order the other branches to
expend additional funds. “The real problem” in cases of reform, Judge Bazelon wrote, “is one of
inadequate resources, which the courts are helpless to remedy” (Bazelon 1969, 676). While there may be
exceptions where courts seize financial resources, they are rare precisely because courts are hesitant to
issue such orders which violate separation of powers by in effect appropriating public funds. Even
without this concern, courts “ultimately lack the power to force state governments [or the federal government] to act” (Frug 1978, 792) because if governments refuse to act, there is little courts can do. They are
unlikely to hold governors, legislators, or administrators in contempt or take other dramatic action because
such action sets up a battle between the branches that effectively destroys any chance of government
cooperation. Thus, judges are unlikely to put themselves in such no-win situations. Further, the “limits on
government resources are no less applicable in the courtroom than outside of it” (Frug 1978, 788). As Frug
asserts, “the judicial power of the purse will, in the final analysis, extend no further than a democratic
decision permits” (Frug 1978, 794).
Courts cant implement their decisions
Gerald N. Rosenburg, University of Chicago political science and law professor, 2008, The Hollow Hope, Can
Courts Bring About Social Change, P.15-16
For courts, or any other institution, to effectively produce significant social reform, they must have the ability
to develop appropriate policies and the power to implement them. This, in turn, requires a host of tools that
courts, according to proponents of the Constrained Court view, lack. In particular, successful implementation
requires enforcement powers. Court decisions, requiring people to act, are not self-executing. But as
Hamilton pointed out two centuries ago in The Federalist Papers (1787—88), courts lack such powers.
Indeed, it is for this reason more than any other that Hamilton emphasized the courts’ character as the least
dangerous branch. Assuaging fears that the federal courts would be a political threat, Hamilton argued in
Federalist 78 that the judiciary “has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either
of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be
said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid
of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments” (The Federalist Papers 1961, 465).Unlike
Congress and the executive branch, Hamilton argued, the federal courts were utterly dependent on the
support of the other branches and elite actors. In other words, for Court orders to be carried out, political
elites, electorally accountable, must support them and act to implement them. Proponents of the Constrained
Court view point to historical recognition of this structural “fact” of American political life by early Chief
Justices John Jay and John Marshall, both of whom were acutely aware of the Court’s limits.’2 President
Jackson recognized these limits, too, when he reputedly remarked about a decision with which he did not
agree, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” 13 More recently, the unwillingness of
state authorities to follow court orders, and the need to send federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to
carry them out, makes the same point. Without elite support (the federal government in this case), the
Court’s orders would have been frustrated. While it is clear that courts can stymie change (Paul 1960),
though ultimately not prevent it (Dahi 1957; Nagel 1965; Rosenberg 1985), the Constitution, in the eyes of
the Constrained Court view, appears to leave the courts few tools to insure that their decisions are carried
out.
The courts can’t guarantee funding towards abortions; all they can do is repeal the
Hyde amendment. Merely repealing the Hyde amendment is not enough to solve the
Aff’s Advantages. Funding towards abortions must be ensured to Medicaid to solve.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
37
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
The Courts operate too slowly- legislative action is needed
Julie Kay, Law Professor, 1994, “If Men Could Get Pregnant”, Brooklyn Law Review, Lexis
Since the Court has been so reluctant to increase women's equality, particularly in the area of
reproductive rights, the legislative branch must move to create greater equality. The proposed national
health care plan offers a chance to create [*405] greater gender equality by providing women with a full
range of reproductive health care services and choices. Women's reproductive health care is an essential
element of gender equality and, therefore, the government should focus its efforts on facilitating, not
impeding, women's access to such vital services.
Courts don’t shield the President
Bruce Miroff. professor and chair of political science at the State University of New York at Albany.
2000. The Presidency and the Political System. Ed. Michael Nelson. p. 304.
Spectacle has also been fostered by the president’s rise to primacy in the American political system. A
political order originally centered on institutions has given way, especially in the public mind, to a
political order that centers on the person of the president. Theodore Lowi wrote, Since the president has
become the embodiment of government, it seems perfectly normal for millions upon millions of
Americans to concentrate their hopes and fears directly and personally upon him” personal president’
that Lowi described is the object of popular expectations: these expectations, Stephen Wayne and Thomas
Cronin have shown, are both excessive and contradictory.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
38
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
Impact Turn
The Supreme Court acting and judicial activism lead to tyranny
David R. McKinney, 1-20-06, “The Tyranny of the courts,” Utah State Bar,
http://webster.utahbar.org/barjournal/2006/01/the_tyranny_of_the_courts.html
Unfortunately, in a quest to resist the tyranny of the majority, creeping judicial activism has in fact
produced a new form of tyranny - the tyranny of the courts. Bit by bit, this tyranny is eroding democracy
and replacing it with something akin to judicial oligarchy. To prevent further erosion, there appears to be
only one effective option - amend the U.S. Constitution. Since the people are the source of constitutional
authority in the first place, the people have the power to restrain the courts. But there is only one way to do it - by
amending the Constitution. Any legislative attempts could simply be struck down or interpreted out of existence.
It may seem shocking to suggest that we live under tyrannical rule, but judicial activism of any stripe is a
species of tyranny. Whether the Court performs this exercise well or badly is irrelevant: the exercise itself
is illegitimate.
Tyranny outweighs full scale nuclear war
R.J Rummel, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Hawaii, 1994, Death by Government
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
Power kills, absolute Power kills absolutely. This new Power Principle is the message emerging from my
previous work on the causes of war1 and this book on genocide and government mass murder--what I call
democide--in this century. The more power a government has, the more it can act arbitrarily according
to the whims and desires of the elite, the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and
domestic subjects. The more constrained the power of governments, the more it is diffused, checked
and balanced, the less it will aggress on others and commit democide. At the extremes of Power2,
totalitarian communist governments slaughter their people by the tens of millions, while many
democracies can barely bring themselves to execute even serial murderers.
[HE CONTINUES]
Consider also that library stacks have been written on the possible nature and consequences of nuclear
war and how it might be avoided. Yet, in the life of some still living we have experienced in the toll
from democide (and related destruction and misery among the survivors) the equivalent of a nuclear war,
especially at the high near 360,000,000 end of the estimates. It is as though one had already occurred! Yet to
my knowledge, there is only one book dealing with the overall human cost of this "nuclear war"--Gil Elliot's
Twentieth Century Book of the Dead.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
39
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
AT: Microfinance CP 1/2
Perm, Do both
1. No solvency, our poverty advantage is talking specifically on women that can’t
afford abortions which forces them under the poverty line. The Counterplan solves
for poverty in general
2. Microfinance doesn’t work – it assumes persons in poverty want to be “new
capitalists”
Parminder Bahra April 28, ’09, THE TIMES, LONDON
It is a mistake to assume profit motivates the poor It is easy to see the appeal of microfinance. It is a simple
mechanism that leads to poverty reduction without the need for charity and handouts. Individuals like you
and I can go to microfinance websites and lend money to entrepreneurs in developing countries. But the
reality of poverty alleviation is that it is a messy business and the extent to which microfinance can be an
agent for change is being questioned. It is no coincidence that the increased attention on microfinance has
happened at the same time as the number of private foundations and Analysis Parminder Bahra
philanthropic funds have increased. The boom years of the past decade have created some extremely
wealthy people. Having made a success of their own businesses, they have turned their attention to the
poor. More importantly, they want to show that business and enterprise are the way forward when it comes
to poverty alleviation. Yet the history of finance within developing countries shows us that the private
sector has failed the poor and has not lifted people out of poverty. If anything, it has exacerbated poverty.
The philanthro-capitalists want to enfranchise the poor - what they call the Bottom of the Pyramid - by
turning them into consumers and by making them into people like them. The reality is that the poor are not
all plucky entrepreneurs who wish or have the means to start their own businesses.
3. Dispositionality is bad and a voting issue for competitive equity
Dispositionality is conditionality in disguise; no one ever goes for straight turns, and extra competitive links force
permutations.
or
Conditionality is bad and a voting issue for competitive equity
a. Time and Strategy Skew- Conditionality allows the negative to avoid our offense and go for positions we undercovered. The damage has already been done, the 2AC was our last chance for offense…its too late for us to catch
up.
b. Not reciprocal- the Affirmative is stuck with advocating one unconditional plain text. The Negative should be
held to the same standard.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
40
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
4. Their politics Kerpen 08 Impact card says that terrorists would create armed
conflicts. Since our evidence proves that only the plan solves for poverty this means
that only the plan solves for terrorism as the following card shows and in turn solve
for extinction
Lawrence Korb, director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, Arnold Kohen, international
coordinator of Global Priorities, and Peter Prove, member of the Lutheran World Federation's office for
international affairs and human rights, International Herald Tribune, August 22, 2002
In the last two years alone the military budget of the United States has increased by $80
billion. Partly in the name of the war against terrorism, European nations are also being urged
to augment their defense budgets. But to the extent that vast resources are diverted from
meeting human needs, we are only postponing the day of reckoning. Worsening poverty
throughout the world can only create conditions of desperation that may lead to more
terrorism. The substantially increased military spending that was already taking place did not
prevent the heinous terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Even more military spending in the
future is no guarantee of success in the war against terrorism. Redressing the imbalance
between military spending and efforts to reduce poverty would create vast resources to
tackle pressing human and social needs. Such efforts would create a better quality of life for
people on a worldwide scale and foster a more harmonious global community. In concert
with secular allies, religious communities can play a vital part in addressing these disparities.
5. Cross apply our Reardon 85 card. Judge, if you prefer the counterplan than the
impact of extinction in inevitable. The counterplan has no solvency for our
patriarchy advantage. Since patriarchy is the root cause of war, wars will continue
to happen and cause extinction unless you prefer the affirmative plan.
6. Cross apply our barndt 91 card. The impacts of the negative in no way can outweigh
the impact of racism. Judge, you moral obligation to protect people from being
emotionally and psychologically crushed.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
41
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
AT: States CP 1/3
Perm: Do both
Federalism offers redundancy which is needed to solve
Erwiu Chemerinsky( Legion Lex Prof of Law and Political Science,
Univ. of S. Cal., Florida L. Rev.), Sept. 1995
I Finally, federalism needs to be reconceptualized as being primarily about empowering varying levels of
government and much less about limiting government. A key advantage of having multiple levels of
government is the availability of alternative actors to solve important problems. If the federal
government fails to act, state and local government action is still possible. If states fail to deal with an
issue. Federal or local action is possible. In other words, the greatest beauty of federalism is its
redundancy, multiple levels of government over the same territory and population, each with the
ability to act.
Federalism must be reexamined to include three levels
Erwin Chemerinsky (Legion Lex Professor of Law and Political Science, University of Southern California)
Kansas Law Review July, 1997
Thus, my concern is not that there will be too much government action, but too little. Government must
be empowered to deal with these difficult and entrenched social problems. Federalism can make a major
contribution to this effort if it is reconceptualized as a way of empowering all three levels of
government to act. The focus which has dominated this century-seeing federalism as being about
limits- needs to be abandoned and replaced with one that will maximize the likelihood of effective
government.
Multiple levels of government needed but federal courts must be maximized
Erwin Chemerinsky (Legion Lex Professor of Law and Political Science, University of Southern California)
Kansas Law Review July, 1997
Second, empowering multiple levels of government is itself a safeguard against tyranny. Generally, each
level of government has the ability to expand individual rights. States can provide more rights and greater
protection of equality than the federal government, but never less. In fact, maximizing the availability of
federal courts to protect federal rights seems an important step to ensuring an effective check against
violations of liberties and abuses of power.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
42
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
Solvency deficit
First extend our feministe 07 evidence which explicitly states why the federal government
funding is necessary.
The feds need to end the tradition of discrimination against the poor.
No Solvency- State Constitutions ban abortion funding
Julie Kay, Law Professor, 1994, “If Men Could Get Pregnant”, Brooklyn Law Review, Lexis
The current version of the Hyde Amendment allows individual states to provide state funding for a full range
of abortion services for low-income women. Yet, only twenty states continue, either voluntarily or under
court order, to pay for abortion services for low-income women beyond those neces [*359] sary to save a
woman's life. n34 In several states, the denial of funding for abortion has been successfully challenged on
state constitutional grounds. n35 Although a number of states have continued abortion funding for Medicaid
recipients despite the Hyde Amendment, public funding for abortion has decreased dramatically since the ban
on federal funding. n36 By 1987, only twelve percent of all abortions were paid for with public funds,
[*360] and most of this funding was provided by the states. n37
The States will fail-differences in regulations doom any hope of solvency
Lisa Hughes, attorney, 2008 “NINTH ANNUAL REVIEW OF GENDER AND SEXUALITY LAW:
HEALTH CARE LAW CHAPTER: HEALTH CARE ACCESS” Georgetown Journal of Gender and Law, Lexis
A Minority of the States Fund All or Most Medically Necessary Abortions. As of November 1, 2007,
seventeen states provide funding for all or most medically necessary abortions. n295 Four states do so
voluntarily n296 and twelve states are under court order. n297 The list of states that fund medically
necessary abortions has undergone recent changes in both directions. For example, Idaho has retreated
from funding medically necessary abortions. n298Arizona, on the other hand, previously funded abortions
according to Hyde Amendment standards, but has expanded funding due to the 2002 state supreme court
decision in Simat Corporation v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment Systems. n299 The plaintiffs were
doctors who could not provide medically necessary treatment to their pregnant Medicaid patients because
such treatments were incompatible with pregnancy and the Hyde Amendment prevented the doctors from
being reimbursed for terminating the pregnancies before administering the treatments. n300 Women on
Medicaid with life-threatening cancer could get funding to abort, but women without immediately lifethreatening cancer could not get funding, risking "serious and permanent adverse effects on their health and
lessen[ing] their life span.
Left to their own will states will rollback abortion freedoms and funding
Jon F. Merz, Catherine A. Jackson, Jacob A. Klerman Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Johns
Hopkins University, an economist at RAND 1995, “A Review of Abortion Policy: Legality, Medicaid
Funding, and Parental Involvement, 1967-1994”, Women’s Rights Law Reporter, Lexis
State restrictions on funding and parental involvement requirements were found to be highly
correlated in this summary, suggesting a consistency in states' regulatory approaches to abortion.
Massachusetts and West Virginia pay for all medically necessary abortions under their Medicaid programs
(Massachusetts by court order), and have parental involvement laws. All other states that fund abortions do
not have express parental involvement provisions. n869 A handful of other states have no current parental
involvement laws but do not pay for abortions except for those falling within the Hyde Amendment
exceptions. n870 Thus, based on this review, states' legislatures have shown, through adopted laws,
particular predilections regarding abortion, and those that seek to limit access will impose a broad
array of restrictions.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
43
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
Also it is very unlikely that every state will pass the plan, there are no instances of all 50
states passing something simultaneously. Conservative states will never approve abortion
funding; this is proven by what has happened in South Dakota.
CP can’t solve South Dakota- they refuse to comply and remain unchallenged
Daniel Lubbin Pollock and Natalie Ranier attorneys, 2005, “
SIXTH ANNUAL REVIEW OF GENDER AND SEXUALITY LAW: VI. HEALTHCARE LAW CHAPTER:
HEALTHCARE ACCESS: A REVIEW OF MAJOR BARRIERS TO HEALTH CARE SERVICES FOR
WOMEN” The Georgetown Journal of Gender and Law, Lexis
South Dakota has a yet unchallenged statute banning public funding of abortion except to save the
woman's life. n243 While many other states have similar laws that have been invalidated by court decisions,
n244
South Dakota is the only state where such a law remains unchallenged.
