A Tsa

***TSA Aff***
1acs
1ac TSA Flow (Terror + Airlines)
Plan
The United States federal government should
substantially curtail its domestic surveillance of security
inputs of United States corporations covered by the
Transportation Security Administrations Screening
Partnership Program.
Adv 1: Terrorism (3:40)
Advantage one is terrorism
The TSAs terrorism policy is worse than the Chiefs this

year it empirically guarantees vast security breaches
that make terrorism inevitable the private sector would
provide a useful model, but surveillance impedes
innovation
Bandow 14 senior fellow at CATO institute, specializing in foreign policy
and civil liberties. Special assistant to Reagan, editor of the Inquiry Magazine,
J.D. from Stanford (Doug Bandow, 1/10/14, Privatize the TSA: Make
Americans Safer by Letting Airports Handle Security,
http://www.cato.org/blog/privatize-tsa-make-americans-safer-letting-airports-
handle-airport-security)//twemchen
Any American who travels deals with the Transportation Safety Administration. The Bush administration
made many mistakes in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks; creating a government
monopoly to handle air transportation security was one of the worst. Governments most important duty is
protecting its citizens, but others can share that role. After all, no airport or airline wants a plane hijacking,
and no airline (or railroad) passenger wants to die in a terrorist incident. Unfortunately, the TSA is a
costly behemoth that is better at bureaucracy than safety. Created in 2001, the TSA spent $7.9
billion and employed 62,000 employees last year alone. The agencys main job is to protect the more than
450 commercial airports, and two-thirds of the agencys budget goes for airport screening. Unfortunately,
as my Cato Institute colleague Chris Edwards has documented in a recent Policy Analysis, the TSA has
lived down to expectations. Notes Edwards: TSA
has often made the news for its poor
performance and for abusing the civil liberties of airline passengers. It has had a
troubled workforce and has made numerous dubious investments. For all the agencys spending and
effort, TSAs
screening performance has been no better, and possibly worse,
than the performance of the remaining private screeners at U.S. airports. The TSA
has had an abundance of problems, as I listed in a Freeman column: Wasteful
spending of all sorts. Unethical and possibly illegal activities , according to the
agency Inspector General. Costly , counterintuitive , and poorly executed
operations , according to the House oversight committee. Employee misconduct .
Ranking 232 out of 240 federal agencies in job satisfaction. Worst, though, is the TSAs failure to do the job
for which it was created: secure Americas airports and other transportation hubs. Reported Edwards,
There were 25,000 security breaches at U.S. airports during TSAs first
decade, despite the agencys huge spending and all the inconveniences
imposed on passengers. In tests, the agency failed to catch as much as
three-quarters of fake explosives. The problem is not just operational
inefficiency. The TSA doesnt think strategically , or at least, it does not do so
effectively. The agency has been criticized for failing to follow robust risk
assessment methodology and undertaking little or no evaluation of
program performance. No planes have been hijacked since 9/11, but, wrote Edwards, The
safety of travelers in recent years may have more to do with the dearth of terrorists in the United States
and other security layers around aviation, than with the performance of TSA airport screeners. The
Entrust airport security to airports, which
alternative to the TSA monopoly is privatization.
local circumstances.
can integrate screening with other aspects of facility security and adjust to
Its not a leap into the unknown; Canadian and most European airports use private
screening. Even the 2001 legislation setting up the TSA allowed a small out for American airports.
Five were allowed to go private, and another 11 have chosen to do so in the intervening
12 years. However, the Reason Foundations Robert Poole complained that the TSA
micromanages even private operations , thereby making it very
difficult for screening companies to innovate. Worse, a House oversight
committee charged the agency with a history of intimidating airport operators that express an interest in
effectively firing the TSA. Shifting security to private operators would not eliminate problems. But
expanding airport flexibility and more important, creating security competition would
encourage increased experimentation . Americans started to innovate on that tragic
September day a dozen years ago. When passengers on the fourth hijacked flight learned what their
hijackers had in store, the former ended the mission. Passengers later took down the shoe and underwear
bombers. Obviously, dangers remain. But the best way to protect people would be to end the TSA, limiting
Washington to general oversight and tasks such as intelligence activities. Travel would be safer, security
would be cheaper, and Americans would be freer.
The TSA fails 95% of the time, which creates an enormous

security gap in airports across the country recent DHS
investigation proves
Bradner et al 6/2 staff reporters for CNN citing DHS investigation
(Eric Bradner and Rene Marsh, Cnn, 6-2-2015, TSA screeners failed tests to
detect explosives, weapons, http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/tsa-
failed-undercover-airport-screening-tests/, Date Accessed: 9-11-2015) //NM
Washington (CNN) The Department of Homeland Security said Monday that the acting administrator
airport
for the Transportation Security Administration would be reassigned, following a report that
screeners failed to detect explosives and weapons in nearly every test

that an undercover team conducted at dozens of airports. According to a
report based on an internal investigation, "red teams" with the Department of Homeland
Security's Office of the Inspector General were able to get banned items through
the screening process in 67 out of 70 tests it conducted across the
nation. The test results were first reported by ABC News, and government officials confirmed them to
CNN. Mark Hatfield, acting deputy director, will take over for Melvin Carraway until a new acting
administrator is appointed. It was not immediately clear Tuesday where Carraway would be reassigned.
RELATED: Despite security gaps, no full screening for airport workers
Late Monday, Johnson issued a statement announcing Carraway's reassignment. "Today, all air travelers
are subject to a robust security system that employs multiple layers of protection, both seen and unseen,
including: intelligence gathering and analysis, cross-checking passenger manifests against watchlists,
screening at checkpoints, random canine team screening at airports, reinforced cockpit doors, Federal Air
Marshals, armed pilots and a vigilant public," the spokesperson said. "In combination, these layers provide
enhanced security creating a much stronger and protected transportation system for the traveling public."
RELATED: Report says U.S. airport security equipment improperly managed Homeland Security's report on
the tests is set to be issued later this summer and is still being written. A Homeland Security spokesperson
said that "the numbers in these reports never look good out of context, but they are a critical element in
the continual evolution of our aviation security." Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee, called the failure rate "deeply alarming." "Over the past six years, we
have seen TSA consume an enormous amount of government
resources, but I'm not convinced we have much to show for it," he said in a statement.
"After spending over $540 million on baggage screening equipment
and millions more on training, the failure rate today is higher than
it was in 2007. Something is not working ." "I have long been a proponent of using
low-tech bomb-sniffing dogs to detect weapons and explosives," he said. "Government needs to recognize
that the most effective solution is not always the most expensive one. "
The spokesperson said DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson directed TSA to take "a series of actions, several of
which are now in place," to address the issues the red team tests identified -- but didn't identify what those
actions are.
Two internal links
a) Hiring and regulatory flexibility decentralization

allows robust quality control over private contractors
which creates a race to the top in security performance
Edwards 13 Director of Tax Policy Studies at Cato (Chris Edwards,
11/19/13, Privatizing the Transportation Security Administration, No. 742,
Lexis)//twemchen
Under the SPP program, private screeners must follow rules similar to those
of government screeners. TSA picks the screening contractors, pays the
contractors, and imposes TSA screening protocols. But that structure
reduces the possible cost savings and performance improvements that
the private sector could bring. Poole notes that TSA micromanages
screening under the SPP, spell[ing] out procedures and technology (inputs)
rather than only specifying the desired outcomes of screening, thereby
making it very difficult for screening companies to innovate.127
Reforms should allow airports to hire screening companies of their
choosing and pay for those services with charges on airport users. If a security company
did not achieve the high-quality screening results for which it was contracted, then it
could be fired. One of the problems with the near-monopoly TSA is that individual
airports have not been allowed to fire the screener because it is the
federal government. The SPP program has started to change that , but
much larger reforms are needed . Poole argues that moving the
responsibility for screening from TSA to the airports would allow airports to
create a more integrated and effective security system because airports are
already responsible for general airport security. 128 Such integration would allow
the staff to be cross-trained among security functions at airports, for example, which
would improve morale and enhance skills . Some policymakers favor expanding
private screening to all commercial airports and shrinking TSAs role in aviation security to
include only analyzing intelligence, setting security standards, and auditing screening operations.129
Representative Mica is pushing for privatized airport screening and thinks that TSA should be downsized to
about 5,000 workers.130 Sen. Rand Paul (RKY) has proposed fully privatizing TSA, as has Cato Institute
scholar Jim Harper.131
The best studies prove our argument

Lexis)//twemchen
The existence of the SPP program has allowed researchers to compare the
performance ofTSA screeners to private screeners for such skills as spotting

guns in X-ray machines. A 2004 study by the DHS Inspector General found that federal and
private screeners performed equally poorly.115 The same year, a study by a
consulting firm for TSA found that the U.S. airports with private screeners
performed as good or better on screening as airports with TSA screeners.116 In 2005, the
GAO found that private screeners did a better job than TSA screeners.117 Also in
2005, the DHS Inspector General concluded: The ability of TSA screeners to stop prohibited items
from being carried through the sterile areas of the airports fared no better than the
performance of screeners prior to September 11 , 2001.118 A 2007 study by a

consulting firm for TSA found that private screeners performed at a level that was
equal to or greater than that of federal [screeners]. 119 A 2007 USA Today
investigation found that the private screeners at the San Francisco International Airport (SFO)
had far better detection abilities than the federal screeners at the Los Angeles
International Airport (LAX).120 A 2008 TSA report compared screening at six SPP airports
to screening at six non-SPP airports and found performance to be similar .121 A
2012 study by the GAO compared all 16 SPP airports with non-SPP airports on
four different performance measures.122 It found that some SPP airports performed
slightly better than non-SPP airports on some measures, and performed slightly worse on other
measures. The bottom line is that after a decade of experience , it appears that
the overall performance of privatized screening is at least as good as, if not better
than , government screening. There are other advantages to private screening, as reported by
the GAO in a 2012 survey of 34 airport operators regarding the SPP program.123 One advantage is the
opportunity to improve customer service, which is important to airports in order to stay competitive with
other modes of travel. Another advantage of private screening is increased staffing flexibility. Under the
current TSA system, airports need to get approval from Washington to adjust the number of screeners as
demands fluctuate, and those approvals have often taken extended periods of time. The number of
passengers at particular airports can be subject to substantial fluctuations; thus, local control over
workforce decisions makes more sense than the current centralized system.
b) Streamlining the plan redirects resources making

counter-terror more effective
Lexis)//twemchen
Management problems stemming from TSAs large screening workforce
distract the agency from its core responsibilities in avia-tion security. A
House report argued that due to high attrition, TSA has spent so much time managing
itself that it has been unable to focus necessary resources on
oversight and regulation of U.S. transportation security in general.33 Another
House report described the agency as an enormous , inflexible and distracted
bureaucracy , that has lost its focus on transportation security.34 The
solution is to get TSA out of the screening business and devolve that responsibility to the nations
airports. Centralized management of 53,000 screeners at more than 450 separate airports across the
nation makes no sense. All airports have their unique variations in passenger levels, for example, and need
to continually adjust their workforces, but TSA is slow in making needed changes. That is one reason
numerous airports are interested in returning to private screening , as discussed below.
Airport mismanagement has created massive

vulnerabilities which exposes airports to impending
terrorist attacks innovation in security screening is
essential
Brandt 11 director at Lime, political risk consultancy based in the UAE,
worked as a threat analyst for a major U.S. airline (Ben Brandt, 11/30/11,
TERRORIST THREATS TO COMMERCIAL AVIATION: A CONTEMPORARY
ASSESSMENT, https://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/terrorist-threats-to-
commercial-aviation-a-contemporary-assessment)//twemchen
Despite the strenuous efforts by governments to harden commercial aviation in the
post-9/11 era, the number of plots illustrates that al-Qaida core, its affiliates, and
numerous other Islamist extremist groups and self-radicalized individuals
maintain a high level of interest in attacking aviation. Despite the
organizational disruptions caused by the deaths of numerous senior al-Qaìda leaders in 2011,
and the current preoccupation of several al-Qaìda affiliates with local conflicts, this
ongoing interest in attacking aviation is unlikely to dissipate in the long-term .
Furthermore, the evolving tactics utilized in these various plots lend weight to AQAPs
contention that government regulators suffer from a lack of
imagination in anticipating and mitigating emergent and existing threats . As
indicated by numerous accounts, including the description of the cargo plot contained in Inspire,
terrorists constantly seek to analyze existing aviation security measures to
probe for weaknesses and develop countermeasures. Terrorists ongoing efforts to
study and defeat security are further exemplified by the arrest of Rajib Karim, a former information
technology employee at British Airways; prior to his arrest, Karim maintained an ongoing dialogue with
AQAP operative Anwar al-Àwlaqi and attempted to provide al-Àwlaqi with information on aviation security
despite government efforts to improve aviation security , a
procedures.[1] Therefore,
number of critical tactical threats remain . Insider Threats Rajib Karim
sought to stage a terrorist attack on behalf of AQAP, seeking to become a flight attendant for
British Airways to stage a suicide attack. He also attempted to recruit fellow Muslims
(including a baggage handler at Heathrow Airport and an employee of airport security)to stage an
attack.[2] Coupled with the aforementioned 2007 JFK airport plot, which involved at least one airport
employee, and a reported 2009 plot by Indonesian terrorist Noordin Top to target commercial aviation at
Jakartas main airport, which included assistance from a former mechanic for Garuda Indonesia,[3] this
illustrates the primacy of the so-called insider threat to aviation . Although TSA
and U.S. airports currently conduct criminal and terrorist database checks on potential airport, airline, and
vendor employees who are to be granted access to secure areas, there are significant vulnerabilities in this
approach,[4] which has proven notably unsuccessful at stopping members of street gangs from gaining
employment and carrying out criminal activities such as narcotrafficking, baggage theft, and prostitution at
airports nationwide. In 2010, an individual named Takuma Owuo-Hagood obtained employment as a
baggage handler for Delta Airlines, then promptly traveled to Afghanistan where he made contact with the
Taliban, reportedly providing advice on how to effectively engage U.S. troops.[5] The magnitude of this
vulnerability is compounded because most airport employees working in secure areas do not undergo
security screening prior to entering their workspace due to practical constraints. Additional measures, such
as random screening and security probes, are unable to effectively mitigate this threat. The insider threat
becomes markedly worse at non-Western airports in regions such as West Africa or South Asia, where local
authorities ability to effectively screen prospective airport employees is frequently negligible due to
incomplete or poorly structured terrorist and criminal intelligence databases. Threats from Ranged
Weapons MANPADS, or man-portable air defense systems, have been described as a growing threat to
commercial aviation following the outbreak of Libyas civil war in early 2011 and subsequent news reports
claiming that al-Qaìda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) has obtained surface-to-air missiles.[6] Some reports
suggest that missiles stolen from Libyan arsenals have spread as far as Niger, the Gaza Strip, and the Sinai
Peninsula. In addition to AQIM, al-Shabab has been known to possess advanced MANPADS, allegedly
provided by Eritrea.[7] Given that AQAP maintains ties to al-Shabab and has reportedly taken over multiple
military depots in Yemen following the outbreak of civil unrest there,[8] it is not implausible to assume that
AQAP could acquire additional MANPADS. There are also reports that the Taliban acquired MANPADS from
Iran,[9] making it conceivable that elements of the group sympathetic to al-Qaìdas aims could provide al-
Qaìda with MANPADS for a future attack. Although MANPADS are unable to target aircraft at cruising
altitudes, commercial aircraft would become vulnerable for several miles while ascending and descending,
particularly due to their lack of countermeasure systems. In addition to the MANPAD threat, a significant
variety of ranged weapons could be used to target commercial aircraft, particularly when taxiing prior to
takeoff or after landing. Rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), for example, are inaccurate at extended
ranges; however, they have been used to shoot down rotary wing aircraft in combat zones, and have been
used in at least one plot against El Al aircraft.[10] The Irish Republican Army (IRA) used homemade
mortars to attack Heathrow Airport in the 1990s, while heavy anti-material sniper rifles such as the Barrett
M82 fire .50 caliber rounds to a range of more than one mile and have been previously used by non-state
Evolving Threats from Explosive
actors, such as the IRA and the Los Zetas drug cartel.[11]
Devices Terrorist groups, particularly AQAP, have continuously refined their
ability to conceal improvised explosive devices ( IEDs ) from security
screening equipment , as shown by the 2009 Christmas Day plot, where a would-be suicide
bomber concealed explosives in his underwear, and the 2010 cargo bomb plot, where bombmakers hid
explosives in printer cartridges. Following the 2009 plot in particular, TSA, foreign regulatory agencies, and
some airlines sought to increase safeguards against passenger- or cargo-borne IEDs by the deployment of
AIT and ETD equipment. IEDs, however, are likely to remain a significant threat to commercial aviation due
AIT can be defeated by concealing IEDs
to limitations in current screening technology.
internally , either by the frequently discussed stratagem of surgically implanting devices in
a would-be suicide bomber or by the simpler route of secreting the device within a body
cavity . Alternately, IEDs concealed within complex electronic devices are likely
to defeat all but the most thorough visual inspection , as illustrated by
explosives experts initial failure to detect the devices used in the 2010 cargo plot.[12] AQAP has shown
particularly adept at concealing IEDs within electronic devices such as printers
itself to be
and radios, which it will likely continue to use in the future. ETDs and explosives detection
dogs, meanwhile, can be defeated by numerous countermeasures . For example, many
(though not all) ETD devices detect only two popular explosive compounds. ETD equipment is also not
designed to detect the components of improvised incendiary devices (IIDs), making the use of these
correspondingly attractive to terrorists. Lastly, IEDs can be sealed and cleaned to degrade the ability of
ETD equipment to detect explosive vapors or particles.[13] Nor is behavioral profiling likely to provide the
solution to passenger-borne IEDs and IIDs. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab underwent two interviews by
security staff prior to staging his attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 in 2009. Similarly, a GAO report
the scientific community is divided as to
examining the TSAs use of BDOs noted that
whether behavioral detection of terrorists is viable.[14] Threats Against Airline Facilities and
Airports One aspect of aviation security that is not frequently addressed is the
potential for terrorists to strike other aspects of aviation infrastructure
beyond aircraft. Commercial airlines are highly reliant upon information
technology systems to handle critical functions such as reservations and crew check-in, a fact
not lost upon Rajib Karim when he suggested in correspondence with Anwar al-Àwlaqi that he could erase
data from British Airways servers, thus disabling the airlines website.[15] Such an approach would mesh
closely with al-Qaìda cores and AQAPs stated aims of waging economic jihad against the West. The
operational control centers operated by air carriers are another significant
point of vulnerability , which conduct the airlines flight control ,
meteorology , and emergency management functions. Despite their criticality to
flight operations, these control centers are rarely heavily guarded , meaning that a
team of attackers equipped with inside knowledge could temporarily shut down
the global operations of a major air carrier, particularly if backup facilities were to be
targeted as well. Another threat to commercial aviation is the increasing number of plots and
attacks targeting airports themselves rather than aircraft. There have been two
significant attacks staged at international airports thus far in 2011 in Frankfurt and Moscow.
Attacks against airports have been planned or executed using a variety of tactics, such as firearms, car
bombs, suicide bombers, and hijacked aircraft. The targets have included airport facilities such as fuel
lines, arrival halls, and curbside drop-off points. Terrorists could also breach perimeter fencing and assault
aircraft on runways, taxiing areas, and at gates. This tactic was used during the 2001 Bandaranaike airport
attack in Sri Lanka, when a team of Black Tigers[16] used rocket-propelled grenades and antitank weapons
to destroy half of Sri Lankan Airlines fleet of aircraft.[17] More recently, Afghan authorities announced the
discovery of arms caches belonging to the Haqqani network near Kabul Airport and claimed that the group
had planned to use the caches to stage an assault on the airport.[18] The actions of activist groups
such as Plane Stupid, which has breached perimeter fencing at UK airports so that activists
could handcuff themselves to aircraft in a protest against the airline industrys carbon emissions[19]
demonstrate the viability of such an attack in the West as well.[20] The trend toward attacking airports
rather than aircraft has likely been driven by a number of factors, particularly increased checkpoint
screening measures and terrorists growing emphasis on decentralized, small-scale attacks on targets of
opportunity. Firearms will likely prove to be a key component of future attacks, given their relative ease of
use compared to explosives, as well as their wide availability in the United States and many other
countries. This trend was exemplified by the 2011 Frankfurt attack, which was conducted by Arid Uka, an
employee at the airports postal facility, who shot and killed two U.S. soldiers at a bus at the terminal.
Although deployment of plainclothes security personnel and quick reaction teams can help ameliorate the
impact of attacks on airports, their ease of execution and the impossibility of eliminating all airport queues
(be they for drop-off, check-in, security screening, baggage claim, or car rentals) make this tactic a
persistent threat.
These innovations chronically outpace the TSA their

security is always reactive making them incapable of
responding effectively
Hudson 11 staff writer @ Human Events (Audrey Hudson, 9/12/11, TSA
Creator Says Dismantle, Privatize the Agency,
http://humanevents.com/2011/09/12/tsa-creator-says-dismantle-privatize-the-
agency/)//twemchen
Theyve been accused of rampant thievery, spending billions of dollars like drunken sailors, groping
the real job of the tens
children and little old ladies, and making everyone take off their shoes. But
of thousands of screeners at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is to
protect Americans from a terrorist attack. Yet a decade after the TSA was created
following the September 11 attacks, the author of the legislation that established
the massive agency grades its performance at D-. The whole program
has been hijacked by bureaucrats , said Rep. John Mica (R. -Fla.), chairman of the House
Transportation Committee. It mushroomed into an army , Mica said. Its gone from a
couple-billion-dollar enterprise to close to $9 billion. As for keeping the American public safe, Mica says,
Theyve failed to actually detect any threat in 10 years .
Everything they have done has been reactive . They take shoes off
because of [shoe-bomber] Richard Reid, passengers are patted down because of
the diaper bomber, and you cant pack liquids because the British uncovered a
plot using liquids, Mica said. Its an agency that is always one step out of
step , Mica said. It cost $1 billion just to train workers, which now number more than 62,000, and they
actually trained more workers than they have on the job, Mica said. The whole thing is a
complete fiasco , Mica said. In a wide-ranging interview with HUMAN EVENTS just days before the
10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Mica said screeners should be privatized and the
agency dismantled. Instead, the agency should number no more than 5,000, and carry out his original
intent, which was to monitor terrorist threats and collect intelligence.
ISIS is also targeting aviation theyre developing tech to

deploy thermite bombs against passenger aircraft
Biles 15 staff writer at Homeland Security Today (Clay Biles, 4/28/15,
EXCLUSIVE: TSA's ISIS Threat Warning Reignites Controversy Over Thermite
Incendiary Fear, http://www.hstoday.us/focused-topics/surveillance-
protection-detection/single-article-page/exclusive-tsa-s-isis-threat-warning-
reignites-controversy-over-thermite-incendiary-fear.html)//twemchen
theres a
Last week, a new Transportation Security Administration (TSA) warning indicated
possible threat a threat not necessarily aimed at aviation from Islamic State (ISIS)
jihadists. Although no specifics about the threat were given in TSAs warning which one current
Federal Air Marshal said went out to [air marshals] and TSA employees, but not other
government agencies TSA stepped-up the use of its Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR)
teams at various airports around the country, with a concentration in California. In response to the
unspecific warning Friday by TSA, concerns over terrorists use of thermite also
resurfaced which TSA had expressed concern about in December. TSAs warning also ignited concerns
over training and guidance given to Federal Air Marshals about how to deal with a thermite incendiary. It all
thermite
began in 2011, when the FBIs Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center began testing
incendiary devices to assess how they could be used as a weapon against a
passenger aircraft . Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of metal powder,
fuel and metal oxide that has been widely used in commercial and military
applications which, when ignited, produces an exothermic reaction capable of
melting steel . The thermite testing by the FBI led to the Bureau issuing the classified December 10,
2014 report, Threat Assessment of Viable Incendiary Devices to Passengers and Aircraft, which was
forwarded to TSA. TSAs Office of Intelligence and Analysis regurgitated in typical TSA fashion its own
classified report six days later, which was subsequently distributed to Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS)
field offices across the nation. The 1-page TSA intelligence bulletin said, The
ignition of a
thermite-based incendiary device on an aircraft at altitude could result in
catastrophic damage and the death of every person on board , adding,
These devices are easily assembled and concealable ; current TSA screening
procedures would likely not recognize thermite-based mixtures. The bulletin said
the substances to make homemade thermite are easily accessible online or
contained within widely available over-the-counter products, and that the thermite mixture, as
well as the ignition source, can be concealed within items such as children's
toys and water canteens --items that would not arouse suspicion as they pass through
TSA security screening. Although the original classified FBI report and analysis only proposed that the
possibility existed that thermite could be used as a weapon against commercial aviation, it clearly stated
intelligence does not indicate any extremist interest to target aircraft. However remote the possibility
this threat may be,TSA admitted they likely couldnt stop items containing the
materials to make thermite past conventional screening methods and being
introduced onto an aircraft. TSA also hasnt provided any training to air marshals
on how to identify a thermite burn, or even how to extinguish it. Instead of investing appropriate time to
understand thermite reactions or questioning chemists on how to successfully deal with a thermite burn,
TSA simply told their air marshal force in its bulletin that they should recognize a thermite ignition, advise
the captain immediately, ensure the individual(s) who ignited the device are rendered inoperable, contain
the crowd while systematically evacuating the area of the burn, and address injuries. Since the experts
at TSA werent interested in questioning persons intimately familiar with thermite reactions, they would
have better served air marshals and passengers by watching a YouTube video on the subject to determine
whether its even possible passengers could realistically be systematically evacuated from the area of
the ignition of thermite on an aircraft in-flight
the burn. Unfortunately, for passengers,
would be so intense , and its ensuing ignition so chaotic , that an air marshal
could not reasonably be capable of performing all of the functions TSA requires of
them which are recommendations not based on reality. The TSA bulletin conceded that, FAMs are trained
to extinguish [any] flames immediately and by any means available, and because of this, FAMs may
attempt to use a liquid-based firefighting agent, resulting in greater harm to the aircraft and its
occupants. One of the threats against a commercial aircraft that is taught to Federal Air Marshals is the
threat of fire. At the air marshal academy, videos are shown to air marshal students which show how an in-
flight fire can destroy an aircraft within 90 seconds at cruising altitude. Although aircraft seats and other
flammable materials onboard passenger aircraft are treated with chemical fire retardants, an in-flight fire
can quickly turn catastrophic. Despite the potential of this threat, no training is given to FAMs on how to
control an in-flight fire beyond using a typical fire extinguisher. Once again, TSA has shown its immaturity
through its inability to base its bulletin and FAMS training on reality. But, fortunately for TSA, the
possibility of a thermite ignition onboard a commercial aircraft can be used to request more funding to
buy more detection equipment and determine solutions in order to better train an already TSA-weary air
marshal force. A current air marshal opined on background to Homeland Security Today that TSA is
suffering from a need to justify its existence, and a further need to find reasons to increase its budget.
The air marshal added, it seemed like every time TSA was up for budgetary funding, we began doing
more special mission coverage or VIPR missions. The evidence seems to suggest TSA will continue
feeding the US population with a fear campaign at every opportunity, however unfounded their messages
may be. It becomes quickly apparent that TSA is suffering from the chronic symptoms of
budget-ISIS . TSA said, all air travelers are subject to a robust security system that employs
multiple layers of security, both seen and unseen, including: intelligence gathering and analysis, cross-
checking passenger manifests against watchlists, thorough screening at checkpoints, random canine team
screening at airports, reinforced cockpit doors, Federal Air Marshals, armed pilots and a vigilant public. In
combination, these layers provide enhanced security creating a much stronger and protected
transportation system for the traveling public. TSA also continually assesses and evaluates the current
threat environment and will adjust security measures as necessary to ensure the highest levels of aviation
security without unnecessary disruption to travelers, the agency said in a statement.
Aviation terrorism risks lashout
Hanson 4 (Victor Davis Hanson is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution.
Private Papers -- Response to Readership -- June 20th
http://victorhanson.com/articles/Private%20Papers/Question
%20Log/June_20.html)
Can Islam coexist with the West and its modernity or will events result in a war
that may, in the end, provoke a nuclear retaliation and a third world war, a war
more terrible and destructive than has ever been known? I surely hope
not. And in fact I dont think it will happen that way. Many of the Gulf States live with
and thrive on modernism, and seem to have accommodated Islam with it, albeit with a strong dose of anti-
The danger, as I see it, is that the terrorists
Semitism and convenient anti-Western parlor talk.
still do not fully comprehend their peril or the strong visceral hatred of them
that they have earned in the West. Thus countries like Syria, Lebanon, and Iran
that think this is all a funny game discount the real peril that they are in. If there is
another 9-11 and if the terrorists are shown to have originated from a Middle East country that
knowingly harbored them, then the American reaction really would be terrible. It would
have to be if we were to continue our civilization. Ask yourself what we would have done had the Soviets
sent a one-kiloton cruise missile into the World Trade Center. As I gauge US public opinion, it is
in a holding pattern, watching events in Iraq. It simmers over the beheadings; it is tired of seeing
the Arab Street; it has no patience with the Arab talking heads who assure us that we are to blame, but for
So let us hope that nuts like the mullahs, Mr.
the moment it is not ready to unleash its full power.
Assad, the Pakistani border al Qaedists, or Hezbollah do not do something
stupidbecause this time there is no real restraint on American
counter-responses .
Adv 2: Airlines (2:10)
Advantage two is airlines
TSA screening imposes chronic delays on airport

operators this devastates airlines SPP modeling is
essential
Garrett 10 staff writer at Airport Improvement Magazine (Ronnie L. Garrett,
March-April 2010, Airports Across the Nation Make Passenger Screening a
Private Matter, http://www.airportimprovement.com/content/story.php?
article=00157)//twemchen
From removing shoes and belts for metal detectors to privacy concerns about full-body scans, some
airline passengers feel like they receive a virtual shakedown at airport security.
Add understaffed checkpoints, overworked screeners and equipment glitches to the mix,
and passenger screening quickly becomes a recipe for disaster . As customer
complaints skyrocket, so does the risk of dangerous mistakes . These are among
the reasons cited by 17 airports that have opted out of the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA's)
traditional screening model in favor of its alternative program, which uses contract security companies.
Montana's Glacier Park International Airport (GPI) is hoping to become the 18th airport in TSA's Screening
Partnership Program (SPP). Positive reports about the program attracted the notice of GPI airport director
Cindi Martin years ago. After talking to current participants, Martin suspects SPP might work at her airport,
which sees about 200,000 passengers annually, most during the area's busy summer tourist season. The
airport's active search for an alternate screening strategy began in 2007, when TSA cut GPI's screening
staff in half based on its Staff Allocation Model - a formula used to determine staffing levels for passenger
and checked baggage screening. "We'd already been experiencing a lot of customer service complaints,
and theairlines were taking delays because of screening delays," Martin recalls. A
TSA reduction would have dealt yet another blow to an already stressed
situation . So Martin embarked on what she terms "a very frustrating process" to have staffing
numbers reviewed. TSA eventually increased staffing, but not significantly and not
soon enough . "By the time we'd gotten an increase, given the length of time it takes the
TSA to hire and train people and put them on the floor, they were unable to
staff us appropriately for the summer," she explains. "That was the real clincher for us."
Private screening companies, she learned, were much more able to flex their
staffing levels to meet the airport's varying needs. Unlike the federal government, they could expand their
ranks when GPI's passenger loads triples during the summer and contract when the airport's split-flight
schedule takes affect in winter. Martin remains cautiously optimistic that the airport's SPP application will
receive authorization from TSA before this summer. "My understanding is that all the necessary due
diligence has been done, and there is nothing that would stop our application from being approved," she
reports.
These inefficiencies are devastating to airlines imposing
a long-term drag on their financial success streamlining
is key
Lichtenstein 10 associate director in the Consulting Services division of
the economic forecasting firm HIS Global Insight, redesigns government
operational systems incorporating econometric decision models that leverage
data to achieve savings (Daniel Lichtenstein, Q1 2010, Tighter air security
will need a deft touch to avoid economic harm,
http://www.supplychainquarterly.com/print/scq201001monetarymatters/)//twe
mchen
In August 2010, the United States will require 100 percent of cargo shipped on passenger aircraft to
be screened by security personnel, machines, or specially trained dogs. That requirement,
could have a substantial
mandated by the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007,
economic impact on shippers, carriers , airfreight forwarders, and other industry
stakeholders if it is not handled properly. The agency charged with screening and
inspecting air cargo is the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). After the
terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the TSA focused its efforts on passenger screening; cargo carried
on passenger aircraft ("belly" cargo) and all-cargo carriers went largely unnoticed for some time. Now the
agency has been ordered to devote more of its efforts to securing commercial aviation. There is no
question that there is a need for aircraft of all types to be protected from potential attack. What remains
uncertain is how successful those efforts will be, and what economic effect the screening initiative will
have on the air cargo industry and its customers. Potential consequences Globally, air freight represents
3.72 percent of all shipment units and comprises about 0.4 percent of world gross domestic product (GDP).
Within the United States, air cargo represents just 1 percent of all freight volume yet it accounts for some
25 percent of the total value of U.S. freight across all modes of transportation. (See Figure 1.) Getting
cargo security right is critically important : by providing same-day, next-day, and
just-in-time deliveries, air cargo plays an invaluable role in the operation of
today's lean supply chains . A week-long disruption at John F. Kennedy International
Airport in New York, for instance, would deliver a severe blow to all forms of
aviation as well as to the U.S. and global economies . Accordingly, the rollout of a
stricter security system must be designed and managed to diminish any chance of
unintended economic harm . This will be challenging for several reasons. For one thing,
the augmented screening requirements come during a period of economic
uncertainty. In 2008, the industry suffered horribly as airfreight volumes fell by as much
as 25 percent on some routes. There have been encouraging signs of growth since November 2009, but
most forecasts for airfreight
that improvement is not likely to continue for long. In fact,
shipment volumes for the coming year are flat , due in part to expectations that global
consumer spending will be stagnant. For another, implementation of new procedures almost always leads
to "hiccups" in any system, and the introduction of more restrictive security mandates is likely to be no
inefficiencies may delay shipments , causing substantial
exception. The resulting
financial losses for air carriers and higher costs for shippers. Even a small disruption
in airfreight movements could have a notable impact. IHS Global Insight's analysis shows
that a disruption of only 1 percent in total industry output in the United States would result in the loss of
approximately 1,250 jobs directly tied to air cargo shipping, and 3,851 in total. Ultimately, 100-percent
screening could tip the competitive landscape in favor of the bigger players in the airfreight industry,
because the larger operators have more infrastructure, such as aircraft and crews, in place than do their
smaller competitors. This means they are better equipped to handle the delays that may result from
increased screening.
The plan solves streamlining
a) Efficiency and cost delegation TSA policy passes

security screening costs onto airlines its vital to
balance their budget inefficient security functions as a
tax on air travel
Perkins 14 staff writer at Outset Magazine, citing the one and only Nate
Silver (Stephen Perkins, 8/18/14, Abolish the TSA? Heres Why We Should,
http://outsetmagazine.com/2014/08/18/abolish-tsa-heres/)//twemchen
Further, who do you think really foots the bill for new scanning technology like those full-body scanners
the increase in the TSAs budget has to be
that we have all grown to love? Eventually
subsided somehow, and the agency typically finds a way to pass that cost increase
on to the airline , which hands it down to you, the innocent traveler. body-scanners A sample of the
images that TSA agents view with the new full-body scanners. In a 2010 column for the New York Times,
Nate Silver explained how increased security measures can affect our economy (and the
travel industry) on a macro scale . More stringent security procedures, in essence,
function as a tax upon air travel , and produce a corresponding deadweight
loss . Teleconferences are often a poor substitute for person-to-person interaction, and
when people are reluctant to travel, some business deals dont get done that otherwise
would have. Recreational travelers, meanwhile, may skip out on vacations that
otherwise would have brought them pleasure and stress-relief (while improving revenues for
tourism-dependent economies). The tenuous profits of the airline industry
are also affected, of course. Revenue losses from the new bag-checking procedures may have
measured in the billions , according to the Cornell study. He then goes on to talk about how
the passengers who choose not to fly may choose ground travel instead, which can be deadly: Other
passengers may substitute car travel for air travel. But this too has its consequences, since car travel is
much more dangerous than air travel over all. According to the Cornell study, roughly 130 inconvenienced
travelers died every three months as a result of additional traffic fatalities brought on by substituting
ground transit for air transit. Thats the equivalent of four fully-loaded Boeing 737s crashing each year. -
Efficiencys essential delays deter flyers, devastating

demand
May 4 Air Transport Association (Mr. Jim May, 6/22/4, Statement of Mr. Jim
May CEO, Air Transport Association (ATA), Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony, Lexis)//twemchen
TSA MUST PROMOTE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT SECURITY PROCEDURES

II.
Uncertainty about security lines deters people from flying . While TSA and the
industry work together every day to minimize this effect, it remains a major reason why
people have substituted cars and other transportation modes for flying, particularly
for short-haul trips. TSA predicts that passenger volumes will increase from 58 million to 65 million per
month during the summer, a sustained 12 percent increase in monthly volumes over 2003's single peak
month. We are already seeing security lines with wait times of 45 minutes and more at major airports,
including Washington Dulles, Los Angeles International Airport, Las Vegas McCarran, and Atlanta Hartsfield.
The industry worked with TSA to help develop its Summer Plan, and we are doing what we can to educate
our customers on what they can do to reduce potential wait times. Also, TSA is hiring additional screeners
at some airports. However, these efforts will not fully eliminate the public concern
about the hassles of flying. Those concerns, which keep passengers away , will not
subside until TSA has determined the number of screeners necessary to efficiently and
effectively screen passengers and established processes that can move passengers
through security screening in ten minutes or less on a consistent basis nationwide . It is
imperative that we continue to see progress toward this goal, and Congress should insist on TSA finalizing
its model to predict accurately the number of screeners needed at each airport. TSA Summer Staffing Plan
and Screener Performance Standards. Recent passenger boardings and projected bookings clearly indicate
that security checkpoints will experience far higher traffic levels this summer than they did last year.
Monthly boardings peaked at 58-million for just one month last summer. Current projections are that 64-
million monthly boardings will occur for a sustained period this summer. This level of traffic already has
begun to produce significantly increased demands on checkpoints, particularly because TSA has 6,000
fewer screeners than last year. Recognizing that these increased demands will affect passenger processing
times at checkpoints, representatives of the TSA, airports and airlines undertook a collaborative effort to
develop and implement enhancements to passenger screening practices. Twenty-five "focus" airports were
identified for this program. This joint effort has produced best practices that should translate into faster
screening for our customers. This is an important accomplishment in its own right but also because it
demonstrates that collaborative efforts involving TSA, airports and airlines can be successful. In addition,
airlines are supplying TSA with passenger enplanement forecasts to enable TSA to test its checkpoint
staffing model. The goal of this effort is to predict more precisely passenger wait times at checkpoints and
thereby permit TSA to staff those locations accordingly. Staffing decisions must be based on both accurate
passenger demand forecasts and realistic processing time assumptions in order for TSA to do its job
effectively and efficiently. Both in the short-term and long-term, resources must be promptly and efficiently
allocated to accommodate the increases in traffic we are now beginning to experience. For passenger and
checked baggage screening, an appropriate performance metric is needed. Without such a basic tool,
there is no accurate way to determine how screeners are performing and whether resources are being
allocated effectively. TSA states that its internal guideline is an average wait time of ten minutes. We think
an "average" wait time is not the right metric in this context because it will allow significantly longer wait
times during peak travel times. We recommend that TSA be required to establish a maximum wait time of
ten minutes per passenger. Only this standard will ensure that passenger wait times at checkpoints and
baggage screening locations are kept to an absolute minimum. Such a maximum wait standard offers
additional benefits. Among other things, it allows screening performance problems to be identified quickly,
it encourages uniformity across the system - something passengers expect to see, and it aids Federal
Security Directors (FSDs), in consultation with airlines, in making staffing adjustments. In addition, to
better and more promptly meet the increased passenger levels, TSA must assess, hire and train screeners
locally rather than to continue to rely upon the centralized hiring system. The current system cannot
provide the responsiveness that the rebound in passenger traffic requires. Relocating personnel, while
helpful as a stopgap measure, creates other issues (including cost) and problems that can be avoided.
Finally, Congress must provide funding, and TSA must be prepared, to expand hiring to meet passenger
growth. The 45,000 cap on the screener workforce, in fact, may not be adequate to meet actual passenger
demand. There has been some recent modest passenger growth system-wide, and some analysts forecast
a five percent increase in passenger traffic this year. Indeed, we are already hearing reports that security
checkpoints and checked baggage screening locations are understaffed at as many as 90 of the nation's
commercial service airports. As the nation's economy continues to recover and air carriers respond to
accommodate increasing demand, TSA must have the funding and authority to hire additional screeners
where and when demand exists. The TSA's staffing model, as well as the results of the Summer Plan,
should provide better information to guide Congress in determining whether the 45,000 screener cap
makes sense. Beyond this Summer: TSA Recruiting and Hiring Practices. A positive evolutionary step for
From the industry's
TSA has been the decision to begin hiring part-time employees.
perspective, the flexibility to match screening capacity with demand is
crucial to an effective and efficient system. Part-time positions allow TSA managers to have in
place enough employees to meet operating and rest needs during peak travel times, thereby ensuring that
screeners remain vigilant and perform their functions effectively.
b) Confidence delays kill it
Pearce 4 US House of Representatives from New Mexico (Steve Pearce,
4/22/4, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE:
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION HOLDS A HEARING ON AIRPORT SCREENER
PRIVATIZATION, Aviation Subcommittee, Lexis)//twemchen
I would encourage you -- I do not know -- I got the feeling from that discussion that you do not measure
the purpose of TSA was to restore
passenger delays, and, as has been pointed out,
confidence and return people to the airports and to flying, but the one thing
that's going to drive them away is lengthy delays and unpredictable delays .
I've heard comments from the fast-food industry that as hamburgers and breakfasts are sold across the
nation that a computer is showing exactly how many units are sold in what area and they begin to dispatch
I think anything
their ingredients to those areas where the sales may be running a little bit high.
short of that very, very pragmatic addressing of the need s for screeners in
some areas and the excess of screeners in other area s is needed here. We need to
approach this like a business . We need to direct the resources where they need
to be without overdirecting in other areas.
Efficient airlines are vital to agricultural distribution no

other transport can fill in
AFA 12 (Airlines for America, Economic Impact,
http://www.airlines.org/Pages/Economic-Impact.aspx)//twemchen
the airline industry
In the summer of 2005, Pulitzer Prize winner Daniel Yergin opined, "Every day,
propels the economic takeoff of our nation. It is the great enabler, knitting
together all corners of the country, facilitating the movement of people and
goods that is the backbone of economic growth. It also firmly embeds us in that awesome
process of globalization that is defining the 21st century." Indeed, the World Bank recognizes that "Air
transport has become an essential economic and social conduit throughout the world. Beyond the benefits
air transport also has become a vital form
of fast and inexpensive transcontinental travel,
of shipping for high-valued items that need to come to market quickly,
such as agricultural products subject to spoilage." Further, it notes that air cargo
has become the essential mode of transportation for high value and perishable goods,
wherein 40 percent of all goods by value worldwide are transported by air: "Many developing
countries depend heavily on air cargo for their exports as other modes are
unreliable or non-existent."
This causes food price blips which kill billions

Brown 5 Lester R. Brown, President of the Earth Policy Institute, 2-7-2005
http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2424
The world has been slow to respond to these new threats to food security. In
four of the last five years the world grain harvest has fallen short of consumption. As a result, world grain stocks are now
at their lowest level in 30 years. Another large world grain shortfall in 2005 could drop stocks to the lowest level on record
and send world food prices into uncharted territory of rising food prices. IT CONTINUES Many Americans see terrorism as
the principal threat to security, but for much of humanity, the effects of water shortages and rising temperatures on food
For the 3 billion people who live on 2 dollars a day or
security are far more important issues.
less and who spend up to 70 per cent of their income on food, even a modest rise in food prices
can quickly become life-threatening . For them, it is the next meal that is the overriding concern."
Preventing starvation is ethically prior to any other

impact
LaFollette 3 Cole Chair in Ethics at USF (Hugh,
www.stpt.usf.edu/hhl/papers/World.Hunger.htm)
Those who claim the relatively affluent have this strong obligation must, among other things, show why
Hardin's projections are either morally irrelevant or mistaken. A hearty few take the former tack: they
claimwe have a strong obligation to aid the starving even if we would eventually
become malnourished. On this view, to survive on lifeboat earth, knowing that others
were tossed overboard into the sea of starvation, would signify an indignity and
callousness worse than extinction (Watson 1977). It would be morally
preferable to die struggling to create a decent life for all than to continue to live
at the expense of the starving.
Independently, food price spikes risk global war

Droke 12 editor of the three times weekly Momentum Strategies Report;
frequently covers the current status of the economy (2012, Clif, Rising fuel
costs and the next Revolution,
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article33595.html)
The economic and political importance of high food prices cant be underestimated.
To take one example, high food prices were the catalyst for last years outbreak of
revolution in several Middle East countries. The region once known as the Fertile Crescent is heavily dependent on
imported grain and rising fuel costs contributed to the skyrocketing food prices which provoked the Arab revolts. Annia Ciezadlo, in her article
Let Them Eat Bread in the March 23, 2011 issue of Foreign Affairs wrote: Of the top 20 wheat importers for 2010, almost half are Middle
Eastern countries. The list reads like a playbook of toppled and teetering regimes: Egypt (1), Algeria (4), Iraq (7), Morocco (8), Yemen (13),
high food costs have long been a major factor in

Saudi Arabia (15), Libya (16), Tunisia (17). Indeed,
fomenting popular revolt. The French Revolution of the late 1700s originated with a
food shortage which caused a 90 percent increase in the bread price in 1789. Describing the build-up to the Reign of Terror in
France of 1793-94, author Susan Kerr wrote: For a time, local governments attempted to improve distribution channels and moderate
soaring prices. Against this backdrop of rumbling stomachs and wailing hungry children, the excesses and arrogance of the nobility and clergy
strutted in sharp contrast. This historical event has an obvious parallel in todays emphasis on the elite 1 percent versus the 99 percent.
The French government of the late 18th century attempted to assuage the pain caused by soaring food prices, but ultimately this effort failed.
Although the U.S. government attempted for a time to keep fuel prices low, it has since abandoned all effort at stopping speculators from
pushing prices ever higher. An undercurrent of popular revolt is already present within the U.S. as evidenced by the emergence of the Tea
Party and by last years Occupy Wall Street movement. This revolutionary sentiment has been temporarily suppressed by the simultaneous
improvement in the retail economy and the financial market rebound of the past few months. The fact that this is a presidential election year,
replete with the usual pump priming measures and underscored by the peaking 4-year cycle, has been an invaluable help in keeping
revolutionary fervor suppressed for the moment. But what those within the government and financial establishment have failed to consider is
that once the 4-year cycle peaks later this year, we enter the final hard down phase of the 120-year cycle to bottom in late 2014. This cycle
is also known, in the words of Samuel J. Kress, as the Revolutionary Cycle. Regarding the 120-year cycle, Kress wrote: The first 120-year
Mega Cycle began in the mid 1770s after a prolonged depressed economy and the Revolutionary War which transformed American from an
occupied territory to an independent country as we know the U.S.A. today. The first 120-year cycle ended in the mid 1890s after the first major
depression in the U.S. and the Spanish American War. This began the second 120-year cycle which transformed the U.S. from an agricultural to
a manufacturing based economy and which is referred to as the Industrial Revolution. The second 120-year is scheduled to bottom in later
If history, an evolving cycle, continues to repeat itself, the

2014 to begin the third (everything comes in threes).
potential for the third major depression and a WWIII equivalent exists and the U.S. could
experience another transformation and our life style as we know it today.
Solvency (2:00)
Contention three is solvency
Private sector innovation is essential the TSA is

statutorily obligated to model private innovations under
the SPP, theyre too constrained now
Stone 4 Admiral, Acting Administrator of the TSA (David Stone, 4/22/4,
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE:
While you will hear later from BearingPoint, the independent evaluator, I am pleased to now
have the opportunity to discuss their findings in an open hearing. This will allow me to discuss how those
funds will shape our thinking as we move forward on designing the parameters of
the opt-out program after the conclusion of the pilot program. As a threshold matter, ensuring
the security of the civil aviation system is our overriding objective. With this central mission in mind, a
fundamental goal of the independent study was to provide an objective view of whether it would be
appropriate for TSA to proceed with the opt-out program from a security standpoint. Indeed, the Aviation
and Transportation Security Act specifically states that TSA may only enter into private screening contracts
with airports electing to opt out if TSA determines and certifies that the level of screening services and
protection provided at the airport under the contract will be equal to or greater than the level that would
be provided at the airport by federal government personnel. The results of the BearingPoint study indicate
that, while additional study, analysis, and refinement will be required as we move forward, TSA anticipates
that it will be in a position to make this certification at the appropriate time. Specifically with respect to
five PP5 airports performed at a
security effectiveness, BearingPoint concluded that the
comparable level to the airports with TSA screeners. BearingPoint arrived
at its conclusion after conducting extensive comparisons between federal and
private contract screening using the following criteria: covert testing results
from TSA , DHS , and the G eneral A ccounting O ffice; screener response to
threat projection system images ; secondary searches conducted at
boarding gates to assess the effectiveness of initial searches at some airports; and
screener performance on various recertification tests . In addition to the
security analysis, BearingPoint compared the cost of conducting operations at
federal and private airports. They found that the cost at the five airports were not different
in any statistically significant manner from the estimated costs of federally conducted
security operations at those airports. BearingPoint also examined customer service and stakeholder
impact, although its findings in this area were less conclusive. Data indicated that customer satisfaction at
the Category X and 1 airports was mixed, but there was not enough data to draw conclusions for the other
three airports. However, a qualitative survey of stakeholders revealed no difference in this area between
airports with private contract screening and those with federal screeners.While we believe that
BearingPoint's independent study has been a highly useful exercise, it is
merely a starting point and not the end. We regard the pilot program and
opt-out program as an inner process where TSA continually operates ,
evaluates , and innovates with regard to private contract screening .
We've learned a great deal from the BearingPoint study, as well as from our own
experience , and I have no doubt that we will gain additional useful
information as we proceed with the remainder of the pilot program. We
intend to use the remaining months of the pilot program to incorporate lessons learned thus far and apply
them to the future conduct of the PP5 Program. Furthermore, we will be incorporating all lessons learned in
design of the opt-out and then further incorporate lessons learned from future
activities at airports utilizing private contract screening. We acknowledge and
appreciate suggestions voiced by the PP5 contractors, airport authorities,
as well as GAO and the DHS inspector general regarding operational
flexibility at the PP5 airports. Previously, in keeping with our central security mission, TSA
managed the PP5 Program conservatively with regard to flexibility . In doing
so, TSA was taking the utmost care during the organization's stand-up phase to ensure that security was
being met at all of the nation's airports including the PP5. TSA has provided the PP5 contractors with
significant flexibility in certain areas. However, we are actively seeking to increase this
flexibility even further. Now that we are more confident in our ability to judge the impact on aviation
security that a proposal may have, we will move forward aggressively in this area. One example of
flexibility is TSA's approval of the idea conceived by Covenant Aviation Services to implement and test the
concept of using baggage handlers to perform nonscreening functions in lieu of baggage screeners at San
Francisco International Airport. Covenant believes that this division of responsibilities will result in cost
savings without any deterioration in security. TSA is now monitoring the
implementation of this idea. TSA welcomes all innovative ideas put forward
by the contractors and will afford each proposal careful consideration .
The status quo imposes devastating innovation

constraints on SPP screeners only curtailing TSA
oversight of the security inputs process prevents
inefficient micromanagement
Ybarra 13 senior transportation policy analyst at the Reason Foundation, a
nonprofit think tank (Shirley Ybarra, July 2013, Overhauling U.S. Airport
Security Screening, Policy Brief 109,
http://reason.org/files/overhauling_airport_security.pdf)//twemchen
Competitive contracting has been widely used at local, state and
federal levels of government. In recent decades, it has been embraced by elected
officials of both parties as a way of achieving greater value for the
taxpayers dollar. One of the most influential books on the subject was Reinventing1Government by David
Osborne and Ted Gaebler, advisors to then Vice President Gores National Performance Review.7 Under this
a government wanting a service delivered more cost-effectively must
approach,
define the outcomes it wishes to achieve, leaving qualified bidders free to
propose their own procedures and technology for achieving those outcomes.
Such contracts typically stress measurement of outcome variables ,

and often provide financial penalties and bonuses . By contrast ,
under the Screening Partnership Program (SPP) set up by TSAs interpretation of the opt-out
provisions in the ATSA legislation, the entire process is micromanaged by TSA .
Instead of permitting the airport in question to issue a request for proposals (RFP) to TSA certified firms,
TSA itself selects the company and assigns it to the airport. And TSA itself
manages the contract with the screening company, rather than allowing the
airport to integrate screening into its security program, under overall TSA supervision and
regulation. Moreover, TSA spells out procedures and technology (inputs)
rather than only specifying the desired screening outcomes , thereby making it
very difficult for screening companies to innovate. As well, the ATSA
legislation mandates that compensation levels for private screeners be
identical to those of TSA screeners. Under a performance contracting approach, with
screening devolved to the airport, TSA would continue to certify screening companies
that met its requirements (e.g., security experience, financial strength, screener qualifications, training,
etc.). It would also spell out the screening performance measures (outcomes) that
companies or airports would be required to meet. Airports would be free to either provide screening
themselves (with screeners meeting those same TSA requirements) or to competitively contract for a TSA-
Companies bidding in response to the airports RFP would
certified screening company.
propose their approach to meeting the performance requirements, in terms of staff,
procedures and technology. This could include, for example, cross-training screeners to carry out other
airport security duties, such as access and perimeter control. The airport would select the
proposal that offered the best value , subject to TSA approval. TSA, in its role as
regulator, would oversee all aspects of the airports security operations, including adherence to federal
laws and screening.
Decentralizing regulation solves

Mica 4 US House of Representatives from Florida (John Mica, 4/22/4,
The PP5 Pilot Program allows qualified private security companies to provide passenger
and baggage screening at select airports under federal supervision . The
private screening companies have been required to meet the same very rigorous security standards as are
the law that
centrally employed federal screeners under the full federal screening program. However,
we wrote is silent on what role TSA is to have in the pilot program, other
than providing federal oversight . The private screening program began in November 2002 when
four qualified private security companies -- FirstLine Transportation Security, Jackson Hole Airport Board,
McNeil Technologies, Inc., and Covenant Aviation Security -- took over screening at five airports -- Jackson
Hole, Kansas City International, Greater Rochester International, San Francisco International, and Tupelo,
Mississippi. When we put this program in place, we selected one in each category of size of airport to test
this private approach. Currently, however, more than 400 airports operate with centralized command and
The operational
control employment and training of some nearly 45,000 screening personnel.
success of our highly centralized all federal screening bureaucracy has
been marginal by almost any effective and objective evaluation. Numerous airports have
been plagued with passenger screening delays . We've had many of them appear. I think we
had 16 airports appear before us just recently talking about some of the problems. For example, Las
Vegas, Nevada, reported some four-hour passenger screening delays at one point.
Screener vacancies exceed 20 percent in some of our busiest airports. Los Angeles,
for example -- and I visited there earlier this year -- cited over 290 unfilled positions, while Jacksonville,
Florida, to the north of my district, reported to our subcommittee that they had too many screening
personnel. Many other airports report excess TSA airport bureaucracy . Training
and background checks, unfortunately, have lagged behind . The TSA
bureaucracies at large and small airports, unfortunately, have grown unchecked .
Quite frankly, it's difficult or impossible , I believe, to micromanage the
employment, the training, and the deployment of tens of thousands
of screeners from Washington, D.C ., to scores of differently configured airports with
fluctuating scheduling requirements. While problems with a Soviet-style federal screening operation should
raise the serious concern of Congress, anyone who has seen the classified results
and detection rates of this system and does not call for reform in the program, I
believe, is derelict in their responsibility . That's why I've been a major proponent of a
decentralized screening program. I also believe that aviation security is not best served by a
one-size-fits-all approach. Rather, we should allow decentralized
flexibility , efficiency , cost savings , and innovations . These are
things that the pilot program was intended to highlight. All that can
be accomplished, as Europe and Israel have realized, without diluting any
standards lowering any requirements . As long as the highest level security
or
standards are met or exceeded, how that is accomplished should be determined
by those most closely involved at the airport operational level . While I am most
pleased with the results of the pilot screening program, some will testify today that the
program was overconstrained by the TSA and it never really was allowed to
be experimental . We'll look at that. However, I believe that the pilot program has had a very
positive effect on the provision of aviation security post-September 11. I understand that the PP5
companies were initially given limited flexibility in recruiting , hiring and
training , and implementing new approaches to meet the federal operating

standards, the SOPs.
All their disads are non-unique
a) Privatizations inevitable internationally

