<File Name>
DDI 2012
T
A. Interpretation:
Less than 10% is insubstantial
Mickels 8
(Alissa, JD Candidate – Hastings College of Law, “Summary of Existing US Law Affecting Fourth Sector
Organizations”, 7-17, http://www.fourthsector.net/attachments/7/original/Summary_of_US_Law_Affecting_
FS.pdf?1229493187)
Substantial v. insubstantial: Modern courts consider competition with commercial firms as “strong evidence of a substantial
nonexempt purpose.” Living Faith, Inc. v. Comm’r, 60 T.C.M. 710, 713 (1990). Although the tax court has held that the definition of
insubstantial is fact specific, it has found that less than ten percent of a charity’s total efforts is “insubstantial”, World Family Corp.
v. Comm’r, 78 T.C. 921 (1982), where as unrelated business activity generating one-third of an organizations revenue does not qualify
for tax-exempt status. Orange County Agric. Soc’y, Inc. v. Comm’r, 55 T.C.M. 1602, 1604 (1988), aff’d 893 F.2d 647 (2d Cir. 1990).
However, this may be changing after an increasing emphasis on commensurate test.
Transportation bill means total federal spending is 95.9 billion
Washington Policy Center 12
(“CBO releases summary cost estimate of federal transportation bill”, June, 29, 2012, http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/blog/post/cboreleases-summary-cost-estimate-federal-transportation-bill) aw
CBO estimates that implementing the legislation also would lead to discretionary spending of $95.9 billion over the
2013-2017 period (see Table 2); such spending would be subject to future appropriation actions. Of that amount, the
spending on transportation programs would total $94.3 billion, which reflects estimated obligation levels for 2013 and 2014
that are approximately equal to the obligation levels for 2012, adjusted for inflation.
B. Violation: The affirmative does not increase spending by more than 9.59 billion
C. Standards
Limits – justifies hundreds of affs slightly modifying infrastructure
Ground – allows the aff to spike out of most core arguments by say they don’t spend enough
money
D. Voter for fairness and education
1
<File Name>
DDI 2012
Security
Infrastructure implies massive social exclusion – improvements only ever work to the advantage
of the socially advantaged, and are employed to sterlize the city of unwanted elements
Levente Polyak, Vanderbilt University, 2009[“Turning the invisible visible Art, Architecture and the Unconscious
Infrastructures of Cities In: Island, Synchronicity. Fondacja Bez Zmiana http://polyaklevente.net/wpcontent/uploads/2010/10/Turning-the-invisible-visible.pdf] MW
Infrastructure is the link between the built environment and nature: it organises the access to nature’s
resources, channeling its energies to satisfy the everyday needs of modern society. Parallelly to discussions of
the „good urban form,“ arguments of infrastructure have accompanied and informed planners, architects
and politicians in the construction of the modern city. The notion of infrastructure had long been dominated by
discourses of hygiene that treated the city as a body. In the 19th century Paris, for instance, the city’s functioning was often
described by metaphors of „health“, masking class-oriented developments by using the absolute argument of „sanity“
(which shares its transcendent status with „nature“ in these discourses). Sanitery arguments prevailed also throughout the
20th century, in slum clearances and urban renewal projects, failing to recognise the specifcity of local situations.
Expanding the body metaphore, cyber theories also highlighted infrastructure as en extension of the body, linking this latter
to a large-scale social and metabolic system. As Michel Foucault reminds us, the organisation of the modern city
is partly a procedure of sterilisation. 28 Just as the Carthesian body that is controlled by Reason, the modern city
must be deprived of its dysfunctional and unwanted elements. 29 The sick and the disposed are separated from the
functioning world in a way that implies that they become invisible. Delegating the useless into the
invisible, disposing waste into the river or leading it into the incomprehensible urban underworld of
pipelines and treatment systems, is like pushing the undesirable back into the unconscious of the city. For
the Modern Movement, infrastructure represented modernity and rationality. „The reference to
infrastructures links to an immemorial past where physical experience prevailed over linguistic
constructions, where emotion and reason were not separated yet and where the evidences of a shared experience
cemented better the human collectivities than rhetorics of public interest,“ recalls Antoine Pinçon. 30 Grandiose
modernist projects such as higways, dams, public work projects all drew their legitimity from an urbanism
seen as science that undertook the task of rationalising space. As Kazys Varnelis writes: „the city’s modernity
became nearly equivalent to its infrastructure, as evident in Hausmann’s reconstruction of Paris, the ultra-real technological
landscapes of Tony Garnier’s Cité Industrielle, or the wild, electric fantasies of Antonio Sant’Elia’s Citta Nouva. (…) With
the massive burst of infrastructure building under Roosevelt’s New Deal, Americans came to believe that functionalism and
technology would lead them to economic prosperity.“ 31 After the exhaustion of large-scale state-led construction projects
throughout the developed world in the decades after World War II, emerging ecological concerns led infrastructure to be
reevaluated. Its monumentality found itself in contradiction with a desire of mobility, and the necessity to reconciliate the
technological progress and the natural elements was gradually recognised. 32 Parallelly to the triumph of megastructures,
the ecologism of Buckminster Fuller and the radical architecture of Germano Celant both aimed to integrate the
technological networks into the nature, to create a world disposed of architecture. This is a vision where „due to the control
of environment by energy (artifcial currents, thermal gates, radiations, etc.) the dams, the canals, the large climatic
envelopes, all the large-scale infrastructures disappear.“ 33 This is a context where the visibility of infrastructures becomes
a choice: when Richard Rogers and Renzo Piano conceive the Centre Pompidou in Paris, they choose to make
infrastructures visible. „To understand the technical systems that support a society – roads, bridges, water supply,
wastewater, food management, telecommunications, gas and electric lines – as one category, it was frst necessary to see it
fail,“ writes Kazys Varnelis in a special issue of Volume, dealing with the architecture of crisis. 34 He continues on his
website: „It's true that infrastructure was once the least sexy of topics, a term barely used in English as late as the 1960s, but
(…) it spread widely after the publication of America in Ruins, co-authored by economist Pat Choate and Susan Walters.
(…) Over the next two decades, infrastructure continued to rise in the public eye, in large part because, as our book points
out, it is in a state of constant failure. This is something that virtually all of us experience. (…) As humans and objects
interact ever more directly, the lives of these systems become more and more important.” 35
Infrastructure is not neutral but political, and a key to understanding its anatomy is visibility. In the society
of risk, where our dependence of technological networks otherwise taken for granted (electricity and water supply,
elevators, air-conditioning, etc.) is only revealed by crises, and when the hidden scarcity of resources only comes to the
fore when it comes to the privatisation of public companies, a way to repoliticise infrastructure, that is to resituate it
2
<File Name>
DDI 2012
into its social and environmental context, is to make it visible. This is exactly what the works exhibited in New York’s
Center for Architecture this summer do.
Reject the affirmative’s complicity with biopolitics. As specific intellectuals, we should endorse a
mode of politics which functions through analysis and criticism of specific situations.