South Dakota strongly subscribes to the state interest in protecting human life, the basic principle
underlying all Hyde Amendment-based restrictions on abortion services. The state legislature
demonstrated this interest in 2004 with the introduction of South Dakota House Bill No. 1191 which in part
attempted to grant the unborn due process rights under the South Dakota Bill of Rights. n245 The bill claimed
that "abortions terminate the constitutionally protected fundamental interest of the pregnant mother in her
relationship with her child" and that the bill would promote the state's "duty to protect the pregnant mother's
fundamental interest in her relationship with her unborn child." n246 The bill, passed in both the South Dakota
House and Senate, was vetoed for "style and form" by Governor Mike Rounds in March 2004. n247 Such a
veto signaled support for the substance of [*857] the bill but reservations with preserving current South
Dakota abortion laws if the bill were challenged in court. n248 The State Senate failed to override the
Governor's veto by one vote (18-17), which would have effectively made abortion illegal in South Dakota.
Such legislation demonstrates the extremes to which Hyde Amendment justifications have been used in
restricting women's access to abortion.
Last your counter plan is essentially in effect, the Hyde amendment only stops federal
funding for abortion. States can fund all they want, but they never have and never will. The
fact that our impacts are still occurring, or might still occur, is absolute proof that the
states can’t solve.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
44
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
50 States Fiat Bad
State fiat is bad, they should lose:
Justifies fiating out of disad links. During the Civil War, we would call for the
Emancipation Proclamation, but they’d just counterplan to have the states free the slaves
No policy-maker in the world has the power to choose between federal and 50 state
simultaneous action, destroying our ability to attack the cp
Reciprocity. They only get to fiat the same actor we do, which forces counterplans to be
germane to the resolutional question and prevents infinite regression
Trivializes debate. They just alter the parameters of the status quo which renders policy
comparisons pointless
It's private fiat b/c you have to fiat referendums don't roll back the plan.
Destroys the value of topic rotation. The states counterplan is run on every topic.
Their abuse justifies crazy fiat in the 1AR
It’s object fiat which isn’t reciprocal – this counterplan is the equivalent of the affirmative
team passing plan and fiating that the congress people don’t get upset enough to generate a
politics link – all of their arguments are justifications for us fiating out of their disad links.
It’s a voting issue: They lose for begging the question and skewing time
Whitman College
WNDI 09
45
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
State Spending DA
Stimulus money is preventing much more damaging budget cuts right now
Wall Street Journal July 9, 2009 By LOUISE RADNOFSKY “Stimulus to Aid State Budget Gaps”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124708982200614243.html
At least 39 states have responded to declining tax revenue and drained budget reserves by making
spending cuts, according to a study by the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Some
economists at the think tank say such cuts could reduce economic activity and worsen the recession,
but that the stimulus money has prevented the cuts from being "much deeper." Chris Whatley, the
Washington director for the Council of State Governments, said that when states use the funding to plug
budget holes, "that's squarely in line with the statute," and that they see it as directly tied to saving jobs.
States are responding to budget deficits by cutting services—the aff is a reversal of that and
leaves states with no options. Also, turns the aff because more people end up in poverty
By Iris J. Lav and Elizabeth McNichol June 29, 2009 “State Budget Troubles Worsen” Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=711
In states facing budget gaps, the consequences are severe in many cases — for residents as well as the
economy. As the 2009 fiscal year ends and states plan for next year, budget difficulties have led some 39
states to reduce services to their residents, including some of their most vulnerable families and
individuals.[2] For example, at least 21 states have implemented cuts that will restrict low-income
children’s or families’ eligibility for health insurance or reduce their access to health care services.
Programs for the elderly and disabled are also being cut. At least 22 states and the District of Columbia
are cutting medical, rehabilitative, home care, or other services needed by low-income people who are
elderly or have disabilities, or significantly increasing the cost of these services. At least 24 states are
cutting or proposing to cut K-12 and early education; several of them are also reducing access to child care
and early education, and at least 32 states have implemented cuts to public colleges and universities.
Not only can they not solve poverty they actually lead to poverty. Cross apply our poverty
impacts from the 1ac
Whitman College
WNDI 09
46
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
California DA 2AC 1/2
The California budget is in trouble but lawmakers have arrived at a solution that doesn’t
destroy access to all social services.
New York Times July 15, 2009 “California Approaches a Deal on Budget Cuts”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/us/16calif.html?hp
California lawmakers neared a deal Wednesday with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to close the state’s
$26 billion budget gap in ways that will profoundly alter the state government’s relationship with its cities
and millions of its citizens who receive basic services, including education. Details emerging from the talks
suggested that the deal will require extraordinarily deep cuts to school systems and local governments,
and while far smaller than the governor threatened a month ago, substantial cuts to health care and other
social services. The final framework of the budget was still being hammered out among legislative leaders
and the governor Wednesday evening, as the state, short on cash, continued to pay vendors with i.o.u.’s,
its credit rating continued to topple and the governor and teacher’s union exchanged nasty
advertisements concerning cuts to education. But lawmakers and the governor agreed that a deal was
very close. “I think we have a good shot of getting the budget done today,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said at a
news conference. Karen Bass, the speaker of the state assembly, said that lawmakers and the governor
were within millions, not billions of dollars of an accord. Democrats, who had worked to prevent the
gutting of the state’s social services, appeared to have prevailed in some measure by agreeing to cuts to other
programs and localities. The deal also required the use of accounting devices used by all states in a time of
crisis, such as putting off programs or payments until the next fiscal year so the budget gap does not seem as
large.
Unless the budget is balanced the California economy will collapse—wellfare programs will
end and the state’s credit will be worthless
Bloomberg July 15, 2009 “Schwarzenegger Says Deal Near to Fill $26 Billion Budget Gap” By Michael B. Marois
and William Selway http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aoXMXt_Q5eFM
July 15 (Bloomberg) -- California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said he and lawmakers may
complete a deal today to close a $26 billion budget deficit that left the state paying creditors with IOUs
and its credit rating near non-investment grade. Schwarzenegger, a 61-year-old Republican, is scheduled
to meet behind closed doors in his Sacramento office with Legislative leaders this afternoon after conferring
for more then six hours last night. “I think that we have a good shot at getting the budget done today,”
Schwarzenegger told reporters today, though he cautioned that some issues remain unresolved. California
this month began issuing IOUs to pay some creditors, a step taken only once before since the Great
Depression, because of the stalemate over the gap in the $100 billion annual budget. Moody’s Investors
Service yesterday lowered California’s credit rating two steps to Baa1 from A2 and said its evaluation
may be reduced further unless legislators quickly solve the cash crisis. Schwarzenegger and Republicans
oppose tax increases, while Democrats, who control both chambers of the Legislature, reject deep spending
reductions that would eliminate entire welfare programs. Democrats lack the votes to reach the two-thirds
majority needed to enact any solution immediately. Moody’s reduction to Baa1 from A2 affected about $72
billion of general obligation and lease-supported bonds. The new grade is three levels above noninvestment grade. Moody’s at the same time also lowered its rating on the state’s taxable bonds and debt
sold for stem cell research, to A2 from Aa3. California’s Reputation “The political showdown continues
to wreck California’s reputation and push taxpayers deeper and deeper into the hole,” Tom Dresslar, a
spokesman for Treasurer Bill Lockyer, said in a telephone interview.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
47
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
A thriving in California is key to a stable world economy.
Wild California Economic Forum, February 2, 2001
Since the heady days of the California Gold Rush, the San Francisco Bay Area has been a dynamic force
in the world economy. As a region where innovative thinking and creativity flourish, companies here are
continually expanding the boundaries of their fields, generating new discoveries, new products-indeed
whole new industries-at a pace unmatched anywhere else. The Bay Area's knowledge-based economy is
the most productive in the world. It's the global leader in computers, telecommunications, bioscience,
multimedia, and environmental technology. It's first in productivity in retail and wholesale trade and
business services; second in banking and finance. The Bay Area leads the nation in patents granted
and in commercial Internet domains. It has the highest percentage of fastest-growing small businesses. And
this is the region that attracts 35% of the nation's invested venture capital.
Extinction
Lt. Col, Tom Bearden, PhD Nuclear Engineering, April 25, 2000,
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/042500%20-%20modified.htm
Just prior to the terrible collapse of the World economy, with the crumbling well underway and rising, it is
inevitable that some of the [wmd] weapons of mass destruction will be used by one or more nations on
others. An interesting result then---as all the old strategic studies used to show---is that everyone will
fire everything as fast as possible against their perceived enemies. The reason is simple: When the mass
destruction weapons are unleashed at all, the only chance a nation has to survive is to desperately try to
destroy its perceived enemies before they destroy it. So there will erupt a spasmodic unleashing of the
long range missiles, nuclear arsenals, and biological warfare arsenals of the nations as they feel the
economic collapse, poverty, death, misery, etc. a bit earlier. The ensuing holocaust is certain to
immediately draw in the major nations also, and literally a hell on earth will result. In short, we will get
the great Armageddon we have been fearing since the advent of the nuclear genie. Right now, my personal
estimate is that we have about a 99% chance of that
Whitman College
WNDI 09
48
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
AT: XO CP 1/2
1. Perm: do both
2. Perm: do counterplan
3. PICs bad: AFF gets the USFG, NEG gets everything else.
a. PICS steal AFF ground: they take part of the AFF, preventing us from using it as
offense.
b. Time skew: they moot 8 minutes of the 1AC. We might as well have not read it.
c. Education: PICs encourage not having specific responses to a team. Don’t reward
them for stealing our AFF.
Voter for the above
4. Agent CPs bad. Teams use it as a crutch to avoid real research – theres no literature base
on executive orders for this topic – makes the CP uniquely uneducational. States CPs give
them enough of an advantage. Voter for fairness.
5. The Legislative branch passed the Hyde amendment; it is necessary to repeal it via
legislative branch, not XO.
6. TURN:
a. Presidential funding approval without Congressional agreement causes inter-branch
conflict
Rosen ’98 Colonel Richard D., Chief – Personnel, Plans, & Training Office, Judge Advocate General, Feb, 155
Mil. L. Rev. 1, Lexis)
Finally, if a situation is sufficiently grave and an operation is essential to national security, the President has
the raw, physical power--but not the legal authority--to spend public funds without congressional
approval, after which he or she can either seek congressional approbation or attempt to weather the
resulting political storm. To the President's immediate advantage is the fact that the only sure means of
directly stopping such unconstitutional conduct is impeachment. 703 Congress could, however, [*149]
certainly make a President's life miserable through other means, such as denying requested legislation or
appropriations, delaying confirmation of presidential appointments, and conducting public
investigations into the President's actions.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
49
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
b. IBC is key to leadership
Winik ’91 Jay, Senior Research Fellow, Nat’l Defense U, Washington Quarterly, Autumn, Lexis)
Thus, it is demonstrably clear that, in the absence of bipartisanship, dealing with the new international
system will be difficult at best and at times next to impossible. Friends and foes alike, watching U.S.
indecision at home, will not see the United States as a credible negotiating partner, ally, or deterrent
against wanton aggression. This is a recipe for increased chaos, anarchy, and strife on the world scene. The appeal, then, to
recreate anew as the hallmark of U.S. efforts abroad the predictability and resolve that can only come from bipartisanship at home is as critical as during the
perilous days following World War II. Bipartisanship in Context The ease of constructing bipartisanship, however, should not be overstated. Its halcyon
years are often idealized. People forget that the golden years from Pearl Harbor to the Tet offensive were the exception rather than the rule. Consensus was
not a prevailing characteristic in the first 170 years of the Republic. Critics have noted with justification that it was the clear lack of purpose regarding
vigorous U.S. involvement in world affairs that led to the U.S. rejection of membership in the League of Nations. In no small measure, this rejection led to
the 20-year crisis that resulted in the rise of Hitler. Proponents of bipartisanship point out its crowning achievements. Unprecedented unity between the two
political parties made it possible for President Harry S. Truman and a Republican senator, Arthur H. Vandenberg (R-Mich.), to join forces and create such
monumental achievements as the Marshall Plan, the Truman Doctrine, the North Atlantic Alliance, and the United Nations Charter. Despite strains between
the two parties over the Korean War and China, to name but two issues, that unity held firm and enabled United States to act with continuity and
consistency. Allies saw that the United States was strong and reliable, and the unmistakable message to adversaries was that the United States would abide
by its commitments. Some argue that it was the foreign policy consensus prevalent during the Cold War that made possible the tragic U.S. involvement in
the Vietnam War. But this argument in no way invalidates the benefits of bipartisanship and, in the case of Vietnam, represents an oversimplification of the
facts. The failure of U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia had as much to do with the unique circumstances of the war itself, which were exacerbated by the
then current theories of limited war fighting. These factors, in conjunction with the profound domestic turmoil on both domestic and foreign policy that was
tearing at the U.S. political fabric, made a complicated and protracted war abroad virtually impossible to prosecute. More generally, the fact remains that the
perception of strength resting on bipartisan unity has been crucial to the United States in times of crisis.
This principle was most vividly displayed by the bipartisan support for President John F. Kennedy
during the Cuban missile crisis. Had the Soviets felt the United States was divided, the situation might
have ended in tragic defeat or quite possibly in a devastating war. Although history will be the final judge, it could be argued that in the
recent Gulf crisis it was precisely the vast chasm that separated the Republicans from the Democrats over whether to use force or to employ sanctions in order to reverse Saddam
Hussein's aggression that led him to calculate that the United States would never actually employ significant military power. This encouraged him to ignore the resolutions passed by
the United Nations (UN) and wait for the United States to seek a watered-down diplomatic compromise. Certainly Hussein's statements that the American people would have to "face
rows of coffins' if there were a war, echoing statements emanating from lengthy Senate hearings and floor debate, were designed to play into the antiwar sentiment that wanted to
"give sanctions a chance." Tragically, the perception of division and weakness at home made the necessity for a military solution almost inevitable. Executive-Legislative Relations:
The foundation of sustainable bipartisanship is effective executive-legislative relations.
The Search for Balance
After the Vietnam War, however, the cold war foreign policy consensus, supported by harmonious executive-legislative relations and by both parties in Congress in a manner that
minimized conflict over foreign affairs, was rudely shattered. Although it was not completely undone, as is often claimed by the pundits, and central elements of the postwar
consensus enjoyed a fair deree of support, it was severely frayed. As a result, a slide began down a slippery slope leading to the balkanization of the U.S. approach to national
security, and today this threatens to inject chaos into the foreign policy process. Congress lies at the heart of the issue.
c. Nuclear war results
Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, Washington Quarterly, Spring, 1995
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to
multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not
as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous
advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and
the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major
problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level
conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the
United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a
global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar
balance of power system.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
50
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
AT: FBO CP
Perm: Do Both
Perm: Do the plan and then the CP
Government cooperation is key to FBO’s success
Pew Forum, government partnerships with faith based organizations: looking back moving forward, 6.11.200 9,
http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=218
Now, as people here know, there’s been a long history of faith-based social services in America. This
wasn’t, and isn’t, something new. In the last two decades, however, the laws have eased the way for an
increase in contracting with faith-based groups to receive public funds for social services, and
particularly to reach out to smaller, grassroots faith-based organizations, encouraging and helping them
compete for social service grants. The most significant legislative change affecting government
partnerships for faith-based organizations, to give you a little history, came in 1996. The welfare reform
law, called The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which those of us who
know and love it call PRWORA, fundamentally reformed welfare programs in the country. And it
contained a provision called the Charitable Choice provision. Under that provision:
* Faith-based
groups may not be excluded as providers.