Lexis)//twemchen
Many other countries have privatized their airport security screening.132
More than 80 percent of Europes commercial airports use private screening
companies, including those in Britain , France , Germany , and Spain .133
The other airports in Europe use their own in-house security, but no major country in Europe
uses the national governments aviation bureaucracy for screening.134
Europes airports moved to private contracting during the 1980s and 1990s after numerous hijackings and
terrorist threats, and it has worked very well.135 Canada also uses private screening
companies at its commercial airports, and some airports also use private firms for general airport
security. After 9/11, the government created the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, which oversees
screening at the countrys 89 commercial airports.136 But the screening itself is carried
out by three expert private firmsG4S, Garda, and Securitas which are each
responsible for a group of particular Canadian airports. Aviation security firms have
developed a great deal of expertise over the decades. They have responded to
the demands of their clients, and they apply the best practices they have
learned across the airports they serve . Private businesses make
mistakes, but unlike government bureaucracies they are more likely to improve
their performance over time, particularly in a competitive contracting
environment . Many countries have embraced privatization not only for

airport security, but also for other parts of their aviation systems.137 Dozens
of countries have privatized major airports, and some have privatized
their air traffic control systems. Canada, for example, privatized its system in 1996,
setting it up as a nonprofit corporation, Nav Canada.138 That reform has been a big success, with Nav
Canada running one of the safest air traffic control systems in the world and winning awards for its top
performance.139 Canada also privatized its 26 largest airports in the 1990s.140 In many ways, the
United States has become a laggard in commercial aviation.
Numerous other nations have privatized their airports, air traffic control, and aspects
of their aviation security. American policymakers should study those reforms and
pursue such innovations here. Privatization offers a viable alternative

to Americas often mismanaged and inefficient government aviation
infrastructure. With regard to aviation security, the federal government has an important role to
play. But its near-monopoly over airport screening has resulted in it
getting bogged down in managing its bloated federal workforce ,
as one congressional report concluded.141 Operating the vast passenger and baggage
screening system takes the governments focus away from proper
federal activities such as terrorism intelligence and analysis .
b) Its inevitable in the US and increases are coming

Trainor 12 staff writer at the Montana Standard (Tim Trainor, 9/2/12,
Airport may use private screeners, McClatchy-Tribune Business News,
Lexis)//twemchen
Sixteen U.S. airports use private screeners, including nine in Montana. Airports in West
Yellowstone and Kalispell will soon be added to the list. Shea said more could soon be lining up to join the
program. "What I think we'll see is the process go forward , more and more
airports will become privatized," he said. "It's better for airport and more and more will
want to apply."
1ac New
1ac screening
The advantage is screening
The TSAs terrorism policy is worse than <condo><the

dennison building><gbns highlighting> it empirically
guarantees vast security breaches that make terrorism
inevitable the private sector would provide a useful
model, but burdensome surveillance impedes innovation
effort, TSAs
In the meantime, the risk of airport terrorism is resurging

Al Qaeda is outsourcing attacks to unpredictable lone
wolves radicalized by US interventions
Brown 15 (Pamela Brown, 1/13/15, New terror threat increases U.S.
airport security, http://wwlp.com/2015/01/13/new-terror-threat-increases-u-s-
airport-security/)//twemchen
The Department of Homeland Security is making changes after a renewed push by Al
Qaeda in Yemen to activate extremists living in the U.S. Theyre asking them to
create new bombs , with the goal of bringing down an airplane or wreaking havoc
at the airport Amid renewed fears of hard-to-detect bombs being smuggled onto commercial flights,
the U.S. is expanding random security checks of passengers in U.S. airports once theyve already made it
through airport security. Those second checks at the gate could include an additional bag search,
passenger patdowns, and hand swabs for traces of explosives. Terrorism Analyst Paul Cruikshank says,
One part is the potential threat to airplanes, the other part is the threat to passengers who are queuing
up in a security line, and someone is trying to bring a bomb and blow people up in the security lines. The
stepped up measures are partly in response to Al Qaeda, in the Arabian Peninsulas
propaganda magazine Inspire, laying out a new recipe to concoct non-metallic
bombs with simple household products . U.S. government officials say airport body
scanners can normally catch these hard to detect explosives, but the advanced technology is
not available in some smaller U.S. airports. Cruikshank says, AQAP says even if it does
not get through airport security, enough fuss will be made about people attempting to
do this that it will spread terror in the west , and their aims will be achieved.
And, insider threats are also increasing effective
screening of airport employees is necessary to prevent
WMD attacks
McCaul 15 Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security
Subcommittee on Transportation Security, representative from Texas (Michael
McCaul, 2/3/15, A REVIEW OF ACCESS CONTROL MEASURES AT OUR
NATION'S AIRPORTS, Political Transcript Wire, Lexis)//twemchen
MCCAUL: Thank the chairman. I would want to first congratulate you and Ranking Member Rice on your
new position on this committee, and by starting off this Congress with an important hearing that focuses
It
on the importance of -- timely topic of access control and employee screening at our nation's airports.
is vital that agencies responsible for protecting our airports are doing all that they can to
keep safe our aviation sector. This responsibility does not end at the passenger screening
checkpoints. A robust system of vetting employees at airports is equally as important. This hearing is an
important opportunity to examine security programs designed to mitigate potential
insider threats from airport employees, airline employees, TSA personnel and others who
have access to sterile areas of domestic airports. In addition to the most recent access
control breaches at Atlanta Airport that have been mentioned, there have been a number of
insider threats and employee issues at various other airports in recent years. For example, in
December of 2013 the FBI arrested an avionic technician at Wichita Airport for plotting a
suicide attack using a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device. The technician allegedly
intended to use his airport clearance to gain access to the tarmac and detonate the
vehicle near planes and the terminal during peak holiday travel in order to maximize casualties. He was
charged with attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction , and attempted to
provide material assistance to A l- Q aeda in the A rabian P eninsula. Additionally in September of
2013 a TSA screener at Los Angeles International Airport was arrested a few hours after
resigning his position for making threats against the airport that cited the anniversary of 9/11, and
for leaving a suspicious package at the airport . His actions resulted in the evacuation of
several airport terminals. And finally in September of 2014 a former airline employee at
Minneapolis Airport died in Syria fighting alongside the I slamic S tate in I raq and
S yria. We know the individual had left employment with the airline several
years prior to becoming a former fighter of ISIS. He did have access to areas of the airport during his
employment, including the tarmac. There are significant lessons to be drawn from
these and other incidents involving employees. The bottom line is that our aviation network
remains a prime target for terrorism . We must be vigilant and
constantly reevaluate our security posture according to the threats that we
face. And that includes potential insider threats.
ISIS is also targeting aviation theyre developing tech to

deploy thermite bombs against passenger aircraft
Biles 15 staff writer at Homeland Security Today (Clay Biles, 4/28/15,
theres a
concerns over terrorists use of thermite also
unspecific warning Friday by TSA,
thermite
ignition of a
TSA is suffering from the chronic symptoms of
may be. It becomes quickly apparent that
Such attacks risk nuclear lashout

that think this is all a funny game discount the real peril that they are in. If there is
counter-responses .
Even worse, these conventional terror attacks devastate
AP 7 (U.S.: Unthinkable terror devastation prevented,
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18999503/#.VbHRdvlViko)//trepka
NEW YORK Federal authorities said a plot by a suspected Muslim terrorist cell
to blow up John F. Kennedy International Airport, its fuel tanks and a jet fuel
artery could have caused unthinkable devastation . But while pipeline and
security experts agreed that such an attack would have [ shattered ]
crippled Americas economy, particularly the airline industry , they said it probably
would not have led to significant loss of life as intended. Authorities announced Saturday they had broken
up the suspected terrorist cell, arresting three men, one of them a former member of Guyanas parliament.
A fourth man was being sought in Trinidad as part of the plot that authorities said they had been tracking
for more than a year and was foiled in the planning stages. The
devastation that would be
caused had this plot succeeded is just unthinkable , U.S. Attorney Roslynn R. Mauskopf
said at a news conference, calling it one of the most chilling plots imaginable. In an indictment charging
the four men, one of them is quoted as saying the foiled plot would cause greater destruction than in the
Sept. 11 attacks, destroying the airport, killing several thousand people and destroying parts of New
Yorks borough of Queens, where the pipeline runs underground. Symbolic target One of the suspects,
Russell Defreitas, a U.S. citizen native to Guyana and former JFK air cargo employee, said the airport
named for the slain president was targeted because it is a symbol that would put the whole country in
mourning. Its like you can kill the man twice, said Defreitas, 63, who first hatched his plan more than a
decade ago when he worked as a cargo handler for a service company, according to the indictment.
Authorities said the men were motivated by hatred toward the United States and Israel. Defreitas was
recorded saying he wanted to do something to get those bastards and he boasted that he had been
taught to make bombs in Guyana. Despite their efforts, the men never obtained any explosives, authorities
said. Pulling off any bombing of this magnitude would not be easy in todays environment, former U.S.
State Department counterterrorism expert Fred Burton said, but added it was difficult to determine without
knowing all the facts of the case. The pipeline, owned by Buckeye Pipeline Co., takes fuel from a facility in
Linden, N.J., to the airport. Other lines service LaGuardia Airport and New Jerseys Newark Liberty
International Airport. Buckeye spokesman Roy Haase said the company had been informed of the threat
from the beginning. Richard Kuprewicz, a pipeline expert and president of Accufacts Inc., an energy
consulting firm that focuses on pipelines and tank farms, said the force of explosion would depend on the
amount of fuel under pressure, but it would not travel up and down the line. That doesnt mean wackos
out there cant do damage and cause a fire, but those explosions and fires are going to be fairly
restricted, he said. John W. Magaw, a former head of the Transportation Security Administration, told The
such an attack may not cause a lot of deaths, but it would be
Washington Post that
spectacular and seen around the world . He said it could [ shut down ]
cripple the airlines.
Backlash by the insurance industry magnifies the impact

the only reason we rode out 9/11 is because of a seven
day grace period for insurance cancellation
Post 3 Post Magazine, Timothy Benn Publishing Ltd. (7/17/3, THE BRITISH
INSURANCE AWARDS 2003; REINSURANCE INNOVATION OF THE YEAR -
TROIKA INSURANCE COMPANY - FLYING IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITY.,
Lexis)//twemchen
Having lost four planes to terrorist actions, insurance companies invoked the seven-day
cancellation clause and slashed the maximum cover available for third-
for war and terrorism risks. It fell from more than
party non-passenger liability cover
$1bn (GBP 596m) to a maximum of $50m. At the same time, premiums rose
exponentially . Airlines faced the nightmare scenario of their airfleets being
grounded because of insufficient cover to satisfy the companies from
which they leased their aircraft , causing financial losses that could have
proved fatal at a time when passenger numbers slumped rapidly after 11
September. In the days immediately following the attacks, the aviation insurance crisis
snowballed rapidly . When the seven-day cancellation clause was invoked on 17 September
2001 it became clear that unless a solution was found quickly, the world's airlines would not be able to fly
anywhere at all from midnight on Monday 24 September.
After 9/11, that grace period no longer exists ensuring

aviation collapse
Morning Star 2 Peoples Press Printing Society Ltd (10/3/2, EU airlines
plead for more handouts;, Morning Star, Lexis)//twemchen
THE European aviation industry called on the European Union yesterday to keep state guarantees
for war and terrorism risks that became uninsurable after last year's September 11
attacks. The European commission said last week that it would not allow the temporary guarantees to
continue after the end of October. EU transport ministers are due to discuss the issue at a meeting in
Luxembourg today. "Europe's airlines and airports will soon be left with insufficient
third-party war and terrorism insurance cover to ensure the continuation of
normal operations, " the European airline and airport bodies said in a joint statement. After the
hijacked airliner attacks on US cities last year, commercial insurers slashed the cover
that they offered for war and terrorism third-party liability risks, leading governments around the
world to step in to provide the necessary cover.
Even single carriers have a ripple effect

Oberstar 2 Representative from Minnesota (James Oberstar, 9/24/2,
HEARING OF THE AVIATION SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Federal News Service)//twemchen
"Failureof an established carrier can have a domino effect throughout the

air transport issue, the aerospace industry and the whole economy . The
harmful effects of recession and high fuel prices pale in comparison to
the destructive competition in the industry today" -- words said at a committee hearing in
1981.
This is vital to agricultural distribution no other

transport can fill in
Disruptions in the airline industry cause food price blips

which endanger billions globally
Spikes in food prices create conditions conducive to

conflict escalation
Lugar 4 (Richard G., former U.S. Senator Indiana and Former Chair Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, Plant Power, Our Planet, 14(3),
http://www.unep.org/ourplanet/imgversn/143/lugar.html)
In a world confronted by global terrorism, turmoil in the Middle East, burgeoning nuclear threats and other
long-range challenges. But we do so at our peril. One of
crises, it is easy to lose sight of the
the most daunting of them is meeting the worlds need for food and energy in this
century. At stake is not only preventing starvation and saving the environment , but
also world peace and security. History tells us that states may go to war over access to
resources, and that poverty and famine have often bred fanaticism and terrorism .
Working to feed the world will minimize factors that contribute to global instability
and the proliferation of w eapons of m ass d estruction. With the world population expected to
grow from 6 billion people today to 9 billion by mid-century, the demand for affordable food will
increase well beyond current international production levels. People in rapidly developing nations will
have the means greatly to improve their standard of living and caloric intake. Inevitably, that means eating
more meat. This will raise demand for feed grain at the same time that the growing world population will
need vastly more basic food to eat. Complicating a solution to this problem is a dynamic that must be
better understood in the West: developing countries often use limited arable land to expand cities to house
As good land disappears, people destroy timber resources and
their growing populations.
even rainforests as they try to create more arable land to feed themselves. The long-term
environmental consequences could be disastrous for the entire globe . Productivity
revolution To meet the expected demand for food over the next 50 years, we in the United
States will have to grow roughly three times more food on the land we have. Thats a tall order.
My farm in Marion County, Indiana, for example, yields on average 8.3 to 8.6 tonnes of corn per hectare
typical for a farm in central Indiana. To triple our production by 2050, we will have to produce an annual
average of 25 tonnes per hectare. Can we possibly boost output that much? Well, its been done before.
Advances in the use of fertilizer and water, improved machinery and better tilling
techniques combined to generate a threefold increase in yields since 1935 on our farm back then,
my dad produced 2.8 to 3 tonnes per hectare. Much US agriculture has seen similar increases. But of
course there is no guarantee that we can achieve those results again. Given the urgency of expanding food
production to meet world demand, we must invest much more in scientific research and target that money
toward projects that promise to have significant national and global impact. For the United States, that will
mean a major shift in the way we conduct and fund agricultural science. Fundamental research will
The United States can take a
generate the innovations that will be necessary to feed the world.
leading position in a productivity revolution . And our success at increasing food
production may play a decisive humanitarian role in the survival of billions of
people and the health of our planet .
Irans looking to cyber-attack US airports the

capabilities exist attacks kill millions security
innovations are key
Gilbert 14 tech editor at International Business Times UK (David Gilbert,
12/3/14, Operation Cleaver: Iran's state-sponsored hackers infiltrate airport
and airline security, http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/operation-cleaver-irans-state-
sponsored-hackers-infiltrate-airport-airline-security-1477881)//twemchen
A group of hackers based in Iran called Tarh Andishan, backed by the Iranian
government, are carrying out a co-ordinated and sophisticated campaign of
cyber-attacks against critical infrastructure organisations around the
world, which could be putting the lives of millions of airline passengers
in danger. The on-going campaign has been dubbed Operation Cleaver and has been active
since 2012. In that time, the Iranian hackers have compromised the systems of over
50 companies and organisations in sectors as varied as energy, military intelligence, aerospace,
hospitals, and even universities. However, it is the group's infiltration of commercial
airlines and airports which could prove the most worrying aspect of
Operation Cleaver. Cylance, the security company which has been tracking the hackers, says in its 56-page
report into the hacking campaign that "there is a possibility that this campaign could affect
airline passenger safety ". Security systems at airports in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and South
Korea have all been compromised along with airlines in the US, United Arab Emirates, South Korea,
Pakistan and Qatar. The group has also compromised the systems of companies in the aerospace industry
the "most bone-chilling
in Israel and China. "Bone-chilling evidence" Cylance says
evidence" it collected in this campaign was the targeting and compromise of
transportation networks and systems such as airlines and airports. Operation
Cleaver - Iran's state-sponsored hackers threaten airline passengers Operation Cleaver is an on-going
persistent attack by Iranian state-sponsored hackers which has infiltrated more than 50 global critical
infrastructure companies in the last two years.(Cylance) The hackers have gained " complete
access " to airport security gates and their control systems, "potentially allowing
them to spoof gate credentials " which will be of a huge worry to passengers and
authorities alike. Iranian state-sponsored hackers Iran has been the victim of major cyber-attacks in recent
years, most famously with Stuxnet in 2009 which targeted a nuclear enrichment plant in Natantz.
Following the discovery of Stuxnet (as well as Duqu and Flame) the Iranian government established a
state-sponsored hacking group to carry out retaliation attacks. The first major result of this was the
Shamoon campaign which affected 30,000 computers at the Saudi Aramco and RasGas with huge financial
implications. This was followed by attacks on the US banking industry in 2012 (Operation Ababil) and
against US officials in 2014 (Operation Newscaster). "We witnessed a shocking amount of
access into the deepest parts of these companies and the airports in which
they operate," the report states. The hackers were able to gain almost unfettered
access to the systems of the companies with Active Directory domains fully compromised, along with
switches, routers, and the internal networking infrastructure. In parallel, the hackers have been targeting
airlines, and according to the report, have breached both cyber and physical assets at major airline
operators, including at least one large US airline. "The end goal is not known" While Cylance has been
monitoring the hacker group for two years, it is still in the dark about much of its operations and goals, and
that is why it has decided to publish what it knows now: "We believe our visibility into this campaign
represents only a fraction of Operation Cleaver's full scope. We believe that if the operation is left to
continue unabated, it is only a matter of time before the world's physical safety is impacted by it." "We are
exposing this cyber-campaign early in an attempt to minimise additional real-world impact and prevent
The report concludes worryingly: "The end goal of this
further victimisation."
operation is not known at this time." Iran has labelled the report "baseless and unfounded"
believing it to be an attempt to tarnish the government and hamper the on-going nuclear talks. Cylance
CEO Stuart McClure however claims his company's report "refrained from exaggeration and
embellishment" limiting itself to report "only that which can be definitively confirmed".
Private data sharing is key

Corrin 14 Federal Times (Amber Corrin, 4/25/14, Government, industry
target air traffic cyber attacks,
http://archive.federaltimes.com/article/20140425/CYBER/304250012/Govern
ment-industry-target-air-traffic-cyber-attacks)//twemchen
The program is being led by the Transportation Security Administration in conjunction with the office of the
Director of National Intelligence and the National Counterterrorism Center. It will include the construction
of an information-sharing and analysis center at a TSA facility near Ft. Meade, Md., where the
National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command are headquartered. Cyber-threat information-sharing
initiatives have seen at least some success in recent years, including the defense industrial
base (DIB) program that shares threat indicators and related data between major defense
contractors and the Defense Department. The Homeland Security Department also has launched
efforts to share cyber threat information between government and commercial entities in order to better
protect critical infrastructure. Warnings of cyber threats to the U.S. air traffic control system are
not new. It was a point President Barack Obama made in a national cybersecurity address in 2009.
Computer problems that hampered Federal Aviation Administration operations that
same year raised serious questions about cyber vulnerabilities. Making

matters worse, the antiquated air traffic control network is not set for
replacement until the Next Generation Air Transportation System is completed in 2025 . In a
December 2013 report outlining top challenges for 2014, the Transportation Departments Office of the
Inspector General criticized DOT for endangering transportation technology infrastructure by failing to
update IT systems as federally required. Last year, we reported that the department improved its
information security program by enhancing its cyber security policy and guidance and establishing a
repository for software security baselines, the DOT inspector general wrote. However, DOTs information
systems still remained vulnerable to significant security threats and risks because the program did not
meet key Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Federal Information Security Management Act
(FISMA) requirements to protect agency information and systems.
Wed retaliate that goes nuclear

Lawson 9 [5/13, Dr. Sean Lawson is an assistant professor in the Department
of Communication at the University of Utah, Cross-Domain Response to
Cyber Attacks and the Threat of Conflict Escalation, Transformation Tracker,
http://www.seanlawson.net/?p=477http://seanlawson.rhetorical-
devices.net/2009/05/13/477 ]
At a time when it seems impossible to avoid the seemingly growing hysteria over the threat of cyber war,
[1] network security expert Marcus Ranum delivered a refreshing talk recently, The
Problem with Cyber War, that took a critical look at a number of the assumptions underlying
addressed one issue in partiuclar that I
contemporary cybersecurity discourse in the United States. He
conflict escalationi.e. the possibility that offensive
would like to riff on here, the issue of
use of cyber attacks could escalate to the use of physical force. As I will show, his
concerns are entirely legitimate as current U.S. military cyber doctrine
assumes the possibility of what I call cross-domain responses to cyberattacks.
Backing Your Adversary (Mentally) into a Corner Based on the premise that completely blinding a potential
adversary is a good indicator to that adversary that an attack is iminent, Ranum has argued that The
best thing that you could possibly do if you want to start World War III is
launch a cyber attack. [...] When people talk about cyber war like its a practical thing, what
theyre really doing is messing with the OK button for starting World War III. We need to get them to sit the
f-k down and shut the f-k up. [2] He is making a point similar to one that I have made in the past: Taking
away an adversarys ability to make rational decisions could backfire. [3] For example, Gregory Witol
cautions that attacking the decision makers ability to perform rational calculations may cause more
problems than it hopes to resolve. Removing the capacity for rational action may result
in completely unforeseen consequences, including longer and bloodier battles
than may otherwise have been. [4] Cross-Domain Response So, from a theoretical standpoint,
I think his concerns are well founded. But the current state of U.S. policy may be cause
for even greater concern. Its not just worrisome that a hypothetical blinding
attack via cyberspace could send a signal of imminent attack and therefore
trigger an irrational response from the adversary. What is also cause for
concern is that current U.S. policy indicates that kinetic attacks (i.e. physical use
of force) are seen as potentially legitimate responses to cyber attacks. Most worrisome
is that current U.S. policy implies that a nuclear response is possible , something
that policy makers have not denied in recent press reports . The reason, in part, is
that the U.S. defense community has increasingly come to see cyberspace as a
domain of warfare equivalent to air, land, sea, and space. The definition of
cyberspace as its own domain of warfare helps in its own right to blur the online/offline, physical-
space/cyberspace boundary. But thinking logically about the potential consequences of this framing leads
If cyberspace is a domain of warfare, then it
to some disconcerting conclusions.
becomes possible to define cyber attacks (whatever those may be said to entail) as
acts of war. But what happens if the U.S. is attacked in any of the other
domains? It retaliates. But it usually does not respond only within the domain in which it was
attacked. Rather, responses are typically cross-domain responsesi.e. a massive
bombing on U.S. soil or vital U.S. interests abroad (e.g. think 9/11 or Pearl Harbor)
might lead to air strikes against the attacker. Even more likely given a U.S.
military way of warfare that emphasizes multidimensional, joint
operations is a massive conventional (i.e. non-nuclear) response against the
attacker in all domains (air, land, sea, space), simultaneously. The possibility of
kinetic action in response to cyber attack, or as part of offensive U.S. cyber
operations, is part of the current (2006) National Military Strategy for
Cyberspace Operations [5]: Of course, the possibility that a cyber attack on the U.S. could lead to
a U.S. nuclear reply constitutes possibly the ultimate in cross-domain response. And while this may seem
far fetched, it has not been ruled out by U.S. defense policy makers and is, in fact, implied in current U.S.
defense policy documents. From the National Military Strategy of the United States (2004): The term
WMD/E relates to a broad range of adversary capabilities that pose potentially devastating impacts.
WMD/E includes chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and enhanced high explosive weapons as well
as other, more asymmetrical weapons. They may rely more on disruptive impact than destructive kinetic
effects. For example, cyber attacks on US commercial information systems or attacks against
transportation networks may have a greater economic or psychological effect than a relatively small
release of a lethal agent. [6] The authors of a 2009 National Academies of Science report on cyberwarfare
respond to this by saying, Coupled with the declaratory policy on nuclear weapons described earlier, this
the United States will regard certain kinds of cyberattacks
statement implies that
against the United States as being in the same category as nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons, and thus that a nuclear response to certain
kinds of cyberattacks (namely, cyberattacks with devastating impacts) may be possible. It
also sets a relevant scalea cyberattack that has an impact larger than that associated with a relatively
small release of a lethal agent is regarded with the same or greater seriousness. [7] Asked by the New
U.S. defense officials would not deny that nuclear
York Times to comment on this,
retaliation remains an option for response to a massive cyberattack:

agency/)//twemchen
The plan solves

Lexis)//twemchen
Lexis)//twemchen
c) Risk analysis its essential to deal with the complexity

of terrorism only private innovation institutionalizes it
Hawley 13 former administrator for the TSA (Kip Hawley, 8/6/13, TSA,
change the airport security mindset,
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/06/opinion/hawley-tsa/)//twemchen
the human brain is the most sophisticated tech nology on
Considering that
the planet and that the officers have experience with hundreds of
thousands of passengers, the question would seem to be: "How do we get the
most from this resource that we already pay and have on duty at
checkpoints?" It is not through additional rules and a more robust
disciplinary process . Security officers are in the best position to use
their experience and training and detect a threat not covered in the Standard Operating
Procedure. Al Qaeda knows the rules and designs its attacks to comply
with it. To stop attacks, officers thinking on their own needs to be
encouraged , not disciplined . Once officers are allowed to think for themselves, it
opens the door for mistakes and criticism. But people can be taught the fundamentals of
risk management , which provides a framework for [they] mak ing informed
judgments . The risk strategy must be carefully thought out --
complexity theory, with its network orientation, is the best way to think about
transportation security risk -- and risk management tools understood and applied. A nation
with no airline security Armed with substantial intelligence resources , TSA's air
marshals, inspectors and security officers need to be nimble in thinking
about and applying the principles of risk management. But they also must be
empowered to act. TSA needs to make these changes right now to
take on the root causes of its public and security issues . It needs to clean
up the mind numbing, overly complicated checkpoint "standard operating
procedure," which no longer matches our security needs and allow officers
to act. What needs to be changed : The intrusive pat-down needs to be discontinued in
favor of a lighter technique supplemented with available technologies. The "prohibited items" list needs
to be radically reduced to ban only real security threats such as explosives and toxins. As far as carrying
knives, the FAA should make it a serious federal offense to intimidate a member of the flight crew or
another passenger with a blade -- and then TSA can remove blades from the prohibited list. Blades
represent virtually no threat to the aircraft at this point. And the baggie rule should be dropped. Current
technology allows threat liquids to be detected when they are taken out of the carry-on and scanned in a
bin. Passengers should be chosen randomly for shoes and coat inspections. Precheck programs for
frequent fliers that expedite security screening should be applied to all travelers. Workers need to be
retrained in risk management and encouraged to use their own judgment and experience, consulting with
team members, to make prudent discretionary security calls. The pay-for-performance system for
transportation security officers needs to be reinstated. When transportation security officers unionized,
merit pay was replaced by the seniority system -- essentially, if officers follow the standard operating
We
procedure, they get regular pay raises up till retirement regardless of how well they perform.
need to allow real private-sector innovation to compete and play a
more meaningful role in security. Today, a fig leaf system is in place
that calls itself "private sector" but is in reality just personnel
outsourcing . These outsourced employees have to follow the TSA
process exactly -- the only difference is that they get to charge an 8%
markup on all their expenses. We need to get new ideas from
outside the TSA that can be tested at our checkpoints.
d) Security gap the status quo creates a chasm of

undelegated security responsibilities which structurally
ensures vulnerability
Poole 14 Searle Freedom Trust Transportation Fellow and Director of
Transportation Policy at the Reason Foundation (Robert Poole, 4/7/14, Airport
Policy and Security Newsletter #99, http://reason.org/news/show/airport-
policy-and-security-news-99#e)//twemchen
In the aftermath of November's shooting attack at LAX that killed a TSA screener, the screeners' union
(American Federation of Government Employees) called for creating a new category of armed screeners.
But after it consulted with a large array of aviation stakeholders, TSA has rejected that proposal. Instead,
its March 26th report made 14 recommendations to more effectively deal with the threat of "active
shooters" at airports. In particular, it called for armed law enforcement officers (local police or airport
police, if an airport has them) covering security checkpoints during peak periods. Other recommendations
include mandatory screener training and exercises to prepare them for the active-shooter threat, ensuring
that all TSA wireless devices are programmed with the airport's emergency number(s), weekly testing of
panic alarms at airports (and more alarms where warranted), plus linking the panic alarms to airport
security cameras, to guide first responders to the location of a shooting threat. The LAX shooting raised a
number of examples ofpoor coordination between the TSA screening operation and
the rest of the airport's security systems. Not having panic alarms linked to the
airport-run closed-circuit TV system is one example; another is the failure of 911
calls at LAX to be routed directly to airport police. These are examples of the lack
of integration of airport security as it is currently organized. Thanks to Congress in
2001 giving TSA the primary role of checkpoint and baggage screening , it
operates as a separate presence at each airport. All the rest of airport
securityaccess to sterile areas, perimeter protection, lobby security , etc.is the
airport's responsibility . To be sure, TSA has a (proper) regulatory role over those non-TSA
aspects of the airport's security. But this kind of divided operation is inherently
suboptimal , compared with the kind of integrated security that is typical of
European airports. The fundamental flaw, as I have pointed out in congressional testimony and in
this newsletter, is that TSA was created with the dual roles of aviation security regulator and airport
screening provider. That creates a conflict of interest in that when it comes to
baggage and passenger screening, TSA regulates itself . But it also creates
divided security responsibilities at the airport, when unified security would
almost certainly be more secure. Hence, if and when Congress ever decides to get
serious about devolving the screening function to airports (letting them perform it with
either their own TSA-approved staff or purchase it from a TSA-approved screening
firm ), they would not only be removing TSA's conflict of interest; they would
also be promoting unified security at each airport.
The best studies prove our internal link

Lexis)//twemchen


Independently, innovations to prevent terrorism are

necessary to check illegal wildlife trafficking
IPSN 14 India Public Sector News (8/11/14, Govt Says Revenue Target in
Indirect Taxes for 2014-15 Fiscal Achievable, IPSN, Lexis)//twemchen
Ms. Shanti Sundharam, Chairperson CBEC underlined the urgent need to benchmark with the most modern
customs administrations of the world and that theDepartment was watchful of the
responsibilities entrusted to it, as a border Control agency, for preventing activities
inimical to our national interest, like trafficking in drugs, flora , fauna , fake currency,
weapons of mass destruction, dual use chemicals, arms , etc . Therefore, she said that the aim is
to modernize the ports, airports and land customs operations with installation of more
scanners, baggage X ray equipment, deployment of sniffer dogs, upgrading physical infrastructure etc. She
said that this shall address the heightened security concerns of the nation, expedite cargo clearances, and
thereby enable our manufacturing to remain competitive in international trade. She said that CBEC
recognizes the importance of providing a non adversarial regime and a tax design for our taxpayers, which
complements the country's economic realities and business practices. She said that we have initiated
steps to reduce litigation in line with the National Litigation policy, and institutionalize consultative
mechanisms.
Trafficking destroys the environment and causes rampant

disease outbreaks
VADR 14 Vayu Aerospace and Defense Review (8/28/14, Clear and Present
Danger: Non-traditional security threats in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR),
Lexis)//twemchen
Trafficking of flora and fauna Many IOR countries have different biodiversity levels. The
illegal trafficking of rare species of flora and fauna is amongst one of the most
lucrative criminal trades in the world and, like other areas of organized crime, is smuggled
across borders. Unchecked demand for exotic pets, rare foods, plants, corals, and traditional
medicines is driving many species to the brink of extinction , threatening efforts
to meet the global 2010 target to reduce biodiversity loss, and contributing to
the spread to humans of virulent wildlife diseases such as SARS , avian
influenza and the Ebola virus. The illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products that are
indigenous to the region poses a threat to the balance of the ecosystem and it
gives rise to a soaring black market, worth an estimated $10 billion a year. The creatures are trafficked
illegal wildlife trade is often linked to
through middlemen to rich markets in the west. The
organised crime and involves many of the same culprits and smuggling routes as
trafficking in arms , drugs, and persons. Threats to the marine ecosystem The Indian Ocean
possesses a range of valuable natural resources including enormous amounts of mineral and energy
resources that remain under-exploited. Marine bio-security refers to the protection of marine environments
from non-indigenous species, and this has direct implications on biodiversity in the
marine ecological systems in the Indian Ocean. It has been found that invasive alien species are
becoming a significant threat to marine biodiversity, where ballast water is viewed as a
major cause of their proliferation. The Indian Ocean region is also vulnerable to high levels of pollution
caused by ocean dumping, waste disposal and oil spills as a significant amount of international trade takes
place in the region's waters. The waste poses threats to the survival of marine organisms and
consequently, on the marine ecosystem, on which millions of livelihoods depend. Overall environmental
threat has impacted economic activities such as fisheries, tourism and also affected fragile ecosystems.
Diseases risk extinction

Casadevall 12 March 21st, 2012, Arturo Casaveall is a professor of
Microbiology and Immunology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine,
Arturo, The future of biological
warfare,http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-
7915.2012.00340.x/full
In considering the importance of biological warfare as a subject for concern it is worthwhile to review the
known existential threats. At this time this writer can identify at three major existential threats to
humanity: (i) large-scale thermonuclear war followed by a nuclear winter, (ii) a planet killing asteroid
impact and (iii) infectious disease. To this trio might be added climate change making the planet
uninhabitable. Of the three existential threats the first is deduced from the inferred cataclysmic effects of
nuclear war. For the second there is geological evidence for the association of asteroid impacts with
recent decades
massive extinction (Alvarez, 1987). As to an existential threat from microbes have
provided unequivocal ev idence for the ability of certain pathogens to
cause the extinction of entire species. Although infectious disease has traditionally not been
a single chytrid fungus was
associated with extinction this view has changed by the finding that
responsible for the extinction of numerous amphibian species (Daszak et al.,
1999; Mendelson et al., 2006). Previously, the view that infectious diseases were not a cause of extinction
was predicated on the notion that many pathogens required their hosts and that some proportion of the
host population was naturally resistant. However, that calculation does not apply tomicrobes that
are acquired directly from the environment and have no need for a
host, such as the majority of fungal pathogens. For those types of hostmicrobe
interactions it is possible for the pathogen to kill off every last member of a species without harm to itself,
since it would return to its natural habitat upon killing its last host. Hence, from the viewpoint of existential
threats environmental microbes could potentially pose a much greater threat to humanity than the known
pathogenic microbes, which number somewhere near 1500 species (Cleaveland et al., 2001; Tayloret al.,
2001), especially if some of these species acquired the capacity for pathogenicity as a consequence of
natural evolution or bioengineering.
Specifically, Avian flu

Chandra 4 National Security Advisor for India (Satish Chandra, 2004,
Global Security: A broader concept for the 21st century, Center for Strategic
Decision Research, 5-7,
http://www.csdr.org/2004book/chandra.htm)//twemchen
This scenario, as frightening as it is, pales in comparison with what could overtake us by 2007 if the highly
pathogenic form of bird flu H5N1 becomes transmittable human to human; all it would take for
In a globalized
this to happen is a simple gene shift in the bird flu virus, which could happen any day.
world linked by rapid air travel, the disease would spread like a raging forest
fire. If it did, it would overwhelm our public health system, cripple [destroy] our
economies, and wipe out a billion people within the space of a few months a 60
percent mortality rate is estimated.
1ac plan

substantially curtail the TSAs authority to conduct
domestic surveillance of airports covered by the TSAs
Screening Partnership Program.
1ac solvency
Contention two is solvency


approach,

laws and screening.

the law that
The operational
or


Lexis)//twemchen


Lexis)//twemchen
want to apply."
1ac Old
1ac terrorism
Advantage one is terrorism
The TSAs terrorism policy is worse than conditionality it

empirically guarantees vast security breaches that make
terrorism inevitable the private sector would provide a
useful model, but burdensome surveillance impedes
innovation
effort, TSAs
Three internal links

Lexis)//twemchen
The best studies prove our argument

Lexis)//twemchen


Lexis)//twemchen
c) Risk analysis its essential to deal with the complexity

of terrorism only private innovation institutionalizes it
Hawley 13 former administrator for the TSA (Kip Hawley, 8/6/13, TSA,
change the airport security mindset,
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/06/opinion/hawley-tsa/)//twemchen
the human brain is the most sophisticated tech nology on
Considering that
the planet and that the officers have experience with hundreds of
thousands of passengers, the question would seem to be: "How do we get the
most from this resource that we already pay and have on duty at
checkpoints?" It is not through additional rules and a more robust
disciplinary process . Security officers are in the best position to use
their experience and training and detect a threat not covered in the Standard Operating
Procedure. Al Qaeda knows the rules and designs its attacks to comply
with it. To stop attacks, officers thinking on their own needs to be
encouraged , not disciplined . Once officers are allowed to think for themselves, it
opens the door for mistakes and criticism. But people can be taught the fundamentals of
risk management , which provides a framework for [they] mak ing informed
judgments . The risk strategy must be carefully thought out --
complexity theory, with its network orientation, is the best way to think about
transportation security risk -- and risk management tools understood and applied. A nation
with no airline security Armed with substantial intelligence resources , TSA's air
marshals, inspectors and security officers need to be nimble in thinking
about and applying the principles of risk management. But they also must be
empowered to act. TSA needs to make these changes right now to
take on the root causes of its public and security issues . It needs to clean
up the mind numbing, overly complicated checkpoint "standard operating
procedure," which no longer matches our security needs and allow officers
to act. What needs to be changed : The intrusive pat-down needs to be discontinued in
favor of a lighter technique supplemented with available technologies. The "prohibited items" list needs
to be radically reduced to ban only real security threats such as explosives and toxins. As far as carrying
knives, the FAA should make it a serious federal offense to intimidate a member of the flight crew or
another passenger with a blade -- and then TSA can remove blades from the prohibited list. Blades
represent virtually no threat to the aircraft at this point. And the baggie rule should be dropped. Current
technology allows threat liquids to be detected when they are taken out of the carry-on and scanned in a
bin. Passengers should be chosen randomly for shoes and coat inspections. Precheck programs for
frequent fliers that expedite security screening should be applied to all travelers. Workers need to be
retrained in risk management and encouraged to use their own judgment and experience, consulting with
team members, to make prudent discretionary security calls. The pay-for-performance system for
transportation security officers needs to be reinstated. When transportation security officers unionized,
merit pay was replaced by the seniority system -- essentially, if officers follow the standard operating
We
procedure, they get regular pay raises up till retirement regardless of how well they perform.
need to allow real private-sector innovation to compete and play a
more meaningful role in security. Today, a fig leaf system is in place
that calls itself "private sector" but is in reality just personnel
outsourcing . These outsourced employees have to follow the TSA
process exactly -- the only difference is that they get to charge an 8%
markup on all their expenses. We need to get new ideas from
outside the TSA that can be tested at our checkpoints.
In the meantime, however, airport mismanagement has

created massive vulnerabilities which exposes airports
to impending terrorist attacks innovation in security
screening is essential
Brandt 11 director at Lime, political risk consultancy based in the UAE,
worked as a threat analyst for a major U.S. airline (Ben Brandt, 11/30/11,
TERRORIST THREATS TO COMMERCIAL AVIATION: A CONTEMPORARY
ASSESSMENT, https://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/terrorist-threats-to-
commercial-aviation-a-contemporary-assessment)//twemchen
Despite the strenuous efforts by governments to harden commercial aviation in the
post-9/11 era, the number of plots illustrates that al-Qaida core, its affiliates, and
numerous other Islamist extremist groups and self-radicalized individuals
maintain a high level of interest in attacking aviation. Despite the
organizational disruptions caused by the deaths of numerous senior al-Qaìda leaders in 2011,
and the current preoccupation of several al-Qaìda affiliates with local conflicts, this
ongoing interest in attacking aviation is unlikely to dissipate in the long-term .
Furthermore, the evolving tactics utilized in these various plots lend weight to AQAPs
contention that government regulators suffer from a lack of
imagination in anticipating and mitigating emergent and existing threats . As
indicated by numerous accounts, including the description of the cargo plot contained in Inspire,
terrorists constantly seek to analyze existing aviation security measures to
probe for weaknesses and develop countermeasures. Terrorists ongoing efforts to
study and defeat security are further exemplified by the arrest of Rajib Karim, a former information
technology employee at British Airways; prior to his arrest, Karim maintained an ongoing dialogue with
AQAP operative Anwar al-Àwlaqi and attempted to provide al-Àwlaqi with information on aviation security
procedures.[1] Therefore,despite government efforts to improve aviation security , a
number of critical tactical threats remain . Insider Threats Rajib Karim
sought to stage a terrorist attack on behalf of AQAP, seeking to become a flight attendant for
British Airways to stage a suicide attack. He also attempted to recruit fellow Muslims
(including a baggage handler at Heathrow Airport and an employee of airport security) to stage an
attack.[2] Coupled with the aforementioned 2007 JFK airport plot, which involved at least one airport
employee, and a reported 2009 plot by Indonesian terrorist Noordin Top to target commercial aviation at
this
Jakartas main airport, which included assistance from a former mechanic for Garuda Indonesia,[3]
illustrates the primacy of the so-called insider threat to aviation . Although TSA
and U.S. airports currently conduct criminal and terrorist database checks on potential airport, airline, and
vendor employees who are to be granted access to secure areas, there are significant vulnerabilities in this
approach,[4] which has proven notably unsuccessful at stopping members of street gangs from gaining
employment and carrying out criminal activities such as narcotrafficking, baggage theft, and prostitution at
airports nationwide. In 2010, an individual named Takuma Owuo-Hagood obtained employment as a
baggage handler for Delta Airlines, then promptly traveled to Afghanistan where he made contact with the
Taliban, reportedly providing advice on how to effectively engage U.S. troops.[5] The magnitude of this
vulnerability is compounded because most airport employees working in secure areas do not undergo
security screening prior to entering their workspace due to practical constraints. Additional measures, such
as random screening and security probes, are unable to effectively mitigate this threat. The insider threat
becomes markedly worse at non-Western airports in regions such as West Africa or South Asia, where local
authorities ability to effectively screen prospective airport employees is frequently negligible due to
incomplete or poorly structured terrorist and criminal intelligence databases. Threats from Ranged
Weapons MANPADS, or man-portable air defense systems, have been described as a growing threat to
commercial aviation following the outbreak of Libyas civil war in early 2011 and subsequent news reports
claiming that al-Qaìda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) has obtained surface-to-air missiles.[6] Some reports
suggest that missiles stolen from Libyan arsenals have spread as far as Niger, the Gaza Strip, and the Sinai
Peninsula. In addition to AQIM, al-Shabab has been known to possess advanced MANPADS, allegedly
provided by Eritrea.[7] Given that AQAP maintains ties to al-Shabab and has reportedly taken over multiple
military depots in Yemen following the outbreak of civil unrest there,[8] it is not implausible to assume that
AQAP could acquire additional MANPADS. There are also reports that the Taliban acquired MANPADS from
Iran,[9] making it conceivable that elements of the group sympathetic to al-Qaìdas aims could provide al-
Qaìda with MANPADS for a future attack. Although MANPADS are unable to target aircraft at cruising
altitudes, commercial aircraft would become vulnerable for several miles while ascending and descending,
particularly due to their lack of countermeasure systems. In addition to the MANPAD threat, a significant
variety of ranged weapons could be used to target commercial aircraft, particularly when taxiing prior to
takeoff or after landing. Rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), for example, are inaccurate at extended
ranges; however, they have been used to shoot down rotary wing aircraft in combat zones, and have been
used in at least one plot against El Al aircraft.[10] The Irish Republican Army (IRA) used homemade
mortars to attack Heathrow Airport in the 1990s, while heavy anti-material sniper rifles such as the Barrett
M82 fire .50 caliber rounds to a range of more than one mile and have been previously used by non-state
Evolving Threats from Explosive
actors, such as the IRA and the Los Zetas drug cartel.[11]
Devices Terrorist groups, particularly AQAP, have continuously refined their
ability to conceal improvised explosive devices ( IEDs ) from security
screening equipment , as shown by the 2009 Christmas Day plot, where a would-be suicide
bomber concealed explosives in his underwear, and the 2010 cargo bomb plot, where bombmakers hid
explosives in printer cartridges. Following the 2009 plot in particular, TSA, foreign regulatory agencies, and
some airlines sought to increase safeguards against passenger- or cargo-borne IEDs by the deployment of
AIT and ETD equipment. IEDs, however, are likely to remain a significant threat to commercial aviation due
AIT can be defeated by concealing IEDs
to limitations in current screening technology.
internally , either by the frequently discussed stratagem of surgically implanting devices in
a would-be suicide bomberor by the simpler route of secreting the device within a body
cavity . Alternately, IEDs concealed within complex electronic devices are likely
to defeat all but the most thorough visual inspection , as illustrated by
explosives experts initial failure to detect the devices used in the 2010 cargo plot.[12] AQAP has shown
particularly adept at concealing IEDs within electronic devices such as printers
itself to be
and radios, which it will likely continue to use in the future. ETDs and explosives detection
dogs, meanwhile, can be defeated by numerous countermeasures . For example, many
(though not all) ETD devices detect only two popular explosive compounds. ETD equipment is also not
designed to detect the components of improvised incendiary devices (IIDs), making the use of these
correspondingly attractive to terrorists. Lastly, IEDs can be sealed and cleaned to degrade the ability of
ETD equipment to detect explosive vapors or particles.[13] Nor is behavioral profiling likely to provide the
solution to passenger-borne IEDs and IIDs. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab underwent two interviews by
security staff prior to staging his attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 in 2009. Similarly, a GAO report
the scientific community is divided as to
examining the TSAs use of BDOs noted that
whether behavioral detection of terrorists is viable.[14] Threats Against Airline Facilities and
Airports One aspect of aviation security that is not frequently addressed is the
potential for terrorists to strike other aspects of aviation infrastructure
beyond aircraft. Commercial airlines are highly reliant upon information
technology systems to handle critical functions such as reservations and crew check-in, a fact
not lost upon Rajib Karim when he suggested in correspondence with Anwar al-Àwlaqi that he could erase
data from British Airways servers, thus disabling the airlines website.[15] Such an approach would mesh
closely with al-Qaìda cores and AQAPs stated aims of waging economic jihad against the West. The
operational control centers operated by air carriers are another significant
point of vulnerability , which conduct the airlines flight control ,
meteorology , and emergency management functions. Despite their criticality to
flight operations, these control centers are rarely heavily guarded , meaning that a
team of attackers equipped with inside knowledge could temporarily shut down
the global operations of a major air carrier, particularly if backup facilities were to be
targeted as well. Another threat to commercial aviation is the increasing number of plots and
attacks targeting airports themselves rather than aircraft. There have been two
significant attacks staged at international airports thus far in 2011 in Frankfurt and Moscow.
Attacks against airports have been planned or executed using a variety of tactics, such as firearms, car
bombs, suicide bombers, and hijacked aircraft. The targets have included airport facilities such as fuel
lines, arrival halls, and curbside drop-off points. Terrorists could also breach perimeter fencing and assault
aircraft on runways, taxiing areas, and at gates. This tactic was used during the 2001 Bandaranaike airport
attack in Sri Lanka, when a team of Black Tigers[16] used rocket-propelled grenades and antitank weapons
to destroy half of Sri Lankan Airlines fleet of aircraft.[17] More recently, Afghan authorities announced the
discovery of arms caches belonging to the Haqqani network near Kabul Airport and claimed that the group
had planned to use the caches to stage an assault on the airport.[18] The actions of activist groups
such as Plane Stupid, which has breached perimeter fencing at UK airports so that activists
could handcuff themselves to aircraft in a protest against the airline industrys carbon emissions[19]
demonstrate the viability of such an attack in the West as well.[20] The trend toward attacking airports
rather than aircraft has likely been driven by a number of factors, particularly increased checkpoint
screening measures and terrorists growing emphasis on decentralized, small-scale attacks on targets of
opportunity. Firearms will likely prove to be a key component of future attacks, given their relative ease of
use compared to explosives, as well as their wide availability in the United States and many other
countries. This trend was exemplified by the 2011 Frankfurt attack, which was conducted by Arid Uka, an
employee at the airports postal facility, who shot and killed two U.S. soldiers at a bus at the terminal.
Although deployment of plainclothes security personnel and quick reaction teams can help ameliorate the
impact of attacks on airports, their ease of execution and the impossibility of eliminating all airport queues
(be they for drop-off, check-in, security screening, baggage claim, or car rentals) make this tactic a
persistent threat.
agency/)//twemchen
Aviation terrorism risks lashout

discount the real peril that they are in. If there is
that think this is all a funny game
counter-responses .
1ac airlines
Advantage two is airlines
TSA screening imposes chronic delays on airport

operators this devastates airlines SPP modeling is
essential
From removing shoes and belts for metal detectors to privacy concerns about full-body scans, some
airline passengers feel like they receive a virtual shakedown at airport security.
Add understaffed checkpoints, overworked screeners and equipment glitches to the mix,
and passenger screening quickly becomes a recipe for disaster . As customer
complaints skyrocket, so does the risk of dangerous mistakes . These are among
the reasons cited by 17 airports that have opted out of the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA's)
traditional screening model in favor of its alternative program, which uses contract security companies.
Montana's Glacier Park International Airport (GPI) is hoping to become the 18th airport in TSA's Screening
Partnership Program (SPP). Positive reports about the program attracted the notice of GPI airport director
Cindi Martin years ago. After talking to current participants, Martin suspects SPP might work at her airport,
which sees about 200,000 passengers annually, most during the area's busy summer tourist season. The
airport's active search for an alternate screening strategy began in 2007, when TSA cut GPI's screening
staff in half based on its Staff Allocation Model - a formula used to determine staffing levels for passenger
and checked baggage screening. "We'd already been experiencing a lot of customer service complaints,
and theairlines were taking delays because of screening delays," Martin recalls. A
TSA reduction would have dealt yet another blow to an already stressed
situation . So Martin embarked on what she terms "a very frustrating process" to have staffing
numbers reviewed. TSA eventually increased staffing, but not significantly and not
soon enough . "By the time we'd gotten an increase, given the length of time it takes the
TSA to hire and train people and put them on the floor, they were unable to
staff us appropriately for the summer," she explains. "That was the real clincher for us."
Private screening companies, she learned, were much more able to flex their
staffing levels to meet the airport's varying needs. Unlike the federal government, they could expand their
ranks when GPI's passenger loads triples during the summer and contract when the airport's split-flight
schedule takes affect in winter. Martin remains cautiously optimistic that the airport's SPP application will
receive authorization from TSA before this summer. "My understanding is that all the necessary due
diligence has been done, and there is nothing that would stop our application from being approved," she
reports.
These inefficiencies are devastating to airlines imposing

a long-term drag on their financial success streamlining
is key
Lichtenstein 10 associate director in the Consulting Services division of
the economic forecasting firm HIS Global Insight, redesigns government
operational systems incorporating econometric decision models that leverage
data to achieve savings (Daniel Lichtenstein, Q1 2010, Tighter air security
will need a deft touch to avoid economic harm,
http://www.supplychainquarterly.com/print/scq201001monetarymatters/)//twe
mchen
In August 2010, the United States will require 100 percent of cargo shipped on passenger aircraft to
be screened by security personnel, machines, or specially trained dogs. That requirement,
could have a substantial
mandated by the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007,
economic impact on shippers, carriers , airfreight forwarders, and other industry
stakeholders if it is not handled properly. The agency charged with screening and
inspecting air cargo is the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). After the
terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the TSA focused its efforts on passenger screening; cargo carried
on passenger aircraft ("belly" cargo) and all-cargo carriers went largely unnoticed for some time. Now the
agency has been ordered to devote more of its efforts to securing commercial aviation. There is no
question that there is a need for aircraft of all types to be protected from potential attack. What remains
uncertain is how successful those efforts will be, and what economic effect the screening initiative will
have on the air cargo industry and its customers. Potential consequences Globally, air freight represents
3.72 percent of all shipment units and comprises about 0.4 percent of world gross domestic product (GDP).
Within the United States, air cargo represents just 1 percent of all freight volume yet it accounts for some
25 percent of the total value of U.S. freight across all modes of transportation. (See Figure 1.) Getting
cargo security right is critically important : by providing same-day, next-day, and
just-in-time deliveries, air cargo plays an invaluable role in the operation of
today's lean supply chains . A week-long disruption at John F. Kennedy International
Airport in New York, for instance, would deliver a severe blow to all forms of
aviation as well as to the U.S. and global economies . Accordingly, the rollout of a
stricter security system must be designed and managed to diminish any chance of
unintended economic harm . This will be challenging for several reasons. For one thing,
the augmented screening requirements come during a period of economic
uncertainty. In 2008, the industry suffered horribly as airfreight volumes fell by as much
as 25 percent on some routes. There have been encouraging signs of growth since November 2009, but
most forecasts for airfreight
that improvement is not likely to continue for long. In fact,
shipment volumes for the coming year are flat , due in part to expectations that global
consumer spending will be stagnant. For another, implementation of new procedures almost always leads
to "hiccups" in any system, and the introduction of more restrictive security mandates is likely to be no
inefficiencies may delay shipments , causing substantial
exception. The resulting
financial losses for air carriers and higher costs for shippers. Even a small disruption
in airfreight movements could have a notable impact. IHS Global Insight's analysis shows
that a disruption of only 1 percent in total industry output in the United States would result in the loss of
approximately 1,250 jobs directly tied to air cargo shipping, and 3,851 in total. Ultimately, 100-percent
screening could tip the competitive landscape in favor of the bigger players in the airfreight industry,
because the larger operators have more infrastructure, such as aircraft and crews, in place than do their
smaller competitors. This means they are better equipped to handle the delays that may result from
increased screening.
The plan solves streamlining

a) Efficiency and cost delegation TSA policy passes
security screening costs onto airlines its vital to
balance their budget inefficient security functions as a
tax on air travel
Further, who do you think really foots the bill for new scanning technology like those full-body scanners
the increase in the TSAs budget has to be
that we have all grown to love? Eventually
subsided somehow, and the agency typically finds a way to pass that cost increase
on to the airline , which hands it down to you, the innocent traveler. body-scanners A sample of the
images that TSA agents view with the new full-body scanners. In a 2010 column for the New York Times,
Nate Silver explained how increased security measures can affect our economy (and the
travel industry) on a macro scale . More stringent security procedures, in essence,
function as a tax upon air travel , and produce a corresponding deadweight
loss . Teleconferences are often a poor substitute for person-to-person interaction, and
when people are reluctant to travel, some business deals dont get done that otherwise
would have. Recreational travelers, meanwhile, may skip out on vacations that
otherwise would have brought them pleasure and stress-relief (while improving revenues for
tourism-dependent economies). The tenuous profits of the airline industry
are also affected, of course. Revenue losses from the new bag-checking procedures may have
measured in the billions , according to the Cornell study. He then goes on to talk about how
the passengers who choose not to fly may choose ground travel instead, which can be deadly: Other
passengers may substitute car travel for air travel. But this too has its consequences, since car travel is
much more dangerous than air travel over all. According to the Cornell study, roughly 130 inconvenienced
travelers died every three months as a result of additional traffic fatalities brought on by substituting
ground transit for air transit. Thats the equivalent of four fully-loaded Boeing 737s crashing each year. -
Efficiencys essential delays deter flyers, devastating

demand
May 4 Air Transport Association (Mr. Jim May, 6/22/4, Statement of Mr. Jim
May CEO, Air Transport Association (ATA), Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony, Lexis)//twemchen
TSA MUST PROMOTE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT SECURITY PROCEDURES