Owen 97 (David Owen, professor of social sciences at Southampton University, “Maturity and Modernity: Nietszche, Weber,
Foucault and the ambivalence of reason,” Routledge publishers, published July 22, 1997)
In our reflections on Foucault’s methodology, it was noted that, like Nietszche and Weber, he commits himself to a stance
of value-freedom as an engaged refusal to legislate for others. Foucault’s critical activity is oriented to human autonomy
yet his formal account of the idea of autonomy as the activity of self-transformation entails tat the content of this activity is specific
to the struggles of particular groups and individuals. Thus, while the struggle against humanist forms of power/knowledge
relations denotes the formal archiectonic interest of genealogy as critique, the determination of the ‘main danger’ which
denotes the ‘filling in’ of this interest is contingent upon the dominant systems of constraint confronted by specific groups and
individuals. For example, the constitution of women as ‘hysterical,’ of blacks as ‘criminal,’ of homosexuals as ‘perverted’
all operate through humanist forms of power/knowledge relations, yet the specificity of the social practices and discourses
engaged in producing these ‘identities’ entails that while these struggles share a general formal interest in resisting the
biopolitics of humanism, their substantive interests are distinct. It is against this context that Foucault’s stance of valuefreedom can be read as embodying a respect for alterity. The implications of this stance for intellectual practice became apparent in
Foucault’s distinction between the figures of the ‘universal’ and ‘specific’ intellectual. Consider the following comments: In a
general way, I think that intellectuals-if this category exists, which is not certain or perhaps even desirable- are
abandoning their old prophetic function. And by that I don’t mean only their claim to predict what will happen, but also
the legislative function that they so long aspired for: ‘See what must be done, see what is good, follow me. In the turmoil
that engulfs you all, here is the pivotal point, here is where I am.’ The greek wise man, the jewish prophet, the roman
legislators are still models that haunt those who, today, practice the profession of speaking and writing. The universal
intellectual, on Foucault’s account, is that figure who maintains a commitment to critique as a legislative activity in which the
pivotal positing of universal norms (or universal procedures for generating norms) grounds politics in the ‘truth; of our being
(e.g. our ‘real’ interests). The problematic form of this type of intellectual practice is a central concern of Foucault’s
critique of humanist politics in so far as humanism simultaneously asserts and undermines autonomy. If, however, this is
the case, what alternative conceptions of the role of the intellectual and the activity of critique can Foucault present to us?
Foucault’s elaboration of the figure of the ‘specific’ intellectual provides the beginnings of an answer to this question: I
dream of the intellectual who destroys evidence and generalities, the one who, in the inertias and constraints of the present time,
locates and marks the weak points, the openings, the lines of force, who is incessantly on the move, doesn’t know exactly where
he is heading nor what he will think tomorrow for he is too attentive to the present. The historicity of thought, the impossibility of
locating an Archimedean point outside of time, leads Foucault to locate intellectual activity as an ongoing attentiveness to the
present in terms of what is singular and arbitrary in what we take to be universal and necessary. Following from this, the
intellectual does not seek to offer grand theories but specific analyses, not global but local criticism. We should be clear on the
latter point for it is necessary to acknowledge that Foucault’s position does not entail the impossibility of ‘acceding to a point of
view that could give us access to any complete and definitive knowledge of what may constitute our historical limits’ and,
consequently, ‘ we are always in the position of beginning again’ (FR p. 47). The upshot of this recognition of the partial
character of criticism is not, however, to produce an ethos of fatal resignation but, in far as it involves a recognition that everything is
dangerous, ‘a hyper-and pessimistic activism’ (FR p. 343). In other words, it is the very historicity and partiality of criticism
which bestows on the activity of critique its dignity and urgency. What of this activity then? We can sketch the Foucault
account of the activity of critique by coming to grips with the opposition he draws between ‘ideal’ critique and ‘real’
transformation. Foucault suggests that the activity of critique ‘is not a matter of saying that things are not right as they are’ but
rather ‘of pointing out what kinds of assumptions, what kinds of familiar, unchallenged, uncontested modes of thought and practices
we accept rest’ (PPC p. 154). This distinction is perhaps slightly disingenuous, yet Foucault’s point is unintelligible if we
recognize his concern to disclose the epistemological grammar which informs our social practices as the starting point of
critique. This emerges in his recognition that ‘criticism (and radical criticism) is absolutely indispensable for any
transformation’: A transformation that remains within the same mode of thought, a transformation that is only a way of adjusting the
same thought more closely to the reality of things can merely be a superficial transformation. (PPC p. 155) The genealogical thrust
of this critical activity is ‘to show that things are not as self-evident as one believed, to see that what is accepted as selfevident is no longer accepted as such’ for ‘as soon as one can no longer think things as one formerly thought them,
transformation becomes both very urgent, very difficult, and quite possible’ (PPC p. 155). The urgency of transformation
derives from the contestation of thought (and the social practices in which it is embedded) as the form of our autonomy, although this
3
<File Name>
DDI 2012
urgency is given its specific character for modern culture by the recognition that the humanist grammar of this thought ties
us into the technical matrix of biopolitics.
4
<File Name>
DDI 2012
Elections
Obama will win --- presidential polling is a good indicator.
Constitution Daily, 7/20/2012 (Historic poll trends give edge to Obama, p.
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/07/historic-poll-trends-give-edge-to-obama/)
A review of presidential polling data back to 1948 shows that Barack Obama’s edge in the latest Gallup poll is a positive sign for
his re-election chances . But in two past recent elections, candidates with bigger leads than Obama lost hotly contested
elections, after their opponents used hard-hitting tactics. Since 1948, candidates who led in early to mid-July polling have won
13 of 16 presidential races in November. Two of the winning candidates who trailed in the mid-summer polls were George
W. Bush in 2004 and George H.W. Bush in 1988. Both candidates used aggressive ad campaigns to capitalize on missteps
by front runners John Kerry and Michael Dukakis to win the fall election. Recently, some GOP supporters have urged
Mitt Romney to adopt harsher attacks on Obama, including more ads that attack Obama’s character and policies. In the
most recent Gallup poll, President Obama holds a 47 percent to 45 percent lead over challenger Romney. The third candidate to
overcome a mid-summer frontrunner was Harry Truman, who used an old-fashioned grassroots campaign to get past
Thomas Dewey in 1948. In two of those three cases, George W. Bush and Truman had “the power of the pulpit” as the
incumbent president as an extra way to generate campaign publicity. Also, in 1988 George H.W. Bush was the sitting vice
president. ROMNEY MAY NEED TO FIGHT TOUGH But if history is any guide , Romney will have to fight his way past
the mid-summer frontrunner.
Spending kills support from independent voters
The Associated Press 5/27/12
(“”US debt, spending loom large as issues for independent voters”, http://azstarnet.com/news/national/govt-andpolitics/us-debt-spending-loom-large-as-issues-for-independent-voters/article_4007570b-43f7-5b88-9f741f059ec132e4.html) chip
WASHINGTON - Government spending and debt are emerging as a campaign tug-of-war, with Republican Mitt
Romney blaming President Obama for a "prairie fire of debt" and Obama calling the charge a "cowpie of distortion." Both
candidates are reaching for independent voters anxious about who's going to get stuck with the bill.¶ Spending
and debt now rank as high on the worry scale as lack of jobs. And it has direct appeal to independents who could
decide the election in about a half-dozen states being heavily contested by both campaigns.¶ In turning attention to
debt, Republicans are tapping a winning issue they used in congressional races two years ago. Republican pollster Wes
Anderson said that just before the 2010 elections, congressional campaigns shifted "from jobs and economy to
government taking us over the cliff." The emphasis proved to be successful at the ballot box as Republicans grabbed
control of the House, captured Senate seats and won in state races.¶ These days, the economy remains the pre-eminent
issue in voters' minds, but Anderson says middle-of-the-road votes are the targets of the big government message.¶
Obama has taken a populist tone on reforming Wall Street and taxing corporations and the wealthy. But his defensive
crouch on debt and spending reflect a hard reality: Polls consistently show voters, including sought-after independents,
placing more trust in Romney to handle the debt.
A close uniqueness debate magnifies the importance of the link --- independent voters are swing
close elections.
Kaufman, 4/13/2012 (Stephen, Who Are America’s Independent Voters? Why Are They Crucial?, International
Information Program Digital, p.