* They need not abandon their religious identity to
receive government funds: They may retain religious criteria for selecting officers and board
members, as well as religious art or symbols that they have on their walls.
* Hiring decisions may be
based on the faith of applicants, as long as that practice does not conflict with local and state laws.
President Obama has emphasized more of a policy role. Right away, he got legislation enacted for
community services – voluntary programs – to reauthorize the provisions that apply. In the $787 billion –
that is a very big number – American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that is now playing out in the country,
there are many ways in which faith-based groups can be, and I’m sure are, involved in programs and
activities, particularly, as we study all the time, at the state and local level.
USFG and FBO’s can act cooperatively with out compromising effectiveness
Kenneth Mott, Gettysburg college, faith based initiatives: creating a constitutional intersection, 200 4,
http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/8/3/2/4/pages83246/p83246-1.php
as a matter of policy, there are several arguments which favor a strong free exercise approach. One is that
taxpayer support flowing into and through religious organizations will help to ameliorate friction
among various sects and between religion and government. A second, somewhat contradictory theory, is
that such financial aid will have very little impact on the central religious mission of recipient
organizations. A third, championed by the current administration, is that religious groups are not only
successful in carrying out the secular benefits sought by the government but that oftentimes the religious
components of their programs strengthen the likelihood of success. A final, even more general claim, is that
such programs will help to redress the growing displacement of religion in the life of the community by
distinctly secular government welfare and educational measures. Those who oppose participation by
sectarian groups in “faith-based” programs argue that such involvement may cause them to grow dependent
upon public largess and thus weaken them institutionally. Such a view has been expressed by Rev. Barry
Lynn, head of Americans United: “Bush, Towey and their supporters are trying to usher in an unprecedented
era of government- supported religion in America. Their approach will inevitably lead to religion becoming.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
51
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
USFG and FBO’s can cooperate
NYT, obama wants to expand role of religious groups, 2008,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02campaigncnd.html?_r=1
“The fact is, the challenges we face today — from saving our planet to ending poverty — are simply
too big for government to solve alone,” Mr. Obama is expected to say, according to a prepared text of his
remarks. “We need all hands on deck.” On the second day of a weeklong tour intended to highlight his
values, Mr. Obama traveled to the battleground state of Ohio on Tuesday to present his proposal to get
religious charities more involved in government programs. He is scheduled to give an afternoon speech here
outside of the Eastside Community Ministry, a program providing food, clothes and youth ministry. “Now, I
know there are some who bristle at the notion that faith has a place in the public square,” Mr. Obama intends
to say. “But the fact is, leaders in both parties have recognized the value of a partnership between the
White House and faith-based groups.” He thus embraced the heart of a program, established early in the
Bush administration, that critics say blurs the constitutional separation of church and state. Mr. Obama
made clear, however, that he would work to ensure that charitable groups receiving government funds
be carefully monitored to prevent them from using the money to proselytize and to prevent any
religion-based discrimination against potential recipients or employees.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
52
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
No Solvency 1/2
FBO’s are not more effective then government policy
Washington Monthly, faith without works, 2004,
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0410.sullivan.html#byline
This rhetoric matched the administration's focus in other policy areas--like education--on accountability. Conservatives traditionally
criticize government programs for throwing good money after bad, rewarding those who have not proven themselves effective with hard
numbers like higher test scores, lower poverty rates, or reduced recidivism. Mel Martinez, Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development, echoed the results-oriented sentiment in December 2002, telling an audience that "faith-based organizations
should be judged on one central question: Do they work?" Conservatives thought they already knew the answer. "The
fact is, we don't just suspect that faith-based programs work best," said Tucker Carlson on "Crossfire", "we know
it." So, it's a good thing that some academics and private organizations have picked up the slack. In the last
few years, a few studies have looked at both faith-based and secular social service providers, and they have
particularly tried to replicate the incredible results boasted by the model Texas programs. The verdict? There is no evidence that
faith-based organizations work better than their secular counterparts; and, in some cases, they are
actually less effective. In one study funded by the Ford Foundation, investigators found that faith-based job training
programs placed only 31 percent of their clients in full-time employment while the number for secular
organizations was 53 percent. And Teen Challenge's much ballyhooed 86 percent rehabilitation rate falls apart under
examination--the number doesn't include those who dropped out of Teen Challenge and relies on a disturbingly small sample of those
graduates who self-reported whether they had remained sober, significantly tilting the results. It will take several more years
to rigorously scrutinize the relative abilities of faith-based and secular organizations to provide
effective social services, so it is impossible to know whether these initial findings are true across the board. And maybe in a
perfect world it would be worth testing Bush's hunch and giving faith-based groups access to funds in the effort to alleviate poverty and
other social problems. The problem is that, under the Bush administration, the overall pot of money for social services has shrunk
considerably. This means that well-established organizations that have provided services for decades are now competing with--and, in
some cases, being displaced by--unproven, often less-successful groups, inflicting a double whammy upon the people who really need
the help.
FBO’s won’t solve domestic poverty, less effective then secular organizations
Rebecca Joyce Kissane, Journal of Poverty, How Do Faith-Based Organizations Compare to Secular Providers?
Nonprofit Directors’ and Poor Women’s Assessments of FBOs, 2007,
http://dspace.lafayette.edu/bitstream/handle/10385/70/Kissane-JournalofPoverty-vol11-no4-2007.pdf?sequence=1
We lack, however, a consensus on increasing our reliance on the faith-based service sector (Carlson-Thies,
2001; Twombly, 2002). Some worry generally about our government’s increasing privatization and
devolution of the welfare state and see faith-based initiatives and Charitable Choice as illustrations of
these troublesome trends. Others focus on how FBOs’ religious nature distinguishes them from other
types of organizations and poses problems for the separation of church and state. As Gwendolyn Mink
(2001) states, “charitable choice crosses the church-state divide by publicly financing institutions that
convey religious messages” and “invites government to express dangerous preferences among
religions, as government must decide which faith-based programs to fund” (p. 7). Furthermore, some
critics wonder if faith- based agencies can meet the needs of poor individuals and provide contracted
services effectively (see Twombly, 2002 for summary of this position).
While proponents of faith-based
initiatives and many of the nonprofit directors believe FBOs treat clientele with more respect and care than
other types of providers, the potential clients did not describe the treatment they received at FBOs as
more or less respectful, personal or caring than what they received at secular agencies. Jessica, a 31
year old mother of four, for example, thought she was treated with more respect at a secular nonprofit than
she was at an FBO: They [secular nonprofit employees] are great. I mean it’s not so much what they did for
me; it’s how they treated me when I went. They didn’t treat me like I was beneath them, below them. Like,
they didn’t condemn me for going to them for help. Some people, they just have like an attitude . . . I’ve
called, for instance, [the Redemption House, an FBO], they just put you through the ringer to get a little
bit of help . . . Amy, a 24 year old mother of one, also contrasted the personal treatment she received at a
secular agency to what she received at a local FBO, [The secular agency staff] really got personal with
you–like you gotta give in your child’s social security number and the card, and [staff would say,] “Oh, you
have kids, I have kids too.” Then, they take out a picture [of their kids] and talk a little about them and stuff.
Where in the [FBO], it like nothin’ like that.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
53
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
Multi-Actor Fiat Bad
Unpredictable- It skews Aff ground. The Aff can’t research all of the different means by
which each organization could act.
Unfair research burden- Authors don’t write about different organizations acting
simultaneously, which means that it’s impossible for the Aff to find a solvency deficit.
Not reciprocal- The Aff is bound to using one actor. Why does the Neg deserve to fiat
multiple actors?
This is a voter for education because we debate to learn. The Neg is clearly being abusive
and making it harder for us to learn.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
54
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
EU Relations Turn 1/2
US EU relations high now
European Union, US President Barack Obama with European Commission President José Manuel Barroso,
4.5.2009,
http://www.eurunion.org/eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=7&id=29&Itemid=59
As the two greatest powers on the world scene, the relationship between the EU and the US is central
and irreplaceable. It has a long, mutually-beneficial history based on shared and strong fundamental
beliefs in democratic government, human rights and market economies. Since its very inception, the process
of European Integration has been strongly supported by the US. Without US vision and assistance, the
European founding fathers would have had enormous difficulties. That support still exists. Leaders on both
sides of the Atlantic believe that the relationship is valuable at all levels -- for European and American
business, civil societies and citizens -- and that it is the task of governments to promote the building of
bridges across the Atlantic. Its importance is reflected in trade relations, the fight against terrorism and the
handling of crisis and conflicts. "EU-US relations have had a positive, fresh start under the new
administration of President Obama, and the [European] Commission is working hard to contribute its
fair share to our common, reinvigorated agenda." EU Commissioner for External Relations and European
Neighborhood Policy, Benita Ferrero-Waldner (below, left, with US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham
Clinton), March 25, 2009.
Faith alienates the Europeans and hurts relations
The Economist, in the world of good and evil, 2006, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-154012749.html
SEPTEMBER 11th 2001 drew the transatlantic alliance together; but the mood did not last, and over the five
years since it has pulled ever further apart. A recent poll for the German Marshall Fund shows that 57% of
Europeans regard American leadership in world affairs as “undesirable”. The Iraq war is mainly to
blame. But there is another and more intractable reason for the growing division: God. Europeans
worry that American foreign policy under George Bush is too influenced by religion. The “holy warriors”
who hijacked the planes on September 11th reintroduced God into international affairs in the most
dramatic of ways. It seems that George Bush is replying in kind, encouraging a clash of religions that could
spell global catastrophe. Dominique Moïsi, a special adviser at the French Institute for International
Relations, argues that “the combination of religion and nationalism in America is frightening. We feel
betrayed by God and by nationalism, which is why we are building the European Union as a barrier to
religious warfare.” Josef Braml, of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs,
complains that in America “religious attitudes have more of an influence on political choices than in
any other western democracy.” The notion that America is too influenced by religion is not confined to the
elites. Three in five French people and nearly as many Dutch think that Americans are too religious—and
that religion skews what should be secular decisions. Europeans who think that America is “too religious”
are more inclined to anti-Americanism than their fellow countrymen. Thirty-eight per cent of Britons
have an unfavourable view of America, but that number rises to 50% among people who are wary of
American religiosity.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
55
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
US-EU relations key to terrorism
National Prospect April 2003
But the most striking and by far the most dangerous misperception afflicting Bush's approach to foreign affairs concerns the war against
transnational terrorism. Kagan asserts that Europe "has had little to offer the United States in strategic military terms since the end of the
Cold War." Widely shared inside the administration, this view is based on the premise that the "end of the Cold War did not reduce the
salience of military power." Military power is just as central to American security today as it-was during the Cold War -- that is what
Kagan would have us believe. And after the Cold War, "European military incapacity" means that our former allies have become almost
wholly irrelevant to U.S. security. That is the assumption behind this book and, presumably, behind the unfathomably cavalier attitude of
the Bush administration toward our European allies. That this assumption is fallacious is the very least that might be said. The
September 11 attacks were partly planned, organized and financed in Europe. The Muslim diaspora
communities into which terrorist cells can invisibly blend remain the likeliest staging grounds for
future al-Qaeda attacks on the United States. In other words, Europe remains a hontline region in the war against
terrorism just as it was in the war against communism. As daily press reports also reveal, the European police have been acting in a
perfectly Hobbesian manner, arresting scores of suspected terrorists. In other words, despite his pose as a nononsense realist, Kagan has
apparently failed to realize the degree to which the contours of American national security have been redrawn since 9-1 1. The home
front and the foreign ii-ont have now been disconcertingly blurred. National-security strategy must now operate in a domain where
soldiering and policing have become of coequal importance. This profound change helps us understand the erroneous premise of Bush's
foreign policy. In our new security environment, despite the prevailing cliche, the United States is not the world's only superpower. The
war on transnational terrorism depends essentially on information gathering and policing, and in these
respects the Europeans are anything but security pygmies. Their capacities to respond effectively to
today's greatest security threats easily rival those of the United States. Europeans' linguistic skills and
cultural knowledge alone ensure that they can make indispensable contributions to U.S. security. They
can perform essential tasks of monitoring, infiltration, disruption and apprehension for which our own
unrivaled military machine is patently inadequate. Dismissing the "platitude" that the United States cannot protect itself
without European help, Kagan announces that "the United States can 'go it alone."' This is apparently the thinking (if you can call it that)
behind the administration's mindlessly denigrating remarks about Europe. True, European leaders can sometimes be hypocritical and
foolishly condescending. But let it pass. We cannot afford, for the sake of a fiisson, to undermine American security
by further poisoning relations with capable allies in a time of unprecedented national peril.
Terrorism causes a nuclear attack and extinction
Los Angeles Times, June 18, 2002
Even the experts among us, Foggy Bottom wonks and think-tank philosophers, had dared to dream of a world free of the damoclean
sword of mutual assured destruction. "The simple truth is that people simply forgot about nuclear danger for about a decade, and there
were some pretty good reasons for doing so. I had a feeling like that myself," says Jonathan Schell, whose hair-raising tome, "The Fate
of the Earth" (Knopf, 1982 ), helped fuel the nuclear freeze movement of the early 1980s. But in the bleak months since Sept. 11, the
phantom menace of nuclear catastrophe has come back with a vengeance--stalking our imaginations, confounding our leaders,
confronting us with a host of atomic terrors hitherto barely imagined: hijacked airliners rammed down the throats of
nuclear power plants; "dirty bombs" spraying lethal radiation and rendering huge swaths of cities uninhabitable for years to come.