II.
Uncertainty about security lines deters people from flying . While TSA and the
industry work together every day to minimize this effect, it remains a major reason why
people have substituted cars and other transportation modes for flying, particularly
for short-haul trips. TSA predicts that passenger volumes will increase from 58 million to 65 million per
month during the summer, a sustained 12 percent increase in monthly volumes over 2003's single peak
month. We are already seeing security lines with wait times of 45 minutes and more at major airports,
including Washington Dulles, Los Angeles International Airport, Las Vegas McCarran, and Atlanta Hartsfield.
The industry worked with TSA to help develop its Summer Plan, and we are doing what we can to educate
our customers on what they can do to reduce potential wait times. Also, TSA is hiring additional screeners
at some airports. However, these efforts will not fully eliminate the public concern
about the hassles of flying. Those concerns, which keep passengers away , will not
subside until TSA has determined the number of screeners necessary to efficiently and
effectively screen passengers and established processes that can move passengers
through security screening in ten minutes or less on a consistent basis nationwide . It is
imperative that we continue to see progress toward this goal, and Congress should insist on TSA finalizing
its model to predict accurately the number of screeners needed at each airport. TSA Summer Staffing Plan
and Screener Performance Standards. Recent passenger boardings and projected bookings clearly indicate
that security checkpoints will experience far higher traffic levels this summer than they did last year.
Monthly boardings peaked at 58-million for just one month last summer. Current projections are that 64-
million monthly boardings will occur for a sustained period this summer. This level of traffic already has
begun to produce significantly increased demands on checkpoints, particularly because TSA has 6,000
fewer screeners than last year. Recognizing that these increased demands will affect passenger processing
times at checkpoints, representatives of the TSA, airports and airlines undertook a collaborative effort to
develop and implement enhancements to passenger screening practices. Twenty-five "focus" airports were
identified for this program. This joint effort has produced best practices that should translate into faster
screening for our customers. This is an important accomplishment in its own right but also because it
demonstrates that collaborative efforts involving TSA, airports and airlines can be successful. In addition,
airlines are supplying TSA with passenger enplanement forecasts to enable TSA to test its checkpoint
staffing model. The goal of this effort is to predict more precisely passenger wait times at checkpoints and
thereby permit TSA to staff those locations accordingly. Staffing decisions must be based on both accurate
passenger demand forecasts and realistic processing time assumptions in order for TSA to do its job
effectively and efficiently. Both in the short-term and long-term, resources must be promptly and efficiently
allocated to accommodate the increases in traffic we are now beginning to experience. For passenger and
checked baggage screening, an appropriate performance metric is needed. Without such a basic tool,
there is no accurate way to determine how screeners are performing and whether resources are being
allocated effectively. TSA states that its internal guideline is an average wait time of ten minutes. We think
an "average" wait time is not the right metric in this context because it will allow significantly longer wait
times during peak travel times. We recommend that TSA be required to establish a maximum wait time of
ten minutes per passenger. Only this standard will ensure that passenger wait times at checkpoints and
baggage screening locations are kept to an absolute minimum. Such a maximum wait standard offers
additional benefits. Among other things, it allows screening performance problems to be identified quickly,
it encourages uniformity across the system - something passengers expect to see, and it aids Federal
Security Directors (FSDs), in consultation with airlines, in making staffing adjustments. In addition, to
better and more promptly meet the increased passenger levels, TSA must assess, hire and train screeners
locally rather than to continue to rely upon the centralized hiring system. The current system cannot
provide the responsiveness that the rebound in passenger traffic requires. Relocating personnel, while
helpful as a stopgap measure, creates other issues (including cost) and problems that can be avoided.
Finally, Congress must provide funding, and TSA must be prepared, to expand hiring to meet passenger
growth. The 45,000 cap on the screener workforce, in fact, may not be adequate to meet actual passenger
demand. There has been some recent modest passenger growth system-wide, and some analysts forecast
a five percent increase in passenger traffic this year. Indeed, we are already hearing reports that security
checkpoints and checked baggage screening locations are understaffed at as many as 90 of the nation's
commercial service airports. As the nation's economy continues to recover and air carriers respond to
accommodate increasing demand, TSA must have the funding and authority to hire additional screeners
where and when demand exists. The TSA's staffing model, as well as the results of the Summer Plan,
should provide better information to guide Congress in determining whether the 45,000 screener cap
makes sense. Beyond this Summer: TSA Recruiting and Hiring Practices. A positive evolutionary step for
From the industry's
TSA has been the decision to begin hiring part-time employees.
perspective, the flexibility to match screening capacity with demand is
crucial to an effective and efficient system. Part-time positions allow TSA managers to have in
place enough employees to meet operating and rest needs during peak travel times, thereby ensuring that
screeners remain vigilant and perform their functions effectively.
b) Confidence delays kill it

Pearce 4 US House of Representatives from New Mexico (Steve Pearce,
I would encourage you -- I do not know -- I got the feeling from that discussion that you do not measure
the purpose of TSA was to restore
passenger delays, and, as has been pointed out,
confidence and return people to the airports and to flying, but the one thing
that's going to drive them away is lengthy delays and unpredictable delays .
I've heard comments from the fast-food industry that as hamburgers and breakfasts are sold across the
nation that a computer is showing exactly how many units are sold in what area and they begin to dispatch
I think anything
their ingredients to those areas where the sales may be running a little bit high.
short of that very, very pragmatic addressing of the need s for screeners in
some areas and the excess of screeners in other area s is needed here. We need to
approach this like a business . We need to direct the resources where they need
to be without overdirecting in other areas.
Efficient airlines are vital to agricultural distribution no

other transport can fill in
This causes food price blips which kill billions

impact
callousness worse than extinction (Watson 1977). It would be morally preferable
to die struggling to create a decent life for all than to continue to live at the
expense of the starving.
Independently, food price spikes risk global war

The economic and political importance of high food prices cant be underestimated.
To take one example, high food prices were the catalyst for last years outbreak of
revolution in several Middle East countries. The region once known as the Fertile Crescent is heavily dependent on
imported grain and rising fuel costs contributed to the skyrocketing food prices which provoked the Arab revolts. Annia Ciezadlo, in her article
Let Them Eat Bread in the March 23, 2011 issue of Foreign Affairs wrote: Of the top 20 wheat importers for 2010, almost half are Middle
Eastern countries. The list reads like a playbook of toppled and teetering regimes: Egypt (1), Algeria (4), Iraq (7), Morocco (8), Yemen (13),
high food costs have long been a major factor in

Saudi Arabia (15), Libya (16), Tunisia (17). Indeed,
fomenting popular revolt. The French Revolution of the late 1700s originated with a
food shortage which caused a 90 percent increase in the bread price in 1789. Describing the build-up to the Reign of Terror in
France of 1793-94, author Susan Kerr wrote: For a time, local governments attempted to improve distribution channels and moderate
soaring prices. Against this backdrop of rumbling stomachs and wailing hungry children, the excesses and arrogance of the nobility and clergy
strutted in sharp contrast. This historical event has an obvious parallel in todays emphasis on the elite 1 percent versus the 99 percent.
The French government of the late 18th century attempted to assuage the pain caused by soaring food prices, but ultimately this effort failed.
Although the U.S. government attempted for a time to keep fuel prices low, it has since abandoned all effort at stopping speculators from
pushing prices ever higher. An undercurrent of popular revolt is already present within the U.S. as evidenced by the emergence of the Tea
Party and by last years Occupy Wall Street movement. This revolutionary sentiment has been temporarily suppressed by the simultaneous
improvement in the retail economy and the financial market rebound of the past few months. The fact that this is a presidential election year,
replete with the usual pump priming measures and underscored by the peaking 4-year cycle, has been an invaluable help in keeping
revolutionary fervor suppressed for the moment. But what those within the government and financial establishment have failed to consider is
that once the 4-year cycle peaks later this year, we enter the final hard down phase of the 120-year cycle to bottom in late 2014. This cycle
is also known, in the words of Samuel J. Kress, as the Revolutionary Cycle. Regarding the 120-year cycle, Kress wrote: The first 120-year
Mega Cycle began in the mid 1770s after a prolonged depressed economy and the Revolutionary War which transformed American from an
occupied territory to an independent country as we know the U.S.A. today. The first 120-year cycle ended in the mid 1890s after the first major
depression in the U.S. and the Spanish American War. This began the second 120-year cycle which transformed the U.S. from an agricultural to
a manufacturing based economy and which is referred to as the Industrial Revolution. The second 120-year is scheduled to bottom in later
If history, an evolving cycle, continues to repeat itself, the

2014 to begin the third (everything comes in threes).
potential for the third major depression and a WWIII equivalent exists and the U.S. could
Airline demand is essential for military aerospace

Thompson 9 David, President American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, The Aerospace Workforce, Federal News Service, 12-10, Lexis
Aerospace systems are of considerable importance to U.S. national security,
economic prosperity, technological vitality, and global leadership . Aeronautical and
space systems protect our citizens, armed forces, and allies abroad. They
connect the farthest corners of the world with safe and efficient air
transportation and satellite communications , and they monitor the Earth, explore
the solar system, and study the wider universe. The U.S. aerospace sector also contributes in major ways
to America's economic output and high- technology employment. Aerospace research and development
and manufacturing companies generated approximately $240 billion in sales in 2008, or nearly 1.75
percent of our country's gross national product. They currently employ about 650,000 people throughout
our country. U.S. government agencies and departments engaged in aerospace research and operations
add another 125,000 employees to the sector's workforce, bringing the total to over 775,000 people.
Included in this number are more than 200,000 engineers and scientists -- one of the largest
concentrations of technical brainpower on Earth. However, the U.S. aerospace workforce is now facing the
most serious demographic challenge in his 100-year history. Simply put, today, many more older,
experienced professionals are retiring from or otherwise leaving our industrial and governmental
aerospace workforce than early career professionals are entering it. This imbalance is expected to become
even more severe over the next five years as the final members of the Apollo-era generation of engineers
and scientists complete 40- or 45-year careers and transition to well-deserved retirements. In fact, around
50 percent of the current aerospace workforce will be eligible for retirement within just the next five years.
Meanwhile, the supply of younger aerospace engineers and scientists entering the industry is woefully
insufficient to replace the mounting wave of retirements and other departures that we see in the near
future. In part, this is the result of broader technical career trends as engineering and science graduates
from our country's universities continue a multi-decade decline, even as the demand for their knowledge
and skills in aerospace and other industries keeps increasing. Today, only about 15 percent of U.S. students
earn their first college degree in engineering or science, well behind the 40 or 50 percent levels seen in
many European and Asian countries. Due to the dual-use nature of aerospace technology and the limited
supply of visas available to highly-qualified non-U.S. citizens, our industry's ability to hire the best and
brightest graduates from overseas is also severely constrained. As a result, unless effective action is taken
to reverse current trends, the U.S. aerospace sector is expected to experience a dramatic decrease in its
technical workforce over the next decade. Your second question concerns the implications of a cutback in
human spaceflight programs. AIAA's view on this is as follows. While U.S. human spaceflight programs
directly employ somewhat less than 10 percent of our country's aerospace workers, its influence on
attracting and motivating tomorrow's aerospace professionals is much greater than its immediate
employment contribution. For nearly 50 years the excitement and challenge of human spaceflight have
been tremendously important factors in the decisions of generations of young people to prepare for and to
pursue careers in the aerospace sector. This remains true today, as indicated by hundreds of testimonies
AIAA members have recorded over the past two years, a few of which I'll show in brief video interviews at
the end of my statement. Further evidence of the catalytic role of human space missions is found in a
recent study conducted earlier this year by MIT which found that 40 percent of current aerospace
engineering undergraduates cited human space programs as the main reason they chose this field of
study. Therefore, I think it can be predicted with high confidence that a major cutback in U.S. human space
programs would be substantially detrimental to the future of the aerospace workforce. Such a cutback
would put even greater stress on an already weakened strategic sector of our domestic high-technology
workforce. Your final question centers on other issues that should be considered as decisions are made on
the funding and direction for NASA, particularly in the human spaceflight area. In conclusion, AIAA offers
the following suggestions in this regard. Beyond the previously noted critical influence on the future supply
of aerospace professionals, administration and congressional leaders should also consider the collateral
damage to the space industrial base if human space programs were substantially curtailed. Due to low
the domestic supply chain
annual production rates and highly-specialized product requirements,
for space systems is relatively fragile . Many second- and third-tier suppliers in
particular operate at marginal volumes today, so even a small reduction in
their business could force some critical suppliers to exit this sector. Human
space programs represent around 20 percent of the $47 billion in total U.S. space and missile systems
a major cutback in human space spending could have large and
sales from 2008. Accordingly,
highly adverse ripple effects throughout commercial, defense, and scientific space
programs as well, potentially triggering a series of disruptive changes in the
common industrial supply base that our entire space sector relies on.
Extinction
Pfaltzgraff 10 Robert L, Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of International
Security Studies at. The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and President
of the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, et al., Final Report of the IFPA-
Fletcher Conference on National Security Strategy and Policy, Air, Space, &
Cyberspace Power in the 21st-Century, p. xiii-9
todays security environment
Deterrence Strategy In stark contrast to the bipolar Cold War nuclear setting,
includes multiple, independent nuclear actors. Some of these independent nuclear

weasecurity guarantees and assurance sufficient to prevent the initiation of catalytic warfare by an ally, while deterring an adversary from
resorting to nuclear escalation. America may also need simultaneously to deter more than one other nuclear state. Deterrencpons states
are potential adversaries, some are rivals, and some are friends, but the initial decision for
action by any one of them may lie beyond U.S. control. The U nited S tates may need
to influence, signal, and restrain enemies, and it may need to
continue to provide security guarantees to non-nuclear friends and allies.
America may also face catalytic warfare, where, for example, a U.S. ally such as Israel or a
third party such as China could initiate action that might escalate to a nuclear
exchange . Although the U nited S tates would not be a party to the nuclear escalation decision process, it could be
drawn into the conflict . Compared to a bipolar world, very little is
known about strategic nuclear interaction and escalation in a
multipolar world. The U.S. nuclear deterrent must restrain a wider variety of actors today than during the Cold War. This
requires a range of capabilities and the capacity to address specific challenges. The deterrent must provide e requirements include four critical
elements: early warning, C2, delivery systems, and weapons. The Air Force plays an indispensable role in furnishing the U.S. early warning
system in its entirety through satellites and radar networks. In command and control, infrastructure is provided by the Air Force, including
Milstar satellites and, in the future, advanced extremely high frequency (AEHF) satellites. In the area of delivery systems and weapons,
two-thirds of the strategic triad intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and bombers is
furnished by the Air Force and its Global Strike Command. U.S. Overseas Basing and the Anti-Access/Area-Denial
Threat The increased availability of anti-access/area-denial assets coupled
with growing threats to the sea, air, space, and cyberspace commons are challenging the power
projection capabilities of the United States. These threats, in the form of aircraft and long-range
missiles carrying conventional or nuclear munitions, present problems for our overseas bases. States
such as North Korea, China, and Iran jeopardize the notion that forward-deployed
U.S. forces and bases will be safe from enemy attack. Consequently, the United States must create a more flexible basing structure
encompassing a passive and active defense posture that includes these features: dispersal, hardening, increased warning time of attack, and
U nited S tates must continue to develop long-range, offensive

air defenses. Simultaneously, the
systems such as low-observable manned and remotely piloted strike aircraft, precision missiles, and intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) platforms to penetrate heavily defended A2/AD
environments. This approach will increase the survivability of U.S. forward-

deployed assets and power projection capabilities and thus bolster
deterrence and U.S. guarantees to Americas allies and friends. Asymmetric Challenges The increasing
number of actors gaining access to advanced and dual-use technologies augments the potential for asymmetric attacks against the United
States and its allies by those who are unable to match U.S. military capabilities. Those actors pose increasing challenges to the ability of the
attacks could target specific U.S.

United States to project power through the global commons. Such
vulnerabilities, ranging from space assets to the financial,

transportation, communications, and/or energy infrastructures, and
to the food and water supply, to mention only the most obvious. Asymmetric attacks denying access to critical
networks and capabilities may be the most cost-effective approach to circumventing traditional U.S. force advantages. The USAF and DoD
systems and technologies that can offset and defend against

must develop
asymmetric capabilities. This will require a robust R&D program and enhanced USAF
cooperation with its sister services and international partners and allies. Space Dominance Space is increasingly a
contested domain where U.S. dominance is no longer assured given
the growing number of actors in space and the potential for kinetic and non-kinetic attacks, including ASAT weapons,
EMP, and jamming. As a result, the U nited S tates must protect vital space-based
platforms and networks by reducing their vulnerability to attack or disruption
and increasing the countrys resilience if an attack does occur. Required steps include hardening and incorporating
stealth into next generation space systems and developing rapid replenishment capacity (including micro-satellite technologies and systems
and new launch capabilities). At the same time, America must reduce its dependence on space capabilities with air-based substitutes such as
high altitude, long endurance, and penetrating ISR platforms. Increased cooperation among the services and with U.S. allies to develop such
capabilities will also be paramount. Cyber Security Cyber operations are vital to conducting USAF and joint land, sea, air, and space missions.
Given the significance of the cyber threat (private, public, and DoD cyber and information
networks are routinely under attack), the U nited S tates is attempting to construct a layered
and robust capability to detect and mitigate cyber intrusions and

attacks. The USAFs cyber operations must be capable of operating in a contested cyber domain to support vital land, sea, air, and
space missions. USAF cyberspace priorities include developing capabilities to protect essential military cyber systems and to speed their
recovery if an attack does occur; enhancing the Air Forces capacity to provide USAF personnel with the resolution of technical questions; and
training/recruitment of personnel with cyber skills. In addition, the USAF and DoD need to develop technologies that quickly and precisely
attribute attacks in cyberspace. Cyber attacks can spread quickly among networks,
making it extremely difficult to attribute their perpetrator, and therefore to develop a deterrence strategy based on retaliation. In addition,
some cyber issues are in the legal arena, including questions about civil liberties. It is likely that the trend of increased military support to civil
authorities (for example, in disaster relief operations) will develop in the cyber arena as well. These efforts will entail greater service,
interagency, international, and private-sector collaboration. Organizational Change and Joint Force Operations To address growing national
security challenges and increasing fiscal constraints, and to become more effective, the joint force needs to adapt its organizations and
processes to the exigencies of the information age and the security setting of the second decade of the twenty-first century. This entails
developing a strategy that places increased emphasis on joint operations in which each service acts in greater concert with the others,
leverages capacities across the services (two land services, three naval services, and five air services) without duplicating efforts, and
encourages interoperability. This would provide combatant commanders (CCDRs) with a greater range of capabilities, allowing heightened
flexibility to use force. A good example of this approach is the Air-Sea Battle concept being developed jointly by the Air Force and Navy, which
envisions heightened cooperation between the two services and potentially with allies and coalition partners. Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance Capabilities There is an increasing demand for ISR capabilities able to

access and persist in contested airspace in order to track a range of high-value mobile and hard-to-
find targets, such as missile launchers and underground bunkers . This

increases the need for stealthy, survivable systems and the development of next-generation unmanned platforms. The USAF must
continue to emphasize precision targeting, both for strike and close-air-support missions. High-fidelity target
identification and discrimination enabled by advanced radars and directed-energy systems ,
including the ability to find, track, and target individuals within a crowd, will provide battlefield commanders with
improved options and new opportunities for leveraging joint assets. Engagement and International Security Cooperation
Allies and coalition partners bring important capabilities from which the USAF and other services have long benefited. For example, allies and
coalition partners can provide enhanced situational awareness and early warning of impending crises as well as assist in understanding the
interests, motivations, traditions, and cultures of potential adversaries and prospective coalition partners. Moreover, foreign partner
engagement and outreach are an avenue to influence partner and adversary perspectives, thus shaping the environment in ways favorable to
U.S. national security interests. Engagement also may be a key to realizing another Air Force and joint priority: to sustain or gain access to
forward operating bases and logistical infrastructure. This is particularly important given the growing availability of A2/AD assets and their
ability to impede U.S. power projection capabilities. Procurement Choices and Affordability The USAF needs to field capabilities to support
current operations and pressing missions while at the same time pursuing promising technologies to build the force of the future. Affordability,
effectiveness, time urgency, and industrial base issues inevitably shape procurement choices and reform. The Air Force must maintain todays
critical assets while also allocating resources to meet future needs. Given the long lifespan anticipated for many weapon systems, planners
need to make the most reliable cost estimates and identify problems at the outset of a weapons systems development phase so that they can
be corrected as early and cost-effectively as possible. Support to Civil Authorities As evidenced in the aftermath of the 2010 earthquakes in
USAF has a vital role to play in the U.S.

Haiti and Chile (the Chile earthquake hit after this conference), the
response to international relief operations and support to civil

authorities. In Haiti, the USAF reopened the airport and deployed contingency response elements, while also providing ISR support
for the joint forces in the theater. In Chile, USAF satellite communication capabilities were critical to the recovery and relief efforts. USAF
civil support roles are likely to grow to include greater use of the Reserve Components. Consequently,
USAF planners should reassess the active and reserve component mix of forces and capabilities to identify potential mobilization and
requirement shortfalls. CLOSING CONFERENCE THOUGHTS A recurring conference theme was the need for the USAF to continue to examine
specific issues of opportunity and vulnerability more closely. For example, a future initiative could include focused working groups that would
examine such questions and issues as: How can air, space, and cyberspace capabilities best support deterrence, preserve U.S. freedom of
action, and support national objectives? How should the USAF leadership reconceptualize its vision, institutional identity, and force posture
to align as closely as possible with the future national security setting? What is the appropriate balance between high-end and low-end air
and space capabilities that will maximize military options for national decision makers, given emerging threats and fiscal constraints? What
are the opportunities, options, and tradeoffs for investment and divestment in science and technology, infrastructure, and programmed
capabilities? What are additional interdependent concepts, similar to Air-Sea Battle, that leverage cross-service investments to identify and
foster the development of new joint capabilities? What are alternative approaches to officer accessions and development to support shifting
and emerging Air Force missions, operations, and force structure, including cyber warfare? How can the USAF best interact with Congress to
help preserve or refocus the defense-industrial base as well as to minimize mandates and restrictions that weigh on future Air Force
investments? Finally, the USAF must continue to be an organization that views debate, as the Chief of Staff of the Air Force put it in his
opening conference address, as the whetstone upon which we sharpen our strategic thinking. This debate must also be used in pursuit of
political support and to ensure that the USAF maintains and develops critical capabilities to support U.S. national security priorities. The 38th
IFPA-Fletcher Conference on National Security Strategy and Policy was conceived as a contribution to that debate. Almost a century has
passed since the advent of airpower and Billy Mitchells demonstration of its operational potential with the sinking of the Ostfriesland on July
21, 1921. For most of that time, the United States has benefitted from the rapid development of air and space power projection capabilities,
and, as a result, it has prevailed in successive conflicts, contributed to war deterrence and crisis management, and provided essential
humanitarian relief to allies and friends around the world. As we move into the second decade of the twenty-first century, the U.S. Air Force
(USAF), like its service counterparts, is re-assessing strategies, operational concepts, and force structure. Across the conflict spectrum,
security challenges are evolving, and potential adversariesstate and non-state actorsare developing anti-access and other asymmetric
potential exists for hybrid

capabilities, and irregular warfare challenges are becoming more prevalent. The
warfare in which state adversaries and/or non-state actors use a mix of conventional and
unconventional capabilities against the U nited S tates, a possibility made more
feasible by the diffusion of such capabilities to a larger number of

actors. Furthermore, twenty-first-century security challenges and threats may emanate from highly adaptive adversaries who ignore the
Geneva Conventions of war and use military and/or civilian technologies to offset our military superiority. As it develops strategy and force
constraints that will have important

structure in this global setting, the Air Force confronts
implications for budget and procurement programs, basic research and development
(R&D), and the maintenance of critical skills, as well as recruitment,
education, training, and retention. Given the dynamic nature of the security setting and looming defense
budget constraints, questions of where to assume risk will demand bold, innovative, and decisive leadership. The imperative for joint
operations and U.S. military-civilian partnerships is clear, underscoring the need for a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach that
encompasses international and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). THE UNITED STATES AS AN AEROSPACE NATION: CHALLENGES AND
OPPORTUNITIES In his address opening the conference, General Norton A. Schwartz, Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF), pointed out how,
with its inherent characteristics of speed , range , and flexibility ,

airpower has forever changed warfare. Its advent rendered land and maritime forces vulnerable from
the air, thus adding an important new dimension to warfare. Control of the air has become
indispensable to national security because it allows the U nited S tates

and friendly forces to maneuver and operate free from enemy air
attack. With control of the air the U nited S tates can leverage the
advantages of air and space as well as cyberspace. In these
interdependent domains the Air Force possesses unique capabilities
for ensuring global mobility , long-range strike , and intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance ( ISR ). The benefits of airpower
extend beyond the air domain, and operations among the air, land,
maritime, space, and cyber domains are increasingly
interdependent . General Schwartz stated that the Air Forces challenge is to succeed in a protracted struggle against
elements of violent extremism and irreconcilable actors while confronting peer and near-peer rivals. The Air Force must be able to operate with
great precision and lethality across a broad spectrum of conflict that has high and low ends but that defies an orderly taxonomy. Warfare in the
twenty-first century takes on a hybrid complexity, with regular and irregular elements using myriad tools and tactics. Technology can be an
enabler but can also create weaknesses: adversaries with increased access to space and cyberspace can use emerging technologies against
the U nited S tates faces the prospect of the

the United States and/or its allies. In addition,
proliferation of precision weapons, including ballistic and cruise

missiles as well as increasingly accurate mortars, rockets, and
artillery, which will put U.S. and allied/coalition forces at risk . In response to
mounting irregular warfare challenges American leaders have to adopt innovative and creative strategies. For its part, the USAF must develop
airmen who have the creativity to anticipate and plan for this challenging environment. Leadership, intellectual creativity, capacity, and
ingenuity, together with innovative technology, will be crucial to addressing these challenges in a constrained fiscal environment. System
Versatility In meeting the broad range of contingencies high, low, regular, irregular, and hybrid the Air Force must maintain and develop
systems that are versatile, both functionally (including strike or ISR) and in terms of various employment modes, such as manned versus
remotely piloted, and penetrating versus stand-off systems. General Schwartz emphasized the need to be able to operate in conflict settings
where there will be demands for persistent ISR systems able to gain access to, and then loiter in, contested or denied airspace. The targets to
be identified and tracked may be mobile or deeply buried, of high value, and difficult to locate without penetrating systems. General Schwartz
also called attention to the need for what he described as a family of systems that could be deployed in multiple ways with maximum
versatility depending on requirements. Few systems will remain inherently single purpose. Indeed, he emphasized that the Air Force must
purposefully design versatility into its new systems, with the majority of future systems being able to operate in various threat environments.
As part of this effort further joint integration and inter-service cooperation to achieve greater air-land and air-sea interoperability will continue
to be a strategic necessity. Space Access and Control Space access, control, and situational awareness remain essential to U.S. national
security. As potential rivals develop their own space programs, the United States faces challenges to its unrestricted access to space. Ensuring
continuing access to the four global commons maritime, air, space, and cyberspace will be a major challenge in which the USAF has a key
role. The Air Force has long recognized the importance of space and is endeavoring to make certain that U.S. requirements in and for space
are met and anticipated. Space situational awareness is vital to Americas ability to help evaluate and attribute attacks. Attribution, of course,
is essential to deterrence. The USAF is exploring options to reduce U.S. dependence on the Global Positioning System (GPS), which could
become vulnerable to jamming. Promising new technologies, such as cold atoms, pseudolites, and imaging inertial navigation systems that
use laser radar are being investigated as means to reduce our vulnerability. Cyber Capabilities The USAF continues to develop cyber
capabilities to address opportunities and challenges. Cyber threats present challenges to homeland security and other national security
interests. Key civilian and military networks are vulnerable to cyber attacks. Preparing for cyber warfare and refining critical infrastructure
protection and consequence management will require new capabilities, focused training, and greater interagency, international, and private
sector collaboration. Challenges for the Air Force General Schwartz set forth a series of challenges for the Air Force, which he urged conference
participants to address. They included: How can the Air Force better address the growing demand for real-time ISR from remotely piloted
systems, which are providing unprecedented and unmatched situational awareness? How can the USAF better guarantee the credibility and
viability of the nations nuclear forces for the complex and uncertain security environment of this century? What is the way ahead for the
next generation of long-range strike and ISR platforms? What trade-offs, especially between manned and unmanned platforms, should the
USAF consider? How can the USAF improve acquisition of such systems? How can the USAF better exploit the advantage of low-observables?
How can the Air Force better prepare itself to operate in an opposed network environment in which communications and data links will be
challenged, including how to assure command and control (C2) in bandwidth-constrained environments? In counter-land operations, how can
the USAF achieve improved target discrimination in high collateral damage situations? How should the USAF posture its overseas forces to
ensure access? What basing structure, logistical considerations, andprotection measures are required to mitigate emerging anti-access
threats? How can the Air Force reduce its reliance on GPS to ensure operations in a GPS-denied environment? How can the USAF lessen its
vulnerability to petroleum shortages, rising energy prices, and resulting logistical and operational challenges? How can the Air Force enhance
partnerships with its sister services and the interagency community? How can it better collaborate with allies and coalition partners to improve
support of national security interests? These issues were addressed in subsequent conference sessions. The opening session focused on the
multidimensional and dynamic security setting in which the Air Force will operate in the years ahead. The session included a discussion of the
need to prioritize necessary capabilities and to gauge acceptable risks. Previous Quadrennial Defense Reviews (QDRs) rested on the basic
assumption that the United States would be able to support operations simultaneously or nearly simultaneously in two major regional
contingencies, with the additional capacity to respond to smaller disaster-relief and/or stability operations missions. However, while the 2010
QDR1 maintains the need for U.S. forces to operate in two nearly simultaneous major wars, it places far greater emphasis on the need to
address irregular warfare challenges. Its focus is maintaining and rebalancing U.S. force structure to fight the wars in which the United States
is engaged today while looking ahead to the emerging security setting. The QDR further seeks to develop flexible and tailored capabilities to
confront an array of smaller-scale contingencies, including natural disasters, perhaps simultaneously, as was the case with the war in
Afghanistan, stability operations in Iraq, and the Haiti relief effort. The 2010 QDR highlights important trends in the global security
environment, especially unconventional threats and asymmetric challenges. It suggests that a conflict with a near-peer competitor such as
China, or a conflict with Iran, would involve a mix, or hybrid, of capabilities that would test U.S. forces in very different ways. Although
major challenges
predicting the future security setting is a very difficult if not an impossible exercise, the 2010 QDR outlines
for the U nited S tates and its allies, including technology proliferation and
diffusion; anti-access threats and the shrinking global basing
infrastructure; the possibility of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) use against the U.S.
homeland and/or against U.S. forces abroad; critical infrastructure protection and the massed effects of a cyber or space
attack ; unconventional warfare and irregular challenges; and the

emergence of new issue areas such as Arctic security , U.S. energy
dependence , demographic shifts and urbanization, the potential for
resource wars (particularly over access to water ), and the erosion
or collapse of governance in weak or failing states . TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION
Technology proliferation is accelerating. Compounding the problem is the reality that existing
multilateral and/or international export regimes and controls have not kept pace with
technology, and efforts to constrain access are complicated by dual-use

technologies and chemical/ biological agents. The battlefields of the future are likely to be more
lethal as combatants take advantage of commercially based navigation aids for precision guidance and advanced weapons systems
and as global and theater boundaries disappear with longer-range missile systems becoming more common in enemy arsenals.
Non-state entities such as Hezbollah have already used more advanced missile systems to target state adversaries. The proliferation of
precision technologies and longer-range delivery platforms puts the United States and its partners increasingly at risk. This proliferation also is
likely to affect U.S. operations from forward operating locations, placing additional constraints on American force deployments within the
territories of allies. Moreover, as longer-range ballistic and cruise missiles become more widespread, U.S. forces will find it increasingly difficult
to operate in conflicts ranging from irregular warfare to high-intensity combat. As highlighted throughout the conference, this will require that
the United States develop and field new-generation low-observable penetration assets and related capabilities to operate in non-permissive
environments. PROLIFERATION TRENDS The twenty-first-century security setting features several proliferation trends that were discussed in
the opening session. These trends, six of which were outlined by Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr., President of the Institute for Foreign Policy
Analysis, and Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of International Security Studies, The Fletcher School, Tufts University, framed subsequent
the number of actorsstates and armed non-state groupsis

discussions. First,
growing, together with strategies and capabilities based on more

widely available technologies, including WMD and conventional weapons. This is leading to a
blurring of categories of warfare that may include state and non-state actors and encompass intra-state, trans-state, and inter-state armed
conflict as well as hybrid threats. Second, some of these actors subscribe to ideologies and goals that welcome martyrdom. This raises many
questions about dissuasion and deterrence and the need to think of twenty-first-century deterrence based on offensive and defensive
strategies and capabilities. Third, given the sheer numbers of actors capable of challenging the United States and their unprecedented
capabilities, the opportunity for asymmetric operations against the United States and its allies will grow. The United States will need to work to
reduce key areas of vulnerability, including its financial systems, transportation, communications, and energy infrastructures, its food and
the twenty-first-century world contains
water supply, and its space assets. Fourth,
flashpoints for state-to-state conflict. This includes North Korea ,

which possesses nuclear weapons, and Iran , which is developing
them. In addition, China is developing an impressive array of weaponry which, as the
Commander of U.S. Pacific Command stated in congressional testimony, appears designed to challenge U.S.
freedom of action in the region and, if necessary, enforce Chinas influence over its neighbors including our
regional allies and partners weaponry.2 These threats include ballistic missiles , aircraft, naval
forces, cyber capabilities, anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons, and other power-projection capabilities. The global paradigm of the twenty-first
the
century is further complicated by state actors who may supply advanced arms to non-state actors and terrorist organizations. Fifth,
potential for irregular warfare is rising dramatically with the growth

of armed non-state actors. The proliferation of more lethal capabilities, including WMD,
to armed non-state actors is a logical projection of present trends. Substantial numbers of fractured, unstable, and
ungoverned states serve as breeding grounds of armed non-state actors who will resort to various forms of violence and coercion based on
irregular tactics and formations and who will increasingly have the capabilities to do so. Sixth, the twenty-first-century security setting
contains yet another obvious dimension: the permeability of the frontiers of the nation state, rendering domestic populations highly vulnerable
to destruction not only by states that can launch missiles but also by terrorists and other transnational groups. As we have seen in recent
years, these entities can attack U.S. information systems, creating the possibility of a digital Pearl Harbor. Taken together, these trends show
an unprecedented proliferation of actors and advanced capabilities confronting the United States; the resulting need to prepare for high-end
and low-end conflict; and the requirement to think of a seamless web of threats and other security challenges extending from overseas to
domestic locales. Another way to think about the twenty-first-century security setting, Dr. Pfaltzgraff pointed out, is to develop
scenarios such as the following, which are more illustrative than comprehensive: A nuclear Iran
that engages in or supports terrorist operations in a more assertive
foreign policy An unstable Pakistan that loses control of its nuclear
weapons, which fall into the hands of extremists A Taiwan Straits
crisis that escalates to war A nuclear North Korea that escalates
tensions on the Korean peninsula What all of these have in common
is the indispensable role that airpower would play in U.S. strategy
and crisis management .
1ac plan text

substantially curtail its domestic surveillance of security
inputs of United States corporations covered by the
Transportation Security Administrations Screening
Partnership Program.
1ac solvency
Contention three is solvency


approach,

laws and screening.

the law that
The operational
or


Lexis)//twemchen

Numerous other nations have privatized their airports, air traffic control, and aspects
of their aviation security. American policymakers should study those reforms and
pursue such innovations here. Privatization offers a viable alternative

to Americas often mismanaged and inefficient government aviation
infrastructure. With regard to aviation security, the federal government has an important role to
play. But its near-monopoly over airport screening has resulted in it
getting bogged down in managing its bloated federal workforce ,
as one congressional report concluded.141 Operating the vast passenger and baggage
screening system takes the governments focus away from proper
federal activities such as terrorism intelligence and analysis .

Lexis)//twemchen
want to apply."
Case Terrorism
Overviewterror
The TSA is a guarantee for security breachesempirically
proven that 25,000 breaches already occurred in the
status quo, this makes terrorism inevitableprivate
sector is the only way to solve. Decentralization allows
controlcreates races to exceed other companies
performance which is k2 effective securitypolicy makers
are in favor also, excelled security is proven through
studies that show private screeners perform better than
TSA screenrsprivatized screening key, the problems
from TSA screeners distract agencies from their security
dutiesmakes counter terrorism ineffective unless
privatized screening is put in placesolves rollback
arguments, extend cecil 14, terrorists are already working
to use stealth bombs that are hard to detect to cause
havoic on the U.S.this causes collapsing of airlines with
no chance at bailout. Terrorism collapses the aerospace
industryless flights lead to less money which lead to an
abundance of aircrafts leaving aerospace in a deficitits
vulnerable thats why now is key. Also, aerospace is key
to countering attacksproliferated world is happening in
the status quo, a failed aerospace industry risks greater
conflict, without airlines agriculture is also hurtairlines
are main transporters of our food and without transport
extinction is inevitable with the lack of food supply
privatized screening is the only way to solve
Overview NM
Security breaches happening now 25,000 in the squo
makes terrorism inevitable. Decentralization is key
airport privatization creates a race to the top in security
performance, which guarantees top-notch performance.
Empirics prove that private screeners perform at a more
secure rate than TSA screeners thats Edwards 13. TSA
screening problems distract agencies from effective
counter-terrorism the plans signals a shift from public
to private sector solves their rollback arguments.
Extend Cecil 14 terrorists are innovating now moving
towards the use of stealth bombs that are undectectable
by TSA screeners. Proves uniqueness a) now is key for
the plan and b) terrorism and the risks of devastating
terror attacks are high now.
Any terrorist attack will collapse the aerospace industry
no chance of bailout. Vulnerability proves now is
specifically key.
Agriculture a successful aerospace industry is key to

agriculture makes transportation effective and solves
resource depletion. Escalation to resource wars makes
extinction inevitable. Because of proliferation, more and
more countries have nuclear weapons at their disposal
the only thing preventing nuclear conflict is mutually
assured destruction. We only have to win that one nuclear
weapon will be set off starts a chain reaction.
Overview CH
TSAs policy on terror is awfulguarantees security
breechesthere have been 25,000 TSA micromanages
operations which makes innovation difficultmakes terror
inevitable because we are not able to experiment with
new techniques to fight terrorempirically proven TSA
fails 95% of the timeDHS did a test and 67 out of 70
testsTSA failed to detect weaponsfailure rate now is
higher than in 2007we need to change this.
Decentralization causes a race to the topallows for best
security. SPP mandates screeners to follow rulesaka
micromanage themmakes it difficult to innovateprivate
companies would make for enhanced skills only helping
national security. And this is proved from the best studies
extend Edwards 13 private screeners proved more
reliable vs TSA screeners in tests. Extend Edwards 13
that the squo TSA spends most of its time managing
leads to distracting agency from working on counter
terror activitiesprivate screening streamlines resources
back to counter terror effortssolves. Extend Brandt
11-- the mismanagement from the TSA resulted in
vulnerabilitiesterrorists are always analyzing screeners
more vulnerabilities means its easier for terrorists to
get through screeningonly can solve through
privatizationincreases innovationsolves security
breaches. Privatization outpaces the TSA in the squo
theyre always changing to better techmakes them more
capable than the TSA. And extend Biles 15we already
see an imminent threat from ISISthermite bombs being
builtcant be detected through screenersrisks lash out
events provoke nuclear retaliationleads to destructive
collapseonly plan solves
Internals
I/L Generic
The plan creates resource reallocation which is vital to
solve terrorism
Moore 12 Professional Researcher at the Heritage Foundation (Caroline
Moore, 5/29/12, Is the TSA Protecting Homeland Security or Protecting
Federal Employees?, https://www.myheritage.org/news/is-the-tsa-protecting-
homeland-security-or-protecting-federal-employees/)//twemchen
After the long holiday weekend, many people are returning to work with fresh complaints about airport
Congress would like to remove the
security and its inefficiency. Some conservatives in
Transportation Security Administrations monopoly status, and simultaneously lessen
the financial burden on American taxpayers by allowing airports to hire private security companies. They
privatizing the TSA will increase efficiency and effectiveness of the
believe
federal operation. Rep. John Mica (R-FL), who chairs the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, raised the idea at a hearing in March. Heritage Foundation expert Jessica Zuckerman explains
that Congress first mandated that U.S. airports be given the ability to opt out of federal screening in 2001
The TSA, she explains, has a
with the passage of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act.
monopoly on transportation security and has thus far opposed hiring private
security companies to perform screening at security check points. A study conducted by Micas
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure found that other countries governments successfully
oversee the employment of private security companies to perform security tasks. This is also true here at
home. Zuckerman explains that private security screening was found to be more efficient than TSA
screening: The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure last year reported that U.S.
taxpayers would save $1 billion over five years if the Nations top 35 airports operated as efficiently as
[San Francisco International Airport] does under the SPP model. A 2007 independent assessment found
that SPP airports overall performance results are equal to or better than those delivered by non-SPP.
According to Greg Soule of the TSA, the cost difference between private security companies and federal
the TSA is missing the
agencies is not as large as the committee report suggested. But
point . Private security screening contracts will vary by airport and will increase
flexibility and efficiency of each airport. Zuckerman explains that as a private-sector
alternative to government screening, [private screening] provides an opportunity for
notable cost savings at no apparent cost to security while allowing TSA to get out
of the personnel business and truly focus on security .
Hiring micromanagement drains critical security resources

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 11 Prepared for
Chairman John L. Mica (CTI, 6/3/11, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure Oversight and Investigations Staff Reform; TSA Ignores More
Cost-Effective Screening Model, http://www.aaae.org/?
e=showFile&l=XQVIPZ)//twemchen
TSA has hired 137,100 staff7 since the agencys creation and spent more than $2 billion on
recruiting and training costs (see Appendix 3). 8 Due to high attrition, TSA has spent so
much time managing itself that it has been unable to focus necessary
resources on oversight and regulation of U.S. transportation security, in
general. The SPP allows TSA to function as its creators in Congress originally intended
as a government regulator .
More ev
TSA
1. TSA should not serve as the regulator, operator, and auditor of screening operations at airports.
should catch up with the rest of the world and promote the SPP as a way to
reduce federal spending , increase efficiency, and make the travel experience more enjoyable
to the flying public. The SPP will enable TSA to turn its focus away from managing a
bloated bureaucracy and toward becoming a true security agency
focused on intelligence and oversight .
The private sector is way better

Kosatka 14 staff writer at Aviation Pros (Art Kosatka, 12/10/14, Airport
Screening Privatization Continues To Be A Better Option,
http://www.aviationpros.com/blog/12026516/airport-screening-privatization-
continues-to-be-a-better-option)//twemchen
Inallowing privatization, Congress required the TSA Administrator to determine
that the approval (of private screening) would not compromise the security or
detrimentally affect the cost-efficiency or the effectiveness of the screening of passengers or
property at the airport. In other words, TSA itself must agree that they do at least as good
a job. TSA also continues to maintain overall regulatory responsibility, and the local TSA Federal Security
Director provides oversight of the privatized operations, no matter who is running them. In brief, the
privatization program was successfully piloted at five volunteer airports representing a full range of risk
profiles, eventually expanded to the current 18 airports that prefer an approach of business over
bureaucracy. Thirteen more airports have applied; one is in the application adjudication phase, two are in
the source selection phase, and ten have discontinued commercial air service, so screening is no longer
private screening employees are required to maintain precisely
required there. The
the same qualification criteria of Federal TSOs, receive no less pay than
Federal TSOs, endure the same training and testing , and are subject to a
proven business model of effective management rather than that of the
government agency consistently rated by the annual Partnership for Public Service survey of its
own employees, including screeners, as the worst place to work in government .
2ac Trick
The plans changes are impermanent SPP rollback is
eventually inevitable but doing the plan in the interim
allows the TSA to learn valuable lessons from the private
sector which makes overall security more efficient
TSA officials provided a power point presentation to Committee staff from January 5, 2011,
providing a recommendation to Administrator Pistole to completely eliminate the
SPP. They intended to do this by renewing contracts at the existing 16 SPP airports for
one year , refusing any future applications, and setting up a timeline to
federalize the SPP airports . TSA, Screening Partnership Program, Power Point Presentation
(Jan. 5, 2011) [hereinafter TSA SPP Power Point]. The following 16 U.S. airports participate in the SPP: San
Francisco International Airport (SFO), Sioux Falls Regional Airport (FSD), Tupelo Regional Airport (TUP),
Charles M. Schultz Sonoma County Airport (STS), Sidney-Richland Municipal Airport (SDY), Dawson
Community Airport (GDV), Wokal Field/Glasgow International Airport (GGW), Havre City-County Airport
(HVR), L. M. Clayton Airport (OLF), Lewiston Municipal Airport (LWT), Miles City Airport (MLS), Key West
International Airport (EYW), Kansas City International Airport (MCI), Greater Rochester International Airport
(ROC), Roswell International Air Center (ROW), and Jackson Hole Airport (JAC).
2ac EXT Innovation
Innovation is uniquely key to solve TSA failure
Poole 6/4 Searle Freedom Trust Transportation Fellow and Director of
policy-security-news-106#e)//twemchen
The results of recent DHS Inspector General "Red Team" testing of passenger
checkpoints were so bad that DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson dumped TSA's
Acting Administrator and called for major revisions in screening
operating procedures. Because the IG report apparently reveals major vulnerabilities in current
operations, it's understandable that it remains classified. But with checkpoint screeners
having failed 67 of 70 tests , Congress's Homeland Security Committees need
to ask some very hard questions of DHS and TSA in coming months. We should have seen
this coming, based on previous reports from the DHS Office of Inspector General. Last September it
released a one-page "Spotlight" reportbasically an unclassified summary of a report called
"Vulnerabilities Exist in TSA's Checked Baggage Screening Operations." (OIG-14-142, September 2014) It
reports on Red Team operations at an undisclosed number of airports not at passenger checkpoints but on
checked baggage screening operations. The summary states, "We identified vulnerabilities in this area
caused by human and technology-based failures. We also determined that TSA does not have a process in
place to assess or identify the cause for equipment-based test failures or the capability to independently
assess whether deployed explosive detection systems are operating at the correct detection standards." It
also reports that having spent $540 million for checked baggage screening equipment since 2009,
"Despite that investment, TSA has not improved checked baggage screening since our last report in 2009."
A more detailed report on all airport screening equipmentpassenger and checked baggagecame out
just last month, titled "The Transportation Security Administration Does Not Properly Manage Its Airport
Screening Maintenance Program." (OIG-15-86, May 6, 2015) It found that "Because TSA does not
adequately oversee equipment maintenance, it cannot be assured that routine preventive maintenance is
performed or that equipment is repaired and ready for operational use." This report also cites a
Government Accountability Office (GAO) report from July 2006 (GAO-06-795) which found that TSA "did not
have policies and procedures requiring documentation for the review of contractor-submitted performance
data," nor did it have "reasonable assurance that contractors were performing as required." That was nine
years ago. The May 6th DHS report finds that today "Neither GAO nor TSA could provide documentation
and details about the actions taken [or not]" in response to those 2006 findings. In other words, one
possible cause of at least some of the failures documented by the DHS OIG Red Teams on baggage
some of the
screening (last fall) and passenger checkpoint screening (this spring) is that
expensive body scanners and EDS machines may not be working properlyand
the screeners operating them have no way to know this. Another probable
cause, of course, is that managing checkpoints and EDS machines hour after hour, day
after day, is incredibly boring , especially when screeners virtually never catch
anyone with malicious intent, which might keep their interest level high. DHS Inspector General
John Roth told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on May 15th that screeners
"spend long hours performing tedious tasks that require constant vigilance," but his Red Teams "repeatedly
human erroroften a simple failure to follow protocolposes
found that
significant vulnerabilities ." Long-time TSA critic Rep. John Mica (R, FL) said, "This [Red
Team] report is an indictment of the failure of the TSA. Not just in one area, but in
almost every area of their functions ." Though invited, TSA did not send a witness to
that hearing. Thanks to the diligent work of GAO and the DHS Inspector General, we know there are
Recommendations get made, especially afte r bursts
serious management failures at TSA.
ofnegative publicity, but nothing much seems to change . This looks to me like a
classic example of low-performance bureaucracy at work, gradually expanding
its functions (scope creep) while failing to be accountable for results. It also reflects
the conflict built into TSA from the outset: it is both the aviation security
regulator and the provider of a large portion of airport security services. A
long-proven remedy for this kind of government failure is competitive
contracting . When a properly qualified company is selected to perform certain
tasks, if it fails to perform adequately, the ultimate remedy is to cancel the
contract . Airports already have the right, by the terms of the 2001 Aviation & Transportation Security
Act that created TSA, to opt out of TSA-provided passenger and baggage screening, replacing it with TSA-
approved security contractors. But until now, fewer than two dozen airports have done so.
2ac EXT Security Gap
Solves the security gap that causes terrorism
policy-and-security-news-99#e)//twemchen
In the aftermath of November's shooting attack at LAX that killed a TSA screener, the screeners' union
(American Federation of Government Employees) called for creating a new category of armed screeners.
But after it consulted with a large array of aviation stakeholders, TSA has rejected that proposal. Instead,
its March 26th report made 14 recommendations to more effectively deal with the threat of "active
shooters" at airports. In particular, it called for armed law enforcement officers (local police or airport
police, if an airport has them) covering security checkpoints during peak periods. Other recommendations
include mandatory screener training and exercises to prepare them for the active-shooter threat, ensuring
that all TSA wireless devices are programmed with the airport's emergency number(s), weekly testing of
panic alarms at airports (and more alarms where warranted), plus linking the panic alarms to airport
security cameras, to guide first responders to the location of a shooting threat. The LAX shooting raised a
number of examples of poor coordination between the TSA screening operation and
the rest of the airport's security systems. Not having panic alarms linked to the
airport-run closed-circuit TV system is one example; another is the failure of 911
calls at LAX to be routed directly to airport police. These are examples of the lack
of integration of airport security as it is currently organized. Thanks to Congress in
2001 giving TSA the primary role of checkpoint and baggage screening , it
operates as a separate presence at each airport. All the rest of airport
securityaccess to sterile areas, perimeter protection, lobby security , etc.is the
airport's responsibility . To be sure, TSA has a (proper) regulatory role over those non-TSA
aspects of the airport's security. But this kind of divided operation is inherently
suboptimal , compared with the kind of integrated security that is typical of
European airports. The fundamental flaw, as I have pointed out in congressional testimony and in
this newsletter, is that TSA was created with the dual roles of aviation security regulator and airport
screening provider. That creates a conflict of interest in that when it comes to
baggage and passenger screening, TSA regulates itself . But it also creates
divided security responsibilities at the airport, when unified security would
almost certainly be more secure. Hence, if and when Congress ever decides to get
serious about devolving the screening function to airports (letting them perform it with
either their own TSA-approved staff or purchase it from a TSA-approved screening
firm ), they would not only be removing TSA's conflict of interest; they would
also be promoting unified security at each airport.
2ac AT Regs Turn
There are no regs now
Elliott 15 staff writer at the Washington Post (Christopher Elliot, 6/4/15, Is
Washington ignoring air travelers?,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/travel/is-washington-ignoring-air-
travelers/2015/06/04/fd881a6e-0555-11e5-8bda-
c7b4e9a8f7ac_story.html)//twemchen
Perhaps thats why travelers seem underwhelmed. When arguably the most powerful travel committee in
Washington answers a question about its achievements with tap, dont talk, can consumers be forgiven
for feeling as though Washington doesnt care ? Instead of dealing with issues that
really matter to travelers,legislators are nibbling around the edges , passing bills
that make no noticeable difference to the average air traveler. Sally Greenberg, the executive
director of the National Consumers League, sees it as a massive , system-wide failure.
Theres no regulation or oversight of the airline industry, she says. The
Department of Transportation is a paper tiger . There have been no
congressional hearings or oversight for the past five years.
Centralizations worse for regs

Ervin 4 Inspector General of Homeland Security (Clark Kent Ervin, 4/22/4,
When contractors and local TSA officials needed decisions and/or direction, they often
had difficulty getting headquarters officials to respond. Some local TSA and
contractor officials found it easier to make their own decisions rather than
seeking headquarters approval or guidance, leading to inconsistencies among
pilot airport program management and, thereby, making comparisons between the
federal workforce and the contractor workforce even harder to make. In conclusion, OIG believes that, in
theory, pilot programs can be a useful tool in exploring program innovations and improvements, but, in
this instance, TSA must develop meaningful performance measures and standards so that overall
performance and the effects of new improvements can be measured and assessed, and contractors must
be given the flexibility to determine what works best for their own situation.
2ac AT Costs More
Costs less
Lexis)//twemchen
If a qualified company submits an under-budget bid , a contract may be

awarded and the company could begin. Shea said it's possible the new contract will save
the airport money as well.
Theyre completely wrong

Lexis)//twemchen
private screeners are more expensive than federal screeners, but the
TSA had argued that
GAO found that claim to be incorrect .124 Indeed, the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure released a report in 2011, which found that
expanding the SPP program would generate savings .125 It found that the private
screeners at the San Francisco airport were 65 percent more efficient than the federal
screeners at the Los Angeles airport. The SFO screening operations also had lower
employee attrition rates than LAX, leading to reduced costs from recruitment and training.
Federal rules require that private screeners be trained to the same standards as federal screeners, but
even with that restriction SFO was able to achieve those standards at lower training costs than TSA
screeners.126
2ac Morale Magnifier
Framing issue even if each internal link isnt sufficient,
its failures ensure a proliferation of bad press, destroying
morale and making security terminally ineffective
Elliott 10 staff writer at Elliott.org citing TSA officer Ron Moore (Christopher
Elliott, 12/4/10, Ex-TSA officer: Every new controversy breaks down morale
further, http://elliott.org/first-person/ex-tsa-officer-every-new-controversy-
breaks-down-morale-further/)//twemchen
Not a day goes by when someone isnt upset over something and Transportation
Security Officers (TSOs) feel caught in the middle. They cringe when a TSO does a poor job and realize it
reflects on everyone . Pat-downs are not comfortable for the TSO but there is a very specific right
way to do the job and TSAs staffing problems mean less training and preparation. It should be noted that
there are two kinds of passengers: experienced and inexperienced. When a passenger who flies rarely
comes in loaded for bear, thanks to media reports they are quick to complain although too often they
complain to others after the fact not on the checkpoint. Some TSA agents have reportedly spoken out
about the new security procedures. Does this reflect what your former colleagues are telling you? No. I will
say that a TSO can screen a thousand passengers and the five who are disrespectful stick with you. Those
who disrespect TSOs would likely make comments regardless. This media narrative just gives them the
Morale is extremely low and
new script. This is nothing new in terms of morale. How is morale?
turnover is extremely high simply because TSOs enforce very strict rules
yet work in a workplace with virtually no rules or rights . That may sound like union
talk, but TSOs are treated as if they are in the military and have to follow orders even for
things such as going to the bathroom. Every new controversy breaks down morale
further since TSOs cant escape the media reports while off duty. By the way, I
hear from TSOs nationwide not just BWI. I want to make that point clear so those who were close
colleagues are not singled out as sources and face retaliation by TSA management.
1ar AT Costs More
Were cheaper best ev
The Committee conducted a cost analysis of screening costs at LAX under the
Federal structure and the SPP structure, using efficiencies at SFO as the model for SPP savings (See
If LAX operated as efficiently as SFO, then 867 screener FTEs
Appendix 2).
could be cut from the LAX Screener Allocation Model . Committee staff did not conduct
an analysis of the performance of screening operations at SPP and non-SPP airports in this study, however
the Committee did request that GAO conduct a performance analysis of operations at SPP and non-SPP
Analyses to-date, however, have found that private screeners
airports (see Appendix 8).34
perform at a level equal to or greater than TSOs.
Well insert this table into the debate it compares the

federal model to the SPP and finds private screening is
42% cheaper
Cost Per Federal Model SPP Model Savings Under

Screener FTE SPP
Screener $38,480 $38,480 $0
Productivity
(annual salary)
Turnover $2,439 $541 $1,898
(recruiting &
training costs)
National $289 $0 $289
Deployment Force
Total cost per $41,208 $39,021 $2,187
screener
Total Cost of $90,657,600 $52,014,993 42%less costly

Screener
Workforce $38,642,607
Source: House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure, TSA Ignores

More Cost-Effective Screening Model (Washington, D.C.: 2011), Endnote 8
1ar AT Costs More NDF
They ignore the national deployment force
Mitchell 11 staff writer @ AvStop (Mike Mitchell, 3/14/11, TSA Cooked The
Books For Years On Costs, Federal Vs Private Screening,
http://avstop.com/march_2011/tsa_cooked_the_books_on_costs_federal_vs_pri
vate_screening.htm)//twemchen
TSA has only accounted for a fraction of their personnel located at privatized
airports, which result in duplicative costs that still have not been factored into estimates.
Mica also said the federal-private screening model, through previous GAO evaluations, has performed
Additional unaccounted-for TSA
significantly better than or equal to the all-government model.
costs are incurred each time the costly National Deployment Force , TSA?
s mobile screening unit , is used to fill staffing gaps at airports . TSA cannot keep
employees at some locations, so expensive screening personnel are deployed to fill in.
This unit was first created to help TSA federalize aviation security for passenger screening in 2002. The
mobile screening unit is staffed by TSA screeners and is now responsible for supporting
airports during special circumstances such as seasonal demands and emergencies. Each
time the unit is deployed TSA must pay costs related to per diem lodging and meals, travel to and from the
airport in need, as well as other incentives. ?This
mobile screening unit is grossly
misused today , mostly filling staffing gaps caused by low attendance and
high attrition ,? Mica continued. ?Incredibly, of the five airports that were recently
denied their applications to the federal-private screening model, at least
three were staffed by the mobile screening unit either permanently or for
months at a time. With our limited security resources , it is simply
irresponsible to pass these costs on to taxpayers when there is a viable,
more cost-effective alternative.?
1ar AT Chassey and Amey
Their ev is inconclusive
Chassey and Amey 11 Paul Chassy, Dr. Paul Chassy, Ph.D., J.D., focuses
on oversight of federal contracting, researcher at POGO AND Scott H. Amey,
J.D., General Counsel at POGO (Paul Chassy, Scott Amey, 9/13/11, Bad
Business: Billions of Taxpayer Dollars Wasted on Hiring Contractors,
http://www.pogo.org/our-work/reports/2011/co-gp-20110913.html#TSA's
Screening Partnership Program)//twemchen
Another comparative cost analysis, however, arrived at a different conclusion .