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/article/2012/04/201204133847.html#axzz1sqNkxizT)
5
<File Name>
DDI 2012
The United States may have a political system dominated by two parties, Republican and Democratic, but according to a
recent poll, more Americans identify themselves as being independent rather than belonging to either party, and the
historical record has shown that independents tend to sway the outcome of U.S. elections . According to a Gallup
Poll released in January, the number of Americans identifying themselves as independent rose to 40 percent, the highest
level ever measured by Gallup, followed by Democrats and Republicans with 31 percent and 27 percent, respectively. But
according to Tara McGuinness, a senior vice president at the Washington-based public policy research and advocacy
group Center for American Progress, the apparent surge in the number of independents does not mean that most votes
in the November presidential election between President Obama and his probable opponent, former Massachusetts
Governor Mitt Romney, are undecided. Speaking at the Washington Foreign Press Center April 13, McGuinness said
perhaps half of independents actually lean toward one of the two parties. In reality, she said, only about 15 percent of
American voters are truly independent, voting sometimes for Democrats and sometimes for Republicans, and they are
statistically less likely to vote than their partisan counterparts. U.S. presidential elections are often very close in terms of
the popular vote. In 2008, President Obama beat Arizona Senator John McCain with 52.9 percent of the popular vote,
compared to 45.7 percent for McCain. That figure closely resembles the fact that Obama won 52 percent of independent
voters, compared with 44 percent for McCain. “As independents go, frequently elections go ,” McGuinness said.
“Especially in close elections , you could not win … [by] simply targeting independent voters, but frequently you
cannot win an election without targeting some independent voters.”
Romney election results in Iran strikes --- Obama reelection defuses the situation with diplomacy
Daily Kos, 4/16/2012 (President Obama versus Romney on Iran, p. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/16/1083726/President-Obama-versus-Romney-on-Iran)
3. Approach to foreign policy: Romney says he will “not apologize” for America and advocates a return to the Bush cowboy
“my way or the highway” approach to dealing with other nations. When John Bolton is an endorser, that scares me. To me,
however the biggest contrast is their approach to Iran. Binyamin Netanyahu by all accounts is a hawk who is pushing the
U nited S tates to bomb Iran and has been doing so for a long time. He appears to see no need for negotiation. Granted, he
has a right to protect his nation if he believes that its under threat. However, we all know how flawed the “intelligence”
was for the Iraq war. And its important to let negotiations play out as far as possible before rushing to war, which would have
many unintended consequences for years to come. (See the Iraq war). Here’s the big difference. Here’s Netanyahu’s
recent response to the ongoing P5+1 talks: http://news.yahoo.com/... Netanyahu -- whose government has not ruled out a
preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities -- earlier said however that Tehran had simply bought itself some extra time
to comply. "My initial impression is that Iran has been given a 'freebie'," Netanyahu said during talks with visiting US
Senator Joe Lieberman, the premier's office reported. "It has got five weeks to continue enrichment without any limitation,
any inhibition. I think Iran should take immediate steps to stop all enrichment, take out all enrichment material and
dismantle the nuclear facility in Qom," he said. "I believe that the world's greatest practitioner of terrorism must not have
the opportunity to develop atomic bombs," he said. Here’s President Obama’s response yesterday to Netanyahu (in a
response to a journalist's question) at the press conference in Cartagena: But Obama refuted that statement, saying "The
notion that we've given something away or a freebie would indicate that Iran has gotten something." "In fact, they got the
toughest sanctions that they're going to be facing coming up in a few months if they don't take advantage of those talks. I hope
they do," Obama said. "The clock is ticking and I've been very clear to Iran and our negotiating partners that we're not
going to have these talks just drag out in a stalling process," Obama told reporters after an Americas summit in
Colombia."But so far at least we haven't given away anything -- other than the opportunity for us to negotiate," he said.
Obama in conjunction with world powers is negotiating with Iran, trying to prevent a needless war . You can be sure that
Mitt Romney would bow to his buddy Netanyahu and attack Iran . He has previously said “We will not have an inch of
difference between ourselves and Israel”. As he also said in a debate, before making any decision regarding Israel, he will call
his friend Bibi. Bottom line, if somehow the American people elect Mitt Romney, expect more of the bombastic , Bush
cowboy approach to foreign policy with a more than likely bombardment of Iran . If the American people are not fooled
by this charlatan and they reelect Barack Obama, he will continue in his measured way to deal with the threats around the
world, quietly, through the use of negotiation, and force if absolutely necessary, but only as a last resort, without bragging, and
scaring the American people with needless terrorism alerts.
6
<File Name>
DDI 2012
Iran strikes escalates to a nuclear world war.
Chossudovsky, 12/26/2011 (Michel, Preparing to attack Iran with Nuclear Weapons, Global Research, p.
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28355)
An attack on Iran would have devastating consequences, It would unleash an all out regional war from the Eastern
Mediterranean to Central Asia, potentially leading humanity into a World War III Scenario. The Obama Administration
constitutes a nuclear threat. NATO constitutes a nuclear threat Five European "non-nuclear states" (Germany, Italy,
Belgium, Netherlands, Turkey) with tactical nuclear weapons deployed under national command, to be used against Iran
constitute a nuclear threat. The Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not only constitutes a nuclear
threat, but also a threat to the security of people of Israel, who are misled regarding the implications of an US-Israeli
attack on Iran. The complacency of Western public opinion --including segments of the US anti-war movement-- is
disturbing. No concern has been expressed at the political level as to the likely consequences of a US-NATO-Israel attack on
Iran, using nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state. Such an action would result in "the unthinkable": a nuclear holocaust
over a large part of the Middle East.
CP
CP Text: The 50 states should substantially increase its cycling transportation infrastructure
investment
Devolving transportation to the states solves bike lanes
[Daniel Horowitz, Deputy Political Director at the Madison Project, contributing editor to the Red State, 1/19/12, Red State,
http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2012/01/19/devolve-transportation-spending-to-states/, “Devolve Transportation Spending to the
States.”]
One of the numerous legislative deadlines that Congress will be forced to confront this session is the expiration of the 8th short-term
extension of the 2005 surface transportation authorization law (SAFETEA-LU). With federal transportation spending growing
beyond its revenue source, an imbalance between donor and recipient states, inefficient and superfluous
construction projects popping up all over the country, and burdensome mass transit mandates on states, it is time to
inject some federalism into transportation spending.¶ ¶ Throughout the presidential campaign, many of the candidates have
expressed broad views of state’s rights, while decrying the expansion of the federal government. In doing so, some of the candidates
have expressed the conviction that states have the right to implement tyranny or pick winners and losers, as long as the federal
government stays out of it. Romneycare and state subsidies for green energy are good examples. The reality is that states don’t have
rights; they certainly don’t have the power to impose tyranny on citizens by forcing them to buy health insurance or regulating the
water in their toilet bowels – to name a few. They do, however, reserve powers under our federalist system of governance to
implement legitimate functions of government. A quintessential example of such a legitimate power is control over
transportation and infrastructure spending.¶ ¶ The Highway Trust Fund was established in 1956 to fund the Interstate
Highway System (IHS). The fund, which is administered by the DOT’s Federal Highway Administration, has been purveyed by the
federal gasoline tax, which now stands at 18.4 cents per gallon (24.4 for diesel fuel). Beginning in 1983, Congress began siphoning off
some of the gas tax revenue for the great liberal sacred cow; the urban mass transit system. Today, mass transit receives $10.2 billion
in annual appropriations, accounting for a whopping 20% of transportation spending. Additionally, the DOT mandates that states use
as much as 10% of their funding for all sorts of local pork projects, such as bike paths and roadside flowers.¶ ¶ As a result of the
inefficiencies and wasteful mandates of our top-down approach to transportation spending, trust fund outlays have
exceeded its revenue source by an average of $12 billion per year, even though the IHS – the catalyst for the gasoline tax –
has been completed for 20 years. In 2008, the phantom trust fund was bailed out with $35 billion in general revenue,
and has been running a deficit for the past few years. Congress has not passed a 6-year reauthorization bill since
2005, relying on a slew of short-term extensions, the last of which is scheduled to expire on March 31.¶ ¶ Short-term funding is
no way to plan for long-term infrastructure projects. In their alacrity to gobble up the short-term money before it runs out,
state and local governments tend to use the funds on small time and indivisible projects, such as incessant road
repaving, instead of better planned long-term projects.¶ ¶ It’s time for a long-term solution, one which will inject muchneeded federalism and free-market solutions into our inefficient and expensive transportation policy.¶ ¶ It is time to abolish the
Highway Trust Fund and its accompanying federal gasoline tax. Twenty years after the completion of the IHS, we
must devolve all transportation authority to the states, with the exception of projects that are national in scope. Each state
should be responsible for its own projects, including maintenance for its share of the IHS. Free of the burden of
7
<File Name>
DDI 2012
shouldering special interest pork projects of other states, each state would levy its own state gas tax to purvey its own
transportation needs. If a state wants a robust mass transit system or pervasive bike lanes, let the residents of that state decide
whether they want to pay for it. That is true federalism in action.