Looming over these lesser catastrophes is the threat of an actual nuclear weapons attack. After the lull of the '90s, we're
learning to start worrying and fear The Bomb all over again. Only now America must face the possibility of dealing with more than just
one or two mega-adversaries capable of sending our entire country up in a mushroom cloud. Now we're conjuring up visions of
a suitcase bomb detonated at Times Square, a 10-kiloton dose of megadeath delivered in a truck to downtown Los
Angeles or Chicago. Or a regional conflict, like the present one pitting India against nuclear rival Pakistan over the disputed Kashmir
territory, escalating into global Armageddon. On the one hand, we're being confronted anew with the sublime terror
of extinction; on the other, with the banality and ridiculousness of a threat to our lives and our civilization from something that may
be lurking in a briefcase, a pair of Hush Puppies or, as in the new Hollywood blockbuster "The Sum of All Fears," a cigarette-vending
machine.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
56
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
Biopower Turn
Chiristianity in government leads to biopolitical control
Michael Hoelzl and Graham Ward, religion and political thought, 2006,
http://books.google.com/books?id=8NbgUHnaWBkC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=religion+biopower+foucault&so
urce=bl&ots=UNrDrsTYBF&sig=2go4NswVPfVbmGL9_4h31InSvU&hl=en&ei=OZ9KSu3uKojENoyojbgB&sa=
X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6
What the two traditions, liberal and conservative, have in common is that both led to the development of
what Foucault called biopolitics. With the notion of biopolitics Foucault drew attention to how governing
power concerned itself with the regulation of biological life: establishing national concerns for health, for
example. We saw above that Tocqueville viewed the family as the arena in which values were produced and
nurtured. The family became seen as the fundamental unit in the constitution of the state. Foucault’s analysis
of biopower and biopolitics facilitated an understanding of the relation between how the state governs and
how the basic unit of the state, the family, is affected (by the regulation of sexuality, reproduction and diet,
for example). It is significant that Foucault elaborates his analysis of biopower by studying pastoral
practices as they developed in the Church (such as the obligation to confess and by doing this making
oneself transparent). In contrast, neoconservative-christian government wishes to return to an older
sense of pastoral sovereignty, one that articulates securitization not simply in secular terms and one that
does not shy from using biopower’s underbelly, the sovereign capacity to disallow life. within the
purview of neoconservative-Christian government, new “problems” are rendered visible and new
authorities granted, new technologies developed, and new disciplines enacted as its discourses organize
“epistemo-political” fields of visibility and expressivity, controlling the production of righteous
meaning and action. The emerging problem spaces address how to remoralize citizens, how to unleash
market disciplines, and how to suppress localized resistance. New authorities must be created and new
technologies developed to transform the state, reining in its excesses while simultaneously exercising
new disciplines upon wayward elements (e.g., activist judges and secular public entities such as teacher
unions.) furthermore, “willed communities” must be fostered that “nourish freedom” by enforcing personal
responsibility and virtue.
Biopower leads to war
Michel Foucault, Director of Institute Francais at Hamburg, 1984 (THE FOUCAULT READER, ed. Rabinow, p.
259-260) (PDBF1940)
Since the classical age, the West has undergone a very profound transformation of these mechanisms of
power. "Deduction" has tended to be no longer the major form of power but merely one element among
others, working to incite, reinforce, control, monitor, optimize, and organize the forces under it: a
power bent on generating forces, making them grow, and ordering them, rather than one dedicated to
impeding them, making them submit, or destroying them. There has been a parallel shift in the right of
death, or at least a tendency to align itself with the exigencies of a life-administering power and to define
itself accordingly. This death that was based on the right of the sovereign is now manifested as simply the
reverse of the right of the social body to ensure, maintain, or develop its life. Yet wars were never as bloody
as they have been since the nineteenth century, and all things being equal, never before did regimes visit
such holocaust on their own populations. But this formidable power of death-and this is perhaps what
accounts for part of its force and the cynicism with which it has so greatly expanded its limits-now presents
itself as the counterpart of a power that exerts a positive influence on life, that endeavors to administer,
optimize, and multiply it, subjecting it to precise controls and comprehensive regulations. Wars are no
longer waged in the name of a sovereign who must be defended; they are waged on behalf of the
existence of everyone; entire populations are mobilized for the purpose of wholesale slaughter in the
name of life necessity: massacres have become vital. It is as managers of life and survival, of bodies and
the race, that so many regimes have been able to wage so many wars, causing so many men to be killed.
And through a turn that closes the circle, as the technology of wars has caused them to tend
increasingly toward all-out destruction, the decision that initiates them and the one that terminates them
are in fact increasingly informed by the naked question of survival. The atomic situation is now at the end
point of this process: the power to expose a whole population to death is the underside of the power to
guarantee an individual's continued existence.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
57
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
Hyde AT: Constitution Amendment CP 1/4
Perm, do both
The counterplan is not competitive. There is no reason why we can’t amend the
constitution on the desegregation of schools district lines and do the plan at the same
time.
Amendments trivialize the constitution
Kathleen M. Sullivan, 9-21-1995, “Constitutional Amendmentitis,” American Prospect,
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=constitutional_amendmentitis
The very idea of a constitution turns on the separation of the legal and the political realms. The Constitution sets up the
framework of government. It also sets forth a few fundamental political ideals (equality, representation, individual liberties) that
place limits on how far any short-term majority may go. This is our higher law. All the rest is left to politics. Those who lose in the short
run of ordinary politics obey the winners out of respect for the long-run rules and boundaries set forth in the Constitution. Without such
respect for the constitutional framework, the peaceful operation of ordinary politics would degenerate into fractious war. Frequent
constitutional amendment can be expected to undermine this respect by breaking down the boundary between law and politics. The
more you amend the Constitution, the more it seems like ordinary legislation. And the more the
Constitution is cluttered up with specific regulatory directives, the less it looks like a fundamental
charter of government. Picture the Ten Commandments with a few parking regulations thrown in. This is why opponents of
new amendments often argue that they would tend to trivialize or politicize the Constitution. They
trivialize it in the sense that they clutter it up and diminish its fundamentality . Consider the experience of the
state constitutions. Most state constitutions are amendable by simple majority, including by popular
initiative and referendum. While the federal Constitution has been amended only 27 times in over 200
years, the fifty state constitutions have had a total of nearly 6,000 amendments added to them. They have thus
taken on what Marshall called in McCulloch "the prolixity of a legal code"--a vice he praised the federal Constitution for avoiding.
Many of these state constitutional amendments are products of pure interest-group politics. State
constitutions thus are difficult to distinguish from general state legislation, and they water down the
notion of fundamental rights in the process: The California constitution, for example, protects not only the right to speak
but also the right to fish. Amendments politicize a constitution to the extent that they embed in it a controversial substantive choice.
Here the experience of Prohibition is instructive: The only modern amendment to enact a social policy into the Constitution, it is also the
only modern amendment to have been repealed. Amendments that embody a specific and controversial social or
economic policy allow one generation to tie the hands of another, entrenching approaches that ought to
be revisable in the crucible of ordinary politics. The balanced budget amendment, for example, would enshrine, for the
first time in our history, a particular and highly contestable macroeconomic policy--no deficit spend ing--in the Const i tution. As Justice
Oliver Wendell Holmes cautioned early in the century, however, the Constitution ought not "embody a particular economic theory,"
whether that of Milton Friedman or John Maynard Keynes.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
58
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
Counterplan destroys court legitimacy
Kathleen M. Sullivan, 9-21-1995, “Constitutional Amendmentitis,” American Prospect,
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=constitutional_amendmentitis
Increasing the frequency of constitutional amendment would undermine the respect and legitimacy
the Court now enjoys in this interpretive role. This danger is especially acute in the case of proposed
constitutional amendments that would literally overturn Supreme Court decisions , such as amendments that
would declare a fetus a person with a right to life, permit punishment of flag burning, or authorize school prayer. Such
amendments suggest that if you don't like a Court decision, you mobilize to overturn it . Justice Jackson
once quipped that the Court's word is not final because infallible but infallible because it is final. That finality, though, has many
salutary social benefits. For example, it allows us to treat abortion-clinic bombers as terrorists rather than protesters. If every
controversial Supreme Court decision resulted in plebiscitary overruling in the form of a
constitutional amendment, surely the finality of its word would be undermined, and with it the social
benefits of peaceful conflict resolution. The fact that we have amended the Constitution only four
times in order to overrule the Supreme Court is worth remembering. The Court itself has helped keep that
number low by occasionally reinterpreting the Constitution in such a way as to obviate the need for a proposed amendment. For
example, the equal rights amendment (ERA) passed by Congress and submitted to the states in 1972 would have provided that
"equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex." In 1971, the Supreme Court had struck down a law
preferring men over women as estate administrators as irrational. But by 1973, the Court imposed a stricter standard. In striking down a
law giving wives of male military officers more automatic benefits than husbands of female officers, the Court suggested that sex
discrimination is unconstitutional even if it has some rational basis. The pending ERA no doubt had an influence on the Court. But the
more the Court struck down sex-discriminatory laws in the mid-1970s, the less need there was to
ratify the amendment. Thirty-eight states never did ratify the ERA after all. Something similar may
be happening now in the shadow of the religious equality amendment. Last term, the Supreme Court for the first
time upheld public funding of religious evangelism against Establishment Clause challenge. The University of Virginia had refused to
disburse funds raised through a mandatory student activities fee to an avowedly Christian student magazine, on the ground that it was
primarily religious. The university granted such funds to nonreligious student publications. The Court held by a vote of five
to four that this selective exclusion violated the free speech clause and rejected the university's
argument that including the Christian magazine would violate the Establishment Clause. Thus the
Court did on its own what the religious equality amendment would require : entitle religious speech to equal
access to public funds, despite decades of cases holding that religious proselytism may not be supported by any tax, large or small.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
59
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
Counterplan destroys court legitimacy
Kathleen M. Sullivan, 9-21-1995, “Constitutional Amendmentitis,” American Prospect,
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=constitutional_amendmentitis
Increasing the frequency of constitutional amendment would undermine the respect and legitimacy
the Court now enjoys in this interpretive role. This danger is especially acute in the case of proposed
constitutional amendments that would literally overturn Supreme Court decisions , such as amendments that
would declare a fetus a person with a right to life, permit punishment of flag burning, or authorize school prayer. Such
amendments suggest that if you don't like a Court decision, you mobilize to overturn it . Justice Jackson
once quipped that the Court's word is not final because infallible but infallible because it is final. That finality, though, has many
salutary social benefits. For example, it allows us to treat abortion-clinic bombers as terrorists rather than protesters. If every
controversial Supreme Court decision resulted in plebiscitary overruling in the form of a
constitutional amendment, surely the finality of its word would be undermined, and with it the social
benefits of peaceful conflict resolution. The fact that we have amended the Constitution only four
times in order to overrule the Supreme Court is worth remembering. The Court itself has helped keep that
number low by occasionally reinterpreting the Constitution in such a way as to obviate the need for a proposed amendment. For
example, the equal rights amendment (ERA) passed by Congress and submitted to the states in 1972 would have provided that
"equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex." In 1971, the Supreme Court had struck down a law
preferring men over women as estate administrators as irrational. But by 1973, the Court imposed a stricter standard. In striking down a
law giving wives of male military officers more automatic benefits than husbands of female officers, the Court suggested that sex
discrimination is unconstitutional even if it has some rational basis. The pending ERA no doubt had an influence on the Court. But the
more the Court struck down sex-discriminatory laws in the mid-1970s, the less need there was to
ratify the amendment. Thirty-eight states never did ratify the ERA after all. Something similar may
be happening now in the shadow of the religious equality amendment. Last term, the Supreme Court for the first
time upheld public funding of religious evangelism against Establishment Clause challenge. The University of Virginia had refused to
disburse funds raised through a mandatory student activities fee to an avowedly Christian student magazine, on the ground that it was
primarily religious. The university granted such funds to nonreligious student publications. The Court held by a vote of five
to four that this selective exclusion violated the free speech clause and rejected the university's
argument that including the Christian magazine would violate the Establishment Clause. Thus the
Court did on its own what the religious equality amendment would require : entitle religious speech to equal
access to public funds, despite decades of cases holding that religious proselytism may not be supported by any tax, large or small. .
CP destroys court legitimacy
Douglas Linder, Professor of Law at UMKC Law School, 1981, “What in the constitution cannot be amended”
23 Arizona Law Review 717
Nothing could be more inconsistent with the conception of the living Constitution than an
unamendable amendment or an amendment authorizing unamendable amendments and which by its own terms is
unamendable. As the framers recognized, the foreclosing of all possibility of constitutional change poses two
dangers: it increases the risk of violence and revolutionary change, and it increases the risk that
people will grow to disrespect the source of the institutions and arrangements that are forced on them.
These dangers seem all the more acute when one considers the type of amendments which are most likely to be made unrepealable. As
suggested by proposal of the Corwin Amendment, it is precisely when emotions are highest and divisions are deepest
that an "unamendable" constitutional amendment stands the greatest chance of adoption, for it is
then that the prospect of an early repeal is seen by proponents of the amendment as most likely. One
could, for example, conceive of anti-abortion groups urging adoption of an unamendable amendment banning abortions; support for an
unamendable amendment calling for the direct election of the President seems much less probable.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
60
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
The counterplan fails to address any social change
David A. Strauss, Law at U. Chicago, 2001, "The Irrelevance of Constitutional Amendments," Harvard Law
Review 14 (5) p. 1457)
To be precise: a case can be made that, subject to only a few qualifications, our
system would look the same today if
Article V of the Constitution had never been adopted and the Constitution contained no provision for
formal amendment. Of course this claim involves a degree of counterfactual speculation and cannot be proved with certainty: if
the Constitution really contained no provision for formal amendment, much else about the way constitutional law has developed might
be different.5 And there are some qualifications and arguable exceptions to this proposition. But even taking into account all
the qualifications and exceptions, there is a clear pattern: constitutional amendments have not been an
important means of changing the constitutional order. I will try to prove this thesis by establishing four propositions.
First a relatively familiar point sometimes matters addressed by the Constitution change even though
the text of the Constitution is unchanged. Second, and more dramatically, some constitutional changes occur
even though amendments that would have brought about those very changes are explicitly rejected.
Third, when amendments are adopted, they often do no more than ratify changes that have already
taken place in society without the help of an amendment . The changes produce the amendment, rather
than the other way around. Fourth, when amendments are adopted even though society has not
changed, the amendments are systematically evaded. They end up having little effect until society
catches up with the ambitions of the amendment. This argument presupposes that there is a difference between what
might be called the small-”c” constitution the fundamental political institutions of a society, or the constitution in practice and the
document itself. This distinction (about which I say more below) is imprecise, but it is both coherent and useful.6 When people
to amend the Constitution - -r that is, the document they are not ultimately concerned about the
try
document; they are concerned about the institutional arrangements that the document is supposed to
control. [f those institutions do not change, then the constitution in practice the small-”c” constitution, which I also call the
constitutional order or the constitutional regime has not changed, even if the text of the Constitution has changed. Similarly, as I discuss
below, it is coherent to say (as people often do) that certain changes are of a kind and magnitude that amount to
changes in the constitutional order even though the text remains the same. The proposition 1 am considering is
that amendments to the text of the Constitution have been, at most, peripheral to the process of change in the constitutional regime to the
point that the small-”c” constitution would look the same even if there were no provision for formal amendment of the text.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
61
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
AT: K’s
Whitman College
WNDI 09
62
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
AT: Security K 1/2
1. Perm, do both
2. Perm, do plan and all non-mutually exclusive parts of the alt
3. Perm, do the alternative
4. Perm, do the plan and alternative in every other instance
5. Strategic uses of realism are key to prevent dangerous realism. The perm which
speaks realism while critiquing it is the best way to solve all their impacts.
Stefano Guzzini, Assistant Professor at Central European Univ., Realism in International Relations and
International Political Economy, 1998, p. 212
Therefore, in a third step, this chapter also claims that it is impossible just to heap realism onto the
dustbin of history and start anew. This is a non-option. Although realism as a strictly causal theory has
been a disappointment, various realist assumptions are well alive in the minds of many practitioners
and observers of international affairs. Although it does not correspond to a theory which helps us to
understand a real world with objective laws, it is a world-view which suggests thoughts about it, and
which permeates our daily language for making sense of it. Realism has been a rich, albeit very
contestable, reservoir of lessons of the past, of metaphors and historical analogies, which, in the hands
of its most gifted representatives, have been proposed, at times imposed, and reproduced as guides to a
common understanding of international affairs. Realism is alive in the collective memory and
self-understanding of our (i.e. Western) foreign policy elite and public, whether educated or not. Hence,
we cannot but deal with it. For this reason, forgetting realism is also questionable. Of course, academic
observers should not bow to the whims of daily politics. But staying at distance, or being critical, does
not mean that they should lose the capacity to understand the languages of those who make
significant decisions, not only in government, but also in firms, NGOs, and other institutions. To the
contrary, this understanding, as increasingly varied as it may be, is a prerequisite for their very
profession. More particularly, it is a prerequisite for opposing the more irresponsible claims made in
the name, although not always necessarily in the spirit, of realism.