The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure issued an analysis
in June 2011 finding that: 1) taxpayers would save $1 billion over five years if the nations top 35 airports
operated as efficiently as the San Francisco International airport under the SPP program, and 2) SPP
All of these
screeners are 65 percent more efficient than their TSA federal counterparts.[176]
government study examples illustrate the difficulty in comparing costs , and
the contradictory results that can result from disparate methodologies .
Until the government creates a system to accurately estimate the cost of performing commercial services,
the public will never know the actual savings that could have been realized.
1ar AT Ev = Privatization
Efficiency reforms are sufficient thats the plan
Taxpayers would save $1 billion over five years if the Nations top 35 airports
operated as efficiently as SFO does under the SPP model. 35 airports account for
75 percent of commercial passengers in the United States.1 34 of these airports operate
under the federal model, while SFO operates under the SPP model. If federal screeners at each
of these airports were able to process the same number of passengers that private screeners screen at
SFO, then7,601 screeners could be cut from the Federal workforce, resulting
in at least $1 billion in savings from salaries alone .
1ar AT TSA Study
It still concluded the aff is good
Berrick 9 Managing Director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues
(Cathleen A. Berrick, 1/9/9, Aviation Security: TSAs Cost and Performance
Study of Private-Sector Airport Screening,
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0927r.pdf)//twemchen
The contractors December 2007 report, which summarized the results of its SPP
analysis, included the following recommendations to TSA to improve the operational
effectiveness and cost efficiency of the SPP: 1. Explore reduc ing the redundant general and
administrative and overhead costs at SPP airports . 2. Explore the use of
the SPP model as a tool to improve performance at low-performing fully federal
airports . 3. Explore the use of the SPP model at hard-to-hire airports and for airports with significant
seasonal requirements. 4. Explore providing additional degrees of freedom to
SPP contractors to foster innovation , superior performance , and cost
controls
The TSAs hiding costs

TSA concealed significant cost factors unique to the federal screening

model. Committee staff found that TSA dismissed significant cost factors unique to the all-federal model
when conducting past cost comparisons of the SPP and federal models. 5 Specifically, TSA did not
consider cost savings that would result from increased screener efficiencies or
removing the need to deploy the NDF. In addition to these metrics, the Committee
recommends that future cost comparisons also include an analysis of the rate of
screener overtime charged due to poor scheduling, and costs paid out due to
injury rates.6
1ar AT TSA Study Overlap
Plus, they ignore overlapping administrative costs at SPP
airports a warrant the plan clearly solves
TSA has not consider[ed] the impact of
Furthermore, a 2009 GAO study found that
overlapping administrative personnel on the costs of SPP airports. 95 Despite
claims by TSA officials that the agency has since addressed duplicative staffing,
Committee staff found multiple instances of TSA employees holding similar or identical positions to those
private screening
held by the private screening company at the airport.96 For example, the
company at SFO employs 60 behavioral detection officers (BDOs) along with one BDO
Supervisor that manages the BDO workforce. TSA also employs eight behavioral detection
supervisors; sources at the airport claim they are unnecessary and
duplicative. TSA officials from the SPP Program Office were unaware of the overlapping staff at SFO
and promised to look in to it during a meeting in March of 2011.9
Doesnt account for overlap

TSAs study design did not consider the impact of overlapping administrative
personnel on the costs of SPP airports. TSA is currently conducting a workforce
analysis to identify unnecessary redundancies in its staffing, including overlapping
administrative personnel, in response to a Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Office of
Inspector General (OIG) recommendation. According to TSA officials, this analysis is an ongoing effort
and has no completion date.
1ar AT TSA Study Injuries
Their ev ignores higher overtime and injury rates under
the federal system
Taxpayers would save more than $38.6 million a year if LAX joined the SPP (see Table 1). A reduction of
867 FTEs at LAX would result in approximately $33.3 million in savings from salary alone. 3 $635,800
would be saved because the National Deployment Force would not need to be deployed to fill staffing
gaps. 4 $4.6 million would be saved in reduced training and recruitment costs due to lower attrition rates.
[TSA] assessment did not take into
Total savings would exceed $38.6 million a year. This
account higher overtime and injury rates that are unique to the federal
model because TSA officials refused to provide that information to
Committee staff. Savings will increase once these factors are also considered.
1ar AT TSA Study 1 year
They only use a year of data thats not enough
TSAs comparison of SPP and non-SPP airports costs was based on fiscal year 2007
data. However, it is unclear how representative the costs for 1 year may be. For example,
in future years, TSA would likely incur workers compensation costs that TSA
assumed would not be incurred the first year it took over responsibility for operating the
SPP airports. According to GAO criteria for estimating and managing program costs,1 estimates are
time phased because program costs usually span many years. Depending on the activities
in the schedule, some years may have more costs than others . Furthermore,
anomalies can be more easily discovered when the estimate is time phased. The
Catapult study evaluated cost data for multiple years.2 However, in conducting its own study, the officials
2007 data because they were the most complete information
stated that TSA analyzed fiscal year
were not consistent with
available for the SPP airports and that data from previous years
current TSA policy or business practices. For example, according to the officials, the TSO
workforce was structured differently in prior years, and a recent expansion in its part-time workforce has
affected its operational costs.
1ar AT TSA Study Too Narrow
The TSA studys too narrow
TSA underestimated costs to the government for non-SPP airports because the
agency did not include all of the costs associated with passenger and baggage
screening services at non-SPP airports, such as workers compensation and general
liability insurance, and did not reflect the income received by the government from corporate
income taxes paid by SPP contractors. Furthermore, the estimate for non-SPP airports does not
take into account the costs of certain retirement benefits to be paid by OPM to TSA
retirees. These costs elements can impact the reliability of the cost estimate. According to
Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No.4, Managerial Cost Accounting Concepts and
Standards for the Federal Government, the full cost of programs is be reported to assist Congress and
executives in making informed decisions on program resources and to ensure that programs get expected
and efficient results.1 TSA acknowledged that its study was narrow in scope and stated
that its purpose was to determine the impact of the SPP on TSAs budget, rather than to determine the full
cost of the program to the federal government or to assist Congress or executives in decision making.
However, TSA stated that it had prepared several different versions of its cost comparison of
SPP and non-SPP airports that were excluded from its final study report. At our request, TSA
provided additional calculations to include some of the costs that would be incurred if SPP airports were
federalized, as well as the income that private screening contractors pay in corporate taxes to the federal
government when those same airports are operated by the contractors. These calculations showed that
the cost gap between the SPP and non-SPP airports decreased from approximately 17.4 to 14.5 percent
when the agency included some of these costs, such as workers compensation and general liability
insurance, and offset tax revenues. If TSA had included the full cost of federal retirement in its cost
comparison, the gap would decrease further.
1ar AT TSA Study They didnt double check
They didnt double check their data
TSAs study design did not call for conducting procedures needed to ensure that cost
data collected were reliable and did not prepare documentation of its costing
methodology called for in federal accounting standards. 1 Specific procedures and information
used in the cost study were not described in sufficient detail to allow a
knowledgeable person to carry out the procedures and to replicate the results in
their entirety.
1ar AT TSA Study No Documentation
They didnt even document their methodology
Key assumptions and methods used were also not documented in sufficient
detail to justify the reasonableness of costs. According to GAOs Standards for Internal Control in
the Federal Government, significant events, which can include key decisions about assumptions and
methods underlying the assignment of costs, are to be clearly documented. 2 TSA officials stated that the
assumptions in their study were reviewed by multiple parties within the agency and that they could
without sufficient
verbally walk someone through the details of their analysis. However,
documentation, it will be difficult for TSA to justify its decisions about
assumptions and methods used in its costing methodology
1ar AT TSA Study AT 2011 was better
Doesnt solve our indicts
a) Its literally comparing airports of different sizes

Lord 11 Director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues (Stephen M. Lord,
3/4/11, Aviation Security: TSAs Revised Cost Comparison Provides a More
Reasonable Basis for Comparing the Costs of Private-Sector and TSA
Screeners, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11375r.pdf)//twemchen
In comparing the performance of SPP and non-SPP airports, TSAs design did
not control or otherwise account for other possible factors such as airport configuration or
size that could contribute to performance differences between SPP and non-SPP
airports. Generally not addressed TSA officials stated that they manage SPP airports with the
same standards and performance metrics as non-SPP airports. TSA also stated that one of the
performance measures, Threat Image Projection (TIP), is not affected by airport
configuration or size. However, TSA did not provide any analysis that observed
performance differences between SPP and nonSPP airports may reflect factors unrelated to
the Screening Partnership Program, such as the possibility that SPP airports may be different
than non-SPP airports in configuration or size. We will continue to monitor TSAs efforts to develop
additional documentation addressing this limitation.
b) They havent statistically verified their data

Lord 11 Director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues (Stephen M. Lord,
3/4/11, Aviation Security: TSAs Revised Cost Comparison Provides a More
Reasonable Basis for Comparing the Costs of Private-Sector and TSA
Screeners, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11375r.pdf)//twemchen
TSAs study design did not provide any confidence levels for estimates related
to screening performance, consistent with generally accepted statistical practices. The study also
did not address the procedures needed to ensure data reliability. Generally not
addressed TSA has not provided confidence levels for estimates related to screening
performance or addressed the procedures needed to ensure data reliability. TSA noted that one of its
performance measures uses an algorithm that promotes data reliability. However, TSAs example
does not directly address the limitationthat TSA needs to develop confidence
intervals on its estimates of performance at SPP and non-SPP airports and also ensure the reliability of
all data related to screening performance. We will continue to monitor TSAs efforts to develop additional
documentation addressing this limitation.
1ar AT Gao ev
This ev is miscut their ev is a summary of the TSA study
which the GAO found was flawed
TSAs study comparing the cost and performance of screening services at SPP and non-
SPP airports had some design strengths, such as recognizing that cost savings would be limited
given the mandated structure of the SPP and assessing whether performance data were collected in a
However, based on the criteria that we used, the design was limited
uniform manner.
because TSA did not: Include the impact of potential overlapping
administrative staff 1 on the costs of SPP airports. TSA is currently conducting a workforce analysis
to identify unnecessary redundancies in its staffing, including overlapping administrative personnel; TSA
Account for workers
officials stated that this effort is ongoing and has no completion date.
compensation, general liability insurance, and some retirement costs paid by the
federal government, as well as the lost corporate income tax revenue from private
screening contractors, when replacing private with federal screening. Call for an assessment of
the reliability of the costs and performance data , as called for in federal accounting
standards. 2 Document the rationale for including the five performance
measures reviewed in the study while excluding others. Call for statistical analyses
to determine the level of confidence in observed differences in performance between SPP
and non-SPP airports.
The TSA changed its mind and agreed with the GAO
We are recommending that if TSA plans to use its cost and performance study in future
decision making regarding the SPP, it revise its study to address the methodological limitations that
we have identified. TSA generally agreed with our findings and recommendation.
It was too conservative anyway

Poole 12 Searle Freedom Trust Transportation Fellow, Director of
Transportation Policy at the Reason Foundation (Robert Poole, 12/18/12,
Airport Policy and Security News #85, http://reason.org/news/show/airport-
policy-and-security-news-85#a)//twemchen
Earlier this month, the Government Accountability Office issued a new report on
TSA's Screening Partnership Program (SPP), under which airports may exercise their right, under the 2001
legislation that created TSA, to opt out of TSA-provided screening. GAO-13-208, "TSA Should Issue
More Guidance to Airports and Monitor Private versus Federal Screener Performance,"sounds
innocuous, and it is . It reviews previous studies that find performance by TSA-
certified screeners now in operation at 16 airports is as good as or better than TSA
screener performance at comparable airports. And it documents advantages to
airports and TSA from SPP. Airports like the more customer-friendly service
the contractors provide and their greater flexibility in matching staffing levels to passenger
flows. And TSA's airport-based F ederal S ecurity D irector s appreciate that at SPP airports,
they don't have to be involved in deploying and managing screeners and are
therefore better able to focus on security oversight . But that didn't stop long-time
SPP foe Rep. Bennie Thompson (D, MS) from rushing out a news release calling on TSA to halt any further
airport participation in the program until TSA gets a more detailed handle on SPP costs and benefits. Say
what? Any fair reading of the GAO report will find it generally approving of SPP, but making minor
recommendations for TSA to be more systematic in collecting and analyzing cost and performance data.
Moreover, both the original ATSA legislation from 2001 and the FAA Modernization Act enacted in February
2012 mandate that TSA accept applications from airports wanting to opt out, and the 2012 law now
requires TSA to approve them within 120 days unless the Administrator finds that such a change would
either compromise airport security or reduce the cost-efficiency or effectiveness of screening at that
two
airport. But the fact that Rep. Thompson could put out that statement with a straight face reflects
key flaws in the GAO report. First, in reviewing previous evidence about the cost-
effectiveness of SPP, it ignores the well-done comparative analysis of screening
at San Francisco International ( SFO ) and Los Angeles International ( LAX ), two major hubs
classed by TSA as Category X (the largest and biggest targets), with screening at SFO
by private security under SPP and screening at LAX done directly by TSA . This
report, by the staff of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, found that thanks to both
the incentives of being a business and the flexibility that exists in the private
sector, screening at SFO is dramatically more productive , with each
screener handling 65% more passengers than TSA screeners at LAX. This comes from
better matching workforce with passenger load, with far fewer screener-hours at SFO spent standing
around between peaks. Screening also costs far less at SFO, thanks to: a much lower attrition rate (less
recruiting and training cost), use of part-timers and split shifts to match staffing to passenger flow, and
The
little or no need to use TSA's costly flying squad of fill-in screeners, the National Deployment Force.
second GAO omission is about the process airports have to go through to
participate in SPP. Until the 2012 legislation, an airport applied to TSA to opt out, and if via some
inscrutable process TSA decided to say yes, then the agency itself would go through its list of certified
screening firms and assign one of them to the airport. The 2012 law allows an applicant to work with its
preferred screening firm in preparing the application and to request that TSA assign that firm to be its
a far cry from how competitive contracting is carried
screening provider. But that's
out by other government agencies federal, state, and local. As I pointed out in my
testimony before the transportation subcommittee of the House Homeland Security Committee in July,
standard practice is for the agency that seeks to contract out a service to
define its requirements and its selection criteria in a request for proposals
(RFP) which it sends out to all qualified providers . The providers that think they are a
good fit submit proposals, and the agency applies its selection criteria to select the best value bidder.
GAO never made this comparison , and its recommendations about
improving the process were all penny-ante: TSA should provide guidance on how it will
assess proposals dealing with the cost-efficiency and screening effectiveness; it should explain to airports
how it evaluates proposals, etc. And TSA agreed with these very minor changes: it will explain its selection
process, and it posted 12 rather general pages about this on its website last month. That leaves it to
Congress to meaningfully reform the Screening Partnership Program. And that is what the chairman of the
Transportation Subcommittee, who chaired the hearing at which I testified, plans to do next year. Rep. Mike
Rogers (R, AL) told Bloomberg Businessweek in September that after 22 hearings on TSA over the past 18
months, he will offer a comprehensive reform proposal in 2013. According to the article, it "would give
airports more power to hire private contractors for screening and make it [even] tougher for TSA to
refuse." The article also quotes Debby McElroy of Airport Council International-North America saying
airports would support such an approach: "We strongly believe that airports should make the decision. If
the airports decide to do it, there shouldn't be barriers." The modest reform of SPP in 2012 originated in
the House but passed in both chambers. Let's hope its successor can do likewise.
1ar AT Cox ev
Cox is making shit up
Kosatka 14 staff writer at Aviation Pros (Art Kosatka, 12/10/14, Airport
Screening Privatization Continues To Be A Better Option,
http://www.aviationpros.com/blog/12026516/airport-screening-privatization-
continues-to-be-a-better-option)//twemchen
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) unions National President, J. David Cox,
recently told a House of Representative subcommittee his union opposes the TSA
Screening Partnership Program (SPP) , an initiative that allows airports to replace TSA screeners by
contracting for privatized screening operators. Coxs blatantly unsubtle scare tactic
claimed private screening was poor security and put the traveling public at risk, stating
that the only group who stands to gain from privatizing airport security are security contractors
themselves. Yes, they are for-profit businesses, but his statement is carelessly flawed .
The private screeners perform precisely the same important security role as the TSA screeners, and if they
is no heresy in suggesting that Federal screening
are doing so at a profit, perhaps there
costs may be bloated. Ill gladly renew Mr. Coxs subscription to any major newspaper
in the country, most of which regularly report on the broad range of troublesome
misadventures of TSOs at the checkpoint, few of which, if any, originate at any of the current 18
airports with privatized screening. Theres a lesson in there somewhere.
1ar AT Bruce Schneier ev
Schneiers wrong about this misplaced economics argument
Henry 12 (6/22/12, Schneier on TSA vs. Private Security: Flaws, Faults &
Assumptions, http://snallabolaget.com/?p=2256)//twemchen
This is wrong . Well, its both wrong and right, in fact the airlines and the passengers
arent the customers (not even technically), but neither is the US government.
The airport is the customer . The airport selects the company, and the DHS
approves the choice. This means that the magical market solution actually works
the customer of the security company (i.e. the airport) can pick and choose
which security company they want, based on several criteria, and the company that
can deliver the best service at the best price will prevail. Theres nothing
magical about it its just how any market works. Schneier , it seems is not all that well
schooled in economics , either. We have to remember that the airport needs the
passengers to be happy, as much as possible. A happy passenger is more likely to
spend money in the terminal, making revenue for the shops that are there and the
airport itself. If the Hicksville Airport, Hair Care and Tire Center has a bunch of happy passengers that
made it through security in good time due to the efficient and service minded security company, theyve
got time for half an hour in the barbers chair. A strapped-for-time, angry passenger will just stew at the
gate for whatever amount of time he/she has. Makes sense, dont it?
Schneiers also wrong about empirics

Bruce writes: It doesnt matter if an airport screener receives a paycheck
signed by the Department of the Treasury or Private Airport Screening
Services, Inc. As long as a terrorized government one that needs to be seen by
voters as tough on terror, wants to stop every terrorist attack regardless of the
cost, and is willing to sacrifice all for the illusion of security gets to set the security standards, were
going to get TSA-style security. Thats just ridiculous . Any government in
the western world today wants to be seen as tough on terror . That , however,
does not automatically translate to TSA, or TSA-style security . Looking at
airport security in other countries, specifically European countries, the
government will control the making of regulations for airport / air travel
security, and private security companies will carry out the tasks . In most cases,
the regulations will be international , adhere to standards that are world wide
(or as close as they come), and in many cases, they will even be made to conform to the
excessive US regulations, while still avoiding the TSA-style security . There are
few similarities between walking through a European checkpoint and the TSA checkpoints. Taking a look
around the internet, youll find thousands upon thousands of horror stories involving the TSA, but only a
few from other places there are even some stories about the very professional and pleasant
Scandinavian checkpoints The conclusion that a government determined set of regulations always will
result in TSA-style security is just plain uninformed and silly. Were sorry theres just no other word for
it.
Airlines obviously have an incentive to secure
Bruce writes: We can put the airlines, either directly or via airport fees, in charge of security,, but
that has problems in the other direction. Airlines dont really care about terrorism; its rare, the costs to the
airline are relatively small (remember that the government bailed the industry out after 9/11), and the rest
of the costs are externalities and are borne by other people. Soif airlines are in charge, were
likely to get less security than makes sense . This is just strange . Why
would you put one of the airports customers in charge of the airports
security? That would be akin to making Starbucks in charge of the airport
security, simply because they have a couple of franchises in the terminal. It doesnt make much sense.
This is also why its the airport thats in charge of the security , and the
airline expects the security to go without a hitch . The airport provides a
service to the airline , and the airline provides a service to the passengers. Schneier
needs to try and wrap his head around that one before setting out
on a wild goose chase . Again. This is also one of the reasons why the magic
(see above) called a market works the airline expects the airport to have
security, so that it can provide a service to its customer the passenger. If the airport cant
provide that service in a sensible manner, then , as in all other places, the
customer will take its business elsewhere . Remember the airline is the
airports customer, and the passenger is the airlines customer . Its pretty neat,
yeah? Also, saying that airlines dont care about terrorism is a bithow shall we put
it ignorant . The cost of terrorism to the individual airline on an annual basis is perhaps small, but
is Schneier really unaware that avoiding terrorism is also in the best economical
interest of the airlines?
Hes not even qualified to talk about this stuff

Bruce Schneier is a self-proclaimed security guru who has been very outspoken on
the topic of airport security, and his disdain of how its been done over the past decade or so. That is a
Schneier is
good thing if there are no critics, then there wont be any improvement. However: Bruce
not certified in anything but IT security and cryptography. He is not a CPP, a
PSP or any other kind of physical security certification . He is not a
member of ASIS. He has not worked in airport security . He is not law
enforcement. In short, please look up self-proclaimed. He claims to have coined the term security
theatre, in the sense that it is security only for show without any real impact or effect. Security
theatre has in fact been used as a term for years by security professionals. It is also known as a
deterrent. It seems that Schneier just wants to be negative about this on one hand, he wants the TSA
to change, he wants lawmakers to pressure the agency and the government, and he wants security to be
sensible. On the other hand, he bashes whoever tries to do just that, as Rand Paul is doing right now.
Schneier needs to keep in mind that Rome was neither built nor burnt in one day, and while changing the
TSA, the regulations and methods is necessary, that will too take time. Rand Pauls proposed legislation is,
however, a giant leap in the right direction.
TSA Fails
2ac TSA Fails
TSA fails at life
Lexis)//twemchen
TSA has had workforce management problems since its inception . The agency
estimated that the hiring and training of its initial workforce in 2002 would cost $104
million, but those costs ended up soaring to $741 million .14 A huge amount of
money, for example, was wasted on renting expensive hotel space during the
hiring process. In 2004, the Inspector General for DHS assailed TSA for handing out excessive
employee bonuses , throwing a lavish awards ceremony, and spending in other wasteful ways.15
In 2005, an Inspector General audit unearthed unethical and possibly illegal
activities at the agency.16 These sorts of ongoing problems prompted the Washington Post
to report, TSA has been plagued by operational missteps , public
relations blunders and criticism of its performance from the public and
legislators .17 Paul Light, an expert on the federal bureaucracy, noted at the time: As memories of
9/11 have faded, TSA has begun to look like any other federal agency . It has lived an
entire bureaucratic life in quick time, moving from urgency toward complacency in
just three short years.18 More recently, a House committee that oversees TSA
reported in 2012 that the agencys operations are costly, counterintuitive, and
poorly executed.19 A separate House report the same year charged that TSA suffers from
bureaucratic morass and mismanagement .20 And former TSA chief Kip Hawley
noted that the agency is hopelessly bureaucratic .21 TSAs performance at
security screening has been mediocre at best . In the years following the
federal takeover, auditors typically found that the governments screening was
no better than the previous private screening.22 There have been numerous
disturbing incidents of screening failures. In 2006, screeners in Los Angeles
and Chicago failed to catch 75 percent and 60 percent , respectively, of
fake explosives in tests.23 There were 25,000 security breaches at U.S.
airports during TSAs first decade, despite the agencys huge spending and all the
inconveniences imposed on passengers.24 The safety of travelers in recent years may have
more to do with the dearth of terrorists in the United States and other security layers around
aviation, than with the performance of TSA airport screeners. TSA workforces at
numerous airports have been subject to meltdowns , as Representative Mica calls
them. In 2011, the TSA sought to fire 12 baggage screeners for botching security procedures at the
Charlotte airport.25 The same year at the Honolulu airport, 28 employees were fired and 15 were
suspended for violating screening rules.26 In 2012, TSA proposed firing 25 workers because of screening
failures at the Newark airport, although only 4 were eventually removed.27 And at the Fort Myers airport,
38 screeners were suspended and 5 were fired.28
Everything sucks
Washington Examiner 6/8 (6/8/15, It's time to privatize U.S. airport
security, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/its-time-to-privatize-u.s.-
airport-security/article/2565460)//twemchen
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has
Chris Edwards for the Cato Institute:
another failure on its hands. In recent tests, undercover investigators smuggled
mock explosives and banned weapons through U.S. airport checkpoints 96
percent of the time . According to ABC, "In one case, agents failed to detect a fake
explosive taped to an agent's back, even after performing a pat down that was
prompted after the agent set off the magnetometer alarm ." The unionized TSA
has a history of inept management . Reports in 2012 by various House committees found
that TSA operations are "costly, counterintuitive, and poorly executed ,"
and the agency "suffers from bureaucratic morass and mismanagement ."
Former TSA chief Kip Hawley argued in an op-ed that the agency is " hopelessly
bureaucratic ." And in 2014, former acting TSA chief Kenneth Kaspirin said that TSA has "a
toxic culture " with " terrible " morale. ... Perhaps most importantly, studies have found
that TSA security performance is no better, and possibly worse, than private-sector screening, which is
The solution is to dismantle TSA and move responsibility
allowed at a handful of U.S. airports.
for screening operations to the nation's airports . The government would
continue to oversee aviation safety , but airports would be free to contract out screening
to expert aviation security firms. Such a reform would end TSA's conflict of interest stemming from both
operating airport screening and overseeing it.
Literally passengers have saved more lives than the TSA

Lexis)//twemchen
Perhapsthe most effective countermeasure since 9/11 was not the result of any
federal program. Rather, airline passengers and flight attendants have learned to
be much more aware of potential attacks in the air, and they have thwarted
terrorists on U.S.-bound flights, including shoe bomber Richard Reid in 2001 and underwear bomber
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in 2009. In both instances, passengers quickly tackled the would-be bombers
when foul play was suspected. The benefits of heightened alertness in the post-9/11 world have also been
evident in the many instances when passengers have subdued unruly or intoxicated travelers. In May
2013, for example, a passenger on a plane from Alaska to Oregon tried to open the emergency exit door
during flight, but passengers who noticed his odd behavior quickly restrained him.92
Fails
Oh 6/2 staff writer @ MotherJones (Inae Oh, 6/2/15, This Is How Miserably
the TSA Is Failing at Airport Security, http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-
media/2015/06/tsa-security-failure-investigation%20)//twemchen
Anundercover investigation lead by the Department of Homeland Security
uncovered devastating holes in the Transportation Security Administration's
security procedures, with investigators able to smuggle fake explosives and banned weapons 67
out of 70 times at some of the country's busiest airports. "In one case, agents failed to detect a fake
explosive taped to an agent's back, even after performing a pat down that was prompted after the agent
The alarming 95 percent failure rate ,
set off the magnetometer alarm," ABC News reports.
during an investigation that spanned a decade , has lead to the reassignment
of the agency's chief Melvin Carraway. "The numbers in these reports never look good out of
context but they are a critical element in the continual evolution of our aviation security," Homeland
Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said in a statement. "We take these findings very seriously in our continued
effort to test, measure, and enhance our capabilities and techniques as threats evolve." Following the
internal investigation, Johnson also ordered for more routine undercover investigations and mandatory
retraining for all TSA officials. The full Homeland Security report is slated to be released later this summer.
2ac TSA Fails Conflict of interest
Therefore, when it comes to screening, TSA has a serious conflict of interest . All other
aspects of airport securityaccess control, perimeter control, lobby control, etc.are the responsibility of
for screening, TSA regulates itself .
the airport, under TSAs regulatory supervision. But
Arms-length regulation is a basic good-government principle; self-regulation
is inherently problematic . In practice, no matter how dedicated TSA leaders
and managers are, the natural tendency of any large organization is to defend
itself against outside criticism and to bolster its image . And that raises
questions about whether TSA is as rigorous about dealing with performance
problems with its own workforce as it is with those that it regulates at arms length ,
such as airlines and airports . This comes up again and again in news storiessuch as a
USA1Today investigation in 2007 that found TSA screeners at Chicago OHare
International Airport and Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) missed three
times as many hidden bomb materials as did privately contracted
screeners at San Francisco International Airport (SFO). TSAs 200708 studies comparing TSA
and private screening costs were criticized by GAO as highly flawed and misleading.1
2ac TSA Fails Split Security
TSA control ensures a security split which destroys
accountability
Second, having TSA operate airport screening conflicts with the principle that an airport
should have a unified approach to security, with everyone responsible to the
airports security director. Numerous problems with split security have been
reported at U.S. airports over the past decade , where certain responsibilities
have fallen between the cracks , and neither the airport nor the TSA was on
top of the problem. Examples include video surveillance cameras at Newark Liberty International
Airport and access control doors at Orlando International Airport.2
2ac TSA Fails AIT
AITs are LOL
Lexis)//twemchen
TSAs most costly investment in technology has been the controversial Advanced Imaging
Technology (AIT) machines. These are the full-body scanners that the agency began
deploying in 2008. The scanners see beneath passengers clothing, causing major privacy concerns.
The high costs of AITs, the extra airport congestion they cause, and the questionable
detection benefits of the machines make them a dubious investment .
Remarkably, TSA did not do a cost-benefit analysis of the machines before it
rolled them out across the country.50 Indeed, TSA ignored GAO requests to
perform such an analysis. In July 2011, a federal appeals court effectively ordered
TSA to perform an analysis, which is still pending at this time.51 Scholars John
Mueller and Mark Stewart have performed a cost-benefit analysis and found that AIT machines
failed quite comprehensively , based on their assumptions regarding the
probability of attack attempts and other factors. 52 Advocates of AIT machines argue that
they can find explosives hidden under clothing, such as the bomb carried by Farouk Abdulmutallab in the
attempted Christmas Day bombing on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit in 2009. However, the GAO
concludes that it remains unclear whether an AIT machine would have
detected a bomb such as this.53 And the Congressional Research Service notes that experts are
divided about the effectiveness of AIT systems.54 One problem with AIT machines is that human
error can undermine their effectiveness . In 2011, an undercover agent snuck a
firearm through AIT machines at the Dallas-Fort Worth airport several times , apparently
due to the inattentiveness of TSA officers.55 The GAO has also noted that currently
deployed AIT machines have not been used consistently , which reduces their
security benefit.56 Another issue is that even with TSAs planned roll-out of the
machines to all major U.S. airports, future terrorists may respond by boarding
planes at smaller airports , as some of the 9/11 terrorists did.57 And even if every
American airport had AIT machines, terrorists could still board planes
overseas on U.S.-bound flights , as the shoe bomber and underwear
bomber did. AIT machines are effective in detecting high-density objects , but
less effective with low-density materials such as gels , powders , and liquids .
At least one airplane bomb plot, uncovered in 2006, has focused on liquid
explosives.58 Terrorists can also undermine AITs by placing explosives inside
their body cavities , a technique often used by criminals in prisons.59 Given these
weaknesses, TSAs large investment in AIT machines seems unwarranted . As
noted, Mueller and Stewart found that the machines failed their cost-benefit
analysis .60 The machines cost $250,000 per unit to acquire and install, and each requires five TSA
employees to operatecosting about $315,000 in annual wages.61 By 2012, there were 754 AIT machines
deployed across the nation, which cost almost $200 million for the machines and about $240 million in
annual wages.62 The Congressional Research Service puts the current annual costs even higher than
that.63 And the costs will grow because TSA plans to deploy a total of 1,800 machines.64
2ac TSA Fails SPOT
Who thought this was a good idea?
Lexis)//twemchen
Another TSA program with high costs, but apparently limited benefits, is the SPOT
program . It employs about 3,000 officers at 160 airports to identify possible terrorists
on the basis of behavioral indicators such as signs of stress.65 SPOT costs about $230 million a
year.66 The scientific theories behind the SPOT approach are unproven . The idea is that
terrorists can be detected through small behaviors that reveal stress, but people in airports
rushing to catch planes are often under stress. The GAO is skeptical of the
SPOT program, and it prompted TSA to perform a study of SPOTs effectiveness.67 The
resulting study did show some positive results, but the GAO argues that more thorough testing is
needed.68 The SPOT program illustrates the problems with top-down federal
control over aviation security. The TSA deployed SPOT nationwide before first
determining whether there was a scientifically valid basis for it , notes the GAO.69
Nor did the TSA perform a cost-benefit analysis of SPOT before it was deployed.70
That is the way that the federal government often worksit rolls out an expensive
solution for the entire nation without adequate research and resists efforts
to cut programs, even if the benefits do not materialize. Despite the large investment in
SPOT of more than $1 billion over the past decade, the GAO found 23 occasions in which
known terrorists have breezed through airports where TSA was operating
SPOT.71 SPOT has not caught a single terrorist over the years.72 For example,
TSA did not catch the attempted Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, in 2010 when he
boarded a plane at New Yorks JFK Airportan airport that has an active SPOT
program. Shahzad paid cash for his flight to Dubai days after his bombing attempt, and he boarded
a plane even though he was on TSAs no fly list .73 Luckily, Customs and
Border Protection officials realized the mistake and grabbed Shahzad just before takeoff. Having
caught no terrorists, TSA is using SPOT to catch run-of-the-mill
lawbreakers . TSA apprehended 1,083 criminals with the program between 2004 and 2008 for such
infractions as breaking immigration rules and having outstanding warrants.74 But that small number was
out of two billion passengers going through airports that had SPOT programs during that period.75
Between 2010 and 2012, just 353 arrests were made in the SPOT program for nonterrorism offenses.76 So
even if it were appropriate to use SPOT for non-aviation policing purposes, SPOT has a high cost with
Republicans have called the SPOT program one of TSAs
meager results. House
largest failures.77 Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who is on a House committee overseeing the TSA,
summed up the failure of SPOT: Skip the humans, spend the money on canines. They are more effective,
better trained, do not feel the need to unionize and you can still keep the same name SPOT.78
Like actually lol

Poole 13 Searle Freedom Trust Transportation Fellow, Director of
Airport Policy and Security News #96,
http://reason.org/news/show/1013650.html#a)//twemchen
In one of the hardest-hitting GAO reports I've ever read, Congress's
auditing organization has, in effect, said that the TSA's Screening of
Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT ) program does not
work and should be defunded. Members of Congress asked GAO to answer two questions:
To what extent does available evidence support use of behavioral indicators to identify aviation security
threats? To what extent does TSA have data necessary to assess the effectiveness of the SPOT program in
identifying threats to aviation security? The answer to the first is that there is no such evidence, and to the
second is that TSA does not have such data. This is laid out in 55 pages of text plus seven appendices.
TSA
("TSA Should Limit Future Funding for Behavior Detection Activities," GAO-14-159, November 2012)
says the purpose of the program is to identify high-risk passengers
based on behavioral indicators that indicate "mal-intent."
Accordingly, its cadre of Behavior Detection Officers (BDOs) are
trained to size up passengers as they await screening using a
memorized checklist of behaviors indicative of stress, fear, or
deception. Passengers with a sufficiently high point score are taken
aside for an interview, a pat-down, and a search of their belongings.
Assuming nothing bad is found, and the person's behavior does not
"escalate," that's the end of the process and the passenger gets
back in line. But if the behavior reaches a pre-defined threshold, a
law enforcement officer (LEO) is summoned to further question the
passenger and decide if an arrest is warranted. The initial (pre-LEO) encounter
takes an average of 13 minutes. The program started in 2007 and has grown to
about 3,000 BDOs working at 176 airports, at a current annual cost
of around $200 million. The GAO team reviewed two TSA studies of
the SPOT program and found both to be non-rigorous, with
considerable flaws in their methodology. It then carried out a literature review and a
meta-analysis of research studies on "whether nonverbal behavioral indicators can be used to reliably
identify deception." And the answer is that "research from more than 400 separate studies on detecting
deceptive behavior based on behavioral cues or indicators found that the ability of human observers to
accurately identify behavior based on behavioral cues or indicators is the same as or slightly better than
chance." GAO provides excerpts from several of these studies, by entities such as RAND Corporation,
DOD's JASON program, and MITRE Corporation. Another section of the report documents the wide variation
in referral rates by BDOs at various airports, as well as presenting evidence on the subjective nature of
some of the behavioral indicators BDOs are taught to look for. But the most damning information of all is
Not a single potential
who actually gets identified as "high risk" and referred to a LEO.
terrorist was identified by the BDOs. Those who ended up arrested
were for such matters as possessing fraudulent documents,
possessing prohibited or illegal items, having outstanding warrants,
being intoxicated in public, being in the country illegally, or
disorderly conduct. While all those things may be law violations, not
a single one is, per se, a threat to aviation security. And yet the only
measure TSA has for the alleged effectiveness of the program is the
referrals to law enforcement. Nonetheless, TSA has recently
conducted a "return-on-investment analysis" which it claims justified
the SPOT program. Despite zero evidence that the program can
detect or deter aviation-oriented terrorists, the analysis assumes
that the BDO "layer of security" prevents a catastrophic (9/11-type)
attack. GAO dryly notes that "the analysis relied on assumptions regarding the effectiveness of BDOs
and other countermeasures that were based on questionable information." In response to previous GAO
TSA is developing a new set of metrics about
and Inspector General criticism,
SPOT, but says it will require at least an additional three years and
additional resources to report on the program's performance and
security effectiveness. Meanwhile, it is asking for a budget increase to add 584 more BDOs so
the program can expand to smaller airports. In other words, to paraphrase a familiar line about the recent
federal health-care law, we have to keep running and expanding the program to see if it works. GAO sums
up this comprehensive assessment as follows: "10 years after the development of the SPOT program,
TSA cannot demonstrate the effectiveness of its behavior detection
activities. Until TSA can provide scientifically validated evidence demonstrating that behavioral
indicators can be used to identify passengers who may pose a threat to aviation, the agency risks funding
activities that have not been determined to be effective."
2ac TSA Fails AT Deterrence
This is stupid
Sanchez 12 researcher at Cato Institute (Julian Sanchez, 3/29/12,
Debating TSAs Effectiveness, http://www.cato.org/blog/debating-tsas-
effectiveness)//twemchen
Hawley falls back, repeatedly, on the claim that the new measures must have
been effective and worth the cost, since there have been no successful attacks on
airplanes over the past decade. By which logic my magical tiger-repellant rock
is also highly effective Id be willing to part with it for a few thousand dollars, which when
you think about it, is a small price to pay for peace of mind. As Schneier observes, successful
attacks were an extraordinary rarity before 9/11 as well and academic
studies, the excellent work of our own John Mueller provide no support for
the thesis that the enormous expenditures on airport security since have meaningfully
reduced the risk. Oddly, neither do any of Hawleys anecdotes about various foiled plotswhich
involve admirable intelligence and law enforcement efforts disrupting terror cells long before they get
anywhere near an airport. Schneier concludes with a look at the positive costs of all this questionable
screening. If time is money, Schneier estimates that the economic costs of travel delays, multiplied by
millions of passengers, dwarfs TSAs budget each year. Moreover, as those delaysand enhanced
procedures that sometime seem deliberately designed traumatize survivors of sexual abusepush
travelers into riskier modes of transportation, more lives are likely to be lost without terrorists having to lift
a finger. But the most profound cost may be our acceptance of the procedures themselvesand of a
society where intrusive searches and arbitrary rules are just a normal part of getting around:
Even the TSA administrator agreed

CNN 7 CNN (8/1/7, The CNN Wire: Wednesday, Aug 1, Lexis)//twemchen
TSA critics say plan to put trusted travelers in 'fast lane' has been 'slow tracked' WASHINGTON (CNN) --
The Registered Traveler program, which promised life in the fast lane for any air traveler willing to shell out
about $100 bucks and undergo a thorough background check, is stuck in neutral. At a Congressional
hearing Tuesday, the founder of the nation's largest Registered Traveler program charged that the
Transportation Security Agency is trying to "stunt" the program, while the head of the TSA said the
TSA administrator Kip Hawley said the program
program is "not ready for prime time."
is not an effective tool against "clean skin" terrorists . It would not deter
currently
those who have no criminal or terror-related background but who still want to
hurt air travel, he said. The Registered Traveler program was born of the lengthy airport security lines
that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. As envisioned by Congress, passengers who volunteered
to undergo in-depth criminal background checks would be sped through security lines while unvetted
passengers received more scrutiny. (Posted 8:49 p.m.)
You cant do deterrence without effective personnel

even the TSA concedes
Hawley 7 Assistant Secretary of the TSA (Kip Hawley, 2/6/7, Statement of
Kip Hawley Assistant Secretary Transportation Security Administration U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, Lexis)//twemchen
Since the security of these systems is a shared responsibility among Federal, State, and local partners, the
Administration has provided significant resources to bolster these security efforts since 9/11. Funds from
DHS grants programs may be used for planning, training, exercises, equipment, and other security
enhancements. DHS has provided roughly $18 billion in awards to State and local governments for
programs and equipment that help to manage risk. In addition to visible unpredictable
deterrence, TSA believes that training for key personnel is essential to rail
as its baseline of security . There are numerous passenger transit training courses available
today. TSA is working with FTA to identify the specific type of training required for employees (i.e., train
operators, station managers, and control system personnel, among others) in order to provide guidance to
systems.
2ac TSA Fails AT Empirics
The only empirics flow affirmative
La Corte 14 Young Voices Advocate studying political science and
economics at Hofstra University in NYC, serves as a member of the North
American Executive Board of the international nonprofit Students for Liberty
(Matthew La Corte, 7/28/14, Summer Is the Season, Sanity the Reason to
Privatize the TSA, http://panampost.com/matthew-la-
corte/2014/07/28/summer-is-the-season-sanity-the-reason-to-privatize-the-
tsa/)//twemchen
Despite TSAs costs to government budgets, privacy, and traveling
time, there is no empirical evidence that suggests the agency
accomplishes its intended goals. In fact, there have been over 25,000
security breaches in the TSAs first decade alone.+ Its time to be honest about
the state of US airline security. The TSAs security theater undoubtedly dissuades some travelers from
flying on airplanes and instead drive on more dangerous roads. Researchers at Cornell University have
found that travelers switching from the skies to the roads has led to an increase of 242 driving deaths per
month.The fact is that the TSAs over-the-top security policies are
killing travelers by pushing them away from airports.+ The TSA can
not demonstrate any considerable difference between their security
and that of private companies. One former TSA administrator reported, Theres no
question the private sector can handle security. This summer, its
time to reflect on the real costs of the TSA and the false benefits
they claim to provide. More lawmakers and think tanks are pushing
the need for TSA reform. Passengers should fasten their seat belts,
because privatization is about to take off
Private Solves
2ac Private Solves Personal Incentive
Private innovation solves incentives
Kravitz 10 Washington Post Staff Writer (Derek Kravitz, 12/31/10, As
Outrage Grows, Airports Consider Ditching TSA,
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/as-outrage-grows-airports-consider-ditching-
tsa/)//twemchen
Every spring,private security officers at San Francisco International Airport compete in a
workplace "March Madness"-style tournament for cash prizes, some as high as $1,500. The
games: finding illegal items and explosives in carry-on bags; successfully picking
locks on difficult-to-open luggage; and spotting a would-be terrorist (in this case
Covenant Aviation Security's president, Gerald L. Berry) on security videos. "The bonuses are
pretty handsome ," Berry said. "We have to be good - equal or better than the
feds . So we work at it, and we incentivize ." Some of the nation's biggest airports are responding
to recent public outrage over security screening by weighing whether they should hire private firms such
as Covenant to replace the Transportation Security Administration. Sixteen airports, including San
Francisco and Kansas City International Airport, have made the switch since 2002. One Orlando airport has
approved the change but needs to select a contractor, and several others are seriously considering it. The
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which governs Dulles International and Reagan National
airports, is studying the option, spokeswoman Tara Hamilton said. For airports, the change isn't about
money.At issue, airport managers and security experts say, is the unwieldy size and
bureaucracy of the federal aviation security system. Private firms may be
able to do the job more efficiently and with a personal touch, they argue.
2ac Private Solves Corporate Incentive
Corporate incentive ensures the private sectors more
effective
we would be safer without the TSA , she writes airline

In defense of her claim that
companies should be free to provide their own private security . When a free
market nerd like myself reads that, I automatically jump with joy inside because I know exactly where she
the TSA has no
is going with that. Just as she mentioned in her first point that I highlighted,
incentive to improve the screening process because, thats right, they have
no competition . Make the airlines provide their own security screening, which of
course they will, and you will suddenly have private security companies competing
to the death to be the best, fastest, and the least creeptastic. What a beautiful world
that would be! tsa-checkpoint Oh! And another reason we would be safer without the TSA is
related to the fact that nobody gets fired in government anymore . Ask yourself this
question: what currently happens if a bomber gets through security without a
TSA agent catching them? Nothing. Nobody gets fired. Not the agents
and certainly not any of the higher-ups . If we had private security
companies take over, there would be incentive for them to be effective . Because
if a security agent didnt catch a terrorist with a bomb in his underwear, his
ass is on the line the unemployment line.
2ac Private Solves AT Race to the bottom
We cause a race to the top
Amitay 14 executive director and general counsel to the National
Association of Security Companies (Steve Amitay, 7/29/14, STATEMENT OF
STEVE AMITAY, ESQ., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF SECURITY COMPANIES,
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg92898/html/CHRG-
113hhrg92898.htm)//twemchen
What motivates private companies to find cost efficiencies in their screening
operations and administration? First, constant competition from other contractors forces
companies to perform well , employ best practices , reduce waste , and

seek to constantly improve . Second, there is profit. And if screening companies can, as
required by ATSA, ``provide a level of screening services and protection equal to or greater'' than TSA
screeners using private screeners ``who meet all the requirements . . . applicable to'' TSA screeners, and
at the same time make a profit, then what is the problem? In addition, while seeking to find cost
efficiencies in operations and administration is one way to earn a profit, another way is through better
At SPP airports, the screening operation is indeed a business, and
performance.
better performance is good for business both tangibly (award fees) and
intangibly ( reputation and future business ). SPP company site mangers
are very vested in hiring the right people, monitoring performance, and
striving for better-than-average performance. Bonuses are provided based on
merit , not simply seniority. Employees are well aware that if they do not perform they could be out of a
job and a culture of cohesion and teamwork within the workforce and peer expectations are encouraged.
These employee performance and cost-containment drivers (especially in the areas of absenteeism and
overtime as mentioned above) are not present in the Federal sector and DHS (and TSA) are beset with its
own host of employee performance and motivation issues.\37\ At Federal airports, TSA headquarters sets
compensation for screeners and managers and screeners have no real financial incentives to perform
beyond the minimum requirements and barring the commission of a crime or serious violation of
standards, Federal screeners and managers--like all Federal workers--have great job security.\38\
Airport Terror
2ac Airport Terror
In the meantime, however, airport mismanagement has
created massive vulnerabilities which exposes airports
to impending terrorist attacks innovation in security
screening is essential
Cecil 14 Staff Writer at London Evening Standard (Nicholas Cecil, 7/4/14,
UK airport security stepped up over terrorism fears of 'stealth' bombs,
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/uk-airports-terror-alert-bomb-
searches-past-checkin-departure-heathrow-gatwick-
9581342.html)//twemchen
US security
The new measures at airports, including Heathrow and Gatwick, are being imposed after
chiefs received intelligence that terror groups in Yemen and Syria may
be joining forces to devise new ways to launch attacks , using non-
metallic bombs that are hard to detect. It is feared Britons, and other Europeans,
who have travelled to Syria and Iraq to join radical Islamist groups could be recruited to
trigger a device on a US-bound flight. Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin pledged the
Government and aviation industry would work to ensure that millions of travellers get away on time for
their summer holidays and business trips. Planes are not expected to be delayed. But travellers may be
called to gates earlier to go through the additional layer of checks, particularly for US-bound flights. British
Airways stressed safety and security were its top priority. A spokesman said: We will comply with any
changes to the regulations and would advise customers to arrive in good time for their flights, both at
bombmakers from
check-in and at the boarding gate. US intelligence has picked up indications that
al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), based in Yemen, may be trying to share their
expertise in developing stealth bombs with extremists in Syria of the

Al-Nura Front . Other reports claim the bombmakers are collaborating with Isis ,
which controls a swathe of Syria and Iraq. The security services believe hundreds of British
Muslims have travelled to Syria and Iraq to join extremist groups . The
concern is that these individuals, with British passports, as well as other European jihadists,
could undertake a suicide mission targeting a US-bound jet with a device
which is designed to avoid detection by airport scanners . Such a bomb could possibly be
built using the expertise of Saudi-born Ibrahim Al-Asiri, believed to be a member of AQAP hiding in Yemen.
Several attempts to blow up aircraft, including using shoes, underwear and printer cartridges, have failed
bombmakers are believed to be trying to
despite them getting through security checks. Terrorist
perfect non-metallic low-vapour explosives which are hard but not impossible
to detect .
Most recent ev
AP 15 (6/16/15, TSA deputy says that none of the 73 airport workers with
alleged ties to terrorism are actually security threats,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3126688/TSA-Airport-workers-alleged-
terror-ties-arent-threats.html)//twemchen
in this post-9/11 world, that the terrorist threat is metastasizing ,
'The reality is,
and we as a nation must remain responsive to any holes in the security of our
transportation systems and ensure that the protocols keep pace with the ever-
evolving threat landscape ,' he said.
2ac Airport Terror Insider Threats
Vulnerabilitys high
McCaul 15 Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security
Subcommittee on Transportation Security, representative from Texas (Michael
McCaul, 2/3/15, A REVIEW OF ACCESS CONTROL MEASURES AT OUR
NATION'S AIRPORTS, Political Transcript Wire, Lexis)//twemchen
MCCAUL: Thank the chairman. I would want to first congratulate you and Ranking Member Rice on your
new position on this committee, and by starting off this Congress with an important hearing that focuses
It
on the importance of -- timely topic of access control and employee screening at our nation's airports.
is vital that agencies responsible for protecting our airports are doing all that they can to
keep safe our aviation sector. This responsibility does not end at the passenger screening
checkpoints. A robust system of vetting employees at airports is equally as important. This hearing is an
important opportunity to examine security programs designed to mitigate potential
insider threats from airport employees, airline employees, TSA personnel and others who
have access to sterile areas of domestic airports. In addition to the most recent access
control breaches at Atlanta Airport that have been mentioned, there have been a number of
insider threats and employee issues at various other airports in recent years. For example, in
December of 2013 the FBI arrested an avionic technician at Wichita Airport for plotting a
suicide attack using a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device. The technician allegedly
intended to use his airport clearance to gain access to the tarmac and detonate the
vehicle near planes and the terminal during peak holiday travel in order to maximize casualties. He was
charged with attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction , and attempted to
provide material assistance to A l- Q aeda in the A rabian P eninsula. Additionally in September of
2013 a TSA screener at Los Angeles International Airport was arrested a few hours after
resigning his position for making threats against the airport that cited the anniversary of 9/11, and
for leaving a suspicious package at the airport . His actions resulted in the evacuation of
several airport terminals. And finally in September of 2014 a former airline employee at
Minneapolis Airport died in Syria fighting alongside the I slamic S tate in I raq and
S yria. We know the individual had left employment with the airline several
years prior to becoming a former fighter of ISIS. He did have access to areas of the airport during his
employment, including the tarmac. There are significant lessons to be drawn from
these and other incidents involving employees. The bottom line is that our aviation network
remains a prime target for terrorism . We must be vigilant and
constantly reevaluate our security posture according to the threats that we
face. And that includes potential insider threats.
The insider threat is rising