8
<File Name>
DDI 2012
Cars DA
The car industry is on the brink – it all depends on the coming economic changes and
government actions
OECD, 09
“CHAPTER 2 THE AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY IN AND BEYOND THE CRISIS”
http://www.oecd.org/economy/economicoutlookanalysisandforecasts/44089863.pdf 2009
Future trends in car sales are likely to vary considerably across the G7 countries, other advanced countries,
China, India and Mexico (Figure 2.10). In high-income countries, car ownership per capita is likely to be
relatively close to saturation and therefore future developments are likely to be driven by a slow increase in
vehicles per capita. In Japan, trend car sales may stagnate as a slight increase in car ownership per capita is more than
offset by a declining population. In Germany and Italy, as well, trend car sales are expected to be broadly flat. In
France, the United Kingdom and the United States, trend sales are expected to continue to increase due to
population increases as well as some increase in car ownership per capita, though the latter effect is less
important in the United States, where the density is already high. Trend car sales are increasing at a rapid pace
in China and India In contrast with the G7 countries, car ownership levels in China are very low and incomes have
now risen to a level where the income elasticity of vehicle ownership per capita is typically high (around 2 compared
with around 0.4 in Japan and Western Europe). The combination of low car ownership per capita, a high income
elasticity, and rapidly rising income levels means that trend car sales in China are increasing extremely rapidly and are
likely to do so for the foreseeable future. Trend sales increased from around 4 million per annum in 2005 to around 9
million in 2009. Actual sales are also rising rapidly in line with the trend, increasing from approximately 4 million in
2005 to around 7 million in 2008. China will likely overtake the United States in the coming years to become the
largest car market in the world. Starting from a lower level than in China, trend sales are also increasing at a fast rate
in India. Car sales are below or at trend in many OECD countries Comparing recent car sales with trend sales
may provide an indication of car sales developments over the near term beyond the next months. In Germany, the car
scrapping scheme appears to have pushed car sales far above their long-term trend, suggesting that near-term
car sale prospects are likely to be particularly weak. In Australia, France, Italy and Korea sales appear to be close
to their trend level. In contrast, in Canada, Japan, Mexico, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States, car
sales have clearly fallen below their trend level, suggesting some scope for a cyclical rebound. This is particularly
the case in the United States where actual car sales in 2009 are set to be around 60% of trend levels. Car sales should
benefit from the recovery in activity and the improvement in financial markets conditions As a cross-check on
these calculations, estimated equations for car sales in G7 countries can be used to make short-term projections on a
mechanical basis. More specifically, these projections are based on economic activity developments and assumptions
concerning financial conditions consistent with those of this Economic Outlook. The results suggest that higher
activity and improved financial conditions could boost car sales by 1.9 million units in the United States, around
0.3 to 0.4 million in Japan and the United Kingdom, and 0.2 million in the three largest euro area countries from mid2009 to 2011 (Figure 2.11). But the calculations do not incorporate the likely payback effect from car scrapping
schemes, which have already or are expected to be terminated by the end of the year.
The car industry is recovering with the economy but a major shift away from cars tanks both
Davis (Marc Davis is a veteran journalist with more than 20 years experience reporting and writing on business, finance,
corporate management and legal subjects. His writing has been published online and in print by Adweek, Arthur
Andersen, The Chicago Tribune , Encyclopedia Britannica, Insight Magazine, The John Marshall Law School Magazine,
The Journal of the American Bar Association, Rotarian, and numerous other national periodicals and websites.¶ Marc is
also a published novelist. His novel, "Dirty Money," published by Dell, was nominated for an award by the Private Eye
Writers of America. He is also the author of non-fiction children's books, including a biography of Florence Nightingale
and a history of the Georgia Colony. Marc's new novel "Bottom Line," a revealing look at corruption, fraud and thievery
9
<File Name>
DDI 2012
in a global management consulting firm, will be published in early 2013 by The Permanent Press. Marc was also a former
licensed commodity broker at the Chicago Board of Trade.) 2012
April 9th 2012, “How The U.S. Automobile Industry Has Changed” (http://www.investopedia.com/articles/pf/12/autoindustry.asp#axzz22gj5fQyB)
America's mighty economic resources and manufacturing capacity were turned to the great military challenges
confronting it. The major automakers converted their production facilities to war-time vehicles – Jeeps, tanks, trucks
and armored cars. In 1943 only 139 passenger vehicles for civilian use were made in the U.S.¶ When the war ended in
1945, pent-up consumer demand for new cars created a new boom in the industry and profits hit new highs. By
1948, the American auto industry rolled out its 100 millionth car, and Buick introduced its Dynaflow automatic
transmission. More innovations followed, including power steering, disk breaking and power windows. ¶ But in 1958,
Toyotas and Datsuns -- Japanese-made automobiles -- were imported into the U.S. for the first time, and American
auto makers began losing market shares to the well-engineered, gas-saving and affordable foreign vehicles.¶
Foreign-made, fuel-efficient cars gained a stronger foothold in the American market during and after the 1973
oil embargo and corresponding rise in gas prices in the wake of the Arab-Israeli war. American firms Ford, GM
and Chrysler responded by manufacturing new lines of smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.¶ In the ensuing years, Honda
opened a U.S. factory, Toyota introduced the luxury Lexus and GM launched the Saturn, a new brand, and some
American firms bought stakes in foreign companies to exploit the growing overseas markets. ¶ By the turn of the
century, the U.S. was still the world's top automaker, but in less than a decade it would suffer a major decline as
a devastating recession set in.¶ A comprehensive study of the automotive industry's contribution to the U.S.