6. Extend our impacts of racism and patriarchy and compare them to extinction. First,
every day ethnic minorities have to endure the effects of racism. They would rather
live a regular life for a short time and have death come upon them through the
negative’s impact than continuing their tortuous living conditions.
Second, rejecting the affirmative causes nuclear war and also making extinction
inevitable.
7. Link Turn- Continuing the status quo of patriarchy would cause securitization.
Cross-apply our Reardon 93 card, it says that unchecked patriarchy would cause
defensive ministers to make threats to each other to unleash their nuclear arsenal.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
63
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
8. Patriarchy is a root cause of realism. When we solve for patriarchy we solve for realism.
This is reason to prefer the affirmative because their alternative fails – intellectuals cannot
simply wish away realism
John Mearsheimer, Ph.D. and Professor of Politics at the University of Chicago, 20 05, “E.H. Carr vs. Idealism:
the Battle Rages On.” International Relations, p. 140-141.
When Carr set out to write The Twenty Years’ Crisis in July 1938, his goal was not to articulate a theory of
realism, but instead to criticize British (and American) intellectuals for largely ignoring the role of power in
international politics. He made this point clear in November 1945 in the preface to the second edition: ‘The
Twenty Years’ Crisis was written with the deliberate aim of counteracting the glaring and dangerous defect
of nearly all thinking, both academic and popular, about international politics in English-speaking countries
from 1919 to 1939 – the almost total neglect of power.’1 The problem with British thinkers, according to
Carr, was not just that they ignored power, but that they were utopians as well. He thought they held a
hopelessly idealistic view of international politics. In particular, they had a normative agenda which
led them to pay little attention to the world around them and to focus instead on changing how states
relate to each other. Indeed, they were determined to radically transform world politics and create a
peaceful international order where statesmen no longer cared about the balance of power. The
idealists, Carr believed, saw themselves as the key agents for accomplishing this revolution. ‘The
utopian’, he wrote, ‘believes in the possibility of more or less radically rejecting reality, and
substituting his utopia for it by an act of will.’2 He later expanded on this point, noting that ‘intellectuals
are particularly reluctant to recognize their thought as conditioned by forces external to themselves, and like
to think of themselves as leaders whose theories provide the motive force for so-called men of action’.3 Carr
surely would have been happy to transcend the world of the late 1930s and move to the utopia that the
idealists hoped to create. Who in Britain at the time would not have welcomed such a development?
However, Carr did not think it was possible to escape the existing world, a world where ‘power is an
essential element of politics’.4 The fact is that Carr was a determinist at heart who did not think that
individuals could purposely re-order the international system in fundamental ways. Consequently, he took
out his cudgel and hammered away at the idealists’ worldview. When he was done, little of that enterprise
was still standing. But The Twenty Years’ Crisis was more than just a wrecking operation. Carr also
forcefully made the case that power is an essential ingredient in politics. ‘International politics’, he
wrote, ‘are always power politics; for it is impossible to eliminate power from them.’5 Moreover, he asserted
that ‘the ultima ratio of power in international relations is war’, which led him to conclude that of all the
instruments of statecraft the military is of ‘supreme importance’.6 These claims about power in The Twenty
Years’ Crisis earned Carr his realist spurs. However, as I have pointed out elsewhere, Carr did not directly
address the two key questions that motivate most realist thinkers.7 First, why do states want power? What is
the underlying logic that explains why great powers compete for it? Carr insists that they do, and offers
plenty of evidence for his position, but he never explains why. Second, how much power do states want?
How much is enough? On this second question, he hints at one point that states have an insatiable appetite for
power. ‘The exercise of power’, he writes, ‘always appears to beget the appetite for more power.’8 But he
does not elaborate this point to any significant extent. The explanation for these omissions, I think, is that
Carr’s main goal in The Twenty Years’ Crisis was not to elaborate a theory of realism, but instead to criticize
and undermine interwar idealism, which he considered delusional as well as dangerous.
9. The alternative is either strong enough to over come the plan and solve for securitization
or the alt doesn’t solve and therefore the kritik should not be ran without a legitimate
alternative to our case.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
64
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
AT: Nietzsche K 1/6
1.) Perm do both.
2.) Perm do plan and all non-mutually exclusive parts of the alt.
3.) Do the alt.
4.) Do the plan and alt in every other instance.
The claim that suffering is inevitable and that intervention to suffering is life-negating is
nothing more than a thinly-veiled cover for mass rape and genocide – accepting their
argument necessitates an unconditional acceptance of brutal atrocities in all their forms.
Ross, professor of philosophy at L.A. Valley College, 2003. “Friedrich Nietzsche (18441900)”, __http://www.friesian.com /NIETZSCH.HTM__
Kelley L.
While the discussion of Existentialism treated Nietzsche as an Existentialist before his time, with the death of God producing the kind of
nihilism characteristic of that movement, Nietzsche, for all his warnings about nihilism, does not in the end seem to be an actual nihilist.
He is a kind of positivist instead -- that certain actual events and practices are the root of genuine value. The events and practices
used by Nietzsche happen to be those of the most extreme 19th century Darwinian conception of
nature. This very often sounds good, since Nietzsche sees himself, and can easily impress others, as simply making a
healthy affirmation of life. Life for Nietzsche, however, is red in tooth and claw, and the most
admirable and interesting form of life is the triumphant Darwinian predator, who in general is
paradigmatic of beauty, grace, strength, intelligence, and activity, while living off of the less intelligent
herds of herbivores, i.e. the dull and the bovine. In The Genealogy of Morals, one of Nietzsche's latest works (1887), he lays this
all out with great clarity and eloquence. It is a performance that is also appalling -- and horrifying in relation to the uses to which
Nietzsche's ideas were later put, for which he cannot, and would not care to, escape blame. Recent Nietzsche enthusiasts tend
to ignore Nietzsche's own solution to the problems of modernity . Instead, they ironically take heart from the very
nihilism described with horror by Nietzsche. This nihilism is then used in the service of many other things that
Nietzsche despised, like socialism, democracy, and the valorization of the common man. Of course, when
the Left demands "true" democracy, what they really want is a political dictatorship run by themselves -- which is why Fidel Castro is
still their idol. Nietzsche would not have been displeased with the naked power of a Stalin, and possibly
even would have admired the cynicism of the empty Leftist rhetoric that he used to seize power . These
ironies or paradoxes are discussed below. Before that, I will consider the embarrassing details of Nietzsche's own solution to nihilism.
First of all, Nietzsche's racism is unmistakable. The best way to approach this is to let Nietzsche speak for himself. In the
quotes that follow, I will simply offer examples from The Genealogy of Morals alone, as translated by Francis Golffing (in the footnotes
I have been adding some passages from Beyond Good and Evil for comparison). The Latin malus ["bad"] (beside which I place melas
[Greek for "black"]) might designate the common man as dark, especially black-haired ("hic niger est"), as the pre-Aryan settler of the
Italian soil, notably distiguished from the new blond conqueror race by his color. At any rate, the Gaelic presented me with an exactly
analogous case: fin, as in the name Fingal, the characteristic term for nobility, eventually the good, noble, pure, originally the fair-haired
as opposed to the dark, black-haired native population. The Celts, by the way, were definitely a fair-haired race; and it is a mistake to try
to relate the area of dark-haired people found on ethnographic maps of Germany to Celtic bloodlines, as Virchow does. These are the
last vestiges of the pre-Aryan population of Germany. (The subject races are seen to prevail once more, throughout almost all of
Europe; in color, shortness of skull, perhaps also in intellectual and social instincts. Who knows whether modern democracy, the even
more fashionable anarchism, and especially that preference for the commune, the most primitive of all social forms, which is now shared
by all European socialists -- whether all these do not represent a throwback, and whether, even physiologically, the Aryan [master] race
of conquerors is not doomed?) [The Birth of Tragedy and The Genealogy of Morals, Doubleday Anchor Books, 1956, p.164, boldface
added; note the term "master" deleted in the Golffing translation; note]Here we have an unmistakable racism: the good, noble,
and blond Aryans, contrasted with the dark and primitive indigenes of Europe. While Nietzsche's
thought is often defended as unrelated to the racism of the Nazis, there does not seem to be much
difference from the evidence of this passage. One difference might be Nietzsche's characterization of the "commune" as
"the most primitive of all social forms." Nazi ideology was totalitarian and "social," denigrating individualism. Nietzsche would not
have gone for this -- and the small, dark Hitler is certainly no Aryan -- but then many defenders of Nietzsche these days also tend to
prefer a communitarian democracy,
Whitman College
WNDI 09
65
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
A/T Pity/Suffering Cont.
which means they might have more in common with the Nazis, despite their usual anti-racism, than Nietzsche himself. This is
characteristic of the confusion of contemporary politics, let alone Nietzsche apologetics. The passage above, at least, provides as much
aid and comfort for the Nazis as for any other interpretation or appropriation of Nietzsche. Nietzsche's racism might be excused as
typical of its age, and criticism of it anachronistic. However, the racism of Thomas Jefferson, a century earlier, involved an explicit
denial that physical or intellectual differences between the races (about which Jefferson expressed no certainty) compromised the rights
of the inferior races. To Nietzsche, however, the "subject races" have no "rights"; and domination, not to
mention all the forms of "oppression" excoriated by the trendy Left, are positive and desirable goods.
This anxiety or distemper may be due to a variety of causes. It may result from a crossing of races too dissimilar (or of classes too
dissimilar. Class distinctions are always indicative of genetic and racial differences: the European Weltschmerz and the pessimism
of the nineteenth century were both essentially the results of an abrupt and senseless mixing of classes)... [p.267, boldface added, note]
In the litany of political sins identified by the Left, "racism, classism, and homophobia" are the holy
trinity -- with "classism," of course, as a codeword for the hated capitalism. Here we see that for Nietzsche racism and
"classism" are identical: the "subject races" form the subject classes. This is good and noble. We also
get another aspect of the matter, the "mixing" of races and classes is "senseless" and productive of the
pessimism and social problems of modern society. In these terms, Nietzsche can only have approved of the Nazis laws
against marriage or even sex between Aryans and Untermenschen. The lack of rights for the dark underclasses brings us to the principal
theme of The Genealogy of Morals: The morality of "good and evil" has been invented out of hatred and resentment by the defeated and
subjugated races, especially the Jews. People who love Nietzsche for his celebration of creativity and his
dismissal of the moralism of traditional religion, mainly meaning Christianity, usually seem to think of
going "beyond good and evil" as merely legitimizing homosexuality, drugs, abortion, prostitution,
pornography, and the other desiderata of progressive thinking. They don't seem to understand that
Nietzsche wasn't particularly interested in things like that, but, more to the point, legitimizing rape,
murder, torture, pillage, domination, and political oppression by the strong. The only honest Nietzschean
graduate student I ever met frankly stated, "To be creative, you must be evil." We get something similar in the recent Sandra Bullock
movie, Murder by Numbers [2002], where the young Nietzschean student simply says, "Freedom is crime." The story of the movie is
more or less that of Leopold and Loeb, the Chicago teenagers who in 1924 murdered a young boy (Bobby Franks) to prove that they
were "beyond good and evil." Leopold and Loeb understood their Nietzsche far better than most of his academic apologists. And we are
the first to admit that anyone who knew these "good" ones [nobility] only as enemies would find them evil enemies indeed. For these
same men who, amongst themselves, are so strictly constrained by custom, worship, ritual, gratitude,
and by mutual surveillance and jealousy, who are so resourceful in consideration, tenderness, loyality,
pride and friendship, when once they step outside their circle become little better than uncaged beasts
of prey. Once abroad in the wilderness, they revel in the freedom from social constraint and
compensate for their long confinement in the quietude of their own community. They revert to the
innocence of wild animals: we can imagine them returning from an orgy of murder, arson, rape, and
torture, jubilant and at peace with themselves as though they had committed a fraternity prank -convinced, moreover, that the poets for a long time to come will have something to sing about and to praise. Deep within all the noble
races there lurks the [blond] beast of prey, bent on spoil and conquest. This hidden urge has to be satisfied from time to time, the beast
let loose in the wilderness. This goes as well for the Roman, Arabian, German, Japanese nobility as for the Homeric heroes and the
Scandinavian vikings. The noble races have everywhere left in their wake the catchword "barbarian." .....their utter indifference to safety
and comfort, their terrible pleasure in destruction, their taste for cruelty -- all these traits are embodied by their victims in the image of
the "barbarian," and "evil enemy," the Goth or the Vandal. The profound and icy suspicion which the German arouses as soon as he
assumes power (we see it happening again today [i.e. 1887]) harks back to the persistent horror with which Europe for many centuries
witnessed the raging of the blond Teutonic [germanischen] beast (although all racial connection between the old Teutonic tribes
[Germanen] and ourselves has been lost). [pp.174-175, boldface added, note the terms, "blond" and "German," deleted or altered in the
Golffing translation]
Whitman College
WNDI 09
66
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
A/T Pity/Suffering Cont.
Your link assumes we are lip service – our solvency proves we’re not, so we’re not hollow
morality
Bryan Leiter, law professor @ Texas and Ph.D. from Michigan, 2004. p.
__http://plato.stanford.edu /entries/nietzsche-moral -political/__ (Bryan, “Nietzsche’s Moral and
Political Philosophy)
Even without a political philosophy, however, there remain disturbing questions about Nietzsche's critique of
morality and its political implications. For example, when Nietzsche objects that morality is an obstacle to
“the highest power and splendor possible” to man, one is tempted to object that this gets things
perversely backwards. For surely it is the lack of morality in social policy and public institutions — a
lack which permits widespread poverty and despair to persist generation upon generation; that allows
daily economic struggle and uncertainty to define the basic character of most people's lives — that is
most responsible for a lack of human flourishing. Surely, in a more moral society, with a genuine
commitment to social justice and human equality, there would be far more Goethes, far more creativity and
admirable human achievement. As Philippa Foot has sharply put it: “How could one see the present
dangers that the world is in as showing that there is too much pity and too little egoism around?”
(1973, p. 168).
No Link
They misread Nietzsche
Lawrence Hatab, Professor at Old Dominion University, 2002, Prospects for a Democratic
Agon: Why We can still be Nietzscheans, Journal of Nietzsche Studies, issue 24
Before exploring these questions and confronting Nietzsche's attitude toward democracy, it is important to set
the stage by considering the matter of institutions, without which political philosophy could very likely
not get off the ground. Modern societies, at least, cannot function without institutions and the coercive
force of law. Appel, like many interpreters, construes Nietzsche's "political" thought as advancing more an
"aesthetic" activity than institutional governance (NCD, p.160ff). Supposedly Nietzsche envisions an elite
who compete with each other for creative results in isolation from the mass public; indeed the elite simply
use the masses as material for their creative work, without regard for the fate or welfare of the general
citizenry. Appel maintains that such a political aesthetics is problematic because it is incompatible with the
maintenance of stable institutions. And Nietzsche is also supposed to eschew the rule of law in favor of the
hubris of self-policing (NCD, p.165). If this were true, one would be hard pressed to find Nietzsche relevant
for any political philosophy, much less a democratic one. It is a mistake, however, to read Nietzsche in
simple terms as being against institutions and the rule of law on behalf of self-creation. First of all, even
Nietzsche's early celebration of the Dionysian should not be taken as an anti- or extra-political gesture.