Poole 4/8 Searle Freedom Trust Transportation Fellow, Director of
Policy and Security News #105, http://reason.org/news/show/airport-policy-
security-news-105#e)//twemchen
a gun-smuggling operation under which two Delta
First came last December's exposure of
employees at Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport smuggled guns onto
airliners. That was followed in March by an NBC-DFW investigation that revealed that more than
1,400 airport worker security badges at Hartsfield-Jackson were missing and
unaccounted for. Both incidents have led to congressional concerns , and policy
changes are likely. Hartsfield-Jackson general manager Miguel Southwell told a congressional hearing in
January that he intended to move toward full airport-employee screening, as both Miami and Orlando did
following similar employee smuggling incidents. CNN reported in February that the Atlanta airport had
begun screening employee bags before letting them enter secure areas and closing off many of the 70
access points to secure areas outside the terminals. Airport spokesman Reese McCranie told CNN that this
was the start of a "phased-in approach to get to full employee screening ." The
airport plans to get down to just 10 entry points. NBC News/Chicago reported on March 18th that TSA may
quoted TSA's acting deputy
be moving to mandate airport employee screening. It
administrator, Mark Hatfield, saying that "TSA is conducting an insider threat
analysis to identify potential indicators of criminality or threats to aviation that
could provide insight into new training operations, or methods of screening and vetting employees."
Airport Business (Feb./March 2015) reported that about 960,000 employees (of airlines, airports, vendors,
concessionaires, etc.) have access to secure areas via about 18,000 access points at airports with TSA
screening It also cited TSA estimates that it provided 257,979 hours of random employee screening
nationwide last year. That sounds like a lot, but it's only 707 hours a day spread over some 450 airports
less than 2 hours per day per airport. - See more at: http://reason.org/news/show/airport-policy-security-
news-105#e
2ac Airport Terror aq
Airport terror risk high
Brown 15 (Pamela Brown, 1/13/15, New terror threat increases U.S.
airport security, http://wwlp.com/2015/01/13/new-terror-threat-increases-u-s-
airport-security/)//twemchen
The Department of Homeland Security is making changes after a renewed push by Al
Qaeda in Yemen to activate extremists living in the U.S. Theyre asking them to
create new bombs , with the goal of bringing down an airplane or wreaking havoc
at the airport Amid renewed fears of hard-to-detect bombs being smuggled onto commercial flights,
the U.S. is expanding random security checks of passengers in U.S. airports once theyve already made it
through airport security. Those second checks at the gate could include an additional bag search,
passenger patdowns, and hand swabs for traces of explosives. Terrorism Analyst Paul Cruikshank says,
One part is the potential threat to airplanes, the other part is the threat to passengers who are queuing
up in a security line, and someone is trying to bring a bomb and blow people up in the security lines. The
stepped up measures are partly in response to Al Qaeda, in the Arabian Peninsulas
propaganda magazine Inspire, laying out a new recipe to concoct non-metallic
bombs with simple household products . U.S. government officials say airport body
scanners can normally catch these hard to detect explosives, but the advanced technology is
not available in some smaller U.S. airports. Cruikshank says, AQAP says even if it does
not get through airport security, enough fuss will be made about people attempting to
do this that it will spread terror in the west , and their aims will be achieved.
2ac Airport Terror ISIS
Theyll use thermite
Biles 4/28 staff writer at Homeland Security Today (Clay Biles, 4/28/15,
theres a
concerns over terrorists use of thermite also
unspecific warning Friday by TSA,
thermite
ignition of a
may be. It becomes quickly apparent that TSA is suffering from the chronic symptoms of
2ac Airport Terror Lone Wolf
Lone wolf terrors a threat
ABC 14 (9/13/14, Terrorism threat: Security ramped up at airports, public
events after threat level increased to high,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-13/terrorism-alert-level-could-stay-high-
for-long-time/5741474)//twemchen
Travellers are being warned to expect tighter security measures at airports and public events as the
intelligence agencies try to combat the threat of a so-called "lone wolf"
country's
terrorist attack . The domestic spy agency, ASIO, yesterday lifted the nation's terrorism alert level
from medium to high meaning an attack is considered likely . However, Prime Minister Tony
Abbott has stressed there is no suggestion of an imminent attack. Security agencies are keeping watch on
it is the threat of someone acting alone
a number of people who are of interest, but
that has them most concerned. It means there will be extra security at airports , public
events and government buildings. Police patrols at the AFL semi-final in Melbourne were boosted last night,
with officers visible at the gates and around the MCG. Victorian Premier Denis Napthine said the increased
security should not deter people from major events. "I don't think any Victorian should change the way
they operate, we should still go to great events like the AFL finals and the Spring Racing Carnival," he said.
"But we just need to be that little bit more aware. "We say to people go about your business but be more
alert and if there are issues of suspicion, we need you to report them." Tourism and Transport Forum
director Trent Zimmerman said tourism operators understand the need for the extra precautions. "Safety is
paramount and we have to at all costs avoid any domestic incident," he said. "I think
that everybody in the industry accepts that the worst outcome would be a successful
terrorism attack on Australian shores. "That would be far more damaging than any restrictions the
Government could put in place to prevent terrorism." Virgin Australia said it would alert passengers if
delays occurred and Qantas said it would work with federal authorities to ensure security measures remain
appropriate. Export Council of Australia chairman Ian Murray said exporters accept the need for tighter
security at ports and airports but the new counter-terrorism measures could affect international trade. "I
think that's something the Minister for Trade and Investment will be very conscious of," he said. Mr Murray
said the elevated risk was expected to continue for quite some time . Australian
counter-terrorism expert Neil Fergus said that could mean months and possibly years. "I think
the reality is given the nature of ISIL [Islamic State], it cannot be defeated in a
matter of days, weeks or even months . It's going to be a long struggle ," he said.
Mr Fergus said there has been a definite spike in radical sentiment in Australia since recent tensions
escalated in the Middle East. "We
have a very small pocket of people in this country who
have been active in recruiting young Sunni Muslims, facilitating their transport to
join ISIL," he said. "These people really must be at the heart of the investigations because they are
continuing to have some success. Until that stops, the threat is likely to stay ." Queensland
criminologist Mark Lauchs said it was not unusual to see a spike in terror activity around the anniversary of
the September 11 attacks on the United States. "A number of groups associated either with Al Qaeda or
local individuals, see this
offshoots of Al Qaeda or sympathising with Al Qaeda, it could even be
date as a good time to take some form of activity to obtain some advantage for the overall
goals of this extremist jihad ," Associate Professor Lauchs said. Greens senator Scott
Ludlam said Australia's involvement in the Middle East conflict would only increase the
likelihood of a terrorist attack . "We've got to make very sure that Australia doesn't end up
simply participating in actions that perpetuate the horror and violence, and act perversely as recruiting
activities for the very networks we're trying to close down," he told Sky News.
2ac Airport Terror Stealth Bombs
Stealth bombs are a threat
Cecil 14 Staff Writer at London Evening Standard (Nicholas Cecil, 7/4/14,
Terror alert at airports over smartphone 'stealth bombs',
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/airport-terror-alert-over-iphone-stealth-
bomb-9584004.html)//twemchen
Al-Qaeda-linked terrorists are feared to have developed a way of turning mobile
phones into stealth bombs , it emerged today. US officials singled out smartphones
including iPhones and Samsung Galaxy handsets for extra security checks on US-bound flights from
Europe, the Middle East and Africa. They believe bombmakers from Yemen-based al-Qaeda in
the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) have discovered how to turn the phones into
explosive devices which are extremely difficult to detect. Passengers shoes and other
electronic devices will also face more detailed checks amid concerns about a new generation of
non-metallic , vapourless bombs . There are even fears that suicide bombers
could have explosives surgically implanted into them , making detection even
harder. As a result, more intrusive pat-downs and swab tests may be introduced at airports, particularly for
expert bombmaker Ibrahim al-
US-bound flights. In a chilling insight into AQAPs fanaticism,
Asiri, is thought to have inserted a bomb into his younger brother Abdullah , 23,
who died when it blew him apart in a failed suicide attack. British airports, including Heathrow and
Gatwick, are now putting in a second layer of checks at departure gates after a request from Washington
AQAP may have shared its
to increase security. US secret services have received intelligence that
bombmaking expertise with extremist groups in Syria, including the al-Nusra
Front . British security services believe that more than 400 British Muslims have
travelled to Syria and Iraq to join militant groups. American security chiefs called for the tighter
airport checks because of the combination of the new generation of bombs terrorists are developing and
the fear that they could use a British or European jihadist to trigger a device on a US-bound flight. Al-Asiri
is thought to have been behind several failed terror strikes including the underpants and printer cartridge
bomb plots. Aviation sources insist the extra security should not lead to delays despite millions of people
heading off on their holidays over coming weeks.
2ac Airport Terror Bad Airlines
Spills over to deck the entire industry --- empirics prove
its possible, but we got lucky last time
AP 7 (U.S.: Unthinkable terror devastation prevented,
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18999503/#.VbHRdvlViko)//trepka
NEW YORK Federal authorities said a plot by a suspected Muslim terrorist cell
to blow up John F. Kennedy International Airport, its fuel tanks and a jet fuel
artery could have caused unthinkable devastation . But while pipeline and
security experts agreed that such an attack would have [ shattered ]
crippled Americas economy, particularly the airline industry , they said it probably
would not have led to significant loss of life as intended. Authorities announced Saturday they had broken
up the suspected terrorist cell, arresting three men, one of them a former member of Guyanas parliament.
A fourth man was being sought in Trinidad as part of the plot that authorities said they had been tracking
for more than a year and was foiled in the planning stages. The
devastation that would be
caused had this plot succeeded is just unthinkable , U.S. Attorney Roslynn R. Mauskopf
said at a news conference, calling it one of the most chilling plots imaginable. In an indictment charging
the four men, one of them is quoted as saying the foiled plot would cause greater destruction than in the
Sept. 11 attacks, destroying the airport, killing several thousand people and destroying parts of New
Yorks borough of Queens, where the pipeline runs underground. Symbolic target One of the suspects,
Russell Defreitas, a U.S. citizen native to Guyana and former JFK air cargo employee, said the airport
named for the slain president was targeted because it is a symbol that would put the whole country in
mourning. Its like you can kill the man twice, said Defreitas, 63, who first hatched his plan more than a
decade ago when he worked as a cargo handler for a service company, according to the indictment.
Authorities said the men were motivated by hatred toward the United States and Israel. Defreitas was
recorded saying he wanted to do something to get those bastards and he boasted that he had been
taught to make bombs in Guyana. Despite their efforts, the men never obtained any explosives, authorities
said. Pulling off any bombing of this magnitude would not be easy in todays environment, former U.S.
State Department counterterrorism expert Fred Burton said, but added it was difficult to determine without
knowing all the facts of the case. The pipeline, owned by Buckeye Pipeline Co., takes fuel from a facility in
Linden, N.J., to the airport. Other lines service LaGuardia Airport and New Jerseys Newark Liberty
International Airport. Buckeye spokesman Roy Haase said the company had been informed of the threat
from the beginning. Richard Kuprewicz, a pipeline expert and president of Accufacts Inc., an energy
consulting firm that focuses on pipelines and tank farms, said the force of explosion would depend on the
amount of fuel under pressure, but it would not travel up and down the line. That doesnt mean wackos
out there cant do damage and cause a fire, but those explosions and fires are going to be fairly
restricted, he said. John W. Magaw, a former head of the Transportation Security Administration, told The
such an attack may not cause a lot of deaths, but it would be
Washington Post that
spectacular and seen around the world . He said it could [ shut down ]
cripple the airlines.
1ar Airport Terror Bad Airlines
This destroys airlines all their alt causes just provide
uniqueness the unique shock of our scenario outweighs
and bailouts dont solve
Mica 2 Representative from Florida (John Mica, 9/24/2, HEARING OF THE
AVIATION SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Federal News Service)//twemchen
We'll begin today's proceedings with my statement. Ladies and gentlemen, I think as we all know,
America's aviation industry cannot and should not become the final victim of the
September terrorist attack on our nation . Unfortunately, as we meet here today, the
majority of our American airlines face severe cutbacks in operations, some staggering and
historic losses and even bankruptcy . The events of September 11th dramatically
impacted an industry that, unfortunately, was already facing financial difficulty. Today's hearing will focus
attention and seek, I hope, some viable solutions to the enormous challenges facing our airlines. Air travel
has, in fact, become part of the American way of life --even a special part of the unique freedoms we as
Americans enjoy and sometimes we as Americans take for granted. Our aviation and air passenger service
has also very closely woven itself into the very fabric of our nation's economy. American businesses,
tourism and just ordinary citizens use our air passenger service as a routine and vital link to carry out their
travel, an essential transportation that makes our United States economic engine, in fact, run. Each day
somewhere in the neighborhood of two-thirds of all of the world's air traffic and passenger service takes
place just in the United States. Millions and millions of jobs depend on this industry. And that's why I
believe this hearing today is especially important. In the past year, our major airlines have lost between $7
billion and $8 billion. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost, and the industry -- major airlines have
lost some 90,000 jobs. Air travel in my area -- and I represent Florida; Florida is so dependent on tourism,
airlines, with these staggering
and its air travel and tourism is down some 8 to 9 percent. Some
losses, are on the verge of collapse , and, in fact, at the end of their ability to seek conventional
financing. They do need our help. But let me say, quite frankly and firmly today, there will be no bailout.
Let me repeat that: There will be no government bailout .
Shuts down the entire industry

Bloom 11 --- Associate Vice President at Riddle Aeronautical University
(Richard, Airport Security,
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews275AirportSecurity.pdf)//trepka
Identifying threat from passengers involves collecting and analyzing biological, psychological, and
social information and developing a valid link to the probability of direct or indirect engagement inor
support ofterrorism. This applies to techniques such as data mining to collect and analyze travel
history; biometrics, including facial recognition; human- and technology-mediated surveillance of mobility
and location within the airport; behavioral detection and interviewing; or remote sensing of physiological
activity. These techniques use the past and the present in an attempt to predict the future. Predictions of
human behavior, especially socially meaningful behavior, however, often are found wanting. More than
130 years of scientific psychological research suggest that the prediction of human social behavior is
unknowable, even when the best practices of inferential statistical theories and the putative capabilities of
poses 12 main
human intuition, insight, and intelligence are applied. Mass passenger screening
difficulties : 1. The same datathe so-called signs, stigma, or indicatorsmay have different
meanings at different times, in different situations, even with the same passenger, let alone different
passengers. 2. The motivations of passengers may vary significantly within small temporal interludes, as
may the links between motivations and specific behaviors. 3. How well can other people be known, if they
themselves have less than complete conscious access to all motivations, which may vary? Sophisticated
passengers who intend terrorism will choose not to look like terrorists as described in watch lists and
profiles, but like passengers who do not intend terrorist acts. Most passengers are extremely unlikely to
engage in terrorism; therefore a system to find terrorists must have extremely high
sensitivity rates to identify terrorists, as well as extremely high specificity rates to avoid
Without high rates in sensitivity and specificity,
misidentifying nonterrorists as terrorists.
operational chaos and a potential shutdown of commercial aviation would
be likely.
The probability of attack is irrelevant

Miranda 15 --- PhD, College of Management and Technology, Walden
University (Ubirathan, The Relationship Between Terrorism, Oil Prices, and Airline Profitability,
http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1446&context=dissertations)//trepka
However small the influence, airline industry executives must deal with
terrorism as a business threat . As the airline industry has no control over factors that
influence terrorism, the viable option is to implement comprehensive business
continuity programs that address the disruptive nature of terrorism . The
mitigation of terrorism is 62 costly to businesses (Thatcher, 2013), but unpreparedness to
possible terrorist event is costlier .
The industry is on the brink --- a terrorist attack would be

devastating --- best data
Miranda 15 --- PhD, College of Management and Technology, Walden
University (Ubirathan, The Relationship Between Terrorism, Oil Prices, and Airline Profitability,
http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1446&context=dissertations)//trepka
Given the financial challenges faced by the airline industry , understanding

of the combined effect of terrorism and the price of petroleum on airline
profitability is imperative . The purpose of this correlational study was to determine if a
combination of terrorism and the price of petroleum significantly predicted airline
profitability, and which variable was the most significant. This study collected samples of financial
records from major American commercial passenger and cargo airlines on costs of fuel (n = 84) and airline
profitability (n = 84). The terrorism data (n = 84) were comprised of terrorist attacks on petroleum
Systems
infrastructure in oil-producing nations, and incidents of highjacking aboard American aircraft.
theory, which explains complexity within systems, was the theoretical framework for this
study. The results of the multiple linear regression analysis indicated the model was able to significantly
predict airline profitability, F(2,81) = 5.447, p = .006, R 2 = .12. Both terrorism and cost of fuel were
statistically significant, with the cost of fuel (beta = -.511, p = .002) indicating a higher contribution to the
model than terrorism (beta = .452, p = .005). This study is important to airline executives as the results of
the study indicate that the leaders in the airline industry should focus on operational efficiencies to
maximize profitability. Positive social change implications include increased employment in the civil
aviation industry, higher commercial activity in tourist and other travel-related service businesses, and the
adoption of green technologies by the civil aviation manufacturing industry.
Airport terrorism destroys airlines

Hutson 6 (Brittany, staff writer, September 11, 2006, The Hilltop, Airline
Industry Suffers Effects of Terrorism,
http://www.thehilltoponline.com/2.4800/airline-industry-suffers-effects-of-
terrorism-1.464081#.T4-ZgKv2bhd)//twemchen
The airline industry has experienced a devastating decline in business as a result

of the September 11th terrorism from Yahoo! News, recently there has been approximately $40
billion in losses and the disappearance of 150,000+ jobs . In comparison to August
2001, there are 155,000 fewer full-time employees industry wide and six of the nations largest airlines
took 816 planes out of service.
1ar Airport Terror Bad Airlines Brink
No resiliency airline finances are inherently inflexible
TCR 5/25 (5/25/15, NORTHERN MARIANA: Fitch Hikes Rating on $12MM
Airport Bonds to 'B+', Troubled Company Reporter, Lexis)//twemchen
Theairports set rates under a residual methodology with its carriers. However, the CPA has shown a
history of reluctance to consistently pass through the full cost requirements given the
fragile economy and nature of the airline industry, negatively impacting
financial flexibility and resulting in past covenant violations. Management's actions in fiscal
2009 to increase airline rates have resulted in improved net revenues with coverage increasing well above
the 1.25x requirement. Unaudited fiscal 2014 coverage is expected to be close to 5.74x following 4.26x
coverage in the prior year, based on pledged revenues inclusive of all PFC collections. Providing somewhat
of a consistent revenue stream to help service debt, non-airline revenues have been relatively stable over
time and management continues to try to expand those sources.
Unions, unprofitable routes, and low profits deck

resiliency
TCR 5/7 (5/7/15, LIAT: Minister wants Caribbean Governments to Subsidize
Airline, Troubled Company Reporter, Lexis)//twemchen
the airline industry is inherently unstable

Civil Aviation Minister Alva Baptiste said that
citing powerful trade unions and unprofitable routes as being among the major
challenges facing LIAT, according to Caribbean360.com. "LIAT has a number of challenges including
that is a very big issue," Minister Baptiste
powerful unions that can shut down the carrier, and
said, noting that airlines do not make vast profits, notes the report.
Cash problems
The National 6/21 (6/21/15, SpiceJet back on course, Lexis)//twemchen
Cash woes brought the carrier to the brink . But its co-founder, who sold out in 2010,
returned to take a majority stake that gave new momentum to the airline before trimming the flight
controls to steer it on to a path for growth, writes Rebecca Bundhun A few months ago, the Indian budget
airline SpiceJet seemed on the brink of a fatal stall . In December, the carrier's
financial problems reached a tipping point as its fleet was grounded ,
forcing SpiceJet to cancel more than 1,800 flights. Dozens of pilots had already quit
the airline in the months before this. Many believed that SpiceJet was sure to go the way of Kingfisher
Airlines, which ceased operations in 2012 because of its financial woes.
Corruption and mismanagement

Yesuiah 6/11 Staff Writer at New Straits Times (Samuel Yesuiah, 6/11/15,
Lesson on importance of good management, Lexis)//twemchen
Poor leadership and ineffective management have bled the national airline
to the brink of bankruptcy . Whether there has been corruption or mismanagement of
funds in the MAS management has yet to be seen. It is a fact that MAS has not been breaking even for a
number of years since Datuk Idris Jala helmed the airline. When he was the chief executive officer, MAS
was a success story, and during his tenure, MAS soared. Unfortunately, after his departure, MAS
slipped into oblivion . It has been making losses every fiscal year.
Profits are fragile but its not over yet

NZH 7/14 (7/14/15, Travel tax could cost 100s of jobs say airlines,
Lexis)//twemchen
The levy would severely weaken airlines" already fragile profitability . At its current level, it
will represent 3 times the average net profit (of USS 4.24) made by airlines in Asia-Pacific for each
passenger. "Instead of harming the air transport sector and increasing the cost of
transport, New Zealand should focus on identifying innovative ways to keep more passengers coming
to the country while keeping its borders safe.
Brink
TCR 7/10 (7/10/15, MONARCH AIRLINES: Losses Shrink Following
Restructuring, Lexis)//twemchen
Ashley Armstrong at The Telegraph reports that Monarch, the European airline that was rescued
from the brink of collapse eight months ago, said that it is on track to make a profit after
shrinking losses by GBP40 million.
1ar Airport Terror Bad Airlines AT
Insurance
Terrorism decks insurance 9/11 proves
Lewinsohn 5 Senior Analyst at the New York investment manager
Anchorage Advisors (Jonathan Lewinsohn, 1/1/5, Bailing out Congress: an
assessment and defense of the Air Transportation Safety and System
Stabilization Act of 2001., Yale Law Journal, Pg. 438(53) Vol. 115 No. 2 ISSN:
0044-0094, Lexis)//twemchen
industry that was already at the breaking
But all of this changed on September 11 when an
point saw its " economic rubber band snapped ."(14) Within hours of the attacks, the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued the first ever national groundstop order requiring
theshutdown of U.S. airspace. (15) With fixed costs upwards of 80%, (16) the airlines started
hemorrhaging hundreds of millions of dollars per day, (17) leading to calls for government assistance even
before planes were back in the sky. Industry lobbyists, (18) Wall Street analysts, (19) and national
complex predicament: Insurance plans had been
newspapers (20) all highlighted the industry's
canceled or made significantly more expensive ; (21) credit markets, unsure about
the liability facing the airlines, had all but dried up; (22) airline workers were being laid off by the tens of
the ripple effects were spreading across the "just-in-time"
thousands; (23) and
economy . (24) To make matters worse, airline equity values were poised to
plunge once the markets reopened, (25) and a number of carriers were rumored to be headed for
bankruptcy. In Congress, a consensus developed that the nation's airlines--a symbol of the flag (26)--could
not be made victim to the terrorists. What emerged, only eleven days after the attacks, was the Air
Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (ATSSSA) of 2001, (27) an $28 billion (28) federal
bailout that had been conceived, drafted, and signed amid a marked sense of crisis.
Its uninsurable
AFR 1 Australian Financial Review (9/25/1, No safe landing for the
airlines, Fairfax Media Publications Pty. Limited, Lexis)//twemchen
The move by governments to provide support to the airline industry is justified because, as the Prime
Minister, Mr John Howard, observed at the weekend, governments should not stand by and allow terrorism
Fast decisions were needed on insurance because the rise
to undermine whole industries.
in private premiums threatened to force a worldwide wave of international
service cutbacks.
2ac Airport Terror Bad Trade
Causes trade collapse
Bloom 11 --- Associate Vice President at Riddle Aeronautical University
(Richard, Airport Security,
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews275AirportSecurity.pdf)//trepka
In addition, some technologies offend cultural sensibilitiesfor example, the wanding of a body or the
Cultural offense can increase motivations for
opening of a coffin in transit.
terrorism in some passengers and can decrease the optimal performance of security personnel.
Some technologies also may pose health issues if the cumulative effects of screenings or possibly
malfunctioning equipment generate higher exposure to radiation or chemicalsalthough the data to
These phenomena may present a significant
support these effects are not sufficient.
threat , however, to the integrity of the contents of air cargo, along with associated
damage to economic viability and trade .
Case Airlines
Overview
TSA screening causes delays which hurts airlinesonly
way to solove is with SPPprivate screening is capable of
change. Inefficencies are devastatinghampers financial
success because it delays shipments and causes
substantial losses. Through plan streamlining is solved for
2 distinct resons 1) efficiency and cost delegationTSA
finds ways to pass costs to airlinestaxes air travel
private screening doesnt. 2) is confidenceTSA causes
delayskills flyers confidence in airlinesneed direct
resources in order to improve this.
Extend AFA 12efficiency of airlines are vital to

agricultureonly airlines can transport efficiently it is
also the vital form of shipping to move ag products
quickly to stop from spoilageif we cant use airlines food
prices increase and leads to the death of millionsfor the
3 billion people who olnly live on 2 dollars a dayfood
prices can become life threateningcant risk this. And
extend Lafolettte 3 preventing people from starving is an
ethical pre req to other impactswe have an obligation to
stop people from starvingits worse than extinction and
is morally preferable to die than starve and on top of that
food price spikes risk global warfood is related to
political importancesprices can not be underestimated
because they were the catalyst for the revolution
potential for WW3 exists--
Internals
2ac Flex
Private staffing solves flexibility

Other airports currently using contract screeners also cite flexibility as their
primary benefit. According to SPP participants, the ability to adjust staffing levels
quickly facilitates more efficient screening and shorter wait times , which
translates into satisfied customers and safer flights. On its website, TSA describes how
giving private contractors permission to tweak its traditional staffing model
fosters greater flexibility. Although TSA determines staffing levels for private contractors based on airport
the private companies can tailor those
layout, equipment type, number of passengers, etc.,
levels to an airport's unique needs . According to TSA, the "actual number of
contract screeners may differ from how the federal government would staff
the airport."
Key to respond to passenger surges

Mascarenas 14 staff writer at 10News (Isabel Mascarenas, 6/25/14,
Private security firm taking over at Sarasota airport,
http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/local/2014/06/25/srq-to-drop-tsa-screeners-
for-a-private-company-in-november/11368893/)//twemchen
Airports are not busy all the time. Despite all the TSA agents on hand, the screeners
were slow on a Wednesday afternoon at SRQ. That's why Piccolo thinks privatizing
screeners would help make the security checkpoints more efficient . "Hopefully
give more flexibility to their scheduling so they can address the peaks and
valleys better," Piccolo said.
2ac Complaints
The plan solves customer satisfaction
Martin hopes to reduce customer complaints at GPI through contract

screening . Although she takes some gripes with a grain of salt, she acknowledges that GPI has its
share of legitimate customer complaints regarding security screenings. Wait times at checkpoints
during peak travel times can stretch to 50 minutes . Though GPI reduced wait times
by moving and expanding checkpoints to provide more room for divesting and redressing, Martin suspects
the rest of the solution resides within SPP. "People were commenting how rude the TSA employees were on
a regular basis," she says, noting that as wait times increased, passengers became frustrated, and so did
screeners. Though the airport's federal security director (FSD) worked hard to address the problems, she
says, his hands were tied because "federal
employees are protected in so many ways."
"We felt a private screening company would be far more responsive ," she
explains. "If an individual is truly performing under par, a private company is able to take care of that
person more swiftly than the federal government." VanLoh agrees, noting that he's found FirstLine to be far
he's not knocking federal
more responsive than KCI's federal program. He's quick to emphasize that
employees, but rather the sea of governmental red tape that must be navigated to
get anything done. "Every once in awhile you get an employee who's probably in the wrong line of
work," he explains. "With a private company, if something happens, say a weapon gets
through, that employee is gone the next day. If you don't perform, you're out. It isn't a
job for life, as federal jobs sometimes seem to be ." Localizing screening efforts
can also provide benefits. "Not everyone is qualified to do this job," says Gary Smedile, FirstLine vice
president of business development. "By utilizing the SPP, you localize recruitment and training of
screeners. Private companies also seem to have better business practices, testing processes and
monitoring of their employees." Airports that participate in SPP operate according to federal screening
standards and follow federal protocols. TSA selects and certifies eligible contractors, develops their
training programs and monitors each company's adherence to its standards.
2ac AT No Redundancy Now
Yes redundancy their ev cites the TSA they make
things up
at one of the SPP
As an example of the importance of overhead costs and how they are allocated,
airports we visited, general and administrative and overhead costs accounted
for half of the difference in TSAs estimated $14 million cost difference
between SPP and nonSPP operations . According to identified effective practices, strategic
workforce planning requires, among other things, that agencies develop strategies that are tailored to
address gaps in the number, deployment, and alignment of human capital approaches for enabling and
SPP contractors and TSA
sustaining the contributions of all critical skills and competencies. 2
have different views regarding whether unnecessary redundancies exist at
SPP airports. Private screening contractors at four of the six SPP airports we visited stated
that they believed that unnecessary redundancies exist between
supervisory TSA and contract screening personnel. For example, contractor officials at
one airport said that TSAs screening managers perform the same
responsibilities as the contractors supervisors. No TSA personnel were assigned at the
remaining two SPP airports that we visited.
Airlines Good
2ac Ag Impact
impact
callousness worse than extinction (Watson 1977). It would be morally preferable
to die struggling to create a decent life for all than to continue to live at the
expense of the starving.
World War 3
political importance of high food prices cant be

The economic and
underestimated. To take one example, high food prices were the catalyst for last
years outbreak of revolution in several Middle East countries. The region once
known as the Fertile Crescent is heavily dependent on imported grain and rising fuel costs contributed to
the skyrocketing food prices which provoked the Arab revolts. Annia Ciezadlo, in her article Let Them Eat
Bread in the March 23, 2011 issue of Foreign Affairs wrote: Of the top 20 wheat importers for 2010,
almost half are Middle Eastern countries. The list reads like a playbook of toppled and teetering regimes:
Egypt (1), Algeria (4), Iraq (7), Morocco (8), Yemen (13), Saudi Arabia (15), Libya (16), Tunisia (17).
Indeed, high food costs have long been a major factor in fomenting popular revolt.
The French Revolution of the late 1700s originated with a food shortage which
caused a 90 percent increase in the bread price in 1789. Describing the build-up to the Reign of Terror in
France of 1793-94, author Susan Kerr wrote: For a ti me, local governments attempted to improve
distribution channels and moderate soaring prices. Against this backdrop of rumbling stomachs and wailing
hungry children, the excesses and arrogance of the nobility and clergy strutted in sharp contrast. This
historical event has an obvious parallel in todays emphasis on the elite 1 percent versus the 99
percent. The French government of the late 18th century attempted to assuage the pain caused by
soaring food prices, but ultimately this effort failed. Although the U.S. government attempted for a time to
keep fuel prices low, it has since abandoned all effort at stopping speculators from pushing prices ever
higher. An undercurrent of popular revolt is already present within the U.S. as evidenced by the emergence
of the Tea Party and by last years Occupy Wall Street movement. This revolutionary sentiment has been
temporarily suppressed by the simultaneous improvement in the retail economy and the financial market
rebound of the past few months. The fact that this is a presidential election year, replete with the usual
pump priming measures and underscored by the peaking 4-year cycle, has been an invaluable help in
keeping revolutionary fervor suppressed for the moment. But what those within the government and
financial establishment have failed to consider is that once the 4-year cycle peaks later this year, we enter
the final hard down phase of the 120-year cycle to bottom in late 2014. This cycle is also known, in the
words of Samuel J. Kress, as the Revolutionary Cycle. Regarding the 120-year cycle, Kress wrote: The
first 120-year Mega Cycle began in the mid 1770s after a prolonged depressed economy and the
Revolutionary War which transformed American from an occupied territory to an independent country as
we know the U.S.A. today. The first 120-year cycle ended in the mid 1890s after the first major depression
in the U.S. and the Spanish American War. This began the second 120-year cycle which transformed the
U.S. from an agricultural to a manufacturing based economy and which is referred to as the Industrial
Revolution. The second 120-year is scheduled to bottom in later 2014 to begin the third (everything comes
in threes).If history, an evolving cycle, continues to repeat itself, the potential for the
third major depression and a WWIII equivalent exists and the U.S. could
2ac Economy
Airlines are key to the economy

Tomer et al 12 Adie Tomer, Senior Research Associate and Associate
Fellow @ Brookings, Robert Puentes, Senior Fellow and Director @
Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative @ Brookings (October 2012, Global
Gateways: International Aviation in Metropolitan America,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2012/10/25-global-
aviation/25-global-aviation.pdf)//twemchen
We live in a global era and the planets metropolitan areas lead this interconnected growth.
The worlds 200 largest metropolitan economies account for just 14 percent of world
population, but generated over 48 percent of global gross domestic product (GDP) in
2011.8 These metro areas have emerged on every corner of the globe, from the largest economies within
developed countries to the fast-growing metro areas in developing markets.9 Taken in concert, the success
the new global
of metropolitan economies throughout the developed and developing world suggest that
economy is much spikier and interconnected than originally thought.10 In this global era,
U.S. metro areas must simultaneously collaborate with domestic and
international peers. This is where aviation plays a critical role it fosters the
inter-metropolitan connections critical to future economic growth . These
connections cross both the physical and personal spheres. Metro areas such as New York and London are
well connected through many domestic and global partners, which enhances their competitive advantage
by offering their businesses greater access to global markets. Metro areas such as Miami or Seattle may
have relatively fewer relationships, but nonetheless derive a competitive advantage as critical gateways to
the South and West.11 Lessons from Munich and its well-connected airport hub further demonstrate the
benefits from such connectivity.12 International aviation puts people within reach of their overseas
family, encourages tourism, and empowers businesses with the opportunity for face-
to-face meetings.13 The global aviation network also supports the rise of new immigrant
gateways across the United States, forging even stronger economic and social
connections to world regions.14 The key point is that while a metro area may have a
wealth of human and economic capital, they cannot fully exploit those resources
without strategic global linkages . These aviation-related connections deliver real benefits to
local economies. Aviations positive effect on local employment is a major economic
benefit .15 Metro areas that serve as destinations for large numbers of people are, implicitly, points of
convergence for new ideas and capital. These places have the right mix of human capital and other
resources to incubate new business ventures and to stimulate creativity. The net effect is an employment
boost throughout local industries, from high-skill services that rely heavily on air travel to
more stationary industries like manufacturing .16 The economic effects of aviation are so wide-
ranging that they hold potential for spillover effects that benefit other sectors and people. That
is not to say local economic effects are equal across all places. Airports specializing in throughtraffic, like
Atlanta, generate economic activity in sectors directly related to transportation, but these effects may not
cities that serve primarily as
always spillover into the broader metro economy. In contrast,
destination points or freight hubs enjoy increased economic activity more broadly ,
experiencing job growth even in non-transportation sectors .17 Metro areas
with predominantly leisure-oriented flows see greater job growth in entertainment and recreation
industries, while job growth in places with predominantly business-oriented flows comes from management
and financial occupations.18 International aviation also directly boosts the U.S. economy by supporting
travel and tourism since nearly all foreign visitors from outside North America enter the country via air.
These visitors generated $47 billion in real national output in 2011, an increase of 57.7 percent from
2003.19 Overall, U.S. travel and tourism exports grew by 6.1 percent from 2009 to 2011, supported in
market inefficiencies limit
large part by international visitors.20 Despite these benefits, certain
aviations total economic impact. One example is when a nonstop flight between
two metro areas does not exist even though large numbers of passengers travel
between them. Supply and demand mismatches introduce inefficiencies into the
aviation system, forcing passengers to fly where they dont want to go, such as the many international
travelers that simply pass through Charlottes Douglas International Airport.21 These systemic mismatches
make certain metropolitan areas harder and costlier to reach , and could stifle their
aviation-related economic growth . This may present relatively few challenges for U.S. businesses
primarily operating in U.S. cities, where routes are some of the most time- and costefficient in the world.22
Butit is a big ger problem for U.S.-based businesses seeking to expand into
South American or African markets , where cities may be more costly and time
consuming to reach . Thus, the organization of international aviation service
directly shapes U.S. businesses opportunities for global expansion
and partnering.23
1ar EXT Econ
Airlines underpin global economic growth
AFA 15 (Airlines for America, Is a Critical Economic Engine,
http://airlines.org/industry/#section-accordian?
industry_section=economic)//twemchen
Commercial aviation has a direct impact on our nations economy, creating more than 11 million
well-paying American jobs and driving 5 percent of the U.S. g ross d omestic p roduct and
nearly $1.5 trillion in annual economic activity . Healthy U.S. airlines stimulate
the commercial aviation industry, as well as the broader economy through increased
connectivity, trade and enhanced mobility of people, cultures, goods and ideas. Airlines
significantly improve opportunities for trade and increase productivity for other
industries. Many businesses rely on airlines to quickly deliver high-value items ,
urgent documents, industrial parts needed for repairs and perishables like fresh fish, fruits, vegetables and
flowers. Flying reduces time spent traveling, offering greater efficiency for business customers and more
leisure time for vacationing families.
Weakness in domestic airlines sends ripples through the

entire economy
Conway 6 (Richard S., Douglas H. Pedersen, The Washington Aerospace
Industry, January 2006, http://afa-
wa.com/Aerospace_Industry.pdf)//twemchen
Volatile demand. The demand for aircraft , whether stemming from the
military or the world airline industry , is highly volatile. Given that Boeing is
a major employer, the fluctuations in aircraft demand have often sent ripples
throughout the state economy. The ramp-up in Boeing production during World War II, which
led to 40,000 new jobs, helped pull the Seattle area out of the Great Depression. The subsequent
lay-offs at the conclusion of the war precipitated a recession . Despite a declining
employment share, the aerospace industry can still impart significant fluctuations to the Washington
economy (Figure 4). Surging aerospace employment coupled with a strong national
economy triggered state economic booms in the late 1970s, 1980s, and
1990s. Spurred by 48,000 new hires in the aerospace industry, the 1983-90 expansion created fully one-
fifth of the jobs in the state economy today. Back-to-back aerospace slumps
contributed substantially to the last recession.
AT Dedev
2ac F/L
Transition fails and growth can be reformed to
sustainability
Jewel 14 [Fall, 2014, Lucille A. Jewell (Associate Professor of Law at the
University of Tennessee College of Law), The Indie Lawyer of the Future: How
New Technology, Cultural Trends, and Market Forces Can Transform the Solo
Practice of Law, Obtained from LexisNexis,
http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/, RaMan]
2. Herman Daly: Ecological Economics Herman Daly teaches economics at the University of Maryland and formerly served as senior economist
in the World Bank's environmental department. n68 In the 1970s, Daly revitalized John Stuart Mill's concept of the stationary economic state,
and pioneered the term "sustainability" in policy analysis. n69 Daly argued that continuous economic growth was not a workable goal for the
economy or the planet. n70 Daly situated the economy within the earth's ecosystem, and referred to the general laws of thermodynamics to
illustrate the unsustainability of unlimited economic growth. n71 When humans and their material things become so large that natural
resource inputs and waste outputs move beyond nature's ability to replenish its resources and absorb the waste, the throughput flow, and thus
the human population, becomes unsustainable. n72 For the past fifty years, growth has been
the sine qua non of economic thinking. n73 While continuous
growth is a physical impossibility, Daly recognized that limiting
growth, in many instances is a political impossibility. n74 Nonetheless, Daly
warned that the consequences of inaction would be deleterious. n75
Humankind must take the transition to a sustainable economy - one
that takes heed of the inherent biophysical limits of the global
ecosystem so that it can continue to operate long into the future. If
we do not make that transition, we maybe cursed not just with
uneconomic growth but with an ecological catastrophe that would
sharply lower living standards. n76 [*336] Although continuous growth in the economy is not viable, there
can be continuous development. n77 Development, as opposed to growth, means that
production rates should match depreciation rates. n78 In terms of production,

development requires more durable and long-lasting products. n79
Maintenance and repair become more important when development is emphasized, and these tasks may produce more jobs because they are
not easily outsourced. n80 Daly argued that economies can no longer resort to the traditional solution for fighting poverty and joblessness;
society cannot continue to ameliorate poverty and joblessness by stimulating more economic growth. n81 Rather, Daly suggests that people
might have to share. n82 Daly has influenced contemporary quests for sustainability, qualitative development, and eco-conscious approaches
to sharing resources. His concepts of sustainability and a steady state clearly apply to the legal profession and legal education. This is beyond
the scope of this article, but Daly would likely argue that the legal community has relied too heavily on a growth model for legal education and
needs to pull back the reins and align law school seats with available jobs for lawyers. As Daly notes, limits on this type of growth require an
The relevance of Daly to this article,

interventionist approach to trade regulation. n83
explored more fully below, is what role lawyers can play when
individuals, communities, and governments seek to make the
transition from growth to development.
Growth sustainable
Ridley 14 [April 25, 2014, Matt Ridley, "The World's Resources Aren't Running Out," WSJ,
http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304279904579517862612287156, online, RaMan]
How many times have you heard that we humans are "using up" the
world's resources, "running out" of oil, "reaching the limits" of the
atmosphere's capacity to cope with pollution or "approaching the
carrying capacity" of the land's ability to support a greater
population? The assumption behind all such statements is that there is a fixed amount of stuffmetals, oil, clean air, landand that we risk exhausting it
through our consumption. "We are using 50% more resources than the Earth can sustainably produce, and unless we change course, that number will grow fastby 2030,
even two planets will not be enough," says Jim Leape, director general of the World Wide Fund for Nature International (formerly the World Wildlife Fund). But
here's a peculiar feature of human history: We burst through such
limits again and again. After all, as a Saudi oil minister once said,
the Stone Age didn't end for lack of stone. Ecologists call this " niche
construction"that people (and indeed some other animals) can
create new opportunities for themselves by making their habitats
more productive in some way. Agriculture is the classic example of
niche construction: We stopped relying on nature's bounty and
substituted an artificial and much larger bounty. Economists call the
same phenomenon innovation. What frustrates them about ecologists is the latter's tendency to think in terms of static
limits. Ecologists can't seem to see that when whale oil starts to run out,
petroleum is discovered, or that when farm yields flatten, fertilizer

comes along, or that when glass fiber is invented, demand for
copper falls. That frustration is heartily reciprocated. Ecologists think that economists espouse a sort of superstitious magic called "markets" or "prices"
to avoid confronting the reality of limits to growth. The easiest way to raise a cheer in a conference of ecologists is to make a rude joke about economists. I have
lived among both tribes. I studied various forms of ecology in an

academic setting for seven years and then worked at the Economist
magazine for eight years. When I was an ecologist (in the academic sense of the word, not the
political one, though I also had antinuclear stickers on my car), I very much espoused the carrying-capacity
viewpointthat there were limits to growth. I nowadays lean to the

view that there are no limits because we can invent new ways of
doing more with less. This disagreement goes to the heart of many current political issues and explains much about why people disagree
about environmental policy. In the climate debate, for example, pessimists see a limit to the atmosphere's capacity to cope with extra carbon dioxide without rapid
But optimists
warming. So a continuing increase in emissions if economic growth continues will eventually accelerate warming to dangerous rates.
see economic growth leading to technological change that would

result in the use of lower-carbon energy. That would allow warming
to level off long before it does much harm. It is striking, for example, that the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change's recent forecast that temperatures would rise by 3.7 to 4.8 degrees Celsius compared with preindustrial levels by 2100 was based on several
assumptions: little technological change, an end to the 50-year fall in population growth rates, a tripling (only) of per capita income and not much improvement in the
energy efficiency of the economy. Basically, that would mean a world much like today's but with lots more people burning lots more coal and oil, leading to an increase in
Most economists expect a five- or tenfold increase in income,

emissions.
huge changes in technology and an end to population growth by

2100: not so many more people needing much less carbon . In 1679, Antonie van
Leeuwenhoek, the great Dutch microscopist, estimated that the planet could hold 13.4 billion people, a number that most demographers think we may never reach. Since
omists point out

then, estimates have bounced around between 1 billion and 100 billion, with no sign of converging on an agreed figure. Econ
that we keep improving the productivity of each acre of land by

applying fertilizer, mechanization, pesticides and irrigation. Further
innovation is bound to shift the ceiling upward. Jesse Ausubel at Rockefeller University calculates
that the amount of land required to grow a given quantity of food has fallen by 65% over the past 50 years, world-wide. Ecologists object
that these innovations rely on nonrenewable resources, such as oil

and gas, or renewable ones that are being used up faster than they
are replenished, such as aquifers. So current yields cannot be maintained, let alone improved. In his recent book "The
View from Lazy Point," the ecologist Carl Safina estimates that if everybody had the living standards of Americans, we would need 2.5 Earths because the world's
. Harvard emeritus
agricultural land just couldn't grow enough food for more than 2.5 billion people at that level of consumption
professor E.O. Wilson, one of ecology's patriarchs, reckoned that

only if we all turned vegetarian could the world's farms grow enough
food to support 10 billion people. Economists respond by saying that
since large parts of the world, especially in Africa, have yet to gain
access to fertilizer and modern farming techniques, there is no
reason to think that the global land requirements for a given amount
of food will cease shrinking any time soon. Indeed, Mr. Ausubel,
together with his colleagues Iddo Wernick and Paul Waggoner, came
to the startling conclusion that, even with generous assumptions
about population growth and growing affluence leading to greater
demand for meat and other luxuries, and with ungenerous
assumptions about future global yield improvements, we will need
less farmland in 2050 than we needed in 2000. (So long, that is, as we don't grow more biofuels on land
that could be growing food.) But surely intensification of yields depends on inputs that may run out? Ta ke water, a commodity that
limits the production of food in many places. Estimates made in the 1960s and 1970s of water demand
by the year 2000 proved grossly overestimated: The world used half as much water as experts had
projected 30 years before. The reason was greater economy in the

use of water by new irrigation techniques. Some countries, such as Israel and Cyprus, have cut water use for
irrigation through the use of drip irrigation. Combine these improvements with solar-driven desalination of seawater world-wide, and it is highly unlikely that fresh water
will limit human population. The best-selling book "Limits to Growth," published in 1972 by the Club of Rome (an influential global think tank), argued that we would have
a word,
bumped our heads against all sorts of ceilings by now, running short of various metals, fuels, minerals and space. Why did it not happen? In
technology: better mining techniques, more frugal use of materials,

and if scarcity causes price increases, substitution by cheaper
material. We use 100 times thinner gold plating on computer connectors than we did 40 years ago. The steel content of cars and buildings keeps on falling.
Until about 10 years ago, it was reasonable to expect that natural gas might run out in a few short decades and oil soon thereafter. If that were to
happen, agricultural yields would plummet, and the world would be

faced with a stark dilemma: Plow up all the remaining rain forest to
grow food, or starve. But thanks to fracking and the shale
revolution, peak oil and gas have been postponed. They will run out one day, but only in the
sense that you will run out of Atlantic Ocean one day if you take a rowboat west out of a harbor in Ireland. Just as you are likely to stop rowing long before you bump into
Newfoundland, so we may well find cheap substitutes for fossil fuels

long before they run out. The economist and metals dealer Tim Worstall gives the example of tellurium, a key ingredient of some kinds
of solar panels. Tellurium is one of the rarest elements in the Earth's crustone atom per billion. Will it soon run out? Mr. Worstall estimates that there are 120 million tons
of it, or a million years' supply altogether. It is sufficiently concentrated in the residues from refining copper ores, called copper slimes, to be worth extracting for a very
long time to come. One day, it will also be recycled as old solar panels get cannibalized to make new ones. Or take phosphorus, an element vital to agricultural fertility. The
richest phosphate mines, such as on the island of Nauru in the South Pacific, are all but exhausted. Does that mean the world is running out? No: There are extensive lower
grade deposits, and if we get desperate, all the phosphorus atoms put into the ground over past centuries still exist, especially in the mud of estuaries. It's just a matter of
concentrating them again. In 1972, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University came up with a simple
formula called IPAT, which stated that the impact of humankind was
equal to population multiplied by affluence multiplied again by
technology. In other words, the damage done to Earth increases the more people there are, the richer they get and the more technology they have. Many
ecologists still subscribe to this doctrine, which has attained the status of holy writ in ecology. But the past 40 years haven't
been kind to it. In many respects, greater affluence and new

technology have led to less human impact on the planet, not more.
Richer people with new technologies tend not to collect firewood and
bushmeat from natural forests; instead, they use electricity and
farmed chickenboth of which need much less land. In 2006, Mr. Ausubel calculated that no
country with a GDP per head greater than $4,600 has a falling stock of forest (in density as well as in acreage). Haiti is 98% deforested and literally brown on satellite
images, compared with its green, well-forested neighbor, the Dominican Republic. The difference stems from Haiti's poverty, which causes it to rely on charcoal for
domestic and industrial energy, whereas the Dominican Republic is wealthy enough to use fossil fuels, subsidizing propane gas for cooking fuel specifically so that people
t of the problem is that the word "consumption" means

won't cut down forests. Par
different things to the two tribes. Ecologists use it to mean "the act
of using up a resource"; economists mean "the purchase of goods
and services by the public" (both definitions taken from the Oxford
dictionary). But in what sense is water, tellurium or phosphorus "used up" when products made with them are bought by the public? They still exist in the
objects themselves or in the environment. Water returns to the environment through sewage and can be reused. Phosphorus gets recycled through compost. Tellurium is in
solar panels, which can be recycled. As the economist Thomas Sowell wrote in his 1980 book "Knowledge and Decisions," "Although we speak loosely of 'production,' man
Given that innovationor "niche

neither creates nor destroys matter, but only transforms it."
construction"causes ever more productivity, how do ecologists

justify the claim that we are already overdrawn at the planetary
bank and would need at least another planet to sustain the lifestyles
of 10 billion people at U.S. standards of living? Examine the calculations done by a group called the
Global Footprint Networka think tank founded by Mathis Wackernagel in Oakland, Calif., and supported by more than 70 international environmental organizationsand it
becomes clear. The group assumes that the fossil fuels burned in the pursuit of higher yields must be offset in the future by tree planting on a scale that could soak up the
dely used measure of "ecological footprint" simply

emitted carbon dioxide. A wi
assumes that 54% of the acreage we need should be devoted to

"carbon uptake." But what if tree planting wasn't the only way to
soak up carbon dioxide? Or if trees grew faster when irrigated and
fertilized so you needed fewer of them? Or if we cut emissions, as
the U.S. has recently done by substituting gas for coal in electricity
generation? Or if we tolerated some increase in emissions (which are
measurably increasing crop yields, by the way)? Any of these factors
could wipe out a huge chunk of the deemed ecological overdraft and
put us back in planetary credit. Helmut Haberl of Klagenfurt University in Austria is a rare example of an ecologist who takes
economics seriously. He points out that his fellow ecologists have been using "human appropriation of net primary production"that is, the percentage of the world's green
vegetation eaten or prevented from growing by us and our domestic animalsas an indicator of ecological limits to growth. Some ecologists had begun to argue that we
were using half or more of all the greenery on the planet. This is wrong, says Dr. Haberl, for several reasons. First, the amount appropriated is still fairly low: About 14.2% is
Second, most
eaten by us and our animals, and an additional 9.6% is prevented from growing by goats and buildings, according to his estimates.
economic growth happens without any greater use of biomass. Indeed,

human appropriation usually declines as a country industrializes and the harvest growsas a result of agricultural intensification rather than through plowing more land.
Finally, human activities actually increase the productio (sometimes too much, causing
algal blooms in water). In places like the Nile delta, wild ecosystems are more productive than they would be without human intervention, despite the fact that much of the
land is used for growing human food. If I could have one wish for the Earth's environment, it would be to bring together the two tribesto convene a grand powwow of
ecologists and economists. I would pose them this simple question and not let them leave the room until they had answered it: How can innovation improve the
environment?
Sustainable AT Population
Growth results in lower population Bangladesh study
proves
Hasan 6 (Mohammad, Department of Finance and Economics, AN
EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE THE LONG-RUN RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN POPULATION GROWTH AND PER CAPITA INCOME IN BANGLADESH,
http://www.bdiusa.org/Publications/JBS/Volumes/Volume7/JBS7.2-2-Part-1.pdf,
2/20/06, AD: 7/6/09)
This paper empirically examines the nature of the time-series
relationship between population growth and per capita income
growth using the annual data of Bangladesh within the framework of
cointegration methodology. This study finds evidence of a long-run
stationary relationship between population and per capita income. Our results also indicate a
bi-directional or feedback relationship between population and per
capita income. The results of a negative causality flowing from per
capita income to population growth appear to indicate that per
capita income tends to lower the population growth. Likewise, population
growth positively contributes to the growth of per capita income.
Sustainable AT Peak Oil
Peak oil is false
Mead 12 (Walter Russell, James Clarke Chace Professor of Foreign Affairs
and Humanities at Bard College, 7/15/12, Energy Revolution 2: A Post Post-
American Post The American Interest) http://blogs.the-american-
interest.com/wrm/2012/07/15/energy-revolution-2-a-post-post-american-post/
Forget peak oil ; forget the Middle East. The energy revolution of the 21st century
isnt about solar energy or wind power and the scramble for oil isnt going to drive global politics. The
energy abundance that helped propel the United States to global
leadership in the 19th and 2oth centuries is back; if the energy
revolution now taking shape lives up to its full potential, we are headed
into a new century in which the location of the worlds energy
resources and the structure of the worlds energy trade support
American affluence at home and power abroad. By some estimates, the
U nited S tates has more oil than Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran combined ,
and Canada may have even more than the United States. A GAO report released last May
(pdf link can be found here) estimates that up to the equivalent of 3 trillion
barrels of shale oil may lie in just one of the major potential US
energy production sites. If half of this oil is recoverable, US reserves in this one deposit are
roughly equal to the known reserves of the rest of the world combined. Edward Luce, an FT writer usually
as early
more given to tracing Americas decline than to promoting its prospects, cites estimates that
as 2020 the US may be producing more oil than Saudi Arabia. So
dramatic are Americas finds, analysts talk of the US turning into the
worlds new Saudi Arabia by 2020, with up to 15m barrels a day of liquid energy
production (against the desert kingdoms 11m b/d this year). Most of the credit goes to
private sector innovators, who took their cue from the high oil prices
in the last decade to devise ways of tapping previously uneconomic
underground reserves of tight oil and shale gas. And some of it is down
to plain luck. Far from reaching its final frontier, America has
discovered new ones under the ground.
Sustainable AT K Waves
Kondratieff wave theory empirically false
North 9 (Gary, economist and publisher and PhD in history from the
University of California, Riverside, The Myth of the Kondratieff Wave,
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north725.html, 6/27/09, AD: 7/6/09)
THE K-WAVE These days, the Kondratieff Wave has a spiffy new name: the K-Wave. (I can
almost hear it: "Attention: K-Wave shoppers!") The K-Wave is supposedly going to
bring a deflationary collapse Real Soon Now. The Western world's debt structure will
disappear in a wave of defaults. Kondratieff's 54-year cycle is almost upon us. Again. The last
deflationary period ended in 1933. This became clear no later than
1940. World War II orders from Great Britain, funded by American loans and Federal Reserve policy,
ended the Great Depression by lowering real wages. In 1942, price and wage controls were imposed by
Washington, the FED began pumping out new money, ration stamps replaced the free market, the black
market overcame shortages, and the inflationary era began. That was a long time ago. But the K-Wave is
heralded as a 50 to 60-year cycle, or even more specifically, a 54-year cycle. That's the entire cycle,
The K-Wave supposedly should have bottomed
trough to trough or peak to peak.
in 1933, risen for 27 years (1960), declined in economic contraction
until 1987, and boomed thereafter. The peak should therefore be in
2014. There is a problem here: the cyclical decline from 1960 to
1987. It never materialized. Prices kept rising, escalating with a
vengeance after 1968, then slowing somewhat just in time for the
longest stock market boom in American history: 19822000. OK, say
the K-Wavers: let's extend the cycle to 60 years. Fine. Let's do just
that. Boom, 193262; bust, 196393; boom, 19942024. Does this
correspond to anything that happened in American economic history
since 1932? No.
Fed solves
North 9 (Gary, economist and publisher and PhD in history from the
University of California, Riverside, The Myth of the Kondratieff Wave,
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north725.html, 6/27/09, AD: 7/6/09)
You may think that I am devoting way too much space to this. But I want my readers to understand why
Kondratieff was wrong in 1925. His popularizers were even more wrong in
197585, with their "idealized" chart, and their contemporary heirs'
unwillingness to learn from the fact that the downward phase of the
cycle is now 44 years late. It should have begun no later than
Kennedy's administration: 1932+30=1962. This assumes that the original
downward phase was due in 1932. It wasn't. It was due around 1926 :
1896+30=1926. It should have lasted until 1956. But 194573 was a boom
era, with mild recessions and remarkable economic growth per
capita. Forget about a K-Wave which is going to produce price
deflation. The Federal Reserve System remains in control. Sorry about that.
It is creating new money. Long-term price deflation of 5% per annum is not in the cards or
the charts anywhere. I recommend that you not take seriously arguments to the contrary that are based
on the latest updated version of the K-Wave. The K-Wave forecasted that secular
deflation was just around the corner, repeatedly, ever since 1932. It
wasn't.
AT Disease
Inevitable now because of trafficking dedev only boosts
the black market by making criminals more desperate
which increases vectors for transmission
Econ collapse causes disease