economy, the most recent compilation of complete data, was commissioned in the fall of 2003, and was prepared
for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Some 9.8% of U.S. jobs were directly or indirectly related to the
automobile industry, representing 5.6% of worker compensation. Auto production represented 3.3% of gross domestic
product.¶ Although Ford celebrated the 100th anniversary of its Model T in 2008, there was no cause for GM to
celebrate. The auto-making giant posted an annual loss of $39 billion for 2007, the biggest loss ever for any
automaker. This colossal failure reflected the slump in the U.S. economy, and the ceding of market share to foreign
brands, mainly the Japanese Toyota.¶ Chrysler was also hit with losses, and along with GM, both of which declared
bankruptcy, received a total of $24.9 billion in "bailout" money in loans from TARP, an appropriation of funds to help
various major businesses which suffered losses due to the recession. Ford, however, did not ask for bailout funds
because it had set aside a reserve fund of $25 billion which helped it through the difficult period. (Note: There is
dispute about the exact amount of money GM and Chrysler and their subsidiaries received in bailout money. Various
reliable sources reported differing amounts.)¶ The United Auto Workers Union, in an effort in 2007 to help the
struggling industry, agreed in contract negotiations, to concessions and give-backs on wages and health
benefits.¶ In early 2012, the U.S. economy showed signs of a modest recovery. Unemployment figures declined to
8.3%, according to the government's Bureau of Labor Statistics.¶ Miraculously, also in 2012, like a phoenix rising
from its own ashes, the U.S. automobile industry seemed to be recovering from its financial woes. GM posted a
net profit of $7.6 billion, the most ever reported by the firm. Chrysler announced a profit of $183 million, its first net
profit since its bankruptcy. Apparently, the U.S. government's bailout of the auto industry was effective. Chrysler had
paid back $7.6 billion in government loans, along with GM, which also repaid the government in full, with interest and
years ahead of the due date. The Bottom Line¶ There were almost 250 million cars, trucks and SUVs on American
roads in 2012. About 25 years would be required to replace all of them, given the current rate of yearly
automobile sales. So, even though the American auto industry is the world's most profitable in 2012, some
analysts were still only moderately optimistic about its future.¶ While U.S. auto sales increased substantially in
China, the European market for U.S. cars is struggling. Despite its huge profits, GM announced major costcutting initiatives.¶ If the U.S. economy continues it's apparent, although slow and as yet not too vigorous
recovery, auto sales are likely to improve as well. Americans love and need their motor vehicles -- for work,
business and pleasure -- and the American auto-making industry will prosper as the nation prospers. But it may
take a while.¶
Economic collapse causes global nuclear war.
Merlini, Senior Fellow – Brookings, 11
10
<File Name>
DDI 2012
[Cesare Merlini, nonresident senior fellow at the Center on the United States and Europe and chairman of the Board of
Trustees of the Italian Institute for International Affairs (IAI) in Rome. He served as IAI president from 1979 to 2001.
Until 2009, he also occupied the position of executive vice chairman of the Council for the United States and Italy, which
he co-founded in 1983. His areas of expertise include transatlantic relations, European integration and nuclear nonproliferation, with particular focus on nuclear science and technology. A Post-Secular World? DOI:
10.1080/00396338.2011.571015 Article Requests: Order Reprints : Request Permissions Published in: journal Survival,
Volume 53, Issue 2 April 2011 , pages 117 - 130 Publication Frequency: 6 issues per year Download PDF Download
PDF (~357 KB) View Related Articles To cite this Article: Merlini, Cesare 'A Post-Secular World?', Survival, 53:2,
117 – 130]
Two neatly opposed scenarios for the future of the world order illustrate the range of possibilities, albeit at the risk of
oversimplification. The first scenario entails the premature crumbling of the post-Westphalian system. One or more of the
acute tensions apparent today evolves into an open and traditional conflict between states, perhaps even involving the use of
nuclear weapons. The crisis might be triggered by a collapse of the global economic and financial system, the vulnerability
of which we have just experienced, and the prospect of a second Great Depression, with consequences for peace and
democracy similar to those of the first. Whatever the trigger, the unlimited exercise of national sovereignty, exclusive selfinterest and rejection of outside interference would likely be amplified, emptying, perhaps entirely, the half-full glass of
multilateralism, including the UN and the European Union. Many of the more likely conflicts, such as between Israel and
Iran or India and Pakistan, have potential religious dimensions. Short of war, tensions such as those related to immigration
might become unbearable. Familiar issues of creed and identity could be exacerbated. One way or another, the secular
rational approach would be sidestepped by a return to theocratic absolutes, competing or converging with secular absolutes
such as unbridled nationalism.
Automobility good
Public transportation infrastructure is inherently disriminatory. They exclude the working class
and minorities
Farmer 11
Farmer Sociology Dep’t Roosevelt University 2011 Stephanie Uneven public transportation development in neoliberalizing Chicago,
USA Environment and Planning http://envplan.com/epa/fulltext/a43/a43409.pdf, KB
Taken together, Chicago's public transportation system and the unfolding transformations in Chicago's housing market
reveal how neoliberal accumulation is restructuring uneven geographic development and the right to the city for working
people and minorities. Chicago's neoliberal public transit and housing projects may improve the exchange value of its
Central Area real estate, create place-based advantages to lure highly mobile capital and elevate its global-city status by
tying it more closely into global air-transport networks. However, these policies have limited use-value for working-class
and minority residents living outside the privileged Central Area who endure a transit system which is unreliable and
sluggish for want of access or basic maintenance. I am not suggesting that the Central Area transit projects are without
merit: Chicago needs more transit investment, not less. However, the proposed allocation of transit investment in the
Central Area reflects the interests of growth-machine elites over and against the interests of the majority of Chicagoans.
These trends also demonstrate the changing social role of public transportation in the neoliberal era. Urban public transit in
the USA historically served as an instrument aimed at industrial development, mitigating labor costs, and ameliorating
inequalities (Grengs, 2004; Weiner, 1999). This share of the social surplus has been redirected to construct premium
network transit for capital and the affluent, thus securing their revanchist rights to the city. In effect, the CTA and the Daley
administration's transportation and housing policies are contributing to the widening inequality gap between affluent groups
and working-class residents, and between Whites and Blacks and Latinos. Unequal access to transportation resources
parallels the broader widening of socioeconomic inequality in the era of neoliberalism. Therefore, a complete understanding of growing inequality and uneven geographic development of the neoliberal accumulation regime should include a
public infrastructure
The underside of privileging the idea of mobility is the exclusion of those who do not move in
“normal” ways – the aff contributes to the systematic exclusion of disabled people, othering them
and excluding them from normal citizenship
Cresswell prof geography @ U London 2k6 (Tim, “The Right to Mobility: The Production of Mobility in the Courtroom” Antipode vol 38 no 4)
11
<File Name>
DDI 2012
way in which rights, mobility, freedom and citizenship have been wrapped
around each other in liberal discourse has naturalized mobility as the property of the individual moving able-bodied
subject. One arena in which liberal conceptions of rights have been questioned is the realm of disability politics (Chouinard 2001; Imrie 2000). Chouinard
introduced the notion of “shadow citizenship”—suggesting that spaces of shadow citizenship are formed where the “law as
discursively represented and law as lived are fundamentally at odds” (Chouinard 2001:187). Disabled people, she argues, often
inhabit these spaces. While, on the one hand, they are symbolically central to liberalism’s claims to universality—an imagined geography of rights that is
blind to geography—they are simultaneously marginalized by the blindness of rights discourse to the particular social space of
disability in Canada. Chinese immigrants in the late nineteenth century United States and disabled people in contemporary Canada both inhabit this shadowy ground
beyond citizenship that serves to make citizenship and its associated mobility rights make sense. So what does this say about the meaning of
mobility in the constitution of the citizen figure? Part of the answer is the development of a similar logic for mobility.
Positive evaluations of mobility exist, not through the exclusion of negative ones but in a necessarily relational mode —a
logic of alterity where “pathological” mobilities are co-produced alongside and intertwined with those mobilities defined
as central to this or that identity. In terms of citizenship the Supreme Court produced notions of mobile citizens as ideal
types—autonomous individualized agents who through their motion helped to produce the nation itself. But the unspoken
Others here are the differently mobile—the undocumented immigrant for instance—who make citizenship mobility special. The form of
A number of geographers have recently argued that the
mobility discussed in the Supreme Court for over a century is wrapped around notions of “fundamental rights” and the “citizen” to produce an abstract figure whose
specificity is left unsaid. This paper has been an intervention into recent theorization of mobility, rights and citizenship. Through a discussion of legal arguments that
have linked mobility as a right to the notion of what it is to be a citizen in the United States I have illustrated how, in concrete instances, mobility has been produced as
a practice of a rights-bearing citizen. My argument has been that all three of these concepts—mobility, rights, citizenship—have
been constituted in different ways as universal but that in each case this apparent universalism is based on a logic of
othering. As I wrote in the introduction to this paper, mobility as a geographical fact of life is extraordinarily amenable to particular
codings because of its status as an (almost) universal practice. Particular codings of mobility (as a right, as liberty, as freedom, as
citizenship practice) can be made to appear as more than particular. When these codings are tied to powerful notions such as
rights and citizenship this process becomes doubly powerful.