In BT 21, Nietzsche insists that the Apollonian has coequal status with the Dionysian, and the former is
specifically connected with the political order, which is needed to temper the Dionysian impulse toward
"ecstatic brooding" and "orgiastic self-annihilation." Those who read Nietzsche as resisting "normalization"
and "discipline" (this includes most postmodern readings and Appel's as well 13 ), are not on very firm
ground either. For one thing, Nietzschean creative freedom is selective and most people should be ruled
by normative orders, because universal unrestricted freedom would cause havoc. 14 Moreover, even
selective creative freedom is not an abandonment of order and constraint. Creativity breaks free of
existing structures, but only to establish new ones. Shaping new forms requires formative powers
prepared by disciplined skills and activated by refined instruments of production. Accordingly,
creativity is a kind of "dancing in chains" (WS 140). 15 Creative freedom, then, is not an abandonment
of constraint, but a disruption of structure that still needs structure to prepare and execute departures
from the norm.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
67
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
Alt debate
Valueless nihilism inevitably results in mass violence
Carr Ignatieff, Prof of Human Rights @ Harvard’s Kenndy School of Government, 2K4 (Michael, “The Temptations of
Nihilism,” an extract from The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror, New England Review Vol. 25 No. 1/2, P. 54-74)
Nihilism--which is the blunt name for taking the gloves off--holds real dangers for both sides. When a
democratic state licenses all means to repress a terrorist group, it may only play into the hands of its enemy.
Some terrorist groups deliberately seek to draw reprisals upon themselves in order to radicalize their own
population. As the state's repression increases, the terrorists respond by tightening their screws on their base
of support, replacing a political relation to their own side with one of unvarnished tyranny, killing or
intimidating anyone who questions whether the costs of the campaign are outweighing the gains. Populations
that once supported armed struggle for reasons of conviction become trapped either in fanaticism or in
complicit silence. In the process, political regulation of terrorist groups by their community at large becomes
impossible. Moderate voices who might persuade a community to withdraw their support from terror
are silenced. In place of a properly political culture, in which groups and interests compete for
leadership, a people represented by suicide bombers ceases to be a political community at all and
becomes a cult, with all the attendant hysteria, intimidation, and fear. This is the process by which
nihilism leads to a war without end. In such a terrorist cult, many praiseworthy moral virtues are
inverted, so that they serve not life but death. Terrorist groups typically expropriate the virtues of the
young--their courage, their headstrong disregard for consequences, their burning desire to establish their own
significance--and use these to create an army of the doomed. In this way, violence becomes a career, a way
of life that leads only to death. Once violence becomes part of a community death cult, the only
rational response by a state under attack must be to eliminate the enemy one by one, either by capture
and lifelong imprisonment or by execution. Those for whom violence has become the driving rationale
of conduct cannot be convinced to desist. They are in a deathly embrace with what they do, and
argument cannot reach them. Nor can failure. It counts for nothing that violence fails to achieve their
political objective because such achievement has long since ceased to be the test of their effectiveness. It
is redemption they are after, and they seek death sure that they have attained it. They have nothing to
negotiate for, and we have nothing to gain by negotiating with them. They will take gestures of
conciliation as weakness and our desire to replace violence with dialogue as contemptible na"iveté. To say
we are at war with Al Qaeda and suicide bombers in general is to say that political dialogue is at an end. We
have nothing to say to them nor they to us. Either we prevail or they do, and force must be the arbiter.
The nazi’s utilized Nietzsche’s ideas when committing genocide
Roman Ortega-Cowan, B.A. @ Boston College and J.D. with Honors @ Florida
State U College of Law, 2K3 “Dubious Means to Final Solutions: Extracting Light
from the Darkness of Ein F Hrer and Brother Number One,” 31 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 163,
Fall)
Finally, Nietzsche's emphasis on the triumph of the will over emotion gave the Nazis the mental
strength to accomplish the horrors of the Holocaust. n35 The choice of self-definition through hardness
was seen as central to the establishment and assertion of a new national identity, and such emphasis
led to a devaluation of human compassion and other emotions. n36 With a set ideology of hatred
founded upon angry anti-Semitism, a belief in "scientific" racial superiority, and a will immune from
emotional influence, the Nazis embarked on a catastrophic mission targeting a clearly defined enemy.
After taking control of the government, they quickly built a wall of legal repression around the Jews,
which culminated in the Nuremberg Laws and Kristallnacht decrees and left the Jews vulnerable to
the violence that lay ahead. n37
Whitman College
WNDI 09
68
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
When applied to politics nihilism is inevitably totalitarian
Gordon A. Christenson, Nippert Prof of Law and Dean @ U of Cincinnati College of Law, 85
“Uncertainty in Law and its Negation: Reflections”, 54 U. Cin. L. Rev. 347)
Some dramatically characterize the trends just described as legal nihilism or the negation of the exercise of legitimate power without the
assertion of substantive theory in its place. As Michael Polanyi so cogently has noted , nihilism, whether real or imagined,
leads [*357] inexorably to authoritarian responses and to the rise of ideology. The second phenomenon which
gave rise to our particular predicament thus emerged from the conversion of subjective moral judgment into ideology. Whether derived
from the twentieth century revolutions based on socialism or Marxism, on the human rights movement, or on a resurgence of neoconservatism, the intellectual roots of such movements are well described in European and Latin American literatures. Symbolic of that
literature, and resulting in the negation of law and value, are Neitzche's moral and ethical superiority, Dostoyevski's novels and short
stories and the works of the phenomenologists, existentialists and structuralists. All ask similar questions. Post-Marxist thinkers -Habermas, Foucault and Berger and other non-legal critical scholars -- have gained influence in legal scholarship which finds them to be
useful analytic tools. If there is no common basis for law or morality other than through a subjective or
ideological construct, then the question is not what values underpin a particular legal system, but how
one's subjective preferences may be infused with power, strategy and tactics throughout the general
community or imposed by coercion. The lawyer-advocate has long used various techniques based on pragmatic ideas of
progress, the frontier and change. These have been associated with the romanticism of the defender of the poor and downtrodden, the
fighter for civil rights, the human-rights warrior and the social reformer, who use courts and law as instruments of social change. In this
construct, law as a secular system has no normative content that is not ultimately subjective. If God is dead, all things are
morally possible. The main claim to legitimacy or validity rests in process; namely that the advocates who represent a particular
morality or a particular social philosophy fight and prevail as warriors and advocates in an existing decisionmaking process, akin to
chivalry, aimed at changing official behavior or custom by fighting injustice, admittedly a subjective construct. Once, however, the
subjective advocacy model of changing the social structure is an accepted way of life, the natural reaction is that sauce for the goose is
sauce for the gander. If the objective validity of the normative system tacitly is rejected by those who seek to change it, then radicals
holding an opposite belief might just as well produce a similar claim by an activism with subjective preferences even more firmly rooted
within the vices of common life. The dialectic of thesis, antithesis and synthesis that seemed to move outward from the subjective to an
objective world-view could work for the radical right just as well as for the Marxist left!
The alternative justifies unending human atrocities
Simon May, College Research Fellow in Philosophy @ Birkbeck College, 99 “Nietzsche’s
ethic versus ‘morality’: The new ideal,” Nietzsche’s Ethics and his War on ‘Morality,’ P. 132133)
An apologist for Nietzsche might suggest that his ethic is not alone in effectively legitimizing inhumanity. He might argue, for example,
that some forms of utilitarianism could not prevent millions being sacrificed if greater numbers could thereby be saved; or that heinous
maxims could be consistently universalized by Kant's Categorical Imperative—maxims against which Kant's injunction to treat all
human beings as ends in themselves would afford no reliable protection, both because its conception of 'humanity' is vague and because
it would be overridden by our duty, as rational agents, to respect just such universalized maxims. To this apologist one would reply that
with Nietzsche there is not even an attempt to produce a systematic safety net against cruelty,
especially if one judges oneself to be a 'higher' type of person with life-enhancing pursuits—and, to this
extent, his philosophy licenses the atrocities of a Hitler even though, by his personal table of values, he excoriates
anti-Semitism and virulent nationalism. Indeed, to that extent it is irrelevant whether or not Nietzsche
himself advocates violence and bloodshed or whether he is the gentle person described by his
contemporaries. The reality is that the supreme value he places on individual life-enhancement and
self-legislation leaves room for, and in some cases explicitly justifies, unfettered brutality . In sum: the point
here is not to rebut Nietzsche's claim that 'everything evil, terrible, tyrannical in man' serves his enhancement 'as much as its opposite
does' (BGE, 44—my emphasis)—for such a rebuttal would be a major ethical undertaking in its own right. It is rather to suggest that
the necessary balance between danger and safety which Nietzsche himself regards as a condition for
flourishing (for example, in this quote from BGE, 44) is not vouchsafed by his extreme individualism. Indeed, such
individualism seems not only self-defeating, but also quite unnecessary: for safeguards against those
who have pretensions to sovereignty but lack nobility could be accepted on Nietzsche's theory of value
as just another 'condition for the preservation' of 'higher' types. Since the overriding aim of his attack
on morality is to liberate people from the repressiveness of the 'herd' instinct, this unrelieved potential
danger to the 'higher' individual must count decisively against the success—and the possibility of
success—of his project.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
69
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
Case Ext.
First extend our abu-jamal 98 card. That says that poverty is equivalent to an ongoing
nuclear war. If we can win that the deaths of so many not a good thing Then we should win
this debate because that means that our aff out weighs.
Next extend our Barndt 91 and Lauren 96 cards, that explicitly states that racist oppression
is inhuman and unjust and immoral. Just a few of the vile things that Nietzsche advocates.
Nietzsche’s idea that alleviating suffering means that you hate the current world and life is
the reason that our world is not as beautiful as it could be, look to our Ross 03 card that we
will read.
Next extend our Reardon 93 card that says patriarchy leads to nuclear war. The
dominance aggression ideas of Nietzche are exactly what leads to rampant patriarchy. We
have to reject these ideas before we all die from the products of aggression.
Vagueness
Alt vagueness
1. We can’t argue against the alt if you can’t tell us what it does- this takes out
all our ground because we never really now what we’re arguing against so we
can never know what arguments to run.
2. Embracing the world not clear. How do you embrace the world? Do you
embrace all of it or just the parts that Nietzsche likes? Having a clear alt key
to prevent neg shifting and mixing burdens as to what their alt does.
3.
Voter for competitive equity and the reasons above.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
70
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
AT: Capitalism K 1/2
1. Perm: Do Both
2. Perm: Plan and non-mutually exclusive parts of the alternative.
3. Perm: Do the alternative.
4. Perm: Plan and the alternative in every other instance.
5. We Outweigh- Racism, Poverty and Patriarchy all lead to extinction. No scenario for
how capitalism is the root cause of the internal link.
6. Alt doesn’t solve the aff-These ills existed before capitalism. Proves alt doesn’t solve our
aff.
7. Link-Turn- we alleviate economic inequality. Solves their impact.
8. Abandoning state based reform projects allows capitalism to run rampant, increasing
suffering
Dr. Richard Barbrook, Hypermedia Research Centre – U. of Westminster, 6-5-1997, “More Provocations,”
Amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-1-9706/msg00034.html
I thought that this position is clear from my remarks about the ultra-left posturing of the ‘zero-work’ demand.
In Europe, we have real social problems of deprivation and poverty which, in part, can only be solved by
state action. This does not make me a statist, but rather anti-anti-statist. By opposing such intervention
because they are carried out by the state anarchists are tacitly lining up with the neo-liberals. Even
worse, refusing even to vote for the left, they acquiese to rule by neo-liberal parties. I deeply admire
direct action movements. I was a radio pirate and we provide server space for anti-roads and environmental
movements. However, this doesn’t mean that I support political abstentionism or, even worse, the
mystical nonsense produced by Hakim Bey. It is great for artists and others to adopt a marginality as a life
style choice, but most of the people who are economically and socially marginalised were never given any
choice. They are excluded from society as a result of deliberate policies of deregulation, privatisation and
welfare cutbacks carried out by neo-liberal governments. During the ‘70s. I was a pro-situ punk rocker until
Thatcher got elected. Then we learnt the hard way that voting did change things and lots of people
suffered if state power was withdrawn from certain areas of our life, such as welfare and employment.
Anarchism can be a fun artistic pose. However, human suffering is not.
9. Total rejection of capitalism fragments resistance – the perm solves best
J.K. Gibson-Graham, feminist economist, 1996, End of Capitalism
One of our goals as Marxists has been to produce a knowledge of capitalism. Yet as “that which is known,”
Capitalism has become the intimate enemy. We have uncloaked the ideologically-clothed, obscure
monster, but we have installed a naked and visible monster in its place. In return for our labors of
creation, the monster has robbed us of all force. We hear – and find it easy to believe – that the left is in
disarray. Part of what produces the disarray of the left is the vision of what the left is arrayed against. When
capitalism is represented as a unified system coextensive with the nation or even the world, when it is
portrayed as crowding out all other economic forms, when it is allowed to define entire societies, it
becomes something that can only be defeated and replaced by a mass collective movement (or by a
process of systemic dissolution that such a movement might assist). The revolutionary task of replacing
capitalism now seems outmoded and unrealistic, yet we do not seem to have an alternative conception
of class transformation to take its place. The old political economic “systems” and “structures” that call
forth a vision of revolution as systemic replacement still seem to be dominant in the Marxist political
imagination. The New World Order is often represented as political fragmentation founded upon economic
unification. In this vision the economy appears as the last stronghold of unity and singularity in a world of
Whitman College
WNDI 09
71
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
diversity and plurality. But why can’t the economy be fragmented too? If we theorized it as fragmented in
the United States, we could being to see a huge state sector (incorporating a variety of forms of appropriation
of surplus labor), a very large sector of self-employed and family-based producers (most noncapitalist), a
huge household sector (again, quite various in terms of forms of exploitation, with some households moving
towards communal or collective appropriation and others operating in a traditional mode in which one adult
appropriates surplus labor from another). None of these things is easy to see. If capitalism takes up the
available social space, there’s no room for anything else. If capitalism cannot coexist, there’s no
possibility of anything else. If capitalism functions as a unity, it cannot be partially or locally replaced.
My intent is to help create the discursive conception under which socialist or other noncapitalist
construction becomes “realistic” present activity rather than a ludicrous or utopian goal. To achieve
this I must smash Capitalism and see it in a thousand pieces. I must make its unity a fantasy, visible as a
denial of diversity and change.
10. Perm solves – only using capitalism to fight capitalism can be effective
Monthly Review, March 1990, v. 41, no. 10, p 38
No institution is or ever has been a seamless monolith. Although the inherent mechanism of
American capitalism is as you describe it, oriented solely to profit without regard to social
consequences, this does not preclude significant portions of that very system from joining forces
with the worldwide effort for the salvation of civilization, perhaps even to the extent of
furnishing the margin of success for that very effort.