Alexander 9 Brian Alexander, MSNBC.com contributor, 3/10/2009,
Recession may worsen spread of exotic diseases,
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29599786/#.Vaa-vfkzjX0
Budget cuts over a period of years have left public health at all levels of government
underfunded by $20 billion, according to a report published in the U.S. in October by the
non-partisan Trust for Americas Health. The recession has only piled on the pain,
with states and counties being especially hard hit. For example, Washington's King County
was forced to cut roughly $19 million out of public health in its 2009
budget. Funding was surprisingly tiny even before the recession. When I started at the CDC in the
summer of 2001, I was told my branch budget was zero, said Dr. James Maguire, former chief of the CDCs
Currently,
parasitic diseases branch and now a Harvard professor. It was always pretty sparse.
the budget for the branch is thought to be less than $75,000, not
including staff salaries. (The agency was unable to provide a definite amount.) The total
for all emerging diseases was $130.3 million for fiscal 2008. By
comparison the CDC expects to spend about $103.7 million on anti-
tobacco promotions. The 2009 CDC budget for chronic disease prevention, which
includes heart disease, diabetes and stroke, is more than $932 million. A significant amount
of the CDC funding for emerging diseases goes to salaries and state and local health departments,
explained Dr. Ali Kahn, deputy director of the National Center for Zoonotic, Vector-Borne and
Enteric Diseases at the CDC, There is no doubt we could do a lot more in the
U.S. and worldwide with additional funds, said Kahn. The recession has
weakened the government's ability to develop better treatments,
vaccines or prevent an epidemic, experts said. States do not have
resources to keep people on board and these people are monitoring
diseases, the epidemiologists doing shoe leather investigations, said
Jeffrey Levi, executive director of Trust for Americas Health. You cannot turn them on and off with a
switch . If you lose them youve lost them forever.
AT Endocrine
Endocrine disruption is the squo their impact ev says the
status quo causes pollution and is 16 years old
Also cant spread globally to extinction New Zealand

wont get contaminated
AT Enviro
Environment resilient and alt causes
Kareiva et al 12 Chief Scientist and Vice President, The Nature
Conservancy (Peter, Michelle Marvier --professor and department chair of
Environment Studies and Sciences at Santa Clara University, Robert Lalasz --
director of science communications for The Nature Conservancy, Winter,
Conservation in the Anthropocene,
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/past-issues/issue-
2/conservation-in-the-anthropocene/)
2. As conservation became a global enterprise in the 1970s and
1980s, the movement's justification for saving nature shifted from
spiritual and aesthetic values to focus on biodiversity . Nature was
described as primeval, fragile, and at risk of collapse from too much
human use and abuse. And indeed, there are consequences when humans
convert landscapes for mining, logging, intensive agriculture, and
urban development and when key species or ecosystems are lost. But
ecologists and conservationists have grossly overstated the fragility
of nature, frequently arguing that once an ecosystem is altered, it is gone forever. Some
ecologists suggest that if a single species is lost, a whole ecosystem
will be in danger of collapse, and that if too much biodiversity is
lost, spaceship Earth will start to come apart. Everything, from the
expansion of agriculture to rainforest destruction to changing
waterways, has been painted as a threat to the delicate inner-
workings of our planetary ecosystem. The fragility trope dates back,
at least, to Rachel Carson, who wrote plaintively in Silent Spring of the
delicate web of life and warned that perturbing the intricate balance
of nature could have disastrous consequences.22 Al Gore made a similar
argument in his 1992 book, Earth in the Balance.23 And the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
warned darkly that, while the expansion of agriculture and other forms of development have been
overwhelmingly positive for the world's poor, ecosystem degradation was simultaneously putting systems
the data simply do not
in jeopardy of collapse.24 The trouble for conservation is that
support the idea of a fragile nature at risk of collapse. Ecologists now know
that the disappearance of one species does not necessarily lead to the
extinction of any others, much less all others in the same ecosystem.
In many circumstances, the demise of formerly abundant species can be
inconsequential to ecosystem function. The American chestnut, once
a dominant tree in eastern North America, has been extinguished by
a foreign disease, yet the forest ecosystem is surprisingly
unaffected. The passenger pigeon, once so abundant that its flocks darkened the sky,
went extinct, along with countless other species from the Steller's
sea cow to the dodo, with no catastrophic or even measurable
effects . These stories of resilience are not isolated examples -- a
thorough review of the scientific literature identified 240 studies of
ecosystems following major disturbances such as deforestation,
mining, oil spills, and other types of pollution. The abundance of
plant and animal species as well as other measures of ecosystem
function recovered, at least partially, in 173 (72 percent) of these studies .25
While global forest cover is continuing to decline, it is rising in the
Northern Hemisphere, where "nature" is returning to former
agricultural lands.26 Something similar is likely to occur in the Southern Hemisphere, after poor
countries achieve a similar level of economic development. A 2010 report concluded that
rainforests that have grown back over abandoned agricultural land
had 40 to 70 percent of the species of the original forests.27 Even
Indonesian orangutans, which were widely thought to be able to survive only in pristine forests, have been
Nature is so
found in surprising numbers in oil palm plantations and degraded lands.28
resilient that it can recover rapidly from even the most powerful
human disturbances. Around the Chernobyl nuclear facility, which melted
down in 1986, wildlife is thriving, despite the high levels of radiation .29 In
the Bikini Atoll, the site of multiple nuclear bomb tests , including the 1954
hydrogen bomb test that boiled the water in the area, the number of coral species has
actually increased relative to before the explosions .30 More recently, the
massive 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was degraded and
consumed by bacteria at a remarkably fast rate.31 Today, coyotes roam
downtown Chicago, and peregrine falcons astonish San Franciscans as they
sweep down skyscraper canyons to pick off pigeons for their next
meal. As we destroy habitats, we create new ones : in the
southwestern United States a rare and federally listed salamander
species seems specialized to live in cattle tanks -- to date, it has been found in
no other habitat.32 Books have been written about the collapse of cod in
the Georges Bank, yet recent trawl data show the biomass of cod
has recovered to precollapse levels.33 It's doubtful that books will be
written about this cod recovery since it does not play well to an
audience somehow addicted to stories of collapse and environmental
apocalypse. Even that classic symbol of fragility -- the polar bear,
seemingly stranded on a melting ice block -- may have a good chance of surviving
global warming if the changing environment continues to increase
the populations and northern ranges of harbor seals and harp seals.
Polar bears evolved from brown bears 200,000 years ago during a
cooling period in Earth's history, developing a highly specialized carnivorous diet focused
on seals. Thus, the fate of polar bears depends on two opposing trends -- the decline of sea ice and the
The history of life on Earth is of species
potential increase of energy-rich prey.
evolving to take advantage of new environments only to be at risk
when the environment changes again. The wilderness ideal
presupposes that there are parts of the world untouched by
humankind, but today it is impossible to find a place on Earth that is
unmarked by human activity. The truth is humans have been
impacting their natural environment for centuries. The wilderness so beloved
by conservationists -- places "untrammeled by man"34 -- never existed, at least not in the last thousand
years, and arguably even longer.
AT Warming
Warming inevitable even if we cut emissions to zero
oceanic thermal inertia
Grimsrud 13 [Eric, Visiting Scientist at Atmospheric Research Laboratory at
Washington State University, Is warming by CO2 irreversible, unstoppable,
and/or inevitable?, ericgrimsrud, April 20 2013,
https://ericgrimsrud.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/is-warming-by-co2-
irreversible-unstoppable-andor-inevitable-2/] AW
First, is the global warming caused by CO2 emissions irreversible? Unfortunately, on any time scale of
the warming we
relevance to existing human civilizations, the answer to this question is no,
cause is not reversible. There are two reasons for this. One is that even if we stopped all
man-causes CO2 emissions today, it would take about 200 years for todays
elevated level of atmospheric CO2, approaching 400 ppm, to naturally decay down to a
level of about 340 ppm, a level we had in 1980 still much higher than the preindustrial level of
280 ppm. Yes, it takes a long time for the extra biological carbon we put into the Earths
carbon cycle to dissipate into stable geological reservoirs of carbon such as limestone.
And yes, it will take about 200 years to undo the CO2 increase we have caused over the last 30 years. In
the heating of the Earth is delayed by the huge thermal inertia
addition,
of our oceans, and the timescale of that delay just happens to be nearly
equal to the rate of CO2 decay just described. Thus, these two slow
processes described above go in opposite directions and tend to
cancel each others effect so that the Earths temperature will remain
approximately constant after that envisioned point in time when all
anthropogenic CO2 emissions have been eliminated. Then, of course, what has taken a
long time to warm up (the oceans primary) also takes a long time to cool off. Putting all of this together,
the
the warming we have created to date is approximately what we are stuck with in the future. That is,
temperature change that has been caused up to present is already set and is
not reversible.
1ar EXT Sustainable
Growth is sustainable, self-correcting and innovative
Seabra 14- Leo has a background in Communication and Broadcasting
and a broad experience which includes activities in Marketing, Advertising,
Sales and Public Relations, writes about technology, digital media, sports,
travels, food and sustainability, 2/27, Capitalism can drive Sustainability and
also innovation, http://seabraaffairs.wordpress.com/2014/02/27/capitalism-
can-drive-sustainability-and-also-innovation/
There are those who say that if the world does not change their
habits, even the end of economic growth, and assuming alternative ways of living,
will be a catastrophe. Our lifestyles are unsustainable. Our expectations of
consumption are predatory.Either we change this, or will be chaos. Others say that the
pursuit of unbridled economic growth and the inclusion of more
people in consumption is killing the Earth . We have to create alternative because
economic growth is pointing to the global collapse. What will happen when billions of Chinese decide to
adopt the lifestyle of Americans? Ill disagree if you dont mind They might be wrong.
Completely wrong .. Even very intelligent people wrongly interpret the implications of what they
In the vast scale of time (today, decades, not
observe when they lose the perspective of time.
it is the opposite of what expected, because they start from a
centuries)
false assumption: the future is the extrapolation of this. But not
necessarily be. How do I know? Looking at history. What story? The
history of innovation, this thing generates increases in productivity ,
wealth, quality of life in an unimaginable level. It is innovation that
will defeat pessimism as it always did. It was innovation that made
life today is incomparably better than at any other time in human
history. And will further improve. Einstein, who was not a stupid person,
believed that capitalism would generate crisis, instability, and
growing impoverishment. He said: The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists
today is, in my opinion, the true source of evil. The only way to eliminate this evil, he thought, was to
establish socialism, with the means of production are owned by the company. A centrally controlled
economy would adjust the production of goods and services the needs of people, and would distribute the
work that needed to be done among those in a position to do so. This would guarantee a livelihood to
every man, women and children. Each according to his possibilities. To each according to their needs.
And guess what? What happened was the opposite of what Einstein
predicted. Who tried the model he suggested, impoverished,
screwed up. Peter Drucker says that almost of all thinking people of the late
nineteenth century thought that Marx was right: there would be increased
exploitation of workers by employers. They would become poorer, until one day, the thing would explode.
Capitalist society was considered inherently unsustainable. It is
more or less the same chat today. Bullshit. Capitalism, with all
appropriate regulations, self-corrects. It is an adaptive system that
learns and changes by design . The design is just for the system to
learn and change . There was the opposite of what Einstein
predicted, and held the opposite of what many predict, but the logic
that unlike only becomes evident over time. It wasnt obvious that the
workers are those whom would profit from the productivity gains
that the management science has begun to generate by organizing
innovations like the railroad, the telegraph, the telephone .. to
increase the scale of production and cheapen things. The living
conditions of workers today are infinitely better than they were in
1900. They got richer, not poorer .. You do not need to work harder to
produce more (as everyone thought), you can work less and produce more through a mechanism
that is only now becoming apparent, and that brilliant people like Caetano Veloso still ignores. The
output is pursuing growth through innovation, growth is not giving
up. More of the same will become unsustainable to the planet, but
most of it is not what will happen, will happen more different, than
we do not know what is right. More innovative. Experts, such as Lester Brown,
insist on statements like this: if the Chinese also want to have three cars for every four inhabitants, as in
the U.S. today, there will be 1.1 billion cars there in 2030, and there is no way to build roads unless ends
with the whole area used for agriculture. You will need 98 million barrels of oil per day, but the world only
produces about 90 million today, and probably never produce much more. The mistake is to extrapolate
todays solutions for the future. We can continue livinghere for 20 years by exploiting the same resources
how can we encourage the
that we explore today? Of course not. But the other question is:
stream of innovations that will enable the Chinese, Indians,
Brazilians, Africans .. to live so as prosperous asAmericans live
today? Hey, wake up what can not stop the engine of innovation is
that the free marketengenders. This system is self correcting , that is
its beauty. We do not need to do nothing but ensure the conditions
for it to work without distortion. The rest he does himself. It
regulates itself.
1ar EXT Tech Solves
Tech solves extinction
Dunn 13- staff writer for the Harvard International Review (Gregory, Water Wars: A Surprisingly
Rare Source of Conflict, Harvard International Review, Nov. 20, 2013.
http://hir.harvard.edu/archives/10414). WM
The failure of human society to collapse was largely due to the economic
and tech nological developments that occurred around the world. Economic growth
allowed more access to resources , thus enabling people to invest in technology to
increase their productivity . This investment in technology enabled incredible leaps in the
productivity of farmers, thanks to devices like tractors, new practices in irrigation and crop rotation, and
improvements in crops due to breeding and g enetic m odification.
Case Georgia
Overview
Georgias economy is currently on the brinkjobs arent growing, causing
economy to lose industriesprivatization is k2 restore georgias economy
1ac
Georgias economy is on the brinktransportation
infrastructure underpins its inability to revamp
Semuels, 15staff writer at the Atlantic and reporter for Los Angeles Times
(Alana, 1/2/15, Whats Wrong with Georgia?, The Atlantic,
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/whats-wrong-with-
georgia/384101/)//
state's laissez-faire approach to policy. GRIFFIN, Ga.Throughout the
economic downturn and subsequent recovery, there have been some usual
twemchen
While many other states are recovering, Georgia's unemployment rate has risen . Some
blame the suspects when it comes to the most pitiful state in monthly unemployment figures. For awhile,
Michigan took the prize for highest unemployment rate in the country, until Nevada knocked it off its perch
in May of 2010. Nevada then held the title for most of the next three years, sometimes sharing the honor
with California, until it ceded the top (more accurately, the bottom) spot to Rhode Island in December
2013. But now, as the economy picks up steam, and consumer sentiment rises to its highest levels since
Georgia, home to Fortune 500
2007, a new state keeps appearing at the top of the unemployment list.
heavyweights such as Home Depot, UPS, and Coca-Cola, had the highest unemployment
rate in the nation in August, September, and October. With a November rate of 7.2 percent, the
state was narrowly edged out by Mississippis 7.3 percent (December statistics wont come out until mid-
January). This may seem surprising, since Georgia was named the best state to do business in both 2014
and 2013 by Site Selection magazine, largely because of its workforce-training program and low tax rates.
Nathan Deal, the states GOP governor, handily won reelection in November against Jimmy Carters
grandson by speaking about Georgia as a job magnet. But those who follow the states economy say the
states troubling economic figures are directly related to Georgias attempts to
paint itself as a good state for corporations. This is what a state looks like when you have a hands-off,
laissez-faire approach to the economy, said Michael Wald, a former Bureau of Labor Statistics economist
in Atlanta. Georgia is basically a low-wage, low-tax, low-service state , thats the
approach theyve been taking for a very long time. The nation's unemployment rate in November, by
contrast, was 5.8 percent, which was also the November jobless rate of Georgia's neighbor and occasional
rival, North Carolina. The unemployment rate in Georgia has risen, while in other once-troubled states, it
continues to fall. (Data from BLS) Governor Deal has emphasized time and again that he believes it is the
role of government to get out of the way and let the private sector stimulate the economy. Georgia was
among the first states to cut back the duration of unemployment benefits available to its residents to 18
weeks from 26. The state has slashed $8.3 billion from public-school funding since 2003 and passed
eligibility requirements for a state financial-aid program that caused a dramatic decline in the number of
students in technical colleges (some of those requirements have since been rolled back). The state also
passed a sweeping tax-reform bill in 2012 that eliminated some sales taxes and broadened exemptions for
the agricultural industry that small towns and counties say have wreaked havoc on their revenues. Some
counties are seeing unemployment rates that indicate the recession is far from over, including
Chattahoochee, with an unemployment rate of 14.4 percent and Telfair, with a jobless rate of 13.3 percent.
Areas surrounding Atlanta are faring better, with Fulton County, where Atlanta is located, posting an
unemployment rate of 7.3 percent, and DeKalb seeing joblessness drop to 6.8 percent. This may be a
good place for companies, but not for people actually looking for work." But even some areas not far from
the city are still struggling. They include the town of Griffin, located in Spalding County, a one-time, textile-
manufacturing hub where the unemployment rate in October was 9 percent. Now, workers are tearing
down the old factories and shopping plazas along the road from Atlanta are empty, with no trace of the
Griffin residents such as Richard Joiner say they haven't seen
stores once located there.
much improvement in the economy. Joiner, 46, worked for two decades as a machine
operator in the field of plastic extrusion. When he got laid off during the recession, he found a job packing
ready-made salads, but then work there slowed down too. Joiner did what economists say
workers like him need to do to get ahead in this economyhe went back to school for video and film
production, aware that shows such as the Walking Dead were increasingly filming and producing in towns
like his. But then the state changed the rules for unemployment benefits and Joiner lost his source of
income, so he was forced to drop out of school and seek work. Without any money or prospects, he was
evicted from his apartment, so he was forced to move in with his mother. His grown children had to find
somewhere else to live. He has no car, so he walks three miles to the Griffin Career Center to search for a
job on the computers there. Joiner still owes $13,000 in student loans, and hasnt been able to find any
sort of work. This may be a good place for companies, but not for people actually looking for work, he
told me, sitting in the waiting room of the Career Center. Companies may come here for the tax breaks,
but theyre not actually bringing jobs for the people who live here. Whats frustrating about Joiners
situation is that hes doing everything rightgoing back to school, trying a new industry, looking for work
wherever he can find it. But without the resources that have long been in place for people like him, hes
struggling. Many other students in Georgia have dropped out of school after changes to funding for higher
education, according to the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute. Changes to the lottery-funded HOPE grant
program in 2011 led to a decline of 38,000 students enrolled at the states technical schools, said Alan
Essig, the institutes director (John Oliver has recently explored the folly of using the state lotteries to pay
for education). Even without scholarships, higher education in Georgia is getting more expensive. Tuition
and fees at Georgia public universities have increased 67 percent since 2008; at technical colleges,
theyve increased 65 percent, according to the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute. The decline in
education funding may already be directly impacting the state's economy. In December, the state High
some employers, including Home Depot,
Demand Career Initiative released a report finding that
weren't able to find enough high-skilled workers to fill available jobs.
They were forced to hire out of state, the report found. Only about 42 percent of Georgia's young adults
have earned a college credential, although more than 60 percent of jobs in the state will require a college
certificate or degree. Itsa misconception that these so-called business-friendly
policies are closely related to stronger economic growth , said Wesley
Tharpe, an analyst with the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute. A states economy
depends on an educated workforce, transportation infrastructure, public
safety, reliable street cleaning, and snow removal. Transportation is a problem in
Georgia, too. The state ranks 49th in the nation in per capita transportation funding, and
Atlantas commutes are famously terrible . The state could have borrowed funds for
transportation improvements, said Wald, but instead decided in 2012 to ask voters to pass an increase in
sales tax to fund transportation projects. It was defeated handily at the ballot box. An abandoned mall in
Griffin, Georgia (Alana Semuels) Georgia isnt the only state to find that lowering taxes in an effort to
jumpstart the economy can backfire. Indeed, one of the biggest issues dividing Democrats and Republicans
during the recession was whether the Keynesian approach of increasing government spending in a
recession best stimulates the economy, or whether governments should get out of the way and allow
businesses to do the work. Kansas passed sweeping tax cuts in 2012, only to see protests over its low
levels of education funding and a debt downgrade to boot. Ohio did away with its estate tax and scaled
back income taxes, forcing many local governments to reduce services. Tax cuts heralded by Governor
Scott Walker in Wisconsin have led to budget shortfalls that have even some Republican legislators
worried. Sometimes ideological experiments bring unintended outcomes," Oklahoma Treasurer Ken Miller
told the Wall Street Journal in June, about Kansass experiment. In Georgia, those unintended outcomes
have reverberated through small, rural towns that traditionally support conservative fiscal policies. Were
desperately awaiting recoverywere still not back to 2008 revenue levels, said Chris Hobby, the city
manager of Bainbridge, right on the Florida border. We were climbing back towards those levels, and then
in 2013, when these tax exemptions went into place, you can see our revenue just fall off the cliff. The
exemptions hes talking about were part of H.B. 386, passed by the state legislature in 2012. The law
replaced an annual car tax with a one-time title tax, which is paid when a car is bought. It also eliminated
sales tax on energy used in manufacturing, and expanded a program that allowed the agriculture industry
to avoid paying sales tax on a variety of products. Bainbridge has had to put aside repairs to a 60-year-old
elementary school. The city employs just 141 people, as opposed to 185 in 2008 and collected fewer taxes
last year than it did in 2010. It was forced to raise property taxes for the first time in 30 years, and has
narrowed its focus to pothole repair rather than road repaving. I think the tax reform was made with all
the best intentions, Hobby said. But it has really created a crisis in the rural parts of the state. Empty
stores along South Hill Street in Griffin (Alana Semuels) The story is the same in many other rural areas:
Washington, Georgia, disbanded its police force earlier this year because of budget issues, and in June,
Valdosta raised property taxes for the first time since 1992, after cutting 5 percent of its workforce and
reducing spending on transportation. In many rural areas, this is going to prolong coming out of the
recession, said Amy Henderson, a spokeswoman for the Georgia Municipal Association, which calculated
that some rural counties in the south had seen sales-tax decreases of more than 15 percent between 2012
there are some positive pieces to the Georgia
and 2013. To be sure,
economy. The state has gained 93,900 jobs since the beginning of the year, not that
many fewer than the 110,700 added by rival North Carolina, which has only a slightly smaller population.
Industries such as retail, logistics, and hospitality are adding jobs at a rapid clip. And some of the
movement in the unemployment rate can be attributed to the state's growing labor force. Georgia had 4.8
million people in its labor force in June, an all-time high, though that number has shrunk in recent months
as some people gave up looking for work. And many industries are still struggling. Georgia was hit hard by
the housing bust: The state employs 30 percent fewer construction workers than it did during the peak and
20 percent fewer manufacturing workers than it did a decade ago. The state government continues to shed
while some
jobs: down 2,400 from a year ago, and down 14,700 from the peak in 2008. So
industries are adding positions, they arent growing quickly enough
to make up for industries that have disappeared. A few years back, I visited a
company in Griffin that was going to benefit from a $50 billion pledge made by Walmart to buy more
products manufactured in the United States. The company, 1888 Mills, had won a contract to supply their
Georgia-made towels to 1,200 Walmart stores. But the factory the company showed me was mostly
machines, with a few people to run them. The Walmart contract created only about 35 jobs, if that, at 1888
Mills. Even if manufacturing does come back to Georgia, and to Griffin, it wont create many jobs. The
The economy has lost
company illustrates the one-two punch Georgia is facing.
industries, like manufacturing and construction that may never return the way
they once were. But programs that could help retrain workers or send them back to school have
been scaled back. Counties still figuring out how to make up for that lost tax revenue are facing even more
revenue declines. Candy Swopes, 47, has wanted to go back to school for as long as she can remember.
But things kept coming up. After she had her daughter, she found work for a company that manufactured
audio equipment for cars. When the company moved to Mexico, though, she lost her job. She found work
to pay the bills: as a housekeeper at a Super 8, packing boxes for Toys R Us, helping manufacture plastic
wrap. But eventually her employer would tell her that things had slowed down and that they didnt need
her anymore. She finally scraped together enough money to go back to school to study electrical
technology, but then her financial aid ran out, so she went to a temp agency to find a job. Now, shes
trying to find enough money to complete her schooling and to send her 20-year-old daughter to culinary
school. Both have heard stories of people saddled by student-loan debt, and don't want to take out big
loans. But Swopes still cant find a steady job so they haven't come up with tuition money yet. Shes
looking though. I told her, You have to go to school, no ifs, ands or buts about it, Swopes told me in the
quiet of the Griffin Career Center. I dont want her to struggle like Im struggling. On Griffins main
thoroughfare, others seem to be in a similar bind. The street is dotted with bright signs advertising Space
for Lease. Lori Bean, who owns a jam company, said sales in Georgia this year have been half of what
they were last year. Weve learned to live with it, said Burt Crapo, the founder of Agape Computers, one
of the businesses doing well in Griffin. But Crapos wife works for the county in community development,
and hasnt gotten a raise for years. Her health-insurance premiums are going up, and every now and then,
she hears rumors about impending furloughs. People in Griffin are still cautious about spending, said Tony
Sharp, who owns a jewelry store in town, even though gas prices are low. "There's not a single thing in
here that people have to have," he said, gesturing along the long rows of jewelry in his store. " Things
are better, but they're not exactly as they were." Crapo knows it might be
a long time before things get back to normal in Georgia. A few restaurants
may be doing well on the street, but he knows too well that many others arent. Next to him, a framing
store recently closed up shop. A handwritten sign lurks in the door, starting to fade: Gone Out of
Business."
The plan boosts the Georgia economyGwinnet and

national examples proves
Dodd, 11vice president of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation; an
independent think tank that proposes practical, market-oriented approaches
to public policy to improve the lives of Georgians (Benita M., 8/5/11, "Airport
Privatization Could Take Off", Georgia Public Policy Foundation,
www.georgiapolicy.org/2011/08/airport-privatization-could-take-
off/)//twemchen
Georgia has been trying to site an airport to supplement
For years,
Atlantas Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, the busiest passenger
airport in the world. Suggestions have been all over the map, from Dawsonville to Macon to
Chattanooga. Now a plan to make a Gwinnett County airport a regional relief
valve by privatizing it finally holds promise. The 600-acre Briscoe Field is a
general aviation airport about 37 miles northeast of Atlanta and a mile outside Lawrenceville. Owned by
Gwinnett, its 6,001-foot runway and parallel taxiway can handle light general aviation and most corporate
jet aircraft. The airport handled 83,458 aircraft operations and served as a base for 236 aircraft in the most
recent 12-month reporting period ending March 2009. Its 2010 total economic impact was about $79
million, with $47 million in direct impact. Under the 15-year-old Airport Privatization Pilot Program, the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) can select up to five airports for privatization. Despite the programs
age, the privatization process has not been easy. A deal to privatize Chicagos Midway Airport fell through
in 2009. This week, Chicago asked the FAA for a sixth extension on its application. In September 2009, the
FAA accepted the city of New Orleans preliminary application for Louis Armstrong New Orleans
International Airport. In October 2010, the airport withdrew from the program. In December 2009, the FAA
accepted the preliminary application for Luis Muoz Marn International Airport in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
The airport, the busiest in the Caribbean, continues to actively pursue privatization. Outside Miami, Hendry
County Airglades Airports preliminary application was accepted last year. The FAA gave preliminary
approval to Briscoes application in May 2010 and the Gwinnett County Commission is expected to
announce a request for proposals soon. Qualified private investors must deal with local political power
struggles and neighbors concerns, win support of airport carriers and cope with the fallout of the
economic downturn. In Briscoe Field, Gwinnett County faces a promising opportunity
and the potential to become home to a secondary commercial
airport, an origination-to-destination airport. At Hartsfield-Jackson, more than 75 percent of passengers
are taking connecting flights, just passing through the airport. Opponents cite the
downside of Briscoes privatization as increased traffic congestion, more
flights and noise, all of which they say would hurt property values nearby. But a recent
study found that no homes would be affected by noise from additional flights.
That study, commissioned by Hartsfield-Jackson for the FAA to seek out a reliever airport, also dismissed
Briscoe as an unsuitable site. The study maintained that the runway was too short; the airports proximity
to Atlantas would interfere with Hartsfield-Jacksons flight path and it would cost $2.2 billion to upgrade.
Given that Briscoes proposed 10-gate commercial service would relieve Hartsfield-Jackson, not replace it,
and serve aircraft no larger than 737s, the studys assumptions including a 9,000-foot runway appear to
Proponents see the privatization and scheduled service approach as
be costly overkill.
an enormous economic boost for Gwinnett and the region, and evidence from
across the nation indicates they are correct. Privatization will take
the cost of operating the airport off taxpayer books and create a
positive revenue stream for Gwinnett County, whose shrinking tax digest shows no signs of
improving soon. While Gwinnett maintains its AAA bond rating, it owes nearly $160 million, making it the
pilot program
county with the third-highest debt in Georgia, according to Moodys. The FAA
streamlines privatization and enables the expansion to commercial
scheduled service, leading to growth in jobs and related industries at
and around the airport. Tourism could grow through international flights. Now, international passengers
headed to Briscoe must first land and clear customs at DeKalb-Peachtree Airport. Briscoe falls outside the
current Port of Atlanta customs clearance boundary, which was drawn in 1962, when Atlantas population
was smaller than the current population of Gwinnett. Three companies have expressed interest in Briscoes
privatization and commercial scheduled service. Propeller Airports Briscoe Field, Inc. appears the likely
successful bidder. Its parent companys executives and advisors have lengthy experience in the aviation
industry. Transportation expert Robert Poole of the Reason Foundation notes that the company claims
access to $4 billion in investment capital, which is plausible, given the $100-plus billion amassed by
various infrastructure investment funds over the last several years. A recent Economist magazine article
focused on airport management and grim airports. It quoted Andreas Schimm of Airports Council
International, an umbrella group, saying that in the past airports were administered rather than
managed to serve state-owned airlines. Governments now try to run airports on commercial lines, but
few do it well. Privatization could help. It can help in more ways than one, for
Gwinnett and metro Atlanta.
Georgia econ decline decks national military readiness

Nunn 14 (Michelle Nunn, 7/3/14, Michelle Nunn On Georgia's Military
Bases, https://votesmart.org/public-statement/892010/michelle-nunn-on-
georgias-military-bases#.VbJePLNVgSU)//twemchen
Georgia has a crucial role in bolstering our national security . Navy

submarines from King's Bay patrol the oceans with nuclear weapons to deter potential
adversaries from striking us. The Air Force repairs jets, manages logistics and houses
surveillance aircraft at Warner Robins. And it flies the world's premiere close air support jet and
rescue helicopter that support our men and women on the ground in Afghanistan at Moody Air Force Base
near Valdosta. At Ft. Benning, home of the infantry and elite Army Rangers, the Army trains a wide variety
of soldiers, from recruits to officers, to perform a wide variety of jobs, from jumping out of airplanes at
the Army
Airborne School to driving tanks. At Ft. Gordon near Augusta, home of the Signal Corps,
trains soldiers in sig nals int elligence and provides cutting edge cyber
capabilities . Ft. Stewart is home of the legendary 3rd Infantry Division, which fought in World Wars I
and II, Korea, and Iraq. Hunter Army Airfield, just down the road in Savannah, is home to a battalion of
Army Rangers and Nightstalkers, pilots who fly our special operations forces on the most dangerous
the Marine Corps repairs the majority of its ground combat
missions. And
equipment at the Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany. The last thirteen years of war have highlighted
the importance of our National Guard, Reserve and the civilians who support our war fighters. Dobbins Air
Reserve Base is home to Air Force reservists and civilians, as well as guardsmen and reservists from the
Army, Navy and Marines. Georgia's installations also serve as major economic drivers in communities
across Georgia. The Department of Defense employs more than 140,000 in Georgia, the 5th most of any
state, and our installations have a $20 billioneconomic impact. But Congress' chaos driven
budgeting process and failed leadership has hurt Georgia's bases . Sequestration -- the self-
inflicted, across the board budget cuts triggered when Congress couldn't agree on a budget -- forced
furloughs for Georgia defense workers and created uncertainty that hurt
Georgia's economy. And last year's shutdown led to mandatory furloughs for thousands of employees at
Georgia's military bases and slowed the VA's ability to process benefits. Over the years, Georgia and our
nation have been fortunate to have had bipartisan political leadership in Congress dedicated to our
country's security. As Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, my great uncle, Carl Vinson, was
considered the father of the two-ocean Navy. In the Senate, Richard Russell almost single-handedly guided
defense policy during his 13 years as chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations
Committee. And my dad, Sam, led the Armed Services committee as the Cold War ended and helped to
secure Russia's vast nuclear arsenal during his 24 year tenure in that chamber. Since then, Senators Max
Cleland and Saxby Chambliss also served Georgia honorably as members of this important committee. In
the U.S. Senate, I hope to follow in the footsteps of great Georgia leaders who have fought to keep
Georgia's military bases at the forefront of innovation and make them indispensable for our military. And I'll
work hard with like-minded leaders to bring common-sense budgeting back to our nation's capitol. Keeping
Georgia's Bases Strong Georgia bases play a crucial role in the present defense of
our nation but they need missions for the future in order to retain this preeminence. I will focus on
these missions and work closely with our military leaders and our community leaders to ensure that we
compare favorably in every competitive measurement and that we have the most efficient and effective
workforce and physical facilities that are so important to our Georgia bases and our nation's security. Our
state enjoys significant advantages over other states when it comes to military facilities. The communities
that surround our bases do a great job in sustaining and supporting those bases and their military
neighbors. The great work of our business and community leaders -- as exemplified by organizations like
the 21st Century Partnership -- has helped keep Georgia at the forefront of our national security
Georgia bases host some of our nation's most critical military and
infrastructure.
maintenance capabilities including cutting edge cyber technology, the most important
leg of our nuclear deterrent , and ground combat power. The civilian workforce that supports
our great military at Georgia bases is a well-trained one, borne out of decades of experience maintaining
advanced military equipment at places like Warner Robins and Albany.
Global nuclear war outweighs terrorism

Caves 10 (John P. Jr., Avoiding a Crisis of Confidence in the U.S. Nuclear
Deterrent, Strategic Forum, 252, January,
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/docuploaded/SF%20252_John
%20Caves.pdf)//twemchen
Perceptions of a compromised U.S. nuclear deterrent as described above would
have profound policy implications, particularly if they emerge at a time when a nuclear-armed
great power is pursuing a more aggressive strategy toward U.S. allies and partners in its region in a bid to
enhance its regional and global clout. A dangerous period of vulnerability would open for
the U nited S tates and those nations that depend on U.S. protection while the United States attempted
to rectify th problems with its nuclear forces. As it would take more than a decade for the United States to
produce new nuclear weapons, ensuing events could preclude a return to anything like the status quo
ante. The assertive, nuclear-armed great power, and other major adversaries, could
be willing to challenge U.S. interests more directly in the expectation that the United States
would be less prepared to threaten or deliver a military response that could lead to direct conflict. They will
want to keep the United States from reclaiming its earlier power position. Allies and partners who have
relied upon explicit or implicit assurances of U.S. nuclear protection as a foundation of their security
could lose faith in those assurances. They could compensate by accommodating U.S.
rivals, especially in the short term, or acquiring their own nuclear deterrents, which in most
cases could be accomplished only over the mid- to long term. A more nuclear world would likely
ensue over a period of years. Important U.S. interests could be compromised or abandoned, or a
major war could occur as adversaries and/or the U nited S tates miscalculate new
boundaries of deterrence and provocation. At worst, war could lead to state-on-state
employment of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) on a scale far more catastrophic
than what nuclear-armed terrorists alone could inflict.
Congestion Hurts Econ
Expansion solves congestionbenefits exceed costs
https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/03/05/Cohen_Coughlin.pdf
Congestion has been and continues to be a problem at many airports
throughout the United States. For example, in the first five months of
2001, over 25 percent of the flights arriving at the nations 11
busiest airports were more than 15 minutes late.1 Despite a decline
in travelers and flights in 2001, which was associated with the
recession that began that spring and the September 11 terrorist attacks, congestion remained a
problem in some locations.2 For example, 16.2 percent of the flights bound for
LambertSt. Louis International Airport from May 1, 2001, through
June 30, 2001, arrived late, with an average delay of roughly 55
minutes. Using the same period one year later, 16.3 percent of the arriving flights
were delayed, with an average delay time of roughly 56 minutes.3
Congestion imposes costs on both the users and providers of airline
transportation services. A common response is to expand the capacity of airports in the most
afflicted regions. Consequently, airport expansions have occurred and are
occurring in many major cities, including Atlanta and St. Louis.4 Figure 1
shows that the amount of federal, state, and local government spending on airports increased in all but
two years between 1986 and 1999.5 Federal, state, and local funds for U.S.
airports in 1999 totaled over $20 billion, up from $11 billion in 1985
(using constant, 1996 dollars). Expansions are costly, complex, and controversial. For example, the cost of
Phase 1 of the current expansion of LambertSt. Louis International Airport is $1.1 billion. The key
component of this project is the construction of a new runway.6 To add this runway, the approved project
entailed the acquisition of more than 1,500 acres of land, which ignited protests from affected
homeowners and businesses; the reconfiguration of seven major roads; the movement of some airport
support operations and the Missouri Air National Guard facility; and the construction of a new school.7 We
begin our analysis by providing a discussion of how congestion arises and how it can be dealt with.
Because the air transportation services provided by one airport are related to the services provided by
delays at one airport have adverse effects on the
many airports,
movement of passengers and freight at other airports.8 Thus, the
expansion of one airport can assist the movement of passengers and
freight at other airports. This interdependence provides an economic
justification for a decisionmaking authority above the level of
individual airports, such as a governmental body, to be involved in
the approval as well as the financing of expansions. However, when both
congestion and network externalities are present, the appropriate government actions may be to levy a
To justify a specific
tax, to provide a subsidy, or possibly to refrain from any intervention.
airport expansion, its benefits must exceed its costs. We examine how the
benefits and costs of expansions are measured. We use the expansion of LambertSt.
Louis International Airport to illustrate many of the key points . We
also examine two controversial aspects of expansionsthe
displacement of people and the environmental effects . The controversy as
well as the cost of expansion projects has spurred the search for alternative ways to reduce congestion.
One alternative that we examine, which reduces congestion by using existing capacity more efficiently, is
congestion-based pricing of landing fees. ANALYZING CONGESTION IN THE AIR TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
Expanding the capacity of an airport entails a multi-year capital expansion project to construct a runway
and/or a terminal. The financing of expansions generally includes funding provided by a governmental
body. An alternative in some cases to increasing an airports infrastructure is to use its existing facilities
more efficiently. This alternative approach to reduce the adverse effects of congestion can be implemented
in the short run via the setting of appropriate prices or taxes. The potential role of taxes/subsidies in
responding to congestion as well as network externalities can be explained using marginal
benefit/marginal cost curves.9 A potential traveler who wishes to fly from St. Louis to Boston, for example,
faces two coststhe airfare (x dollars per trip) plus the opportunity cost of travel time (y dollars per
hour). In Figure 2, with the units of measurement being dollars on the vertical axis and passenger trips on
the horizontal axis, the marginal benefit (or demand) curve has a negative slope. This curve indicates, for
our example, that when the price of air travel from St. Louis to Boston is high, only the few people who
value their trips highly would choose to travel. As the price of a trip is reduced, more travelers will take this
trip. The explanation for the shapes of the private and social marginal cost curves is slightly more
complicated.10 The shapes hinge on the impact of congestion costs. At air traffic levels less than QC in
Figure 2, the marginal cost curve is flat. The flatness indicates that congestion has not set in yet, and the
cost for passengers is the monetary cost of their tickets plus a fixed value related to the opportunity cost
of travel.11 Consequently, the social marginal cost curve coincides with the private marginal cost
curve. For air traffic levels greater than QC, however, the marginal cost curve is upward sloping. The
positively sloped part of the private marginal cost curve can be understood by considering the notion that,
beyond some threshold level, when a particular individual chooses to consume additional air travel, he
adds additional traffic to the system, which slows down his own travel. Additional passenger trips translate
into more flights, which is one source of congestion. In addition, more passengers cause more crowded
airport terminals, creating delays at ticket counters and security checkpoints. When passengers anticipate
these delays, they arrive at the airport earlier and increase their travel time. Moreover, additional
passenger trips result in increased delays at the baggage claim carousel at the end of a trip. Thus, we are
assuming that trip time varies directly with the number of passenger trips. This longer trip time increases
the marginal passengers own trip cost, due to the higher opportunity cost of the travel time, which is
added to the monetary cost. When accounting for congestion in the manner described above, the social
marginal cost curve differs from the private marginal cost curve. Namely, when an additional passenger
uses the airport more, in addition to increasing his own travel time by adding to congestion, this passenger
increases the travel time of other airport users as well. This passenger does not take this additional cost
into account, so existing travelers could be made better off if the would-be passenger did not travel. This
additional cost causes the social marginal cost curve to lie above the private marginal cost curve. This
increase in total travel time can be calculated by multiplying the total number of airport users by the
additional travel delay that the marginal user generates. At levels of passenger trips slightly greater than
the congestion threshold, QC, this travel congestion externality is small, so the difference between the
social and private marginal cost curves is relatively small. But as the number of passenger trips rises, an
individual increasing his air travel adds greater cost to other travelers, due to the assumption that trip time
is an increasing function of passenger volume. As a result, the difference between the social and private
marginal cost curves is larger at higher levels of passenger traffic. The socially optimal level of air traffic in
this context occurs at Qtax in Figure 2, where the marginal benefit curve intersects the social marginal cost
curve. Note that this level of passenger trips is less than QP, which is the level of passenger trips
associated with the intersection of the marginal benefit and private marginal cost curves. One way to
achieve the socially optimal level of passenger trips, which requires the marginal benefits of air travel to
equal the social marginal costs, is through a congestion tax on air travel from St. Louis to Boston. In Figure
2, a tax per unit of air traffic volume equal to the distance from PP to PS will yield this socially optimal level
of passenger trips. The cost associated with the tax forces each traveler to pay for the costs that his travel
imposes on others. The net gain resulting from the tax is represented by the triangle ABC. The net gain
reflects the fact that for a level of passenger trips QP, marginal social costs exceeds marginal benefits by
the distance from B to C. The tax causes passenger trips to decrease from QP to Qtax and eliminates the
gap between marginal social costs and marginal benefits. Thus, the net gain is the sum of the differences
between marginal social costs and marginal benefits as passenger trips decrease from QP to Qtax. A
congestion tax, however, is not the only policy option. An alternative policy, shown in Figure 3, is to expand
the airport at which the congestion is present. Airport expansion shifts the private and social marginal cost
curves rightward. In addition, the congestion threshold occurs at a larger number of passenger trips,
Whether congestion persists depends not only on
increasing from QT to QTX.
the size of the expansion, but also on the elasticity of air travel
demand.12 If travel demand is relatively inelastic, then it is likely that the expansion leads to a new
equilibrium level of passenger trips, QI , below the congestion threshold. In this hypothetical example, the
relatively inelastic demand implies that consumers of air travel are not very responsive to the lower cost of
travel, so quantity demanded does not increase by enough to create additional congestion. If demand is
relatively elastic, however, then it is possible that the new equilibrium, QE, will occur above the congestion
threshold, and the social marginal cost will be greater than the private marginal cost. Because consumers
are relatively responsive to changes in the trip cost, the expansion
Airports K2 Econ
Privatization leads to economic benefits that solve
infrastructure and the Georgia economy.
Reed 14 (http://patch.com/georgia/dacula)
plan
Brett Smith is a believer. As the managing director of Propeller Investments, Smith is convinced his
for the privatization of Briscoe Field could result in tremendous economic
benefits for the area. I look for projects that are interesting, that create jobs, he said. I look
for projects that can make a difference. Smith believes he and his company can make a difference in the
greater Gwinnett community by bringing commercial airline service to the Lawrenceville airport. I believe
Smith approached the
in this, Smith said. This will create history. THE PLAN Two years ago,
Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners with the idea of privatizing the airport
and adding commercial service. Smith, who attended school in Atlanta and spends a good deal of time
in the area on business, said he became frustrated with the amount of time it
took to get through Hartsfield-Jackson airport. We own a company out in Cobb
County, he said. I was coming down to Atlanta and I made the mistake of flying on Continental and
ended up in the D Concourse. I was here for a day meeting and I didnt have anything other than my
there had to be a
briefcase and it took me 45 minutes to get out of the terminal. Smith felt
better solution for business travelers trying to reach destinations in
the suburbs. We started looking at all the airports in the area, he said. After what he describes as a lot
of homework, Smith decided Gwinnetts 500-acre airport would be the perfect candidate. Theres
significantly high unemployment, Smith said. You have infrastructure that really could be
improved , particularly 316 which is a nightmare. According to Smith, privatizing the
airport could solve both of those problems . A project like what we envision would
force the state to fix it, he said. I thought that was a positive. As for the economic impact, Smith
privatizing the airport and introducing commercial flights
estimates
could add $1 billion each year to the local economy and create as many as
20,000 jobs over the next ten years. THE OPPOSITION Leading the opposition to Smiths plan is the group
Citizens for a Better Gwinnett (C4BG). Last month, the group held . The purpose of the meeting, according
to group member Jim Regan, was to ensure commissioners know citizens are paying attention to
discussions and developments regarding future plans for Briscoe Field. Though on opposite sides of this
issue, Regan and Smith do have one thing in common . However, the similarities end there. Regan takes
issue with Smiths assertion that polling showed support for commercialization and privatization. [The
poll] didnt mention commercial aviation, Regan said. Instead, according to Regan, the questions focused
on economic benefits, costs to the county and jobs. If you ask the right questions in a poll, you can get
the answers you want, he explained. Regardless of what Smiths poll numbers indicate, Regan and . Smith
maintains those issues should not be a concern. If you look at examples of what we are proposing Palm
Springs, Greenville-Spartanburg, Westchester County in all of those cases, home values have increased
over the past 10 years, he said. In contrast, Smith said home values around Briscoe Field have
plummeted during the same time period. If you bought a home in Lawrenceville 10 years ago next to the
airport and try to sell it today, youve lost 30 percent, he said. With commercial service, Smith says
businesses would move to Gwinnett and companies would continue to grow causing home prices to
increase over time. As for noise, Smith plans to prove homeowners have no need to worry. The general
aviation airplanes that are currently flying out of there are noisier than the next generation aircraft the
airlines fly, Smith said. That train that goes by the airport is 10 times louder. Smith would not disclose
the date, but said within the next few weeks he plans to hold a demonstration at the airport. Im going to
land a 737 and, four minutes later, a plane that currently goes in there is going to land. A few minutes
later, the 737 will take off and the other plane will take off and people can judge for themselves, he said.
The time of the demonstration will be announced a few days in advance. Regan said he looks forward to
the demonstration and hopes the 737 will fly landing circles as part of the event. If were going to do it,
lets do it right, Regan said. Id love it if he would do that on a Saturday or Sunday when everyone is
home. Smith is convinced peoples fears will be allayed once they hear the 737 land and take off from
Briscoe Field. Im willing to do this because I know what the outcome is going to be, he said. The noise
is not an issue. People say it is because they dont know. UP NEXT The county has not yet issued a
request for proposals (RFP) for any airport related projects, but did issue a request for qualifications (RFQ)
for firms interested in submitting proposals to privatize the airport. The county received responses from
Smiths company, American Airports Corporation, and Gwinnett Airport, LLC. Smith is waiting on the county
to act. The thing I want to convey to everybody is that we have an opportunity here, he said. If enough
people are involved in the process, we can make it work for everybody. Smith strongly believes his
proposed project has the potential to take the region out of the recession quickly. I know that what were
offering is the best option, he said. It really takes Gwinnett to the next level.
Econ Key to Military
Georgias economy is key to military capabilitynational
security
Nunn 14 (Michelle Nunn, 7/3/14, Michelle Nunn On Georgia's Military
Bases, https://votesmart.org/public-statement/892010/michelle-nunn-on-
georgias-military-bases#.VbJePLNVgSU)//twemchen
Georgia has a crucial role in bolstering our national security . Navy

submarines from King's Bay patrol the oceans with nuclear weapons to deter potential
adversaries from striking us. The Air Force repairs jets, manages logistics and houses
surveillance aircraft at Warner Robins. And it flies the world's premiere close air support jet and
rescue helicopter that support our men and women on the ground in Afghanistan at Moody Air Force Base
near Valdosta. At Ft. Benning, home of the infantry and elite Army Rangers, the Army trains a wide variety
of soldiers, from recruits to officers, to perform a wide variety of jobs, from jumping out of airplanes at
the Army
Airborne School to driving tanks. At Ft. Gordon near Augusta, home of the Signal Corps,
trains soldiers in sig nals int elligence and provides cutting edge cyber
capabilities . Ft. Stewart is home of the legendary 3rd Infantry Division, which fought in World Wars I
and II, Korea, and Iraq. Hunter Army Airfield, just down the road in Savannah, is home to a battalion of
Army Rangers and Nightstalkers, pilots who fly our special operations forces on the most dangerous
the Marine Corps repairs the majority of its ground combat
missions. And
equipment at the Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany. The last thirteen years of war have highlighted
the importance of our National Guard, Reserve and the civilians who support our war fighters. Dobbins Air
Reserve Base is home to Air Force reservists and civilians, as well as guardsmen and reservists from the
Army, Navy and Marines. Georgia's installations also serve as major economic drivers in communities
across Georgia. The Department of Defense employs more than 140,000 in Georgia, the 5th most of any
state, and our installations have a $20 billioneconomic impact. But Congress' chaos driven
budgeting process and failed leadership has hurt Georgia's bases . Sequestration -- the self-
inflicted, across the board budget cuts triggered when Congress couldn't agree on a budget -- forced
furloughs for Georgia defense workers and created uncertainty that hurt
Georgia's economy. And last year's shutdown led to mandatory furloughs for thousands of employees at
Georgia's military bases and slowed the VA's ability to process benefits. Over the years, Georgia and our
nation have been fortunate to have had bipartisan political leadership in Congress dedicated to our
country's security. As Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, my great uncle, Carl Vinson, was
considered the father of the two-ocean Navy. In the Senate, Richard Russell almost single-handedly guided
defense policy during his 13 years as chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations
Committee. And my dad, Sam, led the Armed Services committee as the Cold War ended and helped to
secure Russia's vast nuclear arsenal during his 24 year tenure in that chamber. Since then, Senators Max
Cleland and Saxby Chambliss also served Georgia honorably as members of this important committee. In
the U.S. Senate, I hope to follow in the footsteps of great Georgia leaders who have fought to keep
Georgia's military bases at the forefront of innovation and make them indispensable for our military. And I'll
work hard with like-minded leaders to bring common-sense budgeting back to our nation's capitol. Keeping
Georgia's Bases Strong Georgia bases play a crucial role in the present defense of
our nation but they need missions for the future in order to retain this preeminence. I will focus on
these missions and work closely with our military leaders and our community leaders to ensure that we
compare favorably in every competitive measurement and that we have the most efficient and effective
workforce and physical facilities that are so important to our Georgia bases and our nation's security. Our
state enjoys significant advantages over other states when it comes to military facilities. The communities
that surround our bases do a great job in sustaining and supporting those bases and their military
neighbors. The great work of our business and community leaders -- as exemplified by organizations like
the 21st Century Partnership -- has helped keep Georgia at the forefront of our national security
infrastructure. Georgia bases host some of our nation's most critical military and
maintenancecapabilities including cutting edge cyber technology, the most important
leg of our nuclear deterrent , and ground combat power. The civilian workforce that supports
our great military at Georgia bases is a well-trained one, borne out of decades of experience maintaining
advanced military equipment at places like Warner Robins and Albany.
Georgias economy underpins its military basesthats

key to overall national securityempirics prove
NGE, 14staff of New Georgia Encyclopedia, citing Todd Womack of the
Wiregrass Historical Society, "World War I in Georgia," New Georgia
Encyclopedia, www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-
archaeology/world-war-i-georgia)//twemchen
Georgia played a significant role during America's participation in
World War I (1917-18). The state was home to more training camps
than any other state and by the war's end had contributed more
than 100,000 men and women to the war effort. Georgia also suffered from the
effects of the influenza pandemic, a tragic maritime disaster, local political fights, and wartime homefront
restrictions. War Sentiment in Georgia As Two soldiers from the Twenty-eighth Division stand guard in 1917
Georgia was an
at Camp Hancock, just outside Augusta. During World War I (1917-18),
important area for military training. Camp Hancock newspaper headlines around the
world reported the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife in Sarajevo, Bosnia, on June
28, 1914, Georgia papers paid very little attention to the news. The assassination provoked an immediate
response from several European countries, however, all of whom were concerned about the growing
political instability and the possible shift in power on the continent. In early August, hardly a month later,
war broke out in Europe after Germany attacked Belgium. U.S. president Woodrow Wilson was determined
to keep the United States out of the conflict. On August 19 he delivered a speech defining America's
stance on the war. "Every man who really loves America," he said, "will act and speak in the true spirit of
neutrality, which is the spirit of impartiality and fairness and friendliness to all concerned.... The United
States must be neutral in fact as well as in name." Nearly a year later, the torpedoing of the transatlantic
liner Lusitania on May 7, 1915, caused little outcry in Georgia, although voices from the North were quick
to call for America's entry into the war. Hoke Smith, a U.S. senator from Georgia, said that war was not
Local
needed to avenge the deaths of a few "rich Americans" who had gone down with the ship.
newspapers in Savannah and Athens also warned the public against
hastily supporting the case for war, which had already hurt the
state's economy. A curtain of Royal Navy ships, forming the British blockade of Europe, prevented
Georgia cotton, tobacco, timber, and naval stores from reaching potentially lucrative German and Austrian
markets. The events of the war also contributed in large part to what is known as the Great Migration,
during which African Americans moved from the South to urban areas in the North. New war-related jobs
suddenly available in northern cities, coupled with the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan and mass lynchings
across the South, spurred this flight. The Great Migration reached its peak between 1915 and 1930, by
which time Georgia had lost more than 10 percent of its black population. The Declaration of War and the
Selective Service Act On April 6, 1917, the United States declared war on Germany, thereby entering World
War I. For about two years, Georgia's newspapers had been writing against the war because of its negative
impact on the state's economy. Yet almost overnight the media changed their tune, becoming anti-German
and strongly patriotic. War fervor in Georgia sometimes raged to the immediate detriment of common
sense. Soon state newspapers were warning readers to be on the "lookout for German spies." Taking a
break from their training exercises, doughboys (infantrymen) at Camp Gordon pick a row of cotton in 1917.
Camp Gordon, located northeast of Atlanta in Chamblee, was a large training camp during World War I.
Camp Gordon The loyalty of some Georgians suddenly became suspect: state labor leaders, teachers,
farmers, and foreign immigrants were scrutinized for their "patriotism." Dirt farmers, especially the ones
who still professed Populist leanings, were pressured into buying war bonds, signing "Declarations of
Loyalty," and draping American flags over their plows while they worked. The state school superintendent
encouraged all students and teachers to take a loyalty oath and to plant and tend what would become
known as "liberty gardens"; teachers stopped covering German history, art, and literature for fear of being
thought disloyal. Loyalty pledges and flag-waving aside, President Wilson soon realized that volunteerism
alone could not sustain an army capable of defeating Germany, so on May 18, 1917, he approved the
Selective Draft Act (popularly known as the Selective Service Act) to remedy the problem. On June 5 all of
Georgia's and the nation's eligible men, of ages twenty-one to thirty, were required to register for the draft.
Many white men in Georgia sought to prevent black men from being drafted. As in the Civil War, when
some planters refused to loan their slaves to the Confederate government for various kinds of war work,
some land-owning whites in 1917 refused to allow their black sharecroppers to register for the draft or to
report for duty once they had been called. Many black men were arrested and placed in camp stockades
for not heeding draft notices that they had never received from landowners. Selective Service officials
blamed Georgia's white planters for many such delinquency issues; for most of the war, local draft boards
"resisted sending healthy and hard-working black males" because they were needed in the cotton fields
and by the naval stores industry. The very idea of conscription was abhorrent to many Georgians, including
U.S. senator Thomas Hardwick, Rebecca Latimer Felton, and Thomas E. Watson. Watson even challenged
the Selective Draft Act in federal court, when he announced his intentions of defending two black men who
were jailed in Augusta for failing to register for the draft. Donations poured in to help support the case. On
August 20, 1917, the trial took place outdoors in order to accommodate the large crowd that came to hear
the old Populist's oratory. In the end the judge upheld the constitutionality of the act, and more than
500,000 men were registered in Georgia. Federal Installations and War Camps The state had The 106th
Field Signal Battalion marches near Camp Wheeler in Macon, circa 1918. During World War I Camp Wheeler
was one of the largest war-training camps in Georgia. 106th Field Signal Battalion five major federal
military installations when the United States entered the war in 1917. The oldest garrison was Fort
McPherson, located south of Atlanta, which opened in 1889; the newest was Fort Oglethorpe, constructed
near the Tennessee border just a few years after the Spanish-American War in 1898. Fort Screven, a large
coastal artillery station on Tybee Island, guarded the entrance to the Savannah River. Augusta housed both
the South's oldest federal arsenal, the Arsenal at Augusta, and the army's second military airfield, Camp
Georgia had many war-training camps as well. The large
Hancock.
national army cantonment at Camp Gordon, The Savannah Volunteer
Guards occupy tents at Fort Screven in 1917, when the United States
entered World War I. Built on Tybee Island from 1885 to 1897, Fort Screven was one
of the state's five major military installations at that time. Fort
Screven which opened in July 1917, was located in Chamblee,
northeast of Atlanta, and was the training site of the famous Eighty-
second All-American Division. The division included men from
several different states, but Georgians made up almost half its
number. National Guard training camps were based in Augusta and
Macon; Augusta's Camp Hancock was home to the Twenty-eighth
Keystone Division, while Camp Wheeler in Macon hosted the Thirty-
first Dixie Division, which was entered by almost all of Georgia's
National Guard. Eventually more than 12,000 Georgians were active
in the Thirty-first. Specialist camps, such as Camp Greenleaf for
military medical staff, Camp Forrest for engineers, and Camp Jesup
for Transport Corps troops, were scattered around the state. At
Souther Field, located northeast of Americus, a flight school trained
almost 2,000 military pilots for combat in the skies over France. The
Otranto Disaster On the morning of September 25, 1918, about 690 doughboys (infantrymen), mostly
Georgians from Fort Screven, boarded the old British liner Otranto, which set sail with a large Allied convoy
bound for England. The Otranto was a medium-sized, prewar passenger liner that, like so many others, had
been pressed into military service by the British Royal Navy. The tragic 1918 sinking of the British Otranto
upset many Georgia communities. Nearly every county in the state lost at least one man when the ship
went down off the coast of Scotland. Otranto As the convoy entered the Irish Sea on October 6, still a day
from port, the storm became worse, with gale-force winds. A tremendous wave struck the Kashmir, a
converted troopship within the convoy, causing it to break ranks and veer hard. It rammed at full steam
into the unsuspecting Otranto and caused severe damage to the liner. With a gaping hole in her side and a
loss of power, the Otranto was helpless against the strong, storm-driven current, and she began to drift
toward the nearby Scottish island of Islay and its rocky coast. The Otranto began to sink slowly before a
huge wave pushed the ship onto Islay's rocks. The ship broke apart and quickly sank. Approximately 370
men were killed, an estimated 130 of whom were Georgians. Influenza In late September 1918, new
draftee replacements for the Fort Screven Coast Artillery units began reporting to the infirmary seriously ill.
Within a few days, it became clear that the men had contracted the dreaded Spanish flu. On October 1 the
number of ill at Augusta's Camp Hancock jumped from 2 to 716 in just a few hours. The next day, Camp
Gordon near Atlanta reported that 138 soldiers had contracted the virus. On October 5 Camp Hancock was
quarantined with 3,000 cases of flu, but the quarantine came too late, as 47 cases had already reached
the nearby city; by evening, more than 50 soldiers were dead, while many more had contracted
pneumonia. Though seriously affected by the Spanish flu epidemic, Georgia escaped the massive numbers
of sick and dying counted in other states along the East Coast. Remembering the War World War I officially
ended on November 11, 1918, known as Armistice Day. Most Americans wanted to remember the war and
the sacrifice of the men who had fought in it. This spirit of remembrance led to Armistice Day being
recognized as a new national holiday. The tragic sinking of the HMS Otranto had stunned many Georgia
communities, perhaps none more than the small town of Nashville. The seat of a sparsely populated and
agricultural Berrien County, Nashville lost twenty residents in the Otranto sinking and another twenty-
seven young men to combat or disease. At the war's end, the citizens of Nashville decided to erect a
monument honoring the community's fallen heroes. Sculptor Ernest M. Viquesney, an Indiana native living
in nearby Americus, designed a statue of A 1920s postcard depicts Ernest M. Viquesney's sculpture, Spirit
of the American Doughboy, which stands in downtown Waycross. Viquesney produced more than 150 of
these statues for towns across Georgia between 1921 and 1943. Spirit of the American Doughboy an
American doughboy in combat. The seven-foot-tall bronze soldier stands in bronze mud amid broken
stumps and tangles of barbed wire. The town of Nashville paid $5,000 for the public sculpture, which was
first unveiled in Americus in November 1921. As word of Viquesney's statue spread, representatives from
other towns visited Americus to see the monument. New orders poured in, and Viquesney went into
business, making the statues he now called the Spirit of the American Doughboy. The sculptor would go on
to produce more than 150 statues between 1921 and 1943 and deliver them to towns all across the nation.
In 1922 two of America's war dead received special recognition and a large memorial site in Arlington
These fallen young men represented
National Cemetery in Arlington, Virginia.
America's Unknown and Known Soldiers, comprising the nation's
unknown or missing dead and all of the known troops killed during
World War I. Congress chose Rome's Charles Graves, who had been killed in combat at the age of
eighteen and buried with full military honors in France, to be America's Known Soldier, and plans were
made to create a monument and coordinate his reburial in Arlington. Graves's mother, however, wanted
him buried at the family cemetery near Rome. Congress honored the mother's wishes and sent the body to
Georgia. The following year, Graves was buried once again, this time in a more prominent memorial at
Rome's Myrtle Hill Cemetery. Later, three World War I machine guns were placed around the site to "guard"
Charles Graves for eternity. The city planted thirty-four magnolia trees around the cemetery to honor each
of Floyd County's lost lives.
Case Solvency
General
2ac General
Decentralization is key
Johnson 4 US House of Representatives from Texas (Bernice Johnson,
I've listened with the opening statements, and I can say from the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport we
have many of the same problems. But I still believe that the airport security screening activities are
inherently a federal responsibility, and I think people feel more secure with TSA screeners than with private
screeners, besides encountering poor customer service. In many cases, I think the federal screeners are
doing a respectful job. We have huge numbers of complaints in DFW about the attitude. It is important that
we keep a standard uniform security program for all airports, but we need to improve the way TSA staff
we need more local control of staffing and
hires and trains its screeners. Specifically,
training at our airports. Currently, the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport is losing 60 screeners per
month. This adds up to 720 screeners that DFW is losing per year. Unfortunately, DFW's TSA federal
security director has only replenished the screener workforce once since he has been at the airport. With
passenger volumes for Fiscal Year 2004 and 2005 projected to result in DFW's second and
fourth highest years ever , it is imperative that we have enough screeners
to process this increase in passengers. This is clearly a problem that can and
should be remedied by decentralizing screener hiring practices. As I've said time
and time again throughout the highway bill reauthorization process, we have to got to devolve
authority to those more directly impacted by the problem . Those closer to the
problem are best able to fix it . Local control would provide better security
and customer service for our nation's airports.
Our studies are better competition solves their

arguments
Hernandez 5 senior associate with the Washington law firm of Pillsbury
Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, former prosecutor for the FAA (David Hernandez,
Sept 2005, A Logical End: Private Screening, Lexis)//twemchen
AB: What makes you say that opt-out is "the next big thing ?" Hernandez: I think they, the
TSA and Congress, are going to realize that the money just isn't there. They have to incentivize
it in some way to get more airports to join. Something has to give, and I think the first thing will
be the liability, something that relieves the airports and security companies from
liability , essentially putting them into a government contractor's position . It has to
because there is so much data there from the pilot program that suggests they can do it
more efficiently. I think a big problem with the TSA now, but they don't want to admit it,
is they've probably doubled their human relations attorneys just dealing
with the HR issues . They didn't expect the huge problems they're having . I
think the private sector is more efficient dealing with those HR issues. AB: I recently heard
some Congressional staffers suggest that by putting an in-line screening system in place at an airport you
pretty much eliminate two screener positions and the system pays for itself within the first year. Have we
gotten to the point that this instant bureaucracy we've created is proving to be an obstacle
to getting this accomplished ? Hernandez: I think the biggest thing, without pointing
fingers, is that when this all came about in 2001, the total cost was grossly
underestimated . Projections were based on pre-9/11 numbers when the airlines were
responsible for screening and were paying dirt wages . AB: In the final analysis, it would seem that
you think private screening is ultimately the direction this thing is headed.
Hernandez: We have to; there are just too many inefficiencies . You may see
gradual changes; perhaps you'll see a quarter of the airports switching over to a
private security model and, once efficiencies are realized there, it will expand. Run it like a
business instead of a bureaucracy. I wouldn't be surprised if you were to see Lockheed Martin and
Covenant just come roaring down and overnight taking it over at airports. That's going to be a huge
revenue-generating stream. Competition, in its pure form, is good .
The TSA sucks contracting is key