Solvency Frontline
The government funding safer bike lanes now – no impact on society
Federal Highway Administration, 12
(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/overview/bp-broch.cfm, Bicycle and Pedestrian Provisions of the Federalaid Program, 2012)
Funding Sources for Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects¶ Bicycle and pedestrian projects are broadly eligible for
funding from almost all the major Federal-aid highway, transit, safety, and other programs. Bicycle
projects must be "principally for transportation, rather than recreation, purposes" and must be designed and
located pursuant to the transportation plans required of States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations. ¶ Federal-aid
Highway Program¶ National Highway System funds may be used to construct bicycle transportation facilities and
pedestrian walkways on land adjacent to any highway on the National Highway System, including Interstate highways. 23
USC Section 217 (b)¶ Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds may be used for either the construction of bicycle
transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways, or nonconstruction projects (such as maps, brochures, and public service
announcements) related to safe bicycle use and walking. TEA-21 added "the modification of public sidewalks to comply
with the Americans with Disabilities Act" as an activity that is specifically eligible for the use of these funds. 23 USC
Section 217 (a)¶ Ten percent of each State's annual STP funds are set-aside for Transportation Enhancement Activities
(TEAs). The law provides a specific list of activities that are eligible TEAs and this includes "provision of
facilities for pedestrians and bicycles, provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and
bicyclists," and the "preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use
thereof for pedestrian and bicycle trails)." 23 USC Section 109 (a)(35)¶ Another 10 percent of each State's STP
funds is set-aside for the Hazard Elimination and Railway-Highway Crossing programs, which address bicycle and
pedestrian safety issues. Each State is required to implement a Hazard Elimination Program to identify and correct locations
which may constitute a danger to motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Funds may be used for activities including a
survey of hazardous locations and for projects on any publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway or
trail, or any safety-related traffic calming measure. Improvements to railway-highway crossings "shall
take into account bicycle safety." 23 USC Section 152 ¶ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program funds
may be used for either the construction of bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways, or nonconstruction
projects (such as maps, brochures, and public service announcements) related to safe bicycle use. 23 USC Section 217 (a)¶
Recreational Trails Program funds may be used for all kinds of trail projects. Of the funds apportioned to a State, 30
12
<File Name>
DDI 2012
percent must be used for motorized trail uses, 30 percent for nonmotorized trail uses, and 40 percent for diverse trail uses
(any combination). 23 USC Section 206¶ Provisions for pedestrians and bicyclists are eligible under the various categories
of the Federal Lands Highway Program in conjunction with roads, highways, and parkways. Priority for funding projects is
determined by the appropriate Federal Land Agency or Tribal government. 23 USC Section 204 ¶ National Scenic Byways
Program funds may be used for "construction along a scenic byway of a facility for pedestrians and bicyclists." 23 USC
Section 162 (c)(4)¶ Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants are available to support projects, including bicycle-related
services, designed to transport welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals to and from employment. TEA-21
Section 3037¶ High Priority Projects and Designated Transportation Enhancement Activities identified by Section 1602 of
TEA-21 include numerous bicycle, pedestrian, trail, and traffic calming projects in communities throughout the country. ¶
Federal Transit Program¶ Title 49 U.S.C. (as amended by TEA-21) allows the Urbanized Area Formula Grants, Capital
Investment Grants and Loans, and Formula Program for Other than Urbanized Area transit funds to be used
for improving bicycle and pedestrian access to transit facilities and vehicles. Eligible activities include
investments in "pedestrian and bicycle access to a mass transportation facility" that establishes or
enhances coordination between mass transportation and other transportation. 49 USC Section 5307¶ TEA-21
also created a Transit Enhancement Activity program with a one percent set-aside of Urbanized Area Formula Grant
funds designated for, among other things, pedestrian access and walkways, and "bicycle access, including
bicycle storage facilities and installing equipment for transporting bicycles on mass transportation
vehicles". 49 USC Section 5307(k)¶ Highway Safety Programs¶ Pedestrian and bicyclist safety remain priority areas for
State and Community Highway Safety Grants funded by the Section 402 formula grant program. A State is eligible for
these grants by submitting a Performance plan (establishing goals and performance measures for improving
highway safety) and a Highway Safety Plan (describing activities to achieve those goals). 23 USC Section 402 ¶
Research, development, demonstrations and training to improve highway safety (including bicycle and pedestrian safety) is
carried out under the Highway Safety Research and Development (Section 403) program. 23 USC Section 403 ¶
Federal/State Matching Requirements¶ In general, the Federal share of the costs of transportation projects is 80 percent with
a 20 percent State or local match. However, there are a number of exceptions to this rule. ¶ Federal Lands Highway projects
and Section 402 Highway Safety funds are 100 percent Federally funded. ¶ Bicycle-related Transit Enhancement Activities
are 95 percent Federally funded.¶ Hazard elimination projects are 90 percent Federally funded. Bicycle-related
transit projects (other than Transit Enhancement Activities) may be up to 90 percent Federally funded.¶
Individual Transportation Enhancement Activity projects under the STP can have a match higher or
lower than 80 percent. However, the overall Federal share of each State's Transportation Enhancement
Program must be 80 percent.¶ States with higher percentages of Federal Lands have higher Federal
shares calculated in proportion to their percentage of Federal lands.¶ The State and/or local funds used to
match Federal-aid highway projects may include in-kind contributions (such as donations). Funds from other
Federal programs may also be used to match Transportation Enhancement, Scenic Byways, and Recreational Trails
program funds. A Federal agency project sponsor may provide matching funds to Recreational Trails funds provided the
Federal share does not exceed 95 percent.¶ Top of Page¶ Planning for Bicycling and Walking¶ States and Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (a planning agency established for each urbanized area of more than 50,000 population) are
required carry out a continuing, comprehensive, and cooperative transportation planning process that results in two
products.¶ A long range (20 year) transportation plan provides for the development and integrated management and
operation of transportation systems and facilities, including pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities. Both
State and MPO plans will consider projects and strategies to increase the safety and security of the transportation system for
nonmotorized users.¶ A Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) contains a list of proposed federally
supported projects to be carried out over the next three years. Projects that appear in the TIP should be
consistent with the long range plan.¶ The transportation planning process is carried out with the active
and on-going involvement of the public, affected public agencies, and transportation providers.¶
Bicyclists and pedestrians must be given due consideration in the planning process (including the
development of both the plan and TIP) and that bicycle facilities and pedestrian walkways shall be
considered, where appropriate, in conjunction with all new construction and reconstruction of
transportation facilities except where bicycle use and walking are not permitted. Transportation plans
and projects must also consider safety and contiguous routes for bicyclists and pedestrians. Safety
considerations may include the installation of audible traffic signals and signs at street crossings. 23 USC
Section 217 (g)
Aff fails – London proves
Peach, (Joe Peach is the Editor-in-Chief at This Big City, which he launched in September 2009. Joe writes articles on sustainable
13
<File Name>
DDI 2012
urbanism for numerous websites and magazines, and works as a Technology Strategy Consultant at IBM (with which This Big City
has no affiliation). In 2010, Joe won a Sustainability Now Social Media Award in the 'Best Blog Post' category for The Truth About
London's Cycle Superhighways, and in 2011 took home the 'Built Environment Blogger of the Year' and 'Best Sustainability Blog'
trophies at the Be2 Awards. ) 11
(How London tried (and failed) to become a biking city, http://thisbigcity.net/how-london-tried-failed-become-cyclingcity/, Nov 22nd 2011)
While centuries of urban development in Amsterdam prior to the bicycle’s invention resulted in a city
ideal for both bicycle use and a bicycle network, the same cannot be said for London. As a busier centre of
trade bound less by geographical restrictions than Amsterdam, sprawl has been a continuous part of London’s urban form.¶
However, there are some similarities between these cities. Both are relatively flat (or almost completely flat, in
Amsterdam’s case) and have a predominantly historic road network. And despite London being a larger city, half of all
journeys by car are under two miles. Aspects of London’s recent cultural history are also similar to Amsterdam’s, with car
use increasing after the Second World War and bicycle use doing the opposite. However, whilst the Dutch saw this as a
cultural change they didn’t want to endorse, the British reacted differently, continuing to embrace automobiles. ¶ One
potential reason for these differing reactions could be our collective experience of bicycle use during World War II.