11. No alternative to capitalism and capitalism will not collapse
Fareed Zakaria, 6-13-2009,“The capitalist manifesto,” http://www.newsweek.com/id/201935?from=rss
A few years from now, strange as it may sound, we might all find that we are hungry for more
capitalism, not less. An economic crisis slows growth, and when countries need growth, they turn to
markets. After the Mexican and East Asian currency crises—which were far more painful in those countries
than the current downturn has been in America—we saw the pace of market-oriented reform speed up. If, in
the years ahead, the American consumer remains reluctant to spend, if federal and state governments groan
under their debt loads, if government-owned companies remain expensive burdens, then private-sector
activity will become the only path to create jobs. The simple truth is that with all its flaws, capitalism
remains the most productive economic engine we have yet invented. Like Churchill's line about
democracy, it is the worst of all economic systems, except for the others. Its chief vindication today has
come halfway across the world, in countries like China and India, which have been able to grow and
pull hundreds of millions of people out of poverty by supporting markets and free trade. Last month India
held elections during the worst of this crisis. Its powerful left-wing parties campaigned against liberalization
and got their worst drubbing at the polls in 40 years. Capitalism means growth, but also instability. The
system is dynamic and inherently prone to crashes that cause great damage along the way. For about 90
years, we have been trying to regulate the system to stabilize it while still preserving its energy. We are at the
start of another set of these efforts. In undertaking them, it is important to keep in mind what exactly went
wrong. What we are experiencing is not a crisis of capitalism. It is a crisis of finance, of democracy, of
globalization and ultimately of ethics. "Capitalism messed up," the British tycoon Martin Sorrell wrote
recently, "or, to be more precise, capitalists did." Actually, that's not true. Finance screwed up, or to be
more precise, financiers did. In June 2007, when the financial crisis began, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, IBM,
Nike, Wal-Mart and Microsoft were all running their companies with strong balance sheets and sensible
business models. Major American corporations were highly profitable, and they were spending prudently,
holding on to cash to build a cushion for a downturn. For that reason, many of them have been able to
weather the storm remarkably well. Finance and anything finance-related—like real estate—is another story.
12. Alt bad- vague
A. No offense- no literature base assumes a utopian implementation of a universal mindset change.
B. Infinite fiat- they fiat the entire worlds mindset. This is not reciprocal.
C. Shifty- they don’t have to isolate a specific strategy of ending capitalism. They’ll spike out of all our
alt turns.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
72
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
Cap Good – Socialism  Extinction 1/2
Marxist thought causes the worst forms of human exploitation and risk the end of
civilization
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and former congressional chief of staff to
Ron Paul, 5/19/2008 “Everything You Love You Owe to Capitalism” Daily Article
http://www.mises.org/story/2982
And yet, sitting on the other side of the table are well-educated people who imagine that the way to end the
world's woes is through socialism. Now, people's definitions of socialism differ, and these persons would
probably be quick to say that they do not mean the Soviet Union or anything like that. That was socialism in
name only, I would be told. And yet, if socialism does mean anything at all today, it imagines that there
can be some social improvement resulting from the political movement to take capital out of private
hands and put it into the hands of the state. Other tendencies of socialism include the desire to see labor
organized along class lines and given some sort of coercive power over how their employers' property is
used. It might be as simple as the desire to put a cap on the salaries of CEOs, or it could be as extreme as the
desire to abolish all private property, money, and even marriage. Whatever the specifics of the case in
question, socialism always means overriding the free decisions of individuals and replacing that
capacity for decision making with an overarching plan by the state. Taken far enough, this mode of
thought won't just spell an end to opulent lunches. It will mean the end of what we all know as civilization
itself. It would plunge us back to a primitive state of existence, living off hunting and gathering in a
world with little art, music, leisure, or charity. Nor is any form of socialism capable of providing for the
needs of the world's six billion people, so the population would shrink dramatically and quickly and in
a manner that would make every human horror ever known seem mild by comparison. Nor is it
possible to divorce socialism from totalitarianism, because if you are serious about ending private
ownership of the means of production, you have to be serious about ending freedom and creativity too.
You will have to make the whole of society, or what is left of it, into a prison. In short, the wish for
socialism is a wish for unparalleled human evil. If we really understood this, no one would express casual
support for it in polite company. It would be like saying, you know, there is really something to be said for
malaria and typhoid and dropping atom bombs on millions of innocents. Do the people sitting across the
table really wish for this? Certainly not. So what has gone wrong here? Why can these people not see what is
obvious? Why can't people sitting amidst market-created plenty, enjoying all the fruits of capitalism
every minute of life, see the merit of the market but rather wish for something that is a proven
disaster? What we have here is a failure of understanding. That is to say, a failure to connect causes
with effects. This is a wholly abstract idea. Knowledge of cause and effect does not come to us by merely
looking around a room, living in a certain kind of society, or observing statistics. You can study roomfuls of
data, read a thousand treatises on history, or plot international GDP figures on a graph for a living, and yet
the truth about cause and effect can still be evasive. You still might miss the point that it is capitalism that
gives rise to prosperity and freedom. You might still be tempted by the notion of socialism as savior.
Let me take you back to the years 1989 and 1990. These were the years that most of us remember as the
time when socialism collapsed in Eastern Europe and Russia. Events of that time flew in the face of all
predictions on the Right that these were permanent regimes that would never change unless they were
bombed back to the Stone Age. On the Left, it was widely believed, even in those times, that these
<CONTINUED>
Whitman College
WNDI 09
73
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
Cap Good – Socialism  Extinction 2/2
<CONTINUED>
societies were actually doing quite well and would eventually pass the United States and Western Europe in
prosperity, and, by some measures, that they were already better off than us. And yet it collapsed. Even the
Berlin Wall, that symbol of oppression and slavery, was torn down by the people themselves. It was not only
glorious to see socialism collapse. It was thrilling, from a libertarian point of view, to see how states
themselves can dissolve. They may have all the guns and all the power, and the people have none of those,
and yet, when the people themselves decide that they will no longer be governed, the state has few options
left. It eventually collapses amid a society-wide refusal to believe its lies any longer. When these closed
societies suddenly became open, what did we see? We saw lands that time forgot. The technology was
backwards and broken. The food was scarce and disgusting. The medical care was abysmal. The people
were unhealthy. Property was polluted. It was also striking to see what had happened to the culture under
socialism. Many generations had been raised under a system built on power and lies, and so the cultural
infrastructure that we take for granted was not secure. Such notions as trust, promise, truth, honesty, and
planning for the future — all pillars of commercial culture — had become distorted and confused by the
ubiquity and persistence of the statist curse. Why am I going through these details about this period, which
most of you surely do remember? Simply to say this: most people did not see what you saw. You saw the
failure of socialism. This is what I saw. This is what Rothbard saw. This is what anyone who had been
exposed to the teachings of economics — to the elementary rules concerning cause and effect in society —
saw. But this is not what the ideological Left saw. The headlines in the socialist publications themselves
proclaimed the death of undemocratic Stalinism and looked forward to the creation of a new democratic
socialism in these countries. As for regular people neither attached to the socialist idea nor educated in
economics, it might have appeared as nothing more than a glorious vanquishing of America's foreign-policy
enemies. We built more bombs than they did, so they finally gave in — the way a kid says "uncle" on a
playground. Maybe some saw it as a victory of the US Constitution over weird and foreign systems of
despotism. Or perhaps it was a victory for the cause of something like free speech over censorship, or the
triumph of ballots over bullets. Now, if the proper lessons of the collapse had been conveyed, we would
have seen the error of all forms of government planning. We would have seen that a voluntary society will
outperform a coerced one anytime. We might see how ultimately artificial and fragile are all systems of
statism compared to the robust permanence of a society built on free exchange and capitalist ownership. And
there is another point: the militarism of the Cold War had only ended up prolonging the period of socialism
by providing these evil governments the chance to stimulate unfortunate nationalist impulses that distracted
their domestic populations from the real problem. It was not the Cold War that killed socialism; rather,
once the Cold War had exhausted itself, these governments collapsed of their own weight from internal
rather than external pressure.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
74
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
Cap Good – Growth – Warming Module
A) Capitalism ensures economic growth
James Gustave Speth, environmental NGO founder, environmental litigator, former think tank head, former
environmental advisor to Jimmy Carter, former US Agency for International Development head, 2008 “The Bridge
at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability” Yale University
Press Pg 59
“Competition thus compels the owners of each business to invest (rather than consume) most of the profits they
make. . . . The process of investment as part of competition for profits is called accumulation. ... “Thus, if a firm is not making a
profit, it cannot grow: zero profit means zero growth. And if a firm does not grow, others that do grow will soon
outpace it. In a capitalist economy, survival requires growth, and growth requires profits. This is capitalism’s law of
the survival of the fittest, analogous to Charles Darwin’s notion of the evolution of species through natural selection. In the capitalist
version, Darwin’s idea of fitness—success in producing offspring—becomes success in making profits. “Capitalism is
differentiated from other economic systems by its drive to accumulate, its predisposition toward change, and its builtin tendency to expand” 25
B) Growth solves warming
Terry L. Anderson, PhD economics, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, adjunct professor at the Stanford
Graduate School of Business, April 29 2004, “Why Economic Growth is Good for the Environment”
http://www.perc.org/articles/article446.php
In the March 2004 issue of Scientific American, National Aeronautics and Space Administration global-warming expert James
Hansen notes that greenhouse gas emissions and global-warming projections are "consistently pessimistic." Hansen
suggests that projections do not take into account the lower carbon dioxide and methane emissions that
have resulted from technological advancements. He explains that the lower carbon dioxide emissions result
from increased energy efficiency following the energy crisis in the 1970s and the lower methane
emissions, from technological changes in agriculture. Hansen's essay concludes on an optimistic note, saying "the main
elements [new technologies] required to halt climate change have come into being with remarkable rapidity ." This
statement would not have surprised economist Julian Simon. He saw the "ultimate resource" to be the human mind and believed it to be
best motivated by market forces. Because of a combination of market forces and technological innovations, we are not running out of
natural resources. As a resource becomes more scarce, prices increase, thus encouraging development of
cheaper alternatives and technological innovations. Just as fossil fuel replaced scarce whale oil, its use will be reduced
by new technology and alternative fuel sources. Market forces also cause economic growth, which in turn leads to
environmental improvements. Put simply, poor people are willing to sacrifice clean water and air, healthy
forests, and wildlife habitat for economic growth. But as their incomes rise above subsistence,
"economic growth helps to undo the damage done in earlier years, " says economist Bruce Yandle. "If economic
growth is good for the environment, policies that stimulate growth ought to be good for the environment." The link between greenhouse
gas emissions and economic prosperity is no different. Using data from the United States, Professor Robert McCormick finds that
"higher GDP reduces total net [greenhouse gas] emissions ." He goes a step further by performing the complex task of
estimating net U.S. carbon emissions. This requires subtracting carbon sequestration (long-term storage of carbon in soil and water)
from carbon emissions. Think of it this way: When you build a house, the wood in it stores carbon. In a poor
country that wood would have been burned to cook supper or to provide heat, thus releasing carbon into the
atmosphere. McCormick shows that economic growth in the United States has increased carbon sequestration in
many ways, including improved methods of storing waste, increased forest coverage, and greater
agricultural productivity that reduces the acreage of cultivated land. Because rich economies sequester
more carbon than poor ones, stored carbon must be subtracted from emissions to determine an economy's net addition to
greenhouse gas emissions. McCormick's data show that "rich countries take more carbon out of the air than poorer ones" and that "the
growth rate of net carbon emission per person will soon be negative in the U nited States." Put differently—
richer may well be cooler. Global-warming policy analysts agree that greenhouse gas regulations such as those proposed at Kyoto would
have negative impacts on the economy. Therefore, as McCormick warns, we should take great care that regulations in the name of global
warming "not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs."
Whitman College
WNDI 09
75
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
Cap Good – Growth – Warming Module
C) Warming causes extinction. [Gender Paraphrased]
Bill Henderson, Environmental Scientist. 8-16-2006. Counter Currents, “Runaway Global Warming Denial.”
http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-henderson190806.htm
The scientific debate about human induced global warming is over but policy makers - let alone the happily
shopping general public - still seem to not understand the scope of the impending tragedy . Global warming isn't just
warmer temperatures, heat waves, melting ice and threatened polar bears. Scientific understanding increasingly points to
runaway global warming leading to human extinction. If impossibly Draconian security measures are not immediately
put in place to keep further emissions of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere we are looking at the death of billions, the
end of civilization as we know it and in all probability the end of [hu]man's several million year old
existence, along with the extinction of most flora and fauna beloved to man in the world we share.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
76
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
Cap Good – Growth – Space Module
A) Capitalism ensures economic growth
James Gustave Speth, environmental NGO founder, environmental litigator, former think tank head, former
environmental advisor to Jimmy Carter, former US Agency for International Development head, 2008 “The Bridge
at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability” Yale University
Press Pg 59
“Competition thus compels the owners of each business to invest (rather than consume) most of the profits they
make. . . . The process of investment as part of competition for profits is called accumulation. ... “Thus, if a firm is not making a
profit, it cannot grow: zero profit means zero growth. And if a firm does not grow, others that do grow will soon
outpace it. In a capitalist economy, survival requires growth, and growth requires profits. This is capitalism’s law of
the survival of the fittest, analogous to Charles Darwin’s notion of the evolution of species through natural selection. In the capitalist
version, Darwin’s idea of fitness—success in producing offspring—becomes success in making profits. “Capitalism is
differentiated from other economic systems by its drive to accumulate, its predisposition toward change, and its builtin tendency to expand” 25
B) Growth makes space travel possible
Nader Elhefnawy, taught at the University of Miami, published widely on space and international issues,
Monday, September 29, 2008, “Economic growth and space development over the long haul”
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1220/1
Nonetheless, even if one should not get carried away by seemingly staggering numbers, the fact of higher
output still means an enlarged range of options. Just as China’s economic growth has made its new
ambitions in space more than just a dream (even if many of its plans have yet to prove to be realistic), a
space project of any given size would seem far more affordable in a world where global wealth had
risen by a factor of two, three, or five.