Lasky 14 editorial director of security technology @ Security Info Watch
Magazine (Steve Lasky, 1/24/14, Sentiment grows for privatizing airport
screening again!, http://www.securityinfowatch.com/blog/11299735/tsa-
screeners-under-attack)//twemchen
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has to be the most maligned federal
agency in history . Everyone who flies seems to have their own version of TSA
hell , spanning the security line purgatory of incidental groping and rude behavior to theft and intrusive
scanning. I do fly on a regular basis, and I will say that my negative experiences with TSA agents have
been minimal. Except for the metal rods and plates in my surgically repaired left leg, my groping
experiences hardly raise a red flag. However, it is interesting to assess the level of professionalism (or lack
cities
thereof) of TSA staff when doing the security line shuffle in airports across the country. Certain
have earned a well-deserved reputation for shabby performances and
lethargic TSA screeners , while a lesser number receive high praise for
professional conduct. As frustration with TSA screening practices and perceived
security lapses continue to grow not only with the general flying public, but with political
heavyweights in Washington D.C., the cry for the return to private security screeners in our
nations airports is reaching an audible pitch . Certainly no one is saying the job TSA faces
is an easy one. In 2013, the agency screened 638,706,790 passengers, which was almost 1.5 million more
than the previous year. Close to 2,000 firearms were confiscated from carry-on bags at checkpoints across
the country, with 81 percent of those being loaded. My home base Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson
International had the distinction of topping the list in 2013 for most firearms intercepted with 111. The
TSA also suffered its first fatality this past year when TSA officer Gerardo Hernandez was killed in the line
of duty at LAX by a gunman specifically targeting a TSA agent. Yet the pressure mounts for either the
return to privatization or for major overhauls in how the TSA operates. The $1.1 trillion spending bill that
was recently passed by the U.S. Congress has renewed the privatization discussion since new
appropriation measures will prevent the TSA from using federal funds to hire additional screeners if they
exceed the cap of 46,000 employees now on the payroll. When you combine this new budget restraint with
a vocal campaign by several lawmakers to return to private security in our airports, along with a scathing
government aviation study released last November by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that
proposes the elimination of the TSAs flawed SPOT security program -- Screening of Passengers by
Observation Techniques, 2014 could prove to be a contentious year for the agency. The most damning
aspect of the GAOs findings was it called for the elimination of the expensive SPOT program because it
finds no scientifically validated evidence for the $200 million annual expenditure, and that it was
deployed without the TSA conducting any cost-benefit analysis. Since its creation following the events of
the TSA has ballooned into largest DHS employer and has been mired
9/11,
in bad press with its air marshal program, the intrusive full-body scanning
machine debacle and now the SPOT program. Many critics claim the TSA has
underperformed and has been no more effective than the previous system using
the private sector. Now that 16 U.S. airports have been given the green light to return private security
contractors (albeit the majority are smaller airports), the comparison between TSA and the private sector
are increasing. In fact, a report released by the House in 2011 said that San Francisco Internationals
private screeners actually performed better than TSA at LAX. In a recent article written by Chris Edwards,
editor of www.DownsizingGovernment.org at the Cato Institute, and author of the study Privatizing the
Transportation Security Administration, he states that the government has an important oversight role to
TSAs near-monopoly on screening has resulted in it
play in aviation security, but the
getting bogged down in managing its bloated federal workforce , as one
congressional report concluded. Edwards continued that Congress should abolish TSA. Activities that have
Airport screening -- which
not shown substantial benefits -- such as SPOT -- should be eliminated.
represents about two-thirds of TSAs budget -- should be moved to the control of
airports and opened to competitive contracting . And the remaining parts of TSA
should be moved to other federal agencies. Gerry Connelly, a House Democrat from Virginia has been
among the most vocal political critics of the TSA in recent months. During a committee hearing on the
TSA's Screening Partnership Program, Connelly said he didnt appreciate agents "barking orders" at people
in airports, adding the less polite an agent is, the more likely they are to encounter resistance from the
public Connelly went on to say that there was no excuse for someone barking orders continuously at the
public at any airport in America who is an employee of the federal government, or a contractor for the
federal government. Connelly said hed lose his job if I treated the public that way. Rep. John Mica, R-Fla,
who is head of the Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on government operations, said last
week he plans legislation "one way or the other" to privatize all federal screeners within two years. Like
many critics of the agency who want to take the screening process away, Mica is in favor of
leaving TSA in charge of gathering intelligence , setting standards and
running audits . "If you come to Orlando airport or Sanford airport, what is going on is almost
criminal to American citizens, the way they are treated," said Mica. "This is the mess we've created."
Modeling
2ac modeling
Yes, its a statutory requirement
Grover 14 Acting Director at the Department of Homeland Security and
Justice at the Government Accountability Offense, 7/29/14, STATEMENT OF
JENNIFER A. GROVER, ACTING DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND JUSTICE,
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE ,
We found that in addition to using the Scorecard , TSA conducted monthly

contractor performance management reviews (PMR) at each SPP
airport to assess the contractor's performance against the standards set in each
SPP contract. The PMRs included 10 performance measures , including some of the
same measures included in the Scorecard, such as TIP detection rates and
recertification pass rates, for which TSA establishes acceptable
quality levels of performance. Failure to meet the acceptable quality
levels of performance could result in corrective actions or termination of the contract.
However, in December 2012, we found that the Scorecard and PMR did not provide a complete picture of
screener performance at SPP airports because, while both mechanisms provided a snapshot of private
screener performance at each SPP airport, this information was not summarized for the SPP as a whole or
across years, which made it difficult to identify changes in performance. Further, neither the
Scorecard nor the PMR provided information on performance in prior years or controlled for variables that
TSA officials explainedto us were important when comparing private and Federal screener performance,
such as the type of X-ray machine used for TIP detection rates. We concluded that monitoring private
screener performance in comparison with Federal screener performance was consistent

with the statutory requirement that TSA enter into a contract with a private screening
company only if the administrator determines and certifies to Congress that the level of screening services
and protection provided at an airport under a contract will be equal to or greater than the level that would
be provided at the airport by Federal Government personnel.\20\ Therefore, we recommended that TSA
develop a mechanism to regularly monitor private versus Federal screener
performance, which would better position the agency to know whether the level
of screening services and protection provided at SPP airports continues to be equal to or greater than
the level provided at non-SPP airports. TSA concurred with the recommendation, and has taken actions to
address it. Specifically, in January 2013, TSA issued its first SPP Annual Report. The report highlights the
accomplishments of the SPP during fiscal year 2012 and provides an overview and discussion of
private versus Federal screener cost and performance . The report also describes the criteria
TSA used to select certain performance measures and reasons why other measures were not selected for
its comparison of private and Federal screener performance. The report compares the performance of SPP
airports with the average performance of airports in their respective category, as well as the average
performance for all airports, for three performance measures: TIP detection rates, recertification pass
rates, and PACE evaluation results. Further, in September 2013, the TSA assistant administrator for
security operations signed an operations directive that provides internal guidance for preparing the SPP
Annual Report, including the requirement that the SPP PMO must annually verify that the level of screening
services and protection provided at SPP airports is equal to or greater than the level that would be
provided by Federal screeners. We believe that these actions address the intent of
our recommendation and should better position TSA to determine whether
the level of screening services and protection provided at SPP airports continues to be
equal to or greater than the level provided at non-SPP airports. Further, these actions could also assist
TSA in identifying performance changes that could lead to
improvements in the program and inform decision making regarding potential
expansion of the SPP.
Montanas modeled
Kansas City and San Francisco, the two largest airports that use private screeners, were part of that
private--they never
original pilot program. So, really, Montana--meaning that they never switched from
had Federal screeners. So Montana is a little bit of a laboratory in terms of the
transition. So people are watching that , and we are hopeful that, you know, it will be
done effectively to benefit all the parties involved.
Empirics
2ac Empirics
Empirically solves
Let me say also that this is clearly not a proposal to return to pre-September 11 security. No one proposes
No one proposes lowering federal
giving screening responsibilities back to the airlines.
standards one iota . Rather, this is an approach that all federal facilities
across the country employ today where the private sector , under federal
guidelines , provide high-quality security functions with strong federal
oversight . For years, the public/private security model has worked successfully
at nuclear power plants and military bases , and we see that also as an
evolutionary progression in the European model . To further improve the performance
of our national screening system, we must develop and deploy new screening technologies, and we
must reform the current bureaucracy so that we are even more responsive
to local needs and aviation security requirements. I believe the testimony this morning
will confirm that with even greater federal standards and greater federal oversight, we can better utilize
both federal and private security personnel to channel our scarce resources and enhance our post-9/11
aviation security.
2ac Empirics KCI
KCI proves itll work

Kansas City International Airport (KCI) was one of five airports that participated in the
original SPP pilot - a program TSA was required to establish by the Aviation and Transportation
Security Act of 2001. After a positive introduction to the alternative method, the
airport remains with private screeners to this day . According to director of aviation
Mark VanLoh, the program works well at KCI because it addresses the unique
circumstances of its 12 checkpoints in three separate circular terminals. The airport's "drive to
your gate" layout and the fact that some of its airlines run limited schedules while others launch 70 to
80 flights per day necessitate greater flexibility in staffing checkpoints, explains VanLoh.
"With private screeners, we are able to move personnel around within all three
terminals at a moment's notice ," he notes. FirstLine, a certified aviation security company
headquartered in Cleveland, operates KCI's screening program. The airport, which averages 200 flights per
day, appreciates that FirstLine schedules screeners around its morning and evening rushes, and adjusts
staffing on the fly. For example, if Frontier Airlines has a plane departing in one area with 150 people on it,
screeners move to that checkpoint. As soon as those passengers are screened, FirstLine dispatches
employees to the checkpoint facing the next large departure. " During
the day, when there are
not as many flights, they can move people to where the action is," VanLoh says.
"It's really fluid , and that's what we like about it." Similar reports come from San
Francisco International Airport (SFO), which has used private contractors since the TSA
program's inception . Currently, the airport moves 37.4 million passengers annually and uses
Covenant Aviation Security for passenger and baggage screening. Michael McCarron, SFO director of
community affairs, notes that wait times at any of the airport's eight checkpoints average seven to nine
minutes. Covenant's security control center, where dispatchers monitor cameras placed at security
a really
checkpoints, helps the company direct more employees to areas that need them. "It's been
great way to keep screening lines moving and provide outstanding security
to our travelers," says McCarron.
2ac Empirics International
Canada and the EU prove we solve better

The United States stands alone in combining aviation security regulation

and screening operations in the same entity. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Developments (OECDs) International Transport Forum commissioned a study in
2008 that compared and contrasted aviation security in the United States, Canada
and the European Union. The research showed that a conflict of interest similar to the
TSA situation does not exist in Canada or the EU countries. In those countries,
airport screening looks similar to what travelers experience at U.S. airports,
but the way in which this service is provided and regulated is quite different . In all
these cases, the policy and regulatory function is carried out by an agency of the
national government , as in the United States. But actual airport screening is
carried out either by the airport itself, by a government-certified private
security firm or in a few cases by a government police agency. Legally , airport
security in Europe is the responsibility of the airport operator . Whether the
screening is carried out by the airport or by a security company varies from country to
country. Table 1 details the airport screening arrangements in 31 European countries. In Canada, post-9/11
legislation created an aviation security agencythe Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA).
Transport Canada remains responsible for airport security policy and
regulation, while CATSA is responsible for the mechanics of airport security, such
as development of biometric ID cards and implementation of an airport
screening system. But rather than providing the screening function itself, CATSA certifies
private security companies and contracts with them to provide screening services at
the 89 airports where such services are provided. Separation of aviation security regulation from the
provision of security services is called for by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), to which
the United States (along with 188 other countries) is a signatory. This policy is found in ICAO Annex 17,
Standard 3.4.7. Under the Chicago Convention which created ICAO, contracting states are required to
notify [ICAO] of any differences between their national regulations and practices and ICAOs international
standards. The United States has failed to notify ICAO that it does not comply.
2ac Empirics HTIC 2011 study
The best data concludes the private sectors drastically

more productive
Observers such as the GAO have noted how little flexibility private screening contractors have over the
variables involved in providing this service, given the narrow confines of ATSA and TSAs highly centralized
way of implementing SPP contracts.8 Yet the limited available information suggests that even within those
The most
constraints, the private sector is more flexible and delivers more cost-effective screening.
dramatic data come from a study carried out by the staff of the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in 2011.9 They obtained data on
screening at two major airports, LAX with TSA screening and SFO with
contractor screening. Both are major hub airports, as classified by the FAA, and both
are Category X airports, the highest security level in TSAs categorization of airports. The
study found that the company at SFO is dramatically more productive ,
processing an average of 65% more passengers per screener than TSA
screeners at LAX (Table 2).
Well insert this table into the debate
Table 2: SPP Screener Productivity

Comparison
LAX (TSA SFO (Contract
Screening Screening)
)
Annual Passengers 21,484,69 15,098,000
Screened 0
Total FTE 2,200 937
Screeners
Passengers per 9,765 16,113
Screener
Source: House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure, TSA Ignores

More Cost-Effective Screening Model (Washington, D.C.: 2011), Endnote 8
2ac Empirics AT TSA Study/Catapult
Their study sucks they forgot to count overhead costs
and also didnt count the NDF
Neither the outside study that TSA commissioned from Catapult Consultants in 2007
nor TSAs own study that was sharply criticized by the GAO identified these
major productivity differences .10 Both focused mostly on accounting
costs , omitting various overhead costs and extras such as the cost of using
the N ational D eployment F orce. Those essentially inside studies created the
misleading impression that it costs more, rather than less, to contract with
qualified security firms for airport screening.
Secret TSA studies vote aff

USA Today uncovered covert TSA test results that showed significantly
In 2007,
higher screener detection capabilities at SFO than at LAX: investigators
successfully smuggled 75 percent of fake bombs through checkpoints at Los
Angeles International Airport and 20 percent at San Francisco International Airport.35 In December of
2007 Catapult Consultants also issued a report to TSA that found private screeners
performed at a level that was equal to or greater than that of federal TSOs
[Transportation Security Officers].36 Similarly, interviews with private sector screening companies
and airport officials indicate that SPP airports have better screener detection
capabilities and provide greater customer service, responsiveness, and flexibility
at passenger checkpoints (see Appendix 12).
Yes Privatization
2ac EXT Yes Privatization AT It Was Frozen
Congress forcefully unfroze it

Ahlers 12 staff writer at CNN (Mike Ahlers, 2/7/12, Congress kick-starts
program to privatize airport screeners,
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/travel/montana-tsa-screeners/)//twemchen
One year after the TSA administrator brought efforts to privatize airport screening to a
virtual standstill , Congress has kick-started the program, opening the door for
other airports to "opt out" of TSA screening. A provision in the just-passed FAA reauthorization
bill requires TSA chief John Pistole to approve airport requests to privatize their
screeners unless he determines it would harm security . That is likely to open
the doors to further privatization , since Pistole has said private screening and
government screening is "comparable." Currently, 16 airports, the largest being San Francisco International
Airport, have private screeners under the Transportation Security Administration's Screening Partnership
Program. The screeners are overseen by TSA supervisors, use the same X-ray and scanning equipment and
wear similar uniforms. But they work for private companies. One year ago, Pistole announced he was
freezing the program, saying he believed airport screening to be a federal responsibility, and saying
privatization hurt TSA flexibility and added to administrative costs. Pistole said he would approve
additional airports only if there was a "clear and substantial" advantage to the federal government.
Its reopened
Airport Policy and Security News #95
http://reason.org/news/show/1013613.html#f)//twemchen
TSA Resumes Outsourced Screening Program. Late last month TSA issued a
solicitation for approved airport screening companies to bid on four separate contracts to provide
passenger and baggage screening at four Montana airports: Bert Mooney, Bozeman Yellowstone, Glacier
Park, and Yellowstone Regional. This is the first solicitation since TSA was required by Congress in 2012 to
resume taking applications and awarding screening contracts. Whether there will be bidders remains to be
seen; the language in the solicitation says this procurement is a "100 percent small business set-aside."
Not a thing Pistole did it, and hes retired

Poole 2/3 Searle Freedom Trust Transportation Fellow and Director of
Policy and Security News #104 http://reason.org/news/show/airport-policy-
and-security-news-10)//twemchen
Just- retired TSA Administrator John Pistole deserves our thanks for finally
implementing risk-based screening, more than a decade after Congress mandated it in the 2001 legislation
creating TSA. The Aviation & Transportation Security Act of 2001 called for TSA to create "trusted
passenger programs . . . to expedite the screening of passengers who participate in such programs,
thereby allowing security screening personnel to focus on those passengers who should be subjected to
more extensive screening." After the fiasco of "Registered Traveler" under Pistole's predecessorwhich
required participants to be fingerprinted and iris-scanned but did not provide expedited screeningit was
Pistole who pushed hard to implement genuine risk-based screening in the form of PreCheck. As of the end
of 2014, PreCheck has 600 lanes in place at 124 airports, with 802,000 passengers enrolled.
AT Flex Now
2ac AT Flexibility Now Oversight
Tons of oversight now
Ahlers 12 staff writer at CNN (Mike Ahlers, 2/7/12, Congress kick-starts
program to privatize airport screeners,
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/travel/montana-tsa-screeners/)//twemchen
Republicans depicted the current system as inefficient , and said the bloat
extends to the TSA oversight of privatized airports . "There are certain
airports where contractors do screening and TSA is just there to oversee the
screen(ing) process; there are upwards of 50 TSA employees on the payroll,"
said subcommittee chairman Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama. "Having 50-plus TSA officials in a single
airport where they are not responsible for conducting screening is just plain overkill and it's
costing the taxpayer huge amounts of money," he said.
2ac AT Flexibility Now AT Authority
The TSA isnt using its authority
Menendez 4 US House of Representatives from New Jersey (Robert
Menendez, 4/22/4, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE: SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION HOLDS A HEARING ON
AIRPORT SCREENER PRIVATIZATION, Aviation Subcommittee,
Lexis)//twemchen
Also, with reference to reviewing the prepared testimony from the GAO, the IG, and the private screening
companies, it seems that everybody's unhappy with TSA's hiring and training procedures, and that
includes even federal security directors. As someone who represents one of the busiest airports in the
nation, Newark International Airport, I'll tell you -- it's the airport where one of the fatal flights on
September 11 originated, an airport that still -- still -- has not met the 100 percent EDS baggage-screening
requirement and where travelers frequently stand in security lines that exceed 45 minutes -- I share these
concerns. You know, if I didn't know better -- and, Admiral, I understand you've only been on the job a few
the TSA is complicit in trying to ensure that we don't
months -- I'd almost think
succeed so we can go to private security screening because the reality is that,
notwithstanding all the management tools we have given to TSA -- the flexibility,
the part-time ability, the configurations that would maximum abilities -- I see it at Newark, and I see that
virtually no ne of those management flexibilities are in use . It's clearly a
failure in terms of using the abilities that the Congress has given to the TSA to meet its
obligation. We are now at nearly pre-September 11 and headed in the right direction for the purposes of
the industry and the traveling public. We're heading in the right direction in terms of the numbers of
passengers that are traveling this country. That's good news, good news for the industry, good news for
the economy. It sends a confidence in being able to fly again, but we are going to choke that success and
that confidence by the inability of TSA to meet the demand. So I certainly hope that we as part of this look
at -- and I hope the committee looks at -- more intensively how we focus on improving these procedures at
all airports, how we look at getting TSA to be responsive and use the management tools that Congress has
given it as a starter. I understand the cap issue as well, but, when you don't even use the management
tools you have to meet part of your challenge, the cap in and of itself is not a question. Finally, the
BearingPoint study found little cost or security benefit in having the private security
companies do this specifically, and, if that is the case and if we are looking for all these flexibilities,
flexibilities that we are either not giving to TSA or flexibilities that TSA has
and is not using, then we have a real problem on our hands. So I look, Admiral, for some responses
to these questions generically, and I'm looking forward to engaging with you specifically at Newark
because we cannot continue on the path that we're on. We're going to stifle the progress that we're going
to make. That has an economic effect in the country, for our region and in the country, and God knows we
need a more vibrant economy. So it's all interrelated with the security issue, and we look forward to your
responses.
2ac AT Flexibility Now AT Analysis now
The analysis hasnt spurred action
TSA has taken actions to identify unnecessary redundancies in the duties of
administrative staff assigned to SPP and non-SPP airports, but the agency has not
completed these efforts. According to identified effective practices,1 strategic workforce
planning requires, among other things, that agencies develop strategies that are tailored to address gaps
in the number, deployment, and alignment of human capital approaches for enabling and sustaining the
contributions of all critical skills and competencies. TSA is conducting a workforce analysis that is
intended to identify any redundancies.
TSA has collected and analyzed information,
such as data on core functions, staffing levels, hub-spoke responsibilities, skill
sets, and collateral duties. However, steps that have not yet been completed
include implementing revised job analysis tools to provide federal security directors (FSD)2 with
greater flexibility in staffing, and implementing organizational models to ensure that there is consistency in
reporting relationships and utilization of positions. TSA officials said that the agency will be continuously
updating its analysis. TSA and SPP contractors at the airports we visited had mixed views about whether
unnecessary redundancies at SPP airports exist.
AT Airports Say No
2ac AT Airports Say No
Their evs about the SPP which means it doesnt matter
16 airports already have private screening the decision
to give them flexibility is unilateral
Say yes laundry list

Various factors have contributed to airports decisions about whether to
participate in the SPP. Managers at two of the SPP airports we visited stated that
TSA had strongly suggested that they apply to the SPP because of constraints on the
number of TSOs that TSA had at that time. Another airport manager said that he applied to
participate in the SPP so that he could gain screeners at another airport , which he
also managed. He was reportedly told by TSA that the other airport would not be
staffed with additional TSA screeners due to TSA resource constraints, so he
applied to participate in the SPP at both airports. Another airport manager stated that
he decided to participate in the SPP because he believed that private
screeners would provide better customer service. Managers at the remaining two
airports we visited stated that they had decided to continue using private screeners because of
their satisfactory experience with participating in TSAs 2-year pilot program
that preceded the SPP.
We solve they have no warrants

In March 2007, the Airports Council International-North America (ACI-NA) reported on the results of a
survey it conducted to determine how to make the SPP more attractive to airports.1 The survey was sent
to ACI-NA airport official representatives and Public Safety and Security Committee airport members. ACI-
NA received a total of 31 survey responses.2 Twenty-two, or 71 percent, of the respondents said they
were not interested in participating in the SPP. The most frequent reasons given
for this lack of interest included the airport was satisfied with TSA screening services, screening is a
federal government responsibility, and the SPP does not allow airports to have
managerial control . The survey respondents reported that liability and contract control and
oversight were also important issues with respect to SPP participation. The most frequently cited
advantages of the SPP were staffing flexibility and customer service.
2ac AT Airports Say No AT Liability
This just isnt a thing
Liability concerns prevent many airports from using contract screeners. "Airport
operations are concerned if something happens and someone got through with a device, they would be
sued into non-existence, but that's simply not true ," says VanLoh. Because TSA
contracts with the screening companies, provides oversight for their programs and places FSDs in the
airport to monitor their effectiveness, the TSA is "of the opinion that airport operators ...
should not face liability for screening services , whether they are provided by TSA
employees or companies under contract to TSA." TSA further clarifies this in Section 44920
of Title 49, United States Code, which states, "an operator of an airport shall
not be liable for any claims for damages filed in state or federal court (including a claim for
compensatory, punitive, contributory or indemnity damages )," whether the screeners are
federal or private. According to McCarron, airport operators owe it to themselves to investigate the
program. "If they think it might address their needs, they should explore it and see if it's a good fit," he
says. "We saw this as a good opportunity to have the private sector develop some creative hiring practices
and attract good candidates. And as far as we're concerned, the move has been very, very successful."
Our ev cites the US Code

49 U.S.C. 44920(g) provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of law,
However,
an operator of an airport shall not be liable for any claims for damages
relating to an airport operators decision to submit or not submit an application to opt
out of federal screening, or any acts of negligence, gross negligence, or
intentional wrongdoing by a qualified private screening company or any of its
employees while performing its duties under contract with TSA or by employees of
the federal government providing passenger and property security screening services at an airport
Government contractor defense solves

The liability and indemnification is an important question because no one wants to
take on this responsibility if they are liable. I had a list of -- everything TSA does is now
contracted to the private sector, isn't that true, almost everything? STONE: Well, we are... MICA: We now
have -- the recruitment is done by NCS Pearson. Assessment and hiring of all screeners, private and
federal, is done by NCS Pearson, a private contractor. The recruitment assessment, the hiring of personnel
is done by Cooperative Personnel Services, a private contractor. The pre-employment physical testing is
done by a private contractor. Boeing-Siemens does training for baggage screeners. Boeing-Siemens does
studies of passenger improvement. Are they indemnified, these folks, now? STONE: I'd have to find out for
each individual one and provide that back to you. MICA: OK. But, again, no one's going to take on this
responsibility. You do have a current indemnification for these five pilot projects in some way, don't you?
Could you describe that? STONE: We're currently working with DHS to provide coverage to the private
screening contractors under the Safety Act, an act that was part of the Homeland Security Act.
Consideration is being given to amending that Security Act regulation to designate and certify TSA's
current standard operating procedures that are followed by TSA screeners and contractors
at the privatized airports as an approved anti-terrorism technology. Doing so would
provide the contractor with the judicially created affirmative defense known
as the government contractor defense . That defense protects the
contractor from third-party liability tort suits. That's our intent, is to review that as part
of the...
AT Plan Bands Modeling
2ac AT Plan Bands Modeling Too
The TSAs required to do independent performance
comparisons
in the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated
Getting back to performance and cost comparisons,
Appropriations Act, TSA is directed to fund an independent
performance comparison that shall include security effectiveness, cost ,
throughput , wait times , management efficiencies , customer
satisfaction , and other elements. NASCO relishes such an independent study
and, if accurate and comprehensive comparisons of the costs of all screeners to the Federal Government
between Federal and private is conducted, NASCO believes private screeners would fare
very, very well. NASCO would also like to see comparisons of attrition, absenteeism, and injury
rates, which are huge cost-drivers and affect performance. The GAO has sought this, too. As GAO noted in
its 2013 report on TSA screener misconduct, of the 9,600 cases of misconduct from 2010 through 2012,
the No. 1 category accounting for 32 percent of the cases was attendance and leave-related misconduct.
AT Circumvention
2ac AT Circumvention
Durable fiat solves rollback makes it impossible to be aff
the plan bans relevant surveillance which makes
circumvention impossible
Their ev is about TSA circumventing the SPP but

Congress empirically enforces that
Lexis)//twemchen
The expansion of private screening is a threat to TSA bureaucracy. So it is not

surprising that TSA has a history of intimidating airport operators that express an
interest in participating in the SPP program.113 In 2011, TSA rejected applications from six
airports to join the SPP program, and it appeared that the agency wanted to wind down the program
In response, Congress
altogether. But that TSA stance flew in the face of congressional intent.
rebuked the agency and pushed through legislation in 2012 that
strengthened the rights of airports wanting to use private screeners.114
Other airports are now submitting applications to TSA for SPP status.
Theres no impact to long-term SPP circumvention

innovation can still occur in the interim
Empirically, the TSA wont do it

Moreover, documentation obtained by Committee staff reveals that in late 2010 and early 2011,senior
officials at TSA considered disregarding the statutory requirement for the SPP
entirely by abolishing the program and federalizing the existing 16 SPP airports. 22 The agency
instead chose to avoid public backlash by continuing the program at
existing SPP airports but refusing any future applications.
2ac AT Circumvention AT CTI Report
The conclusion of their ev says they wont ban the
program our ev cites more recent TSA documentation
Moreover, documentation obtained by Committee staff reveals that in late 2010 and early 2011,senior
officials at TSA considered disregarding the statutory requirement for the SPP
entirely by abolishing the program and federalizing the existing 16 SPP airports. 22 The agency
instead chose to avoid public backlash by continuing the program at
existing SPP airports but refusing any future applications.
Curtailment will face stiff resistance

An internal TSA power point presentation, dated January 5, 2011, outlined the following
three options for SPP: 1. Award new contracts to the existing SPP airports and
accept the requests of the five airports that had pending applications; 2.
Award new contracts to the existing SPP airport and deny pending
applications on the basis of keeping the program small for test purposes only;
or 3. Award new contracts to SPP airports for one year and resume
federalization efforts. 83 TSA officials recognized that any effort to end or
limit the SPP program based on cost will face stiff resistance .84
Contract modifications solve their concerns

TSA officials identified five potential operational justifications to limit the scope of
the SPP program to the current airports: Administrative burden disproportionate amount of
resources are spent on SPP airports; Intelligence TSA can tailor and provide direct information to
Federal employees; Direct control another layer is involved when FSDs order direction action
Flexibility and use of resources TSA can use its own resources for emergency events, but
cannot utilize SPP; and Impact on workforce TSOs at potential SPP airports face uncertainty
about their job status, benefits, leave, and salary. 87 Committee staff discussed each of these justifications
SPP officials
with SPP Program Office officials on March 22, 2011, during an in-person meeting.
informed staff that TSA is currently amending SPP contracts (not including
potential impacts on the TSO workforce), and that these modifications will eliminate any
existing challenges related to the above factors .88
Add Ons
Cyber
2ac cyberattack
Irans looking to cyber-attack US airports the
capabilities exist attacks kill millions
Gilbert 14 tech editor at International Business Times UK (David Gilbert,
12/3/14, Operation Cleaver: Iran's state-sponsored hackers infiltrate airport
and airline security, http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/operation-cleaver-irans-state-
sponsored-hackers-infiltrate-airport-airline-security-1477881)//twemchen
A group of hackers based in Iran called Tarh Andishan, backed by the Iranian
government, are carrying out a co-ordinated and sophisticated campaign of
cyber-attacks against critical infrastructure organisations around the
world, which could be putting the lives of millions of airline passengers
in danger. The on-going campaign has been dubbed Operation Cleaver and has been active
since 2012. In that time, the Iranian hackers have compromised the systems of over
50 companies and organisations in sectors as varied as energy, military intelligence, aerospace,
hospitals, and even universities. However, it is the group's infiltration of commercial
airlines and airports which could prove the most worrying aspect of
Operation Cleaver. Cylance, the security company which has been tracking the hackers, says in its 56-page
report into the hacking campaign that "there is a possibility that this campaign could affect
airline passenger safety ". Security systems at airports in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and South
Korea have all been compromised along with airlines in the US, United Arab Emirates, South Korea,
Pakistan and Qatar. The group has also compromised the systems of companies in the aerospace industry
the "most bone-chilling
in Israel and China. "Bone-chilling evidence" Cylance says
evidence" was the targeting and compromise of
it collected in this campaign
transportation networks and systems such as airlines and airports. Operation Cleaver - Iran's
state-sponsored hackers threaten airline passengers Operation Cleaver is an on-going persistent attack by
Iranian state-sponsored hackers which has infiltrated more than 50 global critical infrastructure companies
hackers have gained " complete access " to
in the last two years.(Cylance) The
airport security gates and their control systems, "potentially allowing them to
spoof gate credentials " which will be of a huge worry to passengers and authorities alike.
Iranian state-sponsored hackers Iran has been the victim of major cyber-attacks in recent years, most
famously with Stuxnet in 2009 which targeted a nuclear enrichment plant in Natantz. Following the
discovery of Stuxnet (as well as Duqu and Flame) the Iranian government established a state-sponsored
hacking group to carry out retaliation attacks. The first major result of this was the Shamoon campaign
which affected 30,000 computers at the Saudi Aramco and RasGas with huge financial implications. This
was followed by attacks on the US banking industry in 2012 (Operation Ababil) and against US officials in
2014 (Operation Newscaster). "We witnessed a shocking amount of access into the
deepest parts of these companies and the airports in which they operate," the
report states. The hackers were able to gain almost unfettered access to the
systems of the companies with Active Directory domains fully compromised, along with switches, routers,
and the internal networking infrastructure. In parallel, the hackers have been targeting airlines, and
according to the report, have breached both cyber and physical assets at major airline operators, including
at least one large US airline. "The end goal is not known" While Cylance has been monitoring the hacker
group for two years, it is still in the dark about much of its operations and goals, and that is why it has
decided to publish what it knows now: "We believe our visibility into this campaign represents only a
fraction of Operation Cleaver's full scope. We believe that if the operation is left to continue unabated, it is
only a matter of time before the world's physical safety is impacted by it." "We are exposing this cyber-
campaign early in an attempt to minimise additional real-world impact and prevent further victimisation."
The report concludes worryingly: "The end goal of this operation is not
known at this time." Iran has labelled the report "baseless and unfounded" believing it to be an
attempt to tarnish the government and hamper the on-going nuclear talks. Cylance CEO Stuart McClure
however claims his company's report "refrained from exaggeration and embellishment" limiting itself to
report "only that which can be definitively confirmed".
Security PPPs solve they allow data sharing which solves

vulnerabilities
Corrin 14 Federal Times (Amber Corrin, 4/25/14, Government, industry
target air traffic cyber attacks,
http://archive.federaltimes.com/article/20140425/CYBER/304250012/Govern
ment-industry-target-air-traffic-cyber-attacks)//twemchen
The program is being led by the Transportation Security Administration in conjunction with the office of the
Director of National Intelligence and the National Counterterrorism Center. It will include the construction
of an information-sharing and analysis center at a TSA facility near Ft. Meade, Md., where the
National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command are headquartered. Cyber-threat information-sharing
initiatives have seen at least some success in recent years, including the defense industrial
base (DIB) program that shares threat indicators and related data between major defense
contractors and the Defense Department. The Homeland Security Department also has launched
efforts to share cyber threat information between government and commercial entities in order to better
protect critical infrastructure. Warnings of cyber threats to the U.S. air traffic control system are
not new. It was a point President Barack Obama made in a national cybersecurity address in 2009.
Computer problems that hampered Federal Aviation Administration operations that
same year raised serious questions about cyber vulnerabilities. Making

matters worse, the antiquated air traffic control network is not set for replacement until the Next
Generation Air Transportation System is completed in 2025. In a December 2013 report outlining top
challenges for 2014, the Transportation Departments Office of the Inspector General criticized DOT for
endangering transportation technology infrastructure by failing to update IT systems as federally required.
Last year, we reported that the department improved its information security program by enhancing its
cyber security policy and guidance and establishing a repository for software security baselines, the DOT
inspector general wrote. However, DOTs information systems still remained vulnerable to significant
security threats and risks because the program did not meet key Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
and Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) requirements to protect agency information and
systems.
DHS Risk Analysis
2ac dhs risk analysis long
We solve TSA risk analysis
Security: Time for a New Model, http://reason.org/news/show/airport-
security)//twemchen
basic flaws in the current model. First, the law presumes that
There are three
all air travelers are equally likely to be a threat , and mandates equal
attention (and spending) on eachwhich is very wasteful of scarce security
resources. Second, the TSA operates in a highly centralized manner, which is poorly
matched to the wide variation in sizes and types of passenger
airports. And third, the law puts the TSA in the conflicting position of being both the airport security
policymaker/regulator and the provider of some (but not all) airport security services. DHS Secretary
Michael Chertoff and TSA Administrator Edmund Kip Hawley have called for re-orienting security policies
along risk-based lines. At the same time, the Government Accountability Office has found that todays very
costly airport screening is little better than what existed prior to federalization of this functionand that
the performance-contracting approach implemented on a pilot-program basis at five airports appears to
have worked slightly better than the TSA-provided screening. Both factors set the stage for fundamental
reform. This report calls for three such reforms, to address the three fundamental flaws in the current
approach. First, to remove the inherent conflict of interest, the TSA should be phased out of performing
airport screening services. Instead, its role should become purely policymaking and regulatory (and better
balanced among all transportation modes). Second, the screening functions should be devolved to each
screening and other airport security
individual airport, under TSA oversight. And third,
functions should be redesigned along risk-based lines , to better target
resources on dangerous people rather than dangerous objects .

Devolving screening responsibilities to airports would mean that each
airport could decide to meet the requirements either with its own workforce or by hiring a
TSA-approved screening contractor. This model has been used successfully in Europe
and Israel since the 1980s and has worked very well. Funding would be re-allocated to airports on a
monthly (or at least quarterly) basis, rather than annually as at present. This would permit a much better
match of screener numbers to actual passenger throughput, in the rapidly changing airline environment.
And with the funding managed at the airport level, airport managers would have strong incentives to
finance the upgrading of baggage-screening systems to make them less labor-intensive. At most larger
airports, this would mean replacing lobby-based EDS machines with automated, in-line EDS systems. At
smaller airports, it would replace labor-intensive ETD installations with EDS machines transferred from
larger airports. These changes alone would save over $700 million per year in screener staffing costs
nationwide. A risk-based model would separate passengers into three
groups: low-risk, high-risk, and ordinary. Low-risk travelers would be those who qualify for
Registered Traveler status. They would get expedited checkpoint processing and
their bags could usually bypass EDS screening. This change would cut future EDS acquisition costs by $1 to
$2 billion, and would yield another $200 million annual savings in baggage screener costs. High-risk
travelers would receive mandatory body scans and explosive-detection inspection of both checked and
These changes would free up resources to use for
carry-on baggage.
increased security in lobby areas and on the tarmac, as well as improved control of access by
non-passengers to secure areas. Overall, this set of risk-based changes would put much greater emphasis
on guarding against the threat of explosives (as opposed to just weapons) getting onto planes, as well as
by putting all airport
the threat of suicide bombers in terminals and on planes. In addition,
security functions under the control of the airport (instead of dividing them
between airport and the TSA, as today), and putting all these functions under
armslength TSA regulation, overall airport security would be more
integrated and more effective , and the whole program would be more
accountable . And freeing up nearly $1 billion a year from screening would provide the resources for
reconfiguring passenger checkpoints and beefing up the other aspects of airport
security.
Spills over to broader risk assessment within the DHS

Loehr et al 93 (Dr. Raymond C. Loehr, Chair, Science Advisory Board; Dr.
Kenneth L. Dickson, Chair, Ecological Processes and Effects Committee; and
Dr. Alan W. Maki, Chair, Ecorisk Subcommittee; Commentary on the
Ecological Risk Assessment for the Proposed RIA for the RCRA Corrective
Action Rule, 11-19-1993, http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe?
Client=EPA&Index=1991+Thru+1994&Docs=&Query=%28model
%29+OR+FNAME%3D%22P100JOWW.txt%22+AND+FNAME%3D
%22P100JOWW.txt
%22&FuzzyDegree=0&ZyAction=ZyActionD&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=
anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-
&MaximumDocuments=1&ImageQuality=r75g8%2Fr75g8%2Fx150y150g16%
2Fi425&Display=p
%7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&Toc=&TocEntry
=&TocRestrict=n&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQFi
eld=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&SearchBack=ZyActionL&
Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results+page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=&S
eekPage=x&ZyActionID=&File=D%3A%5C%5CZYFILES%5C%5CINDEX+DATA
%5C%5C91THRU94%5C%5CTXT%5C%5C00000030%5C
%5CP100JOWW.txt&Doc=%3Cdocument+name%3D%22P100JOWW.txt
%22+path%3D%22D%3A%5CZYFILES%5CINDEX+DATA
%5C91THRU94%5CTXT%5C00000030%5C%22+index%3D
%221991+Thru+1994%22%2F%3E&QueryTerms=)
In conclusion, we support the inclusion of an ecological risk assessment in the RCRA Corrective Action RIA. However, we
are concerned that the current draft does not incorporate the approach contained in the Ecorisk Framework, and the
assessment of ecological risks is incomplete. We recognize that resource limitations may preclude a complete ecological
the approach taken may serve as a model for
risk assessment in this document, yet
other risk assessments and RIAs. Consequently, we recommend that the RIA be modified to: a) more
explicitly follow the Ecorisk Framework; b) discuss which ecorisk factors were considered in the RIA and why; c) discuss
discuss uncertainties associated with
which ecorisk factors were not considered and why; and, d)
insufficient knowledge, inadequate data , natural variability, etc.
Extinction
Roberts 8 (Patrick S. Roberts, Fellow with the Program on Constitutional
Government at Harvard University, Assistant Professor with the Center for
Public Administration and Policy in the School for Public and International
Affairs at Virginia Tech, Ph.D. in government from the University of Virginia
and former postdoctoral fellow at the Center for International Security and
Cooperation at Stanford University, Catastrophe: Risk and Response,
Homeland Security Affairs, 4(1), Jan 2008,
http://www.hsaj.org/pages/volume4/issue1/pdfs/4.1.5.pdf)
In Catastrophe: Risk and Response, Richard Posner makes the case that the risk of global catastrophe is higher
than most people think, and he analyzes the reasons why the U.S. under-prepares for
natural, technological, and terrorist catastrophe. Attempts to
mitigate the risk of catastrophe will incur heavy costs, whether
economic (as in proposals to reduce the effects of climate change) or civic (as in policing reforms that infringe on civil liberties). How might the
U.S. and the world weigh the extraordinary costs and uncertain future benefits of avoiding catastrophe? Posner advocates economic tools,
especially cost-benefit analysis , as a guide in determining which

catastrophes are worth protecting against and which are so unlikely
to happen or so trivial that they are not worth the cost of defense .
Catastrophe is a central work in the burgeoning literature on how to deal with rare but high-consequence events. Long the domain of engineers, statisticians, and the
reinsurance industry, the unique properties of rare, high-impact events drew attention after the attacks of September 11 and Hurricane Katrina. Nassim Talebs recent
traditional
bestseller, The Black Swan, documents the unpredictable nature of rare, high-consequence events. 1 He shows how
Gaussian statistics use past events to predict future ones

according to the properties of the bell curve. With rare events,
however, we do not know the underlying properties that define the
curve. Mapping these non-linear relationships proves difficult.
Recent work in behavioral economics shows that people have trouble
calculating risks. They often wildly over- or under-estimate numbers,
but rarely provide a large enough margin of error. 2 When social scientists bother to check the
predictions of experts, of when and where international political events such as revolutions and wars are to take place, the experts fare little better than chance. 3 Most
historically important events are impossible to predict with confidence. We know that disasters will occur, just
not precisely when . Scholars from a variety of disciplines have
documented the myriad reasons people fail to take steps to reduce
the damage caused by inevitable disasters. Sociologists focus on macro-level trends such as urbanization
that lead to high concentrations of people and resources attractive to terrorists and vulnerable to accident and disaster. 4 Another line of inquiry examines the components
of social vulnerability in race, class, and gender. 5 Disasters affect different social groups in different ways, and identifying patterns of how particular groups respond to
disasters can help mitigate consequences. The elderly, for example, may lack social networks to help them evacuate. Political scientists, as a rule, analyze the political
incentives behind intervention in disaster policy. The system of presidential disaster declarations suits the federal nature of U.S. government by providing a role for
governors in the request process, but it also provides few incentives for presidents to limit disaster spending. 6 Other studies examine how entrepreneurial bureaucracies
such as FEMA attempt to find a mission and build capacities to meet that mission, sometimes running into conflict with the short-term goals of politicians. 7 Posners work,
however, descends from the macro level of social and institutional theory to the individual, drawing on the literature of economics to understand how individuals think
about the risk of rare events. Catastrophe locates the source of disaster risk in individual behavior such as living in floodplains, not purchasing insurance, or not taking the
to synthesize the literature in

possibility of technological accidents seriously. Posners contribution is
economics and cognitive psychology to explain the obstacles to

efficient risk calculation imposed by the human mind . Most people
have difficulty thinking about abstract probabilities as opposed to
events they have observed. Human mental capacity is limited, and
startling events such as the attacks of September 11 trigger our
attention. But evaluating risk requires paying attention to what we
do not see . There has been surprisingly little attention in the popular media given to pandemic flu, even though influenza killed approximately twenty
People from all
million people in 1918-1919. The disease has no cure, and vaccines are difficult to produce because of the mutability of the virus.
walks of life pay greater attention to issues in recent memory and

tend to give greater weight to confirmatory evidence; the
cumulative effect is to under-prepare for catastrophe . Many Threats Posner makes a
persuasive case that the risk of global catastrophe is growing . Some critics emphasize the increase in the
perception of risk in industrialized Western nations, but Posner explains why objective risk is on the rise .8 New
technologies such as nuclear power and high-energy physics are

potentially more destructive than technologies of the industrial era. Urbanization
concentrates targets and terrorist groups have more destructive
weapons and a greater global reach than ever before. To some degree, these
risks compound. Terrorists can mimic natural disasters by, for example, destroying dams to cause flooding. Global warming contributes to the loss
of biodiversity. The likelihood of these risks is so slight that people have trouble taking them seriously, unless one of them has been realized in recent memory. Americans
worry about terrorist attacks, and the U.S. government devotes millions to preventing and protecting against terrorism, even thought the risk is quite small. While some
critics have argued that the risk of terrorism has been vastly overstated, Posner acknowledges that the threat is serious. He, however, wants to put it in perspective by
For example, he worries that

comparing terrorism to a host of other risks. Some of his suggestions seem to come from a science fiction movie.
high energy physics experiments could trigger a strangelet

scenario in which a chain reaction condenses the earth into a tiny
ball. The books wide range of scenarios, from global terrorism to global
warming and asteroid collision, suggest what a truly all hazards
approach might mean. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attempts to reconcile
preparation for natural disasters and terrorist attacks in all
hazards plans, but these represent only a narrow range of
catastrophic threats, or dangers, that could lead to massive loss of life and property in a concentrated period of time. One
possibility for the future, undeveloped in this book, is for DHS to morph into a department of
risk assessment in which it analyzes a range of threats and devotes
resources to reducing vulnerabilities. While Posner usefully identifies risks that threaten the American way of life, he
neglects some disasters that are costly, because of their frequency, but are not catastrophic. Floods cause billions in damage each year, and the total cost over time could
reach that of a catastrophic disaster, depending on the threshold.9 A department of risk assessment might address frequent small but cumulatively costly disasters as well
focus on catastrophic disasters highlights their

as rare but catastrophic ones. Posners
global nature. A strangelet scenario, asteroid collision , or global

warming would harm, and perhaps extinguish, the entire planet .
Remedies for catastrophic disasters require global coordination because one countrys vulnerability increases the vulnerability of every other country . The global war on
terror adopts some of this logic, and homeland security experts advocate globalizing security by locating port facilities abroad and increasing cooperation in screening for
dangerous materials overseas.10 Though he is often associated with limitedgovernment libertarians politically, Posners analytic law and economics approach here leads to
the proposal for a new bureaucracy, an international version of the Environmental Protection Agency. One nations actions affect the rest of the planet, he argues, and just
as a national agency regulates environmental protection among states, an international agency could provide information and regulate standards to reduce the cost of
global warming or loss of species among nations. COSTS AND BENEFITS IN AN UNCERTAIN WORLD Recognizing the most
serious risks is one problem, but figuring out what to do about them
is another . Airport baggage screeners and law enforcement fusion centers may interdict terrorist attempts, but at a cost. How much is enough? Global
warming provides a hard case for determining how much to spend on prevention and mitigation because the threat is highly uncertain. Posners analysis begins with a
sober recognition of the problem. No species has so stressed the environment as modern human beings are doing, and at an accelerating pace as China, India, Brazil, and
other large, poor countries modernize rapidly, he writes. The human impact on the climactic equilibrium is inherently unpredictable. (p. 50) Scientific experts who
publish in peer-reviewed journals have reached a near-consensus that the climate is growing hotter, which exacerbates other threats such as loss of species and political
instability. Posner favors a conservative approach that reduces the human impact on the environment, but cautions that the costs of intervention should not outweigh the
benefits. In other words, it may be easier to accept the inevitability of climate change but slow its effects by taxing emissions to reduce pollution and funding new
agricultural programs for countries in which climate change disrupts the food supply. Whether it is better to address the causes of global warming or the effects, Siberia will
not become the breadbasket for the world without a high cost. Cost-benefit analysis provides more
accurate predictions of doomsday scenarios than science fiction,
and it can provide helpful guidelines for decisionmaking because, as Posner shows,
human intuition does not produce optimal results . But in his zeal for applying cost-benefit
analysis, Posner understates the uncertainty found in the world. We know that catastrophic bioterrorism and global warming pose threats, but we do not know their
likelihood. We can calculate the consequences of, for example, a nuclear explosion but we cannot fully calculate risk because we do not know the underlying probabilities
of a terrorist attack. We cannot even predict where and when an earthquake will strike, or how many will strike the U.S. in a single year and of what magnitude. The earths
physical processes remain mysterious and contingent, and predicting the behavior of human-caused disasters is even more challenging. The Department of Homeland
Security confronts uncertainty in attempting to adopt a risk-based strategy trumped by department leaders.11 The basic DHS strategy document released in spring
2005, the National Preparedness Guidance, is based on fifteen scenarios, including a major hurricane and a dirty bomb attack.12 These represent worst-cases rather
than a pure risk-based strategy because there is no way to calculate the probabilities of each of these scenarios with accuracy. We simply do not know the likelihood of a
bioterrorism attack in the next year. Estimating complex processes such as global warming, loss of species, and the strangelet scenario that are affected by the
development of new technology is even more complicated. Scientific progress could either mitigate risk by creating clean energy or exacerbate risk by producing new
technology with catastrophic possibilities. The best theories of invention portray it as a semi-random process similar to natural selection.13 There is simply no way to
predict the future impact of technology on the risk of a particular disaster with certainty. Faced with uncertainty, Posner recommends a conservative approach. He
proposes a regulatory body to screen scientists, especially foreign ones, and to review potentially dangerous technologies. He also recommends more science education so
that citizens will have the acumen and the interest to question whether research and development is worth the cost, rather than allowing the scientific establishment to
proceed on its own. With Catastrophe, Posner brings his often witty, sometimes counterintuitive economic rationality to bear on thinking about high consequence rare
events and the costs of humans unprecedented impact on the natural environment. Posner is the author of more than twenty books and, according to one list, the
seventieth most frequently cited public intellectual. (Granted, he compiled the list). As with rare events, what readers do not get in Catastrophe may be as important as
what they are offered. The book shows what it might mean to think about allocating resources among a wide variety of catastrophic risks, a truly all hazards approach, but
it neglects the institutional politics that have bedeviled homeland security. DHS has struggled to define what it should protect, whether government sites, private buildings,
or networks that perform essential functions such as power generation and transportation. In addition, the department lacks a single approach to what it should protect
against, and the question of what homeland security really is remains open. FEMA prepares for natural disasters (though most capacities rest with state and localities)
If
while the Secret Service, for example, worries about crime and terrorist acts. A host of other potential catastrophes are outside the mission of DHS.
homeland security is to last as a concept, it will have to include more

than preparation for the last terrorist attack. Posners approach to cost-benefit
analysis provides a starting point for thinking about how to allocate
resources among threats, a task that does not come easily (or naturally, if we
accept Posners premises borrowed from evolutionary biology). To go further, DHS will have to
institutionalize risk assessment and provide clear guidance to
states , localities, private industry , and even politicians about what
risks are worth preparing for and how . Cost-benefit analysis is not a
self-enforcing process. Instead, it is a tool that can help discipline
the unavoidably messy process of deciding which risks to prepare
for.
2ac dhs risk analysis medium
We solve TSA risk assessment that was Hawley spills

over to broader risk assessment within the DHS
Loehr et al 93 (Dr. Raymond C. Loehr, Chair, Science Advisory Board; Dr.
Kenneth L. Dickson, Chair, Ecological Processes and Effects Committee; and
Dr. Alan W. Maki, Chair, Ecorisk Subcommittee; Commentary on the
Ecological Risk Assessment for the Proposed RIA for the RCRA Corrective
Action Rule, 11-19-1993, http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe?
Client=EPA&Index=1991+Thru+1994&Docs=&Query=%28model
%29+OR+FNAME%3D%22P100JOWW.txt%22+AND+FNAME%3D
%22P100JOWW.txt
%22&FuzzyDegree=0&ZyAction=ZyActionD&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=
anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-
&MaximumDocuments=1&ImageQuality=r75g8%2Fr75g8%2Fx150y150g16%
2Fi425&Display=p
%7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&Toc=&TocEntry
=&TocRestrict=n&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQFi
eld=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&SearchBack=ZyActionL&
Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results+page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=&S
eekPage=x&ZyActionID=&File=D%3A%5C%5CZYFILES%5C%5CINDEX+DATA
%5C%5C91THRU94%5C%5CTXT%5C%5C00000030%5C
%5CP100JOWW.txt&Doc=%3Cdocument+name%3D%22P100JOWW.txt
%22+path%3D%22D%3A%5CZYFILES%5CINDEX+DATA
%5C91THRU94%5CTXT%5C00000030%5C%22+index%3D
%221991+Thru+1994%22%2F%3E&QueryTerms=)
In conclusion, we support the inclusion of an ecological risk assessment in the RCRA Corrective Action RIA. However, we
are concerned that the current draft does not incorporate the approach contained in the Ecorisk Framework, and the
assessment of ecological risks is incomplete. We recognize that resource limitations may preclude a complete ecological
the approach taken may serve as a model for
risk assessment in this document, yet
other risk assessments and RIAs. Consequently, we recommend that the RIA be modified to: a) more
explicitly follow the Ecorisk Framework; b) discuss which ecorisk factors were considered in the RIA and why; c) discuss
discuss uncertainties associated with
which ecorisk factors were not considered and why; and, d)
insufficient knowledge, inadequate data , natural variability, etc.
Extinction

traditional



People from all
million people in 1918-1919. The disease has no cure, and vaccines are difficult to produce because of the mutability of the virus.