Occupying Germans stole thousands of bicycles from the Dutch when they seized the Netherlands, leaving them unable to
transport themselves in the manner they were used to. In Britain, however, strict petrol rationing meant bicycle use rose
considerably as, for many, it was the only way to get around. The actions of war meant that the Dutch lost their bicycles,
but the British were forced on to them. ¶ As soon as the Brits had the opportunity to get off their bicycles they did, with car
ownership increasing rapidly in the post-war years, and continuing to remain high. This despite the fact that, as in the
Netherlands, campaigns to improve London’s bicycle provisions and encourage a return to bicycle use have
been happening since the 1970s.¶ And whilst Amsterdam pragmatically started transforming itself into a cyclefriendly city, London got a bit distracted. During the 1980s, plans for the London Cycle Network emerged,
though construction didn’t begin until 1995 and wasn’t completed until 2010. Viewing the London Cycle
Network on a map could lead to a conclusion that the Dutch approach to infrastructure was being replicated. A web of
‘cycle routes’ span central and inner London, supposedly offering direct and attractive routes to
destinations. However, whilst the London Cycle Network appears comprehensive in map-form, this is an
illusion. Certain sections are segregated and others avoid main roads entirely, but the majority of the
network is shared with roads. Features such as on-road marked bike lanes and bike boxes may be
present, but much of the London Cycle Network is simply London’s road network, plus a little paint.¶
Even during the earliest stages of the London Cycle Network, a lack of ambition was obvious, with the
preface of the official design manual noting ‘the design of cycle facilities frequently requires a range of
compromises to be made’ (and you know you’re in trouble when the notion of ‘compromise’ crops up as early as the
preface). These compromises are not only clear in functionality, but in a failure to increase cycling. Ambitious goals to
increase the amount of trips taken by bicycle from 1998 levels of 1.36% to 10% in 2012 have not been
achieved, or even come close to being achieved. In fact, in the 15 years since construction began, the
bicycle share of trips has risen to just 2%. 2012 might be just around the corner, but a 10% modal share
for bicycles is not.¶ The small, mixed-use developments typical of Amsterdam are practical for both bicycle networks
and developing sustainable communities. Important amenities are more likely to be within a walkable or cyclable distance,
and people are actually on the street, rather than locked up in their cars. But London’s urban form and culture are different
to Amsterdam’s, and the challenge of introducing a bicycle network capable of developing sustainable communities is
greater. On the most basic level, London’s size means constructing a bicycle network is inevitably going to be a bigger
task. However, the economics of the city arguably create a bigger problem than its form . Central London is home to
one-third of the city’s jobs, despite only taking up 2% of its land space and housing only 300,000 of its
residents. As a result, commuting is standard practice for most Londoners. Even if London was to
introduce a bicycle network that prioritsed short distance journeys, it may not be beneficial in
encouraging cycling or developing sustainable communities , simply as it isn’t representative of how Londoners
move around the city.¶ London’s more recent bicycle network developments have taken a different approach. ‘Cycle
Superhighways’ and a cycle hire scheme have created a network more reflective of the city’s commuting and city centrefocussed culture. But can a bicycle network built around longer distance journeys ever encourage the development of
sustainable communities?
Alt cause—Too many other reasons why people do not bike besides infrastructure
Tight and Giovoni 2010 (Miles, Moshe, “The Role of Walking and Cycling in Advancing Healthy and Sustainable Urban
Areas” BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 36 NO 4)
14
<File Name>
DDI 2012
Walking and cycling are well known as potential contributors to more sustainable urban environments, but the key
difficulty is how to bring about real change to create genuine improvements for these modes and a stimulus for people to
switch modes, particularly from car to walk or cycle. The barriers to the further development of walking and
cycling – such as safety, lack of or poor infrastructure, complex lives which are increasingly intertwined
with car use and, for many, perceptions of personal safety and security – are substantial and difficult to
overcome. However, the benefits of such changes could be considerable: cleaner, quieter and safer urban
environments; places where the street has a function not just for movement but also in encouraging
sociability and more interaction with others and with the built environment; and a healthier population
through increased use of active modes of transport.
Framing
Util Good: Extinction outweighs
Schell 82 (Jonathan, Professor at Wesleyan University, The Fate of the Earth, pages 136-137)
Implicit in everything that I have said so far about the nuclear predicament there has been a perplexity that I would now
like to take up explicitly, for it leads, I believe, into the very heart of our response-or, rather, our lack of response-to th
predicament. I have pointed out that our species is the most important of all the things that, as inhabitants of a
common world, we inherit from the past generations, but it does not go far enough to point out this superior
importance, as though in making our decision about ex- tinction we were being asked to choose between, say,
liberty, on the one hand, and the survival of the species, on the other. For the species not only overarches but
contains all the benefits of life in the common world, and to speak of sacrificing the species for the sake of one of
these benefits involves one in the absurdity of wanting to de- stroy something in order to preserve one of its parts,
as if one were to burn down a house in an attempt to redecorate the living room, or to kill someone to improve his
character. ,but even to point out this absurdity fails to take the full measure of the peril of extinction, for mankind is not
some invaluable object that lies outside us and that we must protect so that we can go on benefiting from it; rather, it is we
ourselves, without whom everything there is loses its value. To say this is another way of saying that extinction is unique
not because it destroys mankind as an object but because it destroys mankind as the source of all possible human subjects,
and this, in turn, is another way of saying that extinction is a second death, for one's own individual death is the end not of
any object in life but of the subject that experiences all objects. Death, how- ever, places the mind in a quandary. One ofthe confounding char- acteristics of death-"tomorrow's zero," in Dostoevski's phrase-is that, precisely because it removes
the person himself rather than something in his life, it seems to offer the mind nothing to take hold of. One even feels it
inappropriate, in a way, to try to speak "about" death at all, as. though death were a thing situated some- where outside us
and available for objective inspection, when the fact is that it is within us-is, indeed, an essential part of what we are. It
would be more appropriate, perhaps, to say that death, as a fundamental element of our being, "thinks" in us and through
us about whatever we think about, coloring our thoughts and moods with its presence throughout our lives..
Life is an ethic and a pre – req to the aff
Seeley, ’86 (Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors, The Handbook of Non-Violence, p. 269-70)
In moral reasoning prediction of consequences is nearly always impossible. One balances the risks of an action
against its benefits; one also considers what known damage the action would do. Thus a surgeon in deciding whether to
perform an operation weighs the known effects (the loss of some nerve function, for example) and risks (death) against
the benefits, and weighs also the risks and benefits of not performing surgery. Morally, however, human extinction is
unlike any other risk. No conceivable human good could be worth the extinction of the race, for in order to be a
human good it must be experienced by human beings. Thus extinction is one result we dare not-may not-risk.