C) Space is key to preventing extinction
James Oberg, space writer and a former space flight engineer based in Houston, 1999, Space Power Theory,
http://www.jamesoberg.com/books/spt/new-CHAPTERSw_figs.pdf
We have the great gift of yet another period when our nation is not threatened; and our world is free from
opposing coalitions with great global capabilities. We can use this period to take our nation and our fellow
men into the greatest adventure that our species has ever embarked upon. The United States can lead, protect,
and help the rest of [hu]mankind to move into space. It is particularly fitting that a country comprised of
people from all over the globe assumes that role. This is a manifest destiny worthy of dreamers and poets,
warriors and conquerors. In his last book, Pale Blue Dot, Carl Sagan presents an emotional argument that our
species must venture into the vast realm of space to establish a spacefaring civilization. While
acknowledging the very high costs that are involved in manned spaceflight, Sagan states that our very
survival as a species depends on colonizing outer space. Astronomers have already identified dozens of
asteroids that might someday smash into Earth. Undoubtedly, many more remain undetected. In
Sagan’s opinion, the only way to avert inevitable catastrophe is for mankind to establish a permanent
human presence in space. He compares humans to the planets that roam the night sky, as he says that
humans will too wander through space. We will wander space because we possess a compulsion to explore,
and space provides a truly infinite prospect of new directions to explore. Sagan’s vision is part science and
part emotion. He hoped that the exploration of space would unify humankind. We propose that mankind
follow the United States and our allies into this new sea, set with jeweled stars. If we lead, we can be both
strong and caring. If we step back, it may be to the detriment of more than our country.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
77
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
AFF Cards
Whitman College
WNDI 09
78
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
Patriarchy Internals 1/3
Patriarchy causes massive gender inequality, job discrimination, physical abuse, and
verbal abuse
Rational Decider 08 [10/07/2008 http://blogs.uct.ac.za/blog/rational-decider/2008/10/07/effects-of-patriarchy]
Sexism by definition is discrimination by members of one sex against the other, especially by men against
women, based on the assumption that one sex is superior. It regards women as inherently inferior
intellectually, psychologically, and physically to man. This view, is shared by both men and women, and has
historically shaped institutions of world society. It has been continued through the cultural modification of
groups of people through prolonged and continuous interaction involving intercultural exchange of
generations of children with resulting differences between the sexes. On-job sexual discrimination such as
low-level work experience caused by traditional sexist viewpoints has hindered allot of female job
promotion. Women with the same qualifications as a man that applied for a job would be turned down
based on the simple fact that they are a woman. Prior to the Women's movement women were constantly
discriminated against in this manner. Sexual discrimination still exists but its occurrence has drastically
reduced, subtle discrimination is however, still quite prevalent in our society. Salary is one aspect of this
still present discrimination, a vast majority of women employed in the work force today receive less of a
paycheck for the same amount of hours worked on the same jobs as men. This is reinforced by the low
number of women who have a high paying, high powered job. There are a significantly higher number of
women who have little or no power in decision making and earn a low salary. The women that do get
promoted are often the subjects of rumor and remarks made in poor taste. Men just can't stand to see they're
egos shattered and so they lash out against the woman with authority. They demean her position and make it
seem less important or trivial. All of this does hurt female self-esteem and is just one of the ways sexism
hurts women. Women are not just harassed verbally but physically. "As in the movie Flashdance, the male
employer comes on to the female employee. In lawsuits, such "coming on" is considered sexual harassment;
by definition it is considered a misuse of his power. When she resists and he persists, as in both the movie
and the Harlequin formula, it is an even clearer form of sexual harassment." In many cases if a woman does
not give in to a man's sexual advances she stands the chance of losing her job! This was the tendency and in
many instances still is the tendency of many men who have authority over women. Sexism runs rampant in
every facet of our society. It even reached the Presidency a number of times and the Supreme Court.Women
in many instances have to be very cautious as to what they wear to work. If they're employer finds them
attractive it could mean a sexist advance or two. Any woman has to be on her guard against traditional sexist
men. "If femininity got lost in the pursuit of independence, a woman would lose power (because real power
means having control over one's life), which is having the option to work and not to lose one's gentler side."
Sexist tendencies don't just abuse women in the work place but also at home. The traditional sexist view of a
head of any household is the man. When this idea is threatened, it is as if their masculinity were being
stripped away. Physical violence is sometimes caused by a sexist man who feels as though he has to reclaim
his home. This is the type of man that feels women should be kept underfoot.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
79
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
Patriarchy hides itself in innocent intentions, but leads to violence, colonialism, and
tyranny
JOHN WATERS The Irish Times July 25, 1995 “Open the flood gates, wash away the sins of patriarchy”
(http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/search/homesubmitForm.do)
The stories of abuse we read in our newspapers ore but the tip of this iceberg. The truth is that the modern
family is utterly dysfunctional. Violence which does not take the form of physical or sexual abuse finds
its outlet in emotional torture and wounding, machismo, denial of feeling and - in a wider, societal sense
- colonialism, rationalism, materialism, and countless other destructive conditions, all of which serve
the culture of patriarchy that governs every facet of our lives. And this is not merely the happen-stance
option that history has served up. This way of living has triumphed by eliminating the possibility of any
alternative. The logic of patriarchy has infected every aspect of modern life, destroying the possibility of
true love between human beings. Being based on the most negative view of human nature, it relies primarily
on fear, the antithesis of love. The tyranny of patriarchy may disguise itself as paternalism, friendship,
even as affection, but it is always there, a malign twitch just below the surface of everything. Violence
is patriarchy's only means of survival, and this violence has always been a feature of what we call
civilised society, an unspoken and invisible lubricant of everyday life. It ricochets through the
generations, transmuting and camouflaging itself according to the exigencies and pressures of the moment.
The traumatised victims of damaged relationships are let loose in the world to mate with other victims of
tyranny and violence, so as to create more victims to carry the process forward. THE change we have been
observing in recent times has been the laying bare of the reality of this culture as never before. We tend to
perceive what we in Ireland call liberalism as a break merely with community and family values - in
truth, its main role has been to confront the spectre of patriarchy with an anger almost childlike,
demanding freedom from its tyranny. The initial demands have been angry and, occasionally, unclear, and
this has allowed the vested interest of what is incorrectly known as "traditionalism" to reassert itself with dire
warnings about the floodgates being opened. But what if the disintegration we now perceive in family
structures is actually a posilible form of disintegration? This could well mean that, contrary to the apocalyptic
visions of "traditionalists", what we describe as the liberal era is not the final destination but a transitional
phase on the journey to a more enlightened form of living in our societies and families. In this new era, it
may prove possible to forge relationships based on love and compassion, rather than on violence and
fear. In the meantime, perhaps we require a period of purging the effects of the old culture. For a few
generations, perhaps our societies need the freedom to choose as many options as they can dream about. to
expunge the effects of centuries of damage and arrive at a more natural way of living. Thus, divorce would
become part of a purifying process, allowing our societies to ring the changes of love's possibilities. In the
short-term. this "opening of the floodgates" would indeed be traumatic. But who is to say that the pain
caused by this positive disintegration would not be a great deal less traumatic than the hidden pain
which currently infects every crevice of our society.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
80
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
The Armor of Patriarchy must be removed piece by piece to end this Era of anger,
domination and fear
BRUCE MCLEOD, The Toronto Star, December 4, 19 92 “A worthy dent in male armor”
(http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7049569881&
format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7049569884&cisb=22_T7049569883&t
reeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8286&docNo=1)
THREE YEARS past the Montreal tragedy, huge photographs of powerful men still dominate the panelled
boardroom of a downtown bank. I'm wondering if those men are wearing white ribbons this week. I've
described them before. They're costumed in the armor of success: chins raised, slight smiles, eyes gazing
forward - posed competence unambiguously displayed. These confident faces never wake anxious in the
night. Vulnerability? It's air-brushed away. Not to centre them out. Most men wear armor. We regularly
parade competence in resumes and photographs. Vulnerability's not for public baring; chins out, we
handle it ourselves. We learned that young. (The soccer ball catapults into the 8-year-old's stomach.
He whirls instinctively, grabs his middle, bent in pain; eyes filling, his mouth contorts where no one
can see. Controlling himself, masking hurt, he returns to the game, armor still intact.) But the armor's
just external. Vulnerability caged inside eventually (as close women and children know) bursts out;
sometimes distortedly. The most frequent abusers aren't madmen in corridors, but fathers and other powerful
men. The context of Marc Lepine's woman-killing madness, recalled this week like a bad dream, is a world
still dominated by men in armor. Men in boardrooms sitting beneath their own pictures. Men in blue
suits holding 86 per cent of parliamentary seats. Men paying women less for jobs they do for more.
Men strutting to war. Men watching John Wayne movies before football games. Men teaching little
boys to win and never cry. Men donning heavy armor ever day. Men exhausted at night, clutching the
TV zapper expecting women to jump and run. The system's called patriarchy. Men in control. Control
of our structures. And of our language. Say "fireman" enough you'll be surprised to see a woman
firefighter. Talk about your "girl" in the office enough, you'll be surprised when she stops fetching coffee.
Design high school girls' Phys Ed space consistently smaller than boys', you'll be surprised to find a woman
goalie in the NHL. Sing hymns like "Rise up, O men of God," you'll be surprised to see a woman priest.
Patriarchy exacts a heavy cost. Women's and children's gifts are ignored; instead they pay the price of
male frustration. Daily they're dominated, raged at, beaten, sexually assaulted and killed by men in
heavy armor; if not in mad and random acts, in perpetuating the context in which those acts occur. It's time
for men to dissociate themselves from this murderous system. It's time for judges, teachers, managers,
coaches, parents to take courses in patriarchy and its effects. Not as options if they feel like it, but
mandatory comprehensive courses. It's time to teach children that real men are those strong enough to stand
against a system that's murdering women's futures, and not just women's; inside our heavy armor, men are
dying too. No one said wearing a white ribbon is enough. It's no substitute for the dismantling of
demeaning structures and attitudes. For some it may be an easy mask for continuing insensitivity and
abuse. For others, though, it's a start, even a courageous one. One man debated Tuesday wearing a
ribbon on his raincoat which he could hang hidden in the cupboard, or on his jacket where it'd be seen
all day. He left it on his jacket. Consciously, he removed some armor. Marc Lepine wouldn't understand
that . . . Men encased in boardroom photographs perhaps won't notice till they're left behind. But that man's
ribbon is dawn streak for a day that's coming where men and women respect each other, and no one is
afraid.
Whitman College
WNDI 09
81
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
Aff Framework
A. Interpretation: the aff should win if the topical plan is the best policy option in the
debate. The neg should win if the plan is proven worse than the status quo or a policy
option competitive with the plan.
B. Standards
1) Plan focus – our framework ensures a stable locus for links and the comparison of
alternatives. Alternative frameworks which do not ensure that the plan is the starting-point
of the debate make confusion and judge intervention inevitable.
2) Ground – there is an infinite number of unpredictable K frameworks, K links, and K
impacts. Forcing the aff to debate in whatever framework the neg picks moots eight
minutes of our speech time. Because the K could literally be about anything, their so-called
framework destroys aff ground because we can never predict what we’ll have to compare
our plan to. Even if there’s some ground for us to respond to their arg, it’s not good or
predictable and losing the 1AC puts us at an inherent disadvantage.
3) Topic-specific education – only debates about the plan translate into education about the
topic. There would be no reason to switch topics every year if not for plan-focus debate. K
frameworks encourage ultra-generics like the ‘state bad’ K that are stale and
uneducational.
C. Voter for fairness and education
Policy famework is best
Tobin 02 [James Tobin, Landmark Paper in Macroeconomics (Foundations of 20th Century Economics) 2002]
Economists concerned with aggregative policy spend a great deal of their time discussing the implications of
various structural changes for the effectiveness of economic policy. In recent years, for example, monetary
economists have debated at great length whether the rapid growth of nonbank financial intermediaries has
lessened the effectiveness of conventional instruments of monetary control. Similarly, in discussions of the
desirability of the addition or removal of specific financial regulations the consequences for the
effectiveness of policy play an important role. One of the striking features of many of these discussions
is the absence of any clear notion of what “effectiveness” is. At times it appears to be simply “bang per
buck”—how large a change in some crucial variable (e.g., the long-term bond rate) results from a given
change in a policy variable (e.g., open market operation). A natural question to ask is why halving the
effectiveness in this sense should not be met simply by doubling the dose of policy, with equivalent results.
It seems reasonable to suppose that the consequences of a structural change for the effectiveness of policy
should be related to how it affects the policy-maker’s performance in meeting his objective. Su8ppose, for
example, that the policy-maker finds he is able to score higher on his utility function, then presumably the
structural change has improved the effectiveness of policy and vice versa. One of the implications of the
“theory of policy” in a world of certainty [6] or “certainty equivalence” [1] [3] [4] [5] is that structural
changes which simply alter the magnitude of the response to policy do not alter the attainable utility level.
Hence such structural changes do not alter effectiveness in the above sense. Another feature of the theory of
policy in a world of certainty is that a policy-maker
Whitman College
WNDI 09
82
Paul/Nick Aff Addendum
D Dev
(note: Don’t read this if you have a poverty advantage)
Economic collapse is a good thing it allows us to restructure our economy and prevent
environmental destruction.
Grant Lawrence, education and health counselor, February 19, 2009, The Good News of Economic Collapse,
accessed July 25, 2009, http://www.opednews.com/author/author19590.html
The good people of my former rust belt home are suffering through a terrible economic collapse. The true
unemployment in some of those areas are already reaching Great Depression levels. But in all of the doom and
gloom of modern life. A beaver is able to find its way back home to a once filthy dirty polluted river. One day, when
our corporate and financial masters have been replaced by a humane economic "green" society, there will be
industry and sanity. The best and the brightest minds of the world will use their skills to replace the oil based
economy that presently exists because of the tremendous monopoly profits that come from a 19th century
technology. The Beaver of the Detroit River is a symbol of an end of an era. An end to the dirty technologies that
have killed so many and have caused so much suffering to the life of the rust belt. But it could also represent a
beginning in an understanding that humanity is a part of nature and has a responsibility to nature. Humanity can use
the opportunity of economic collapse to redesign its economy and its society from a consumption and greed based
system into a giving and need based society. When we begin to understand some of the great minds of the world and
their message for humanity, then the world will turn from defiling their own natural homes for profit.
Environmental destruction from our current economy will result in an uninhabitable
planet.
Edward Goldsmith, editor of The Ecologist magazine from its foundation in 1969 until 1990, A founder of
The Ecology Party (which became the Green Party) , and Jerry Mander, director of the International Forum
on Globalization, and the program director for Megatechnology and Globalization at the Foundation for Deep
Ecology, June 2001, "Global Trade and the Environment", http://www.edwardgoldsmith.com/page47.html
By now, it should be clear that our environment is becoming ever less capable of sustaining the growing
impact of our economic activities. Everywhere our forests are overlogged, our agricultural lands
overcropped, our grasslands overgrazed, our wetlands overdrained, our groundwaters overtapped, our seas
overfished, and just about the whole terrestrial and marine environment overpolluted with chemical and
radioactive poisons. Worse still, if that is possible, our atmospheric environment is becoming ever less
capable of absorbing either the ozone-depleting gases or the greenhouse gases generated by our economic
activities without creating new climatic conditions to which we cannot indefinitely adapt. In such conditions,
there can be only one way of maintaining the habitability of our planet and that is by setting out methodically
to reduce this impact. Unfortunately, it is the overriding goal of just about every government in the world to
maximize world trade and create a global economy - which has now been institutionalized with the signing of
the GATT Uruguay Round Agreement. To increase trade is justified because it is seen to be the most
effective way of increasing economic development, which we equate with progress, and which in terms of
the world-view of modernism, is made out to provide a means of creating a material and technological
paradise on Earth, from which all the problems that have confronted us since the beginning of our tenancy of
this planet will have been methodically eliminated. Unfortunately, economic development, by its very
nature, must necessarily further increase the impact of our economic activities on the environment. This
could not be better illustrated than by the terrible environmental destruction that has occurred in Taiwan and
South Korea, the two principal newly industrial countries (NICS) that in the last decades have achieved the
most stunning rates of economic growth, and that are currently held up as models for all Third World
countries to emulate.