Though not conclusively established, the risk of extinction is real enough to make nuclear war utterly impermissible
under any sane moral code.
15
<File Name>
DDI 2012
Cycling reinforces physical dominance – wont spread
Gilley 2006 (Brian Joseph, assoc prof anthro @ vermont “Cyclist subjectivity: Corporeal management and the inscription of
suffering” ANTHROPOLOGICAL NOTEBOOKS 12 (2): 53–64.
The body of the European road cyclist, gaunt faced and emaciated but with enormous muscled legs, is an
indelible image. This image has been venerated and parodied by film, literature and used in nationalist
propaganda. The heroic persona of the cyclist who shapes their body to maximize strength-to-weight
ratios further reinforces discourses of body management. Yet, the men who exhibit the superhuman
strength to endure the requisite suffering are also docile bodies continually put through disciplinary
regiments by their team directors, sponsors, the cycling industry and themselves. It is this contradiction
between the veneration of individual suffering and cyclist as a form of subjectivity where we can investigate the ways in
which the cycling industry naturalizes techniques of domination.
Consequentialism first – aff destroys world meaning
Williams 2005 (Michael, Professor of International Politics at the University of Wales—Aberystwyth, The Realist
Tradition and the Limits of International Relations, p. 174-176)
A commitment to an ethic of consequences reflects a deeper ethic of criticism, of ‘self-clarification’, and thus of reflection upon the
values adopted by an individual or a collectivity. It is part of an attempt to make critical evaluation an intrinsic element of responsibility. Responsibility to this more
fundamental ethic gives the ethic of consequences meaning. Consequentialism and responsibility are here drawn into what Schluchter, in terms that will be familiar to
scepticism and
consequentialism are linked in an attempt to construct not just a more substantial vision of political responsibility,
but also the kinds of actors who might adopt it, and the kinds of social structures that might support it. A
anyone conversant with constructivism in International Relations, has called a ‘reflexive principle’. In the wilful Realist vision,
consequentialist ethic is not simply a choice adopted by actors: it is a means of trying to foster particular kinds of self-critical individuals and societies, and in so doing
The ethic of responsibility in wilful Realism thus
involves a commitment to both autonomy and limitation, to freedom and restraint, to an acceptance of limits and
the criticism of limits. Responsibility clearly involves prudence and an accounting for current structures and their historical evolution; but it is not
to encourage a means by which one can justify and foster a politics of responsibility.
limited to this, for it seeks ultimately the creation of responsible subjects within a philosophy of limits. Seen in this light, the Realist commitment to objectivity appears
quite differently. Objectivity in terms of consequentialist analysis does not simply take the actor or action as given, it is a political practice — an attempt to foster a
Objectivity in
the sense of coming to terms with the ‘reality’ of contextual conditions and likely outcomes of action is not only
necessary for success, it is vital for self-reflection , for sustained engagement with the practical and ethical
adequacy of one’s views. The blithe, self-serving, and uncritical stances of abstract moralism or rationalist objectivism avoid selfcriticism by refusing to engage with the intractability of the world ‘as it is’. Reducing the world to an expression
of their theoretical models, political platforms, or ideological programmes, they fail to engage with this reality, and thus avoid
the process of self-reflection at the heart of responsibility. By contrast, Realist objectivity takes an engagement with this intractable ‘object’
responsible self, undertaken by an analyst with a commitment to objectivity which is itself based in a desire to foster a politics of responsibility.
that is not reducible to one’s wishes or will as a necessary condition of ethical engagement, self-reflection, and self-creation.7 Objectivity is not a naïve naturalism in
A recognition of the limits
imposed by ‘reality’ is a condition for a recognition of one’s own limits — that the world is not simply an
the sense of scientific laws or rationalist calculation; it is a necessary engagement with a world that eludes one’s will.
extension of one’s own will . But it is also a challenge to use that intractability as a source of possibility, as
providing a set of openings within which a suitably chastened and yet paradoxically energised will to action can responsibly be pursued. In the wilful
Realist tradition, the essential opacity of both the self and the world are taken as limiting principles. Limits upon understanding provide chastening parameters for
claims about the world and actions within it. But they also provide challenging and creative openings within which diverse forms of
life can be developed: the limited unity of the self and the political order is the precondition for freedom . The
ultimate opacity of the world is not to be despaired of: it is a condition of possibility for the wilful, creative
construction of selves and social orders which embrace the diverse human potentialities which this lack of essential or intrinsic
order makes possible.8 But it is also to be aware of the less salutary possibilities this involves. Indeterminacy is not synonymous with absolute freedom — it is both a
condition of, and imperative toward, responsibility.
The politics of mobility necessitate the eradication of those who are not mobile
Imrie prof geography @ U london 2k (Rob, “Disability and discourses of mobility and movement” Environment and
Planning A 2000, volume 32, pages 1641-1656)
Such discourses see disability as a social burden which is a private, not public, responsibility. The impairment is the focus
of concern, and biological intervention and care are seen as the appropriate responses. The problem of immobility is seen
16
<File Name>
DDI 2012
as personal and specific to the impairment; that it is this that needs to be eradicated, rather than transformations in
sociocultural attitudes and practices, if mobility is to be restored. In particular, political and policy assumptions about
mobility and movement are premised on a universal, disembodied subject which is conceived of as neutered, that is
without sex, gender, or any other attributed social or biological characteristic (see Hall, 1996; Imrie, 1994; Law, 1999; Whitelegg, 1997).
The hegemony of what one might term the mobile body is decontextualised from the messy world of multiple and
everchanging embodiments; where there is little or no recognition of bodily differences or capabilities. The mobile body, then, is conceived of
in terms of independence of movement and bodily functions; a body without physical and mental impairments. The hegemony of the
mobile body is also reinforced by professional discourses which seek to measure, characterise, and understand disability
through the movement and mobility of disabled people's body parts. Such conceptions see disabled people as neither sick nor well but in a
liminal state which is characterised by a (potential) movement from one bodily state to another (also, see Ellis, 2000; Leder, 1990; Paterson and Hughes, 1999). The
underlying objective is the disciplining of the deviant or impaired body through the restoration of movement in body parts to facilitate independence of mobility (and
the restoration of the `whole person'). For Ellis (2000), such (welfare) discourses emphasise the importance of individuals attaining an
`independent body', or a body which revolves around self management, personal responsibility, and the projection of
desirable bodily characteristics. As Ellis (2000, page 17) suggests, it is a carnality which propagates the aestheticisation of the body
while seeking to exclude those (impaired) bodies which are, so some claim, a source of anxiety in contemporary culture (see, for
instance, Lupton, 1994). Indeed, as Paterson and Hughes (1999, page 604) argue, ``the information that animates the world is dominated by non disabled bodies, by a
specific hegemonic form of carnality which excludes as it constructs''. These send out specific signals or codes which favour the corporeal status of nonimpaired people,
or at least do little to facilitate the independent ease of movement of people with physical and mental impairments.(5) This, for Paterson and Hughes (1999, page 606),
is indicative of ``a subtle interplay of micro and macro relations of power'', where specific design features, for example,
prioritise forms of movement based on the bodily needs of the neutered body (which is devoid of physical and mental impairments). In this
sense, intercorporeal encounters between the hegemonic world of the mobile body and disabled people tend to reinforce the
former's sense of presence and the latter's sense of absence, in other words a recognition of disabled people being there
but being unable to interact with the social or physical structures which surround them. It is, in Leder's (1990) terms, a
projection of the absent body or bodies which ``dys-appear'' when confronted with the embodied norms of everyday life
[see Paterson and Hughes (1999) for an amplification of these points].
17