If

for.
2ac dhs risk analysis short
They dropped that we solve DHS risk assessment

extinction

traditional



million people in 1918-1919. The disease has no cure, and vaccines are difficult to produce because of the mutability of the virus. People from all






If

for.
1ar dhs risk analysis xt: spillover
Prefer empirics
Jamison and Castaneda 11 (Mark A. Jamison, Ph.D., PURC, University of
Florida, and Araceli Castaneda, PURC, University of Florida, Reset for
Regulation and Utilities: Leadership for a Time of Constant Change, 4-6-
2011,
http://warrington.ufl.edu/centers/purc/purcdocs/papers/0920_Jamison_Reset_f
or_Regulation.pdf)
Utility regulation is probably the most technically complex function of government. Properly done, regulation involves the
interdisciplinary efforts of financial analysts, accountants, lawyers, engineers, economists, public relations experts, and
administrators. This technical work is the bread and butter of regulation.4 For example the U.K. energy regulators plans
for 201112 emphasize the completion of rate cases, deciding funding for various infrastructure projects, and reforming
market processes.5 The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commissions strategic plan identifies regulatory ratemaking,
market oversight, and infrastructure development and siting among commissions primary instruments for achieving its
In performing their work, regulatory agencies often imitate the
goals.6
practices of other agencies in addition to following expert analysis. A former

PURC student, Troy Quast, researched this issue in his dissertation and found that regulatory decisions of small U.S. states
are heavily influenced by the decisions of the largest states in their respective regions even when the small states
circumstances are dissimilar to the large states circumstances.7 Similarly, a spot check of regulatory training programs
and webinars shows that many emphasize best practices and experiences of practicing or former regulators.
1ar dhs risk analysis xt: internal link
Private screening is critical

Jansen 14 staff writer @ USAToday (Bart Jansen, 7/29/14, Airports:
Privatizing TSA security remains challenging,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/07/29/tsa-airports-
privatize-montana-kansas-city/13316121/)//twemchen
As Congress seeks to privatize more aviation security, airport officials described their difficulties Tuesday in
getting the Transportation Security Administration to hire contractors. A small airport in Montana is about
to get screeners after a four-year application process, the House Homeland Security subcommittee on
transportation heard Tuesday. And the Kansas City airport director told lawmakers he is worried about a
roughly four-year-long contract dispute that prevented a contract extension. The question for airports
seeking private screening and the lawmakers who advocate it is how to improve TSA's application process
to work faster and easier. The TSA was created to standardize and improve airport
security after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But the agency has the Screening Partnership Program for
airports that prefer to hire private contractors, so long as they maintain the
same level of security as the TSA. Congress would like to expand the program
beyond the current 18 airports the largest in San Francisco and Kansas City that handle a combined
4.5% of all passengers nationwide. But after a 2012 law made the application process easier so more
airports could participate, lawmakers say the results are still balky. " There
is no reason why (the
program) cannot be expanded to create even greater efficiencies under a risk-
based system ," said Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., and the panel chairman. William Benner, the
program's director, said the agency promoted the program by meeting in January with about 100 contract
companies. The TSA also met with vendors at two industry meetings in June. Benner said the agency's goal
is now to get from application to contract award within a year. "That is a very aggressive timeline," Benner
said. "Are we getting better? I'm convinced we are."
Trade
2ac trade
Airport terror disrupts global trade

Sweet 8 --- adjunct faculty at the University of Maryland, Department of
Emergency Management (Kathleen, Aviation and Airport Security: Terrorism and Safety
Concerns, Second Edition, Google Books)//trepka
Civil aviation infrastructure is vital to modern society due to its importance to global
trade , travel and tourism. In the United States, over 10 million jobs more than $1.0 trillion in annual
economic activity depend, directly and indirectly, on civil aviation [Chow et al. 2005]. Due to its
importance, the air transportation system has become a prime target of
terrorist attack [Chow et al. 2005. NCTC 20l2]. In this section, the proposed risk assessment
framework is illustrated with an example in which cost effectiveness of countermeasures are evaluated
The protection of civil aviation
for civil aviation subjected to risk from attack of terrorist groups.
from an intelligent aggressor must ensure both the integrity continuity of
commercial air transport and the security of the supporting physical infrastructure [Kosatka 201
I]. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has identified general security zones and boundaries
which should be considered in the process of planning airport protection [Kosatka 2()l l]. Seven security
zones, as shown in Figure 2, are considered in this example; each security zone has a distinct set of
countermeasures.
Extinction
Panzner 8 New York Institute of Finance (Michael J., 2008, Financial
Armageddon: Protect Your Future from Economic Collapse, pp. 137-138)
The rise in isolationism and protectionism will bring about ever more heated arguments
and dangerous confrontations over shared sources of oil, gas, and other key commodities as
well as factors of production that must, out of necessity, be acquired from less-than-friendly nations.
Whether involving raw materials used in strategic industries or basic necessities such as food, water, and
energy, efforts to secure adequate supplies will take increasing precedence in a world where demand
Disputes over the misuse, overuse, and pollution of the
seems constantly out of kilter with supply.
environment and natural resources will become more commonplace. Around the world,
such tensions will give rise to full-scale military encounters , often with minimal
provocation. In some instances, economic conditions will serve as a convenient pretext
for conflicts that stem from cultural and religious differences. Alternatively, nations
may look to divert attention away from domestic problems by channeling frustration
and populist sentiment toward other countries and cultures. Enabled by cheap technology
and the waning threat of American retribution, terrorist groups will likely boost the
frequency and scale of their horrifying attacks, bringing the threat of random violence to a
whole new level. Turbulent conditions will encourage aggressive saber rattling and
interdictions by rogue nations running amok. Age-old clashes will also take on a new, more heated
sense of urgency. China will likely assume an increasingly belligerent posture toward
Taiwan, while Iran may embark on overt colonization of its neighbors in the Mideast. Israel,
for its part, may look to draw a dwindling list of allies from around the world into a growing number of
conflicts. Some observers, like John Mearsheimer, a political scientists at the University of Chicago, have
even speculated that an intense confrontation between the United States and China is inevitable at
some point. More than a few disputes will turn out to be almost wholly ideological. Growing cultural and
religious differences will be transformed from wars of words to battles soaked in blood. Long-simmering
resentments could also degenerate quickly, spurring the basest of human instincts and triggering
nuclear weapons will vie with conventional
genocidal acts. Terrorists employing biological or
cause widespread
forces using jets, cruise missiles, and bunker-busting bombs to
destruction . Many will interpret stepped-up conflicts between Muslims and Western societies as
the beginnings of a new world war .
Trafficking
2ac trafficking africa war
Innovations to prevent terrorism are necessary to check

illegal wildlife trafficking
mechanisms.
Causes Africa war

Varekova and Loren 7/20 Goodwill ambassador for the African Wildlife
Foundation AND USN Rear Adm. (Venorica Varekova and USN Rear Adm. Don
Loren (ret.), 7/20/15, Coming together to combat international wildlife
crime, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/248343-
coming-together-to-combat-international-wildlife-crime)//twemchen
Last week on Capitol Hill, we joined a diverse group of leaders from Congress, the State Department, the
NGO community and other sectors to shine a light on the crisis that the global community faces from the
meteoric rise of wildlife crime in recent years. The illegal poaching and trade of ivory and rhino horn, as
well as other wildlife products, has exploded over the last decade, creating an illicit trade in wildlife that is
now valued at up to $10 billion per year. The victims of these crimes are many. First and foremost,
wildlife crime poses an existential threat to animal species, and at the current rate of
poaching there will be no rhino and elephant populations to speak of on the African continent in the
coming years. Wildlife crime is also destabilizing communities, countries and whole
regions throughout Africa. Criminal and extremist organizations profit from the trade
as a tool to fuel their violence and to expand their sphere of influence . Local
communities are losing their vital wildlife habitats and the underlying eco-tourism economies that are vital
to many African countries.
Nuclear war
Deutsch 2 Founder of Rabid Tiger Project (Political Risk Consulting and
Research Firm focusing on Russia and Eastern Europe) [Jeffrey, SETTING THE
STAGE FOR WORLD WAR III, Rabid Tiger Newsletter, Nov 18,
http://www.rabidtigers.com/rtn/newsletterv2n9.html]//trepka
The Rabid Tiger Project believes that a nuclear war is most likely to start in Africa.
Civil wars in the Congo (the country formerly known as Zaire), Rwanda, Somalia and Sierra Leone, and
domestic instability in Zimbabwe, Sudan and other countries, as well as occasional brushfire and other
wars (thanks in part to "national" borders that cut across tribal ones) turn
into a really nasty stew. We've got all too many rabid tigers and potential rabid tigers, who are willing to
push the button rather than risk being seen as wishy-washy in the face of a mortal threat and
overthrown.Geopolitically speaking, Africa is open range . Very few countries in
Africa are beholden to any particular power. South Africa is a major exception in this
respect - not to mention in that she also probably already has the Bomb. Thus, outside powers can more
easily find client states there than, say, in Europe where the political lines have long since been drawn, or
Asia where many of the countries (China, India, Japan) are powers unto themselves and don't need any
"help," thank you. Thus, an African war can attract outside involvement very quickly. Of course, a proxy
war alone may not induce the Great Powers to fight each other. But an African nuclear strike
can ignite a much broader conflagration , if the other powers are interested in a
fight. Certainly, such a strike would in the first place have been facilitated by
outside help - financial, scientific, engineering, etc. Africa is an ocean of troubled waters, and
some people love to go fishing.
2ac trafficking disease

mechanisms.

disease outbreaks
Lexis)//twemchen
Thats the only way to prevent extinction

Casadevall 12 March 21st, 2012, Arturo Casaveall is a professor of
Microbiology and Immunology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine,
Arturo, The future of biological
warfare,http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-
7915.2012.00340.x/full
In considering the importance of biological warfare as a subject for concern it is worthwhile to review the
known existential threats. At this time this writer can identify at three major existential threats to
humanity: (i) large-scale thermonuclear war followed by a nuclear winter, (ii) a planet killing asteroid
impact and (iii) infectious disease. To this trio might be added climate change making the planet
uninhabitable. Of the three existential threats the first is deduced from the inferred cataclysmic effects of
nuclear war. For the second there is geological evidence for the association of asteroid impacts with
massive extinction (Alvarez, 1987). As to an existential threat from microbes recent decades have
provided unequivocal ev idence for the ability of pathogens to
certain
cause the extinction of entire species. Although infectious disease has traditionally not been
associated with extinction this view has changed by the finding that a single chytrid fungus was
responsible for the extinction of numerous amphibian species (Daszak et al.,
1999; Mendelson et al., 2006). Previously, the view that infectious diseases were not a cause of extinction
was predicated on the notion that many pathogens required their hosts and that some proportion of the
host population was naturally resistant. However, that calculation does not apply tomicrobes that
are acquired directly from the environment and have no need for a
host, such as the majority of fungal pathogens. For those types of hostmicrobe
interactions it is possible for the pathogen to kill off every last member of a species without harm to itself,
since it would return to its natural habitat upon killing its last host. Hence, from the viewpoint of existential
threats environmental microbes could potentially pose a much greater threat to humanity than the known
pathogenic microbes, which number somewhere near 1500 species (Cleaveland et al., 2001; Tayloret al.,
2001), especially if some of these species acquired the capacity for pathogenicity as a consequence of
natural evolution or bioengineering.
Specifically, Avian flu

Chandra 4 National Security Advisor for India (Satish Chandra, 2004,
Global Security: A broader concept for the 21st century, Center for Strategic
Decision Research, 5-7,
http://www.csdr.org/2004book/chandra.htm)//twemchen
This scenario, as frightening as it is, pales in comparison with what could overtake us by 2007 if the highly
pathogenic form of bird flu H5N1 becomes transmittable human to human; all it would take for
In a globalized
this to happen is a simple gene shift in the bird flu virus, which could happen any day.
world linked by rapid air travel, the disease would spread like a raging forest
fire. If it did, it would overwhelm our public health system, cripple [destroy] our
economies, and wipe out a billion people within the space of a few months a 60
percent mortality rate is estimated.
2ac trafficking environment

mechanisms.

disease outbreaks
Lexis)//twemchen
Extinction
Diner 94 (David, Ph.D. in Planetary Science and Geology, The Army and the
Endangered Species Act: Who's Endangering Whom?, 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161)
To accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew 74 could save
species are useless to[hu]man[s] in a direct
[hu]mankind may be difficult for some. Many, if not most,
utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role , because their
extirpations could affect a directly useful species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem,
the loss of a species affects other species dependent on it. 75 Moreover, as the
number of species decline, the effect of each new extinction on the remaining
species increases dramatically. 4. Biological Diversity. -- The main premise of species
preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. 77 As the current mass extinction has progressed,
the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing
the number of species, and within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious
future implications. 78 [*173] Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of
specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less
diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike
a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better
than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." 79 By
causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic
simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the
dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be
each new animal or plant extinction , with all its
expected if this trend continues. Theoretically,
dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and
human extinction . Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing,
one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, 80 [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.
1ar trafficking xt: internal link
Theyre shipped by air
Ives 6/22 regular contributor at the Earth Island Journal, wrote about
environmental issues in Southeast Asia for the NYT, AP, and Yale Environment
360 (Mike Ives, 6/22/15, Smooth operators; ivory trade in Thailand, Earth
Island Institute, Gale Group)//twemchen
wildlife trafficking, says ivory
Brendan Moyle, an economist at New Zealand's Massey University who studies
smuggling tactics are essentially business decisions . Because ivory is bulky and must travel
thousands of miles, smugglers are usually keen to ship it as cheaply as possible. And when shipping costs plummet, as
they did following the global financial crisis of 2008-09, the incentive to ship ever-larger quantities increases dramatically.
In a forthcoming paper in the journal Ecological Economics, Moyle analyzed ivory seizure data from the Elephant Trade
Information System, a CITES-affiliated database. He found that, between 2008 and 2011, the number of ivory seizures
weighing more than 1,000 kilograms rose roughly eightfold, whereas seizures of smaller amounts rose only marginally.
Choosing where to bring ivory is also a business decision. Larger ports are typically attractive to smugglers because
there's less risk of detection by customs officials, Moyle says. Also, Southeast Asia's climate is perfect for storing large
quantities of ivory without temperature-control systems--the kind that would be necessary in a place like, say, northern
China. Tusks can be stockpiled and then slowly sold to investors or leaked into the legal ivory trade over a period of
months or years. "If I was doing this, I would have some stockpiled in Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Thailand," Moyle
smugglers ship by air . That may sound anachronistic
told me. "Safe places to keep it hoarded." Some ivory
in the post-9/11 era of heightened airport security. Yet an ivory shipment typically begins its journey at
an African airport with lax customs infrastructure, and, much like a passenger's luggage during a series of connecting
flights, it may not be inspected much during its long journey to Asia. The tusks themselves
can be well concealed, and they certainly aren't listed on customs declarations forms. In 2011, a shipment of 118
elephant tusks and three rhino horns discovered at Bangkok's Suvarnabhumi International Airport had been labeled as
"craft work." This April, Thai authorities seized four tons of ivory that had been hidden inside of bean sacks shipped from
Congo.
Economy (Beware of Dedev)
2ac
Airlines are key to the economy
Tomer et al 12 Adie Tomer, Senior Research Associate and Associate
Fellow @ Brookings, Robert Puentes, Senior Fellow and Director @
Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative @ Brookings (October 2012, Global
Gateways: International Aviation in Metropolitan America,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2012/10/25-global-
aviation/25-global-aviation.pdf)//twemchen
We live in a global era and the planets metropolitan areas lead this interconnected growth.
The worlds 200 largest metropolitan economies account for just 14 percent of world
population, but generated over 48 percent of global gross domestic product (GDP) in
2011.8 These metro areas have emerged on every corner of the globe, from the largest economies within
developed countries to the fast-growing metro areas in developing markets.9 Taken in concert, the success
of metropolitan economies throughout the developed and developing world suggest that the new global
economy is much spikier and interconnected than originally thought.10 In this global era,
U.S. metro areas must simultaneously collaborate with domestic and
international peers. This is where aviation plays a critical role it fosters the
inter-metropolitan connections critical to future economic growth . These
connections cross both the physical and personal spheres. Metro areas such as New York and London are
well connected through many domestic and global partners, which enhances their competitive advantage
by offering their businesses greater access to global markets. Metro areas such as Miami or Seattle may
have relatively fewer relationships, but nonetheless derive a competitive advantage as critical gateways to
the South and West.11 Lessons from Munich and its well-connected airport hub further demonstrate the
benefits from such connectivity.12 International aviation puts people within reach of their overseas
family, encourages tourism, and empowers businesses with the opportunity for face-
to-face meetings.13 The global aviation network also supports the rise of new immigrant
gateways across the United States, forging even stronger economic and social
connections to world regions.14 The key point is that while a metro area may have a
wealth of human and economic capital, they cannot fully exploit those resources
without strategic global linkages . These aviation-related connections deliver real benefits to
local economies. Aviations positive effect on local employment is a major economic
benefit .15 Metro areas that serve as destinations for large numbers of people are, implicitly, points of
convergence for new ideas and capital. These places have the right mix of human capital and other
resources to incubate new business ventures and to stimulate creativity. The net effect is an employment
boost throughout local industries, from high-skill services that rely heavily on air travel to
more stationary industries like manufacturing .16 The economic effects of aviation are so wide-
ranging that they hold potential for spillover effects that benefit other sectors and people. That
is not to say local economic effects are equal across all places. Airports specializing in throughtraffic, like
Atlanta, generate economic activity in sectors directly related to transportation, but these effects may not
cities that serve primarily as
always spillover into the broader metro economy. In contrast,
destination points or freight hubs enjoy increased economic activity more broadly ,
experiencing job growth even in non-transportation sectors .17 Metro areas
with predominantly leisure-oriented flows see greater job growth in entertainment and recreation
industries, while job growth in places with predominantly business-oriented flows comes from management
and financial occupations.18 International aviation also directly boosts the U.S. economy by supporting
travel and tourism since nearly all foreign visitors from outside North America enter the country via air.
These visitors generated $47 billion in real national output in 2011, an increase of 57.7 percent from
2003.19 Overall, U.S. travel and tourism exports grew by 6.1 percent from 2009 to 2011, supported in
market inefficiencies limit
large part by international visitors.20 Despite these benefits, certain
aviations total economic impact. One example is when a nonstop flight between
two metro areas does not exist even though large numbers of passengers travel
between them. Supply and demand mismatches introduce inefficiencies into the
aviation system, forcing passengers to fly where they dont want to go, such as the many international
travelers that simply pass through Charlottes Douglas International Airport.21 These systemic mismatches
make certain metropolitan areas harder and costlier to reach , and could stifle their
aviation-related economic growth . This may present relatively few challenges for U.S. businesses
primarily operating in U.S. cities, where routes are some of the most time- and costefficient in the world.22
Butit is a big ger problem for U.S.-based businesses seeking to expand into
South American or African markets , where cities may be more costly and time
consuming to reach . Thus, the organization of international aviation service
directly shapes U.S. businesses opportunities for global expansion
and partnering.23
Economic decline causes extinction

Haass 13, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, 4/30/13, The World
Without America, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/repairing-
the-roots-of-american-power-by-richard-n--haass
The most critical threat facing the United States now and for the
Let me posit a radical idea:
foreseeable future is not a rising China, a reckless North Korea, a nuclear Iran, modern terrorism, or climate
change. Although all of these constitute potential or actual threats, the biggest challenges facing the US are its
burgeoning debt, crumbling infrastructure, second-rate primary and secondary schools, outdated immigration system, and
slow economic growth in short, the domestic foundations of American
power . Readers in other countries may be tempted to react to this judgment with a dose of schadenfreude, finding
more than a little satisfaction in Americas difficulties. Such a response should not be surprising. The US and those
representing it have been guilty of hubris (the US may often be the indispensable nation, but it would be better if others
pointed this out), and examples of inconsistency between Americas practices and its principles understandably provoke
charges of hypocrisy. When America does not adhere to the principles that it preaches to others, it breeds resentment.
But, like most temptations, the urge to gloat at Americas imperfections and struggles ought to be resisted. People around
the globe should be careful what they wish for. Americas failure to deal with its internal challenges would come at a steep
price. Indeed, the rest of the worlds stake in American success is nearly as large as that of the US itself. Part of the reason
is economic. The US economy still accounts for about one-quarter of global output. If US growth accelerates, Americas
capacity to consume other countries goods and services will increase, thereby boosting growth around the world. At a
timewhen Europe is drifting and Asia is slowing , only the US (or, more broadly, North
America) has the potential to drive global economic recovery . The US remains a unique
source of innovation. Most of the worlds citizens communicate with mobile devices based on technology developed in
Silicon Valley; likewise, the Internet was made in America. More recently, new technologies developed in the US greatly
increase the ability to extract oil and natural gas from underground formations. This technology is now making its way
around the globe, allowing other societies to increase their energy production and decrease both their reliance on costly
imports and their carbon emissions. The US is also an invaluable source of ideas. Its world-class universities educate a
the US has long been a leading
significant percentage of future world leaders. More fundamentally,
example of what market economies and democratic politics can accomplish .
People and governments around the world are far more likely to become more
open if the American model is perceived to be succeeding. Finally, the world
faces many serious challenges, ranging from the need to halt the spread of w eapons of
m ass d estruction, fight climate change, and maintain a functioning world economic
order that promotes trade and investment to regulat ing practices in cyberspace,
improving global health, and preventing armed conflicts . These problems
will not simply go away or sort themselves out. While Adam Smiths invisible
hand may ensure the success of free markets, it is powerless in the world of geopolitics.
Order requires the visible hand of leadership to formulate and realize
global responses to global challenges. Dont get me wrong: None of this is meant to suggest that
the US can deal effectively with the worlds problems on its own. Unilateralism rarely works. It is not just that the US lacks
the means; the very nature of contemporary global problems suggests that only collective responses stand a good chance
of succeeding. But multilateralism is much easier to advocate than to design and
implement. Right now there is only one candidate for this role: the US. No other
country has the necessary combination of capability and outlook. This brings me back
to the argument that the US must put its house in order economically, physically, socially,
and politically if it is to have the resources needed to promote order in the world .
Everyone should hope that it does: The alternative to a world led by the US is not a world led by
China, Europe, Russia, Japan, India, or any other country, but rather a world that
is not led at all. Such a world would almost certainly be characterized by chronic crisis and
conflict . That would be bad not just for Americans, but for the vast majority of the planet s inhabitants.
***Offcase***
Disadvantages
*Generic
2ac Shell

Lexis)//twemchen


Lexis)//twemchen
want to apply."
2ac Empirics
Thirteen years of privatization in Kansas and San
Francisco proves
Falcus 14 British Aviation Reporter (Matt Falcus, 8/8/14, Airports consider
switch to a privatized TSA, http://exclusive.multibriefs.com/content/airports-
consider-switch-to-a-privatized-tsa)//twemchen
The first major airport to choose its own agents instead of using the TSA was Kansas
City International back in 2002, which required a more flexible staffing option than was
possible with the government agency. It worked well but brought the additional headaches of contract
Other major players , including
renewals and negotiations once the private contract expired.
San Francisco International , also opted in favor of private contractors at the
earliest opportunity.
2ac international
Inevitable internationally
AB 13 Cygnus Business Media (Airport Business, September 2013, Lets
Work Together, Lexis)//twemchen
What?s ACI-NA?s stance on privatization? ACI?s position has always been if an airport wants to privatize, it
the
should be allowed to, and if it doesn?t want to it shouldn?t have to. When I arrived at ACI-NA,
intellectual momentum in the U.S. industry was going in the privatization
direction . Now that intellectual momentum has stopped. There are still people interested in it as a
concept. But if you look around the world, a growing number of airports are run on
some kind of private concession and a more business-like model.
More ev
the rest of the world utilizes a SPP-like screening model at airports. The United
Most of
States is one of the only countries in the world, along with governments in the
Middle East and Africa that operates as security operator , administrator ,
regulator , and auditor at airports (see Appendix 1). Most international
governments contract the role of airport security operator to qualified
private screening companies , allowing the government to focus on setting
standards , performing oversight , and enforcing regulations . International stakeholders
report that this private-federal model drives innovation, increases performance, and lowers costs.
The entire world does this

The SPP models the screening operations of almost every other developed nation .
There are three models for airport screening internationally: (1) governmental, (2) in-house, and (3)
outsourcing. In the government model, replicated primarily in the Middle East and Africa, as well as under
the current structure in the U.S., airport security services are provided by a government agency (see
Appendix 1). In the in-house model, the airport authority provides screening services under government
supervision and oversight. This model is replicated sporadically throughout the rest of the world, as well as
Most international screening
under the SPP model at Jackson-Hole Airport in Wyoming.
operations are outsourced to qualified private security companies as
duplicated by 15 U.S. airports under the SPP.98 TSA officials would benefit from
adopting the international model of outsourced screening operations and
focusing instead on setting standards, performing oversight, and enforcing compliance. Due, in part, to its
role as service provider as well as regulator, TSA has failed to deploy appropriate assets to properly deter
terrorist plots in several recent examples. The shoe bomber was foiled by a damp fuse and alert
passengers.99 The liquid bomb plot was uncovered by British intelligence.100 The underwear bomber was
stopped by a defective device, crew, and passengers.101 The cargo package plot was discovered by Saudi
intelligence.102 The Times Square bomber ordered his cash-purchased ticket on his way to JFK and was
Because the international
then apprehended by Customs and Border Protection.103
community has historically used private screening, international security
companies have pioneered significant innovations in this field. The major
competitors of screening operations overseas have approximately one million employees and two
centuries of combined security experience . These companies cite their
years of experience , learned best practices , and the value placed on
corporate reputation as the basis for increased flexibility and cost-savings
provided to consumers. International companies report the importance of accommodating ever-changing
the trend towards private screening overseas is the
client needs and believe that
result of the increased flexibility and efficiency that can be provided by the private
sector. 105 In order to best measure their service, international security companies use two types of
metrics to evaluate performance: metrics relating to their security service and metrics relating to their
security performance.106 Security service measures queue management, passenger wait time, screener
interaction with passengers, and passengers perception of airport security.107 Security performance
metrics measure Threat Image Projection (TIP) scores, training data, and ongoing testing.108 These
companies strive to provide the best service for the lowest cost. For example, in January of 2011 Austria
transferred its airport security operations from the government to individual airport operators. Airport
Securitas was able to reduce staff
operators chose Securitas to perform screening operations.
at the airport by 25 percent without impacting security or customer service . 109
At Gardermoen Airport in Oslo, Normandy, G4S reconfigured the physical layout of the airports screening
operation to enhance screening efficacy and increase customer service, and in Brussels, G4S provides
screening services equal to what the government had provided but with less staff. The company estimates
that they were able to reduce operating costs to the airport by 35 percent .110
2ac west europe
Western Europe does this

In Europe , the vast majority of airports use nongovernment screening

personnel, employed either by the airport operators or by an outsourced
security company. Many airports which currently use in-house security services are in the process of
outsourcing their operations to a private company.114 Because of the uniform standards promulgated by
the EU, European governments have been overwhelmingly supportive of airports outsourcing their
screening operations.115 Zurich is the only European airport to use government screeners, and even
there, some aspects of the baggage screening operation are outsourced to private companies.116 The
EU airports (approximately 90 percent ) are operated by private
vast majority of
security companies.11
2ac east europe
East Europe does it

Eastern Europe is closely following the European move towards privatized

security. While Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria use government screeners, pending legislation in Poland
would allow airports to outsource their screening operations, according to a Committee contact at
Securitas.118 The same source reports that Hungary and Serbia, which currently have in-house screening,
are seeking to outsource screening operations to private companies.119
2ac latin america
Latin America does it

In Latin American countries, airport operators outsource some or all of the

screening operations to private companies.122 In Argentina, the only
country with a vestige of government screening operations, there is a move
towards privatized passenger and baggage screening .123
2ac asia
Asia does this
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 11 Prepared for Chairman
John L. Mica (CTI, 6/3/11, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Oversight and Investigations Staff Reform; TSA Ignores More Cost-Effective
Screening Model, http://www.aaae.org/?e=showFile&l=XQVIPZ)//twemchen
While Asian governments maintain some significant involvement in airport screening
operations,only Malaysia uses a strict government-only screening
model. 124 In the Philippines and in Hong Kong and Makao, the government does the bulk of the
screening operations, but private or quasi-private companies complement these
services.125
2ac midway
Midways modeled
AB 13 Cygnus Business Media (Airport Business, September 2013, Lets
Work Together, Lexis)//twemchen
The United States has a pilot program for privatization but it?s proved very hard
to participate largely because of the requirement for 65% of the airlines to approve filing the
application. We need a better program for privatization. The San Juan project is a good development, but I?
m not sure how much affect it will have on mainland airports. If Chicago-Midway was to have
privatized a few years ago, and the Mayor had held up a check for $2.5 billion, I think a lot of
other mayors around the country would have said: ?Maybe we should get a
piece of that .? It would have really opened the program up. We will have to see what
happens with the current Midway proposal underway at FAA.
2ac alaska
Alaskas doing it lolz

Wilkening 9 (David Wilkening, 10/22/9, Inept TSA leads to growing
privatization of airport security,
http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?
news_id=1139052&c=setreg&region=3)//twemchen
Rude customer service and long wait lines prompted Glacier Park International Airport
in Alaska to do what others are doing: privatize their airport security force . The
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) created in 2004 Screening Partnership
Program allows all commercial airports an opportunity to apply to use private
security screeners. So far, 15 of 450 airports across the nation have opted to privatize, says Daily
Inter Lake.com. Airport Director Cindi Martin said Glacier Park International has applied to
privatize because what TSA offers the airport is not meeting its needs. "We've
had a fair share of complaints about customer service and wait times," Martin said. "If we don't have
adequate staffing, it frustrates travelers. This is an ongoing problem with TSA
nationwide ." This does not make the TSA employees happy. "We're concerned about our jobs, our
seniority, our benefits," Eric Wood, a security worker at the airport, was quoted as saying. He said some
employees were concerned the private force would lead to higher costs for consumers. Dwayne Baird, a
regional spokesman for TSA, said the decision to privatize is up to each airport, but the agency requires
that the private contractors maintain the same standards of security and the same benefits for employees
during the duration of the contract. However, Baird and others maintain that TSA is already operating an
efficient program.
2ac at: fitch rating
Fitch changed nothing

policy-and-security-ne-37)//twemchen
Fitch Ratings report earlier this month revising its
I've fielded several media calls regarding a
outlook for U.S. airports from stable to negative. The report focused mostly on
the near-term , citing higher fuel prices and a sagging economy as causes of
reduced enplanements. "While many [U.S.] airports have seen reductions of as much as 8% in the first and
second quarters of 2008, many could well see further declines." Longer term, if the underlying pressures
continue for several years, there may be more fundamental changes in airline pricing that could lead to
Despite this gloominess, the airport
larger reductions, especially in low-fare passengers.
privatization trend shows no sign of flagging . In Reason's Annual Privatization Report
2008 (a major report produced every year), I wrote the section on airports and air traffic control, and as
the past year has been very active in airport
you will see if you read it,
privatization. (www.reason.org/apr2008/air_transportation.pdf) That chapter was written in
April and May. Since then, there has been no let-up . Last month Spain's
government announced that it will sell an initial 30% stake in state-owned airport
operator AENA, which operates most of the country's important airports. A cabinet minister estimated the
economic value of AENA at $46.7 billion. A week later South Korea's government said it
would offer a 49% stake in Incheon International Airport. The government hopes to secure a
strategic tie-up with a global airport operator. Several existing airport companies have restructured some
of their holdings recently. Macquarie Airports last month announced the sale of nearly a billion
dollars worth of assets, including a 27% stake in Copenhagen Airports and 26% of Brussels
Airport. In addition to a share buyback, Macquarie Airports is using the proceeds to purchase a 5.6% stake
in ASUR, one of three privatized Mexican airport operators. And Spain's Ferrovial, parent company of BAA,
sold Belfast City Airport to Amro Global Infrastructure Fund. The point here is not just that some companies
Germany's privatized Fraport, after initial
are selling but that others are eagerly buying.
success as part of the team that is modernizing New Delhi's Indira Gandhi
Airport, announced the opening of a permanent office in India , to pursue additional
business opportunities. And in Russia, companies are queuing up to bid on a $1.3 billion, 30-year
concession to develop and operate St. Petersburg's Pulkovo International Airport. Back in the USA, this
summer the City of Chicago eliminated two of the six teams that had submitted qualifications to lease
Midway Airport-Abertis/Babcock & Brown and Carlyle Infrastructure Partners. With Macquarie's subsequent
decision to withdraw, that leaves three teams still in the running for Midway: Hochtief/Goldman Sachs,
YVR/Citi Infrastructure, and Morgan Stanley/Aeroports de Paris. My sources tell me of interest in several
other cities in being the next participants in the Airport Privatization Pilot Program, including Austin,
Milwaukee, and New Orleans. - See more at: http://reason.org/news/show/airport-policy-and-security-ne-
37#sthash.XjKjBqQ7.dpuf
War Powers
2ac F/L
Their ev is about prez powers in general we agree those
are high thats sufficient to solve their perception
impacts but war powers are low
Flower and Beavers 13 (Ruth, Elizabeth, Congress must rein in president's
war power, The Hill, 9-29-13, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-
policy/325205-congress-must-rein-in-presidents-war-power) //AD
Congress passed the War Powers Resolution over President Nixons veto in an
effort to curb the presidents rapidly growing powers, as evidenced by the Vietnam
War. The law sets up a clear framework: the president must in every possible
instance consult with Congress, report to Congress within 48 hours of
introducing armed forces into hostilities, and withdraw troops after 60 to 90
days if Congress does not provide authorization. Finally, Congress retains the
power to order the troops withdrawn by concurrent resolution.
The link is ridiculous TSA surveillance is so small that it

cant possibly spill over to all of war powers if this link is
sufficient, so was the Freedom Act which happened after
their link ev
The plans not an external restriction its internal

agency action which doesnt infringe on executive flex
BGN 6/26 Bangladesh Government News (6/26/15, US seeks to reassure
France on spying, Assange urges action, Lexis)//twemchen
Obama on Wednesday moved to defuse tensions after revelations
President Barack
of US spying on three French presidents angered France, while WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
called for legal action over Washington's snooping and promised more disclosures to come. Obama spoke by phone with
his French counterpart Francois Hollande to assure him the US was no longer spying on European leaders, a day after the
WikiLeaks website published documents alleging Washington had eavesdropped on the French president and his two
predecessors. "President Obama reiterated without ambiguity his firm

commitment ... to stop these practices that took place in the past and which were
unacceptable between allies," Hollande's office said in a statement. Hollande had earlier convened his top ministers and
intelligence officials to discuss the revelations, with his office stating France "will not tolerate any acts that threaten its
security". France's foreign ministry also summoned the US ambassador for a formal explanation. The documents --
labelled "Top Secret" and appearing to reveal spying on Jacques Chirac, Nicolas Sarkozy and Hollande between 2006 and
2012 -- were published by WikiLeaks along with French newspaper Liberation and the Mediapart website. WikiLeaks' anti-
secrecy campaigner Assange told French television late Wednesday the time had come to take legal action against
Washington over its foreign surveillance activities. Speaking on TF1, he urged France to go further than Germany by
launching a "parliamentary inquiry" and referring "the matter to the prosecutor-general for prosecution". German
prosecutors had carried out a probe into alleged US tapping of Chancellor Angela Merkel's phone, but later dropped the
investigation due to a lack of hard evidence. Assange also said other important revelations were coming. "This is the
beginning of a series and I believe the most important of the material is still to come," he said. The WikiLeaks revelations
were embarrassingly timed for French lawmakers, who late on Wednesday voted in favour of sweeping new powers to spy
on citizens. The new law will allow authorities to spy on the digital and mobile communications of anyone linked to a
"terrorist" inquiry without prior authorisation from a judge, and forces Internet service providers and phone companies to
give up data upon request. Addressing parliament, Prime Minister Manuel Valls said Washington's actions "constitute a
very serious violation of the spirit of trust" and France would demand a new "code of conduct" on intelligence matters.
The White House earlier responded that it was not targeting Hollande's communications and will not do so in the future,
but it did not comment on past activities. Claims that the US National Security Agency (NSA) was spying on European
leaders, revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013, had already led to promises from Obama that the practice
had stopped. - Secret meetings on Greece - The leaked documents include five from the NSA, the most recent dated May
22, 2012, just days after Hollande took office. It claims Hollande "approved holding secret meetings in Paris to discuss the
eurozone crisis, particularly the consequences of a Greek exit from the eurozone". It also says the French president
believed after talks with Merkel that she "had given up (on Greece) and was unwilling to budge". "This made Hollande
very worried for Greece and the Greek people, who might react by voting for an extremist party," according to the
document. Another document, dated 2008, was titled "Sarkozy sees himself as only one who can resolve the world
financial crisis". It said the former French leader "blamed many of the current economic problems on mistakes made by
the US government, but believes that Washington is now heeding some of his advice". One leak describes Sarkozy's
the "main sticking point" in achieving greater intelligence

frustration at US espionage, saying
cooperation "is the US desire to continue spying on France". But US officials
vowed there was no spying going on now. "Let me just be very, very clear ... we are not targeting
President Hollande, we will not target friends like President Hollande," said US Secretary of State John Kerry. "And
we don't conduct any foreign intelligence surveillance activities unless there is some very specific and validated national
security purpose." Kerry told reporters he had "a terrific relationship" with his counterpart Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius,
adding "the French are indispensable partners in so many ways" including in the Iran nuclear talks. "The relationship
between our two countries continues to get more productive and deeper," he added.
War powers low courts

Wittes 8 - Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution,
co-founder and editor-in-chief of the Lawfare blog, member of the Hoover
Institutions Task Force on National Security Law (Benjamin, Law and the Long
War: The Future of Justice in the Age of Terror, June 2008, google books) //AD
What the Supreme Court has done is carve itself a seat at the table. It has
intimated, without ever deciding, that a constitutional basis for its actions
existsin addition to the statutory bases on which it decided the casesmeaning that its
authority over overseas detentions may be an inherent feature of judicial
power, not a policy question on which the legislature and executive can work
their will. Whether the votes exist on the court to go this extra step we will find out soon enough. But
the specter of a vastly different judicial posture in this area now haunts the
executive branchone in which the justices assert an inherent authority to
review executive detention and interrogation practices, divine rights to apply with that
jurisdiction based on due process and vaguely worded international humanitarian law principles not clearly
implemented in U.S. law, and allow their own power to follow the militarys
anywhere in the world. Such a posture would constitute an earthquake in the
relationships among all three branches of government, and the doctrinal seeds for it
have all been planted. Whether they ultimately take root depends on factors
extrinsic to the war on terrorparticularly the future composition of a Supreme Court now
closely divided on these questions. It will also pivot on the manner in which the
political branches posture the legal foundations of the war in the future.
Building a strong legislative architecture now may be the only way to avert a
major expansion of judicial power over foreign policy and warfare.
No internal link the executive will circumvent any
restrictions that result from the plans spillover doesnt
link to us because of durable fiat
Mitchell 9 Assistant Prof. Law at George Mason University School of Law
(Jonathan Mitchell, Summer 2009, ARTICLE: LEGISLATING CLEAR-STATEMENT
REGIMES IN NATIONAL-SECURITY LAW, 43 Ga. L. Rev. 1059, Lexis)//twontwon
But none of these proposed [*1102] reforms is likely to prevent the executive
branch from continuing to infer congressional authorization from ambiguous
later-enacted statutes , nor are they likely to prevent future Congresses from acquiescing to
this practice. The first problem is that these new statutes and proposals fail to counter the
aggressive interpretive doctrines that executive-branch lawyers use to

infer congressional authorization from legislation that lacks the required clear statement. The Clinton
Administration's Kosovo memo already provides a roadmap for the executive branch to evade the clear-
statement rule in the 2008 FISA Amendments, which insists that "[o]nly an express statutory authorization
for electronic surveillance" may authorize electronic surveillance outside of FISA's procedures. 176 The
OLC Kosovo memo characterizes the express-reference requirement in 8(a)(1) of the War Powers
Resolution as an invalid attempt to "bind" future Congresses, and converts it into a standard-like
"background principle" that applies only when future legislation is "entirely ambiguous" as to whether it
authorizes military hostilities. 177 There is little reason to think that future executives will treat FISA's new
express-language requirement any differently if they anticipate that Congress is likely to acquiesce.
Executive-branch lawyers can also invoke the Clinton and Bush Administration's broad theories of implied
repeal if they find language in a later-enacted statute that might be read to authorize warrantless
surveillance. The more narrow clear-statement requirements in Senator Specter's proposed FISA reforms
and the recently enacted McCain Amendment would fareno better. Even though they purport to entrench
themselves against implied repeal, the executive branch can assert, as it did during the Kosovo and NSA
surveillance controversies, that this partial entrenchment unlawfully "binds" future Congresses and
proceed with its broad theories of implied repeal. The proposals to add funding restrictions to FISA and the
War Powers Resolution are equally vulnerable to expansive executive [*1103] branch theories of implied
repeal. Recall that the OLC Kosovo memo asserts that the 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act implicitly repealed restrictions in the War Powers Resolution, even though the Appropriations Act never
earmarked funds for military operations in Kosovo, nor specifically authorized military operations in Kosovo
beyond the WPR's sixty-day window. 178 According to OLC, it was enough that some members of Congress
thought that the President might continue the Kosovo hostilities beyond sixty days and that the
appropriations legislation did not expressly withhold funds for that purpose. 179 In like manner, a future
executive might claim that a generic Authorization to Use Military Force implicitly repeals Senator Specter's
proposed funding restrictions under the last-in-time rule, so long as it can concoct some argument that
warrantless surveillance of the enemy is a
legislators are aware (or should be aware) that
" fundamental incident of the use of military force." 180 Or the President
might claim that annual appropriations bills for the intelligence agencies
implicitly repeal the earlier-enacted funding restrictions if legislators are aware of

the President's warrantless surveillance activities but fail to expressly reaffirm FISA's restrictions. Proposals
restrictions to the War Powers Resolution are similarly incapable of
that would add funding
withstanding the executive-branch lawyers' broad theories of implied repeal. Those funding
restrictions, like 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, would be brushed aside whenever implicit
congressional "authorization" might be found in later-enacted statutory language. The challenge for these
any future ambiguous statute
efforts to strengthen the War Powers Resolution and FISA is that
will provide rope for executive-branch lawyers to concoct congressional
"authorization" for the President's actions, no matter what restrictionsor interpretive instructions
Congress provides in framework legislation. None of these proposed reforms will disable [*1104] the
executive from using its expansive theories of constitutional avoidance and implied repeal to provide
a veneer of legality for the President's actions, and minimize the prospect of future
criminal sanctions and political reprisals against executive-branch employees.
Stronger checks on war powers increase deterrence

Waxman 14 - Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; Adjunct Senior
Fellow for Law and Foreign Policy, Council on Foreign Relations (Matthew C,
The Constitutional Power to Threaten War, 8-25-14, Yale Law Journal, vol.
123 (2014), 2013, PDF) //AD
stronger legislative
A second argument, this one advanced by some congressionalists, is that
checks on presidential uses of force would improve deterrent and coercive
strategies by making them more selective and credible.The most credible
U.S. threats, this argument holds, are those that carry formal approval by Congress,
which reflects strong public support and willingness to bear the costs of war;
requiring express legislative backing to make good on threats might therefore be
thought to enhance the potency of threats by encouraging the President to
seek congressional authorization before actin g.181 A frequently cited instance is
President Eisenhowers request (soon granted) for standing congressional authorization to use force in the
Taiwan Straits crises of the mid- and late-1950s an authorization he claimed at the time was important to
bolstering the credibility of U.S. threats to protect Formosa from Chinese aggression.182 (Eisenhower did
not go so far as to suggest that congressional authorization ought to be legally required, however.) It was
[Eisenhowers] seasoned judgment that a commitment the United States would have much greater
impact on allies and enemies alike because it would represent the collective judgment of the President and
Congress, concludes Louis Fisher. Single-handed
actions taken by a President, without
the support of Congress and the people, can threaten national prestige and
undermine the presidency. Eisenhowers position was sound then. It is sound now.183 A critical
assumption here is that legal requirements of congressional participation in decisions to use force filters
outunpopular uses of force, the threats of which are unlikely to be credible
and which, if unsuccessful, undermine the credibility of future U.S. threats. A
third view is that legal clarity is important to U.S. coercive and deterrent
strategies; that ambiguity as to the Presidents powers to use force
undermines the credibility of threats. Michael Reisman observed, for example, in 1989:
Lack of clarity in the allocation of competence and the uncertain
congressional role will sow uncertainty among those who depend on U.S.
effectiveness for security and the maintenance of world order. Some reduction
in U.S. credibility and diplomatic effectiveness may result. 184 Such stress on
legal clarity is common among lawyers, who usually regard it as important to
planning, whereas strategists tend to see possible value in constructive ambiguity, or deliberate
fudging of drawn lines as a negotiating tactic or for domestic political purposes.185 A critical assumption
clarity of constitutional or statutory design with respect to decisions
here is that
about force exerts significant effects on foreign perceptions of U.S. resolve to
make good on threats, if not by affecting the substance of U.S. policy
commitments with regard to force then by pointing foreign actors to the
appropriate institution or process for reading them.
AT Congress > CTS
No court spillover their ev says the court defers to
congress on specific statutes, which the plan doesnt
reverse other statutes ensure prez powers are resilient
AT Terrorism
Executive flex undermines counterterror and liberty legal limits are
a more effective security strategy
Sayre 14 citing Tiberiu Dragu: Assistant Professor, Wilf Family Department
of Politics, New York University, and Mattias Polborn: Professor, Department of
Economics and Department of Political Science, University of Illinois (Mike,
THE RULE OF LAW IN THE FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM: LESS EXECUTIVE
POWER, MORE SECURITY, American Journal of Political Science, 5-4-15,
http://ajps.org/2015/05/04/the-rule-of-law-in-the-fight-against-terrorism-less-
executive-power-more-security/) //AD
In the aftermath of 9/11 terrorist attacks, it has become increasingly difficult
to argue that the executive branch of the United States be bounded by
constitutional rules that might hamper its capacity to ensure collective
security. Given the potentially horrific costs of failing to stop another large-scale terrorist attack, the
citizens themselves viewed a rigid adherence to legal limits as problematic
and were willing to grant the executive more powers at the expense of
fundamental rights and liberties. But does increasing the executives
counterterrorism powers make us safer from terrorism? Our article, The Rule of Law
Against Terrorism, shows that legal limits on executive counterterrorism powers
can be beneficial on security grounds alone and therefore strengthening

institutions that uphold the rule of law in the fight against terrorism can be an
effective way to achieve security from terrorism. Security crises pose fundamental
challenges to the constitutional structure of liberal governments . Unexpected
security dangers such as catastrophic terrorist attacks serve as a reminder that collective security
is a precondition for the proper functioning of a liberal order , raising the following
question: What is the role of legal limits on executive power , if any, when citizens
demand more security and allowing executive officials legal flexibility of action appears necessary to
achieve it? This question becomes most compelling when governments seek to prevent a security crisis
rather than simply react to it. Few if any would argue that executive officials should wait until the actual
realization of catastrophic terrorist attacks and not take preventive actions to ward off such security
threats. To prevent crises of such proportions, the executive must have the means to act proactively. Crisis
prevention seemingly requires permanent executive discretionary powers, and thus represents a constant
challenge to the ideal of limited government enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and the Federalist Papers.
The tension between the institutional structure of liberal government and
successful crisis prevention came to the fore in the aftermath of the 9/11
terrorist attacks. To enhance their governments capacities to prevent terrorist
attacks, the discretionary powers of the executive were promptly augmented
in the United States and other liberal societies. In turn, many of the executives
counterterrorism activities have infringed upon the rights and liberties
of aliens and non-citizens, in particular. In the United States, for example, the executive
undertook scores of repressive counterterrorism policies , ranging from
ethnic profiling to increased restrictions on immigration, to increased
surveillance of certain ethnic and religious communities and even torture of
aliens suspected of terrorist activities. The rationale for such repressive policies is that
executive discretion is essential to respond effectively to terrorist activities,
and thus the executive should be afforded legal flexibility to thwart security dangers.
Without necessarily denying that the ethnic and religious communities in which potential terrorists have
roots are important in fighting terrorism, the presumption is that executive discretion increases security
from terrorism because there are political controls on how executive counterterrorism powers are used. If
repressive policies would be harmful for terrorism prevention, so the argument goes, the executive will
restrain itself from undertaking such suboptimal counterterrorism policies because citizens can punish
The logic behind the security
ineffective usage of executive power at election times.
rationale for executive discretion appears simple and intuitive . If the executive
cares about security from terrorism and also about being in office, and if the citizens are more likely to
reelect the executive if it is successful in preventing terrorism, then allowing executive officials legal
flexibility of action should translate into more security from terrorism. Our research questions
this security rationale on its own terms. To this end, we developed a game-theoretic model
to show that that even if citizens are less likely to reelect the government when failing to prevent terrorist
even if electoral controls on how executive counterterrorism
attacks, that is,
powers are used are effective, security from terrorism can actually
decrease if the executive has legal flexibility to choose any policy it finds
optimal. In contrast, security from terrorism always increases if there are
explicit legal limits on the executives counterterrorism actions. We also show
that the executive achieves the objective of terrorism prevention more
effectively when there are some limitations on its counterterrorism powers
rather than when executive officials have legal flexibility to devise security
policy. At the minimum, the analysis suggests that the burden of empirical proof
should be on executive officials who must show that discretionary powers
achieve the intended security benefits and, perhaps, whether such benefits can
be achieved without setting aside fundamental liberal-democratic principles .
Moreover, our analysis indicates that even when citizens want a readjustment in the balance between
security and liberty, it is not necessarily security-beneficial if the executive itself
decides on the scope of government power. Our research underscores a novel rationale
for legal limits and checks on executive powers . The traditional Madisonian argument for
such institutions is that they stem abuses of governmental power and thus help
preserve citizens rights and liberties . Security crises challenge this very rationale. Times of
duress are associated with unfettered governmental powers; ordinary, regular situations with
separation of powers and checks and balances institutions . Without disputing the
importance of constitutional limits and institutional checks within the tradition of a liberal distrust of
such institutional
government, the analysis here underscores another, perhaps less intuitive virtue:
arrangements can increase a governments capacity to prevent crises. Thus
they might be a necessary component of structuring the government if the
social objective is terrorism prevention. Our paper also contributes to an
empirical literature on terrorism and political violence . Scholars have noted that
liberal democracies often resort to repressive policies and focus their coercive
efforts on political, ethnic or religious communities associated with a particular security
threat. Scholars have also empirically shown that repressive tactics at odds with
fundamental liberal-democratic principles can negatively affect

security from terrorism , empirical findings that raise the following puzzle: why would a
rational government intending to achieve security from terrorism nevertheless engage in repressive tactics
that undermine it? Our model shows that it can be an equilibrium behavior for the executive to undertake
repressive policies that harm security from terrorism, a behavior induced by electoral incentives to provide
security from terrorism.
EXT No Impact
No impact to Presidential powers
Healy 11 - vice president at the Cato Institute (Gene, Book Review: Hail to
the Tyrant," The CATO Institute, June 2011,
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/book-review-hail-tyrant ) //AD
Legal checks have been relaxed largely because of the need for centralized,
relatively efficient government under the complex conditions of a modern
dynamic economy and a highly interrelated international order . Whats more, the
authors insist, America needs the legally unconstrained presidency both at
home (given an increasingly complex economy) and abroad (given the shrinking of global
distances). These are disputed points, to say the least . If Friedrich Hayek was at all
correct about the knowledge problem, then if anything increasing economic
complexity argues for less central direction. Nor does the fact that we face a
highly interrelated international order suggest that were more vulnerable
than we were in 1789, as a tiny frontier republic surrounded by hostile tribes
and great powers. Economic interdependence and the rise of other modern
industrial democracies means that other players have a stake in protecting
the global trading system. Posner and Vermuele coin the term tyrannophobia, which stands for
unjustified fear of executive abuse. That fear is written into the American genetic code: the authors call the
Declaration of Independence the ur-text of tyrannophobia in the United States. As they see it, thats a
problem because the risk that the public will fail to trust a well-motivated president is just as serious as
the risk that it will trust an ill-motivated one. They contend that our inherited skepticism toward power
exacerbates biases that lead us to overestimate the dangers of unchecked presidential power. Our primate
brains exaggerate highly visible risks that fill us with a sense of dread and loss of control, so we may
decline to cede more power to the president even when more power is needed. Fair enough in the abstract
but Posner and Vermuele fail to provide a single compelling example that
might lead you to lament our allegedly atavistic tyrannophobia. And they seem
oblivious to the fact that those same irrational biases drive the perceived
need for emergency government at least as much as they do hostility
towards it. Highly visible public events like the 9/11 attacks also instill dread and a
perceived loss of control, even if all the available evidence shows that such
incidents are vanishingly rare. The most recent year for which the U.S. State Department has
data, 2009, saw just 25 U.S. noncombatants worldwide die from terrorist strikes . I
know of no evidence suggesting that unchecked executive power is what stood between us and a much
larger death toll. Posner and Vermuele argue that only the executive unbound can
address modernitys myriad crises. But they spend little time exploring whether
unconstrained power generates the very emergencies that the executive branch
uses to justify its lack of constraint. Discussing George H.W. Bushs difficulties convincing
Congress and the public that the 1991 Gulf Wars risks were worth it, they comment, in retrospect it
might seem that he was clearly right. Had that war been avoided, though, there would
have been no mass presence of U.S. troops on Saudi soi l Osama bin Ladens
principal recruiting device, according to Paul Wolfowitz and perhaps no 9/11 . Posner and
Vermuele are slightly more perceptive when it comes to the home front, letting drop as an aside the
observation that because of the easy-money policy that helped inflate the housing bubble, the Fed is at
least partly responsible for both the financial crisis of 2008-2009 and for its resolution. Oh, well I guess
the authors are so enamored with the elegant economic
were even, then. Sometimes,
models they construct that they cant be bothered to check their work against
observable reality. At one point, attempting to show that separation of powers is inefficient, they
analogize the Madisonian scheme to a market in which two firms must act in order to supply a good,
extra transaction costs of cooperation make the consumer
concluding that the
no better off and probably worse off than she would be under the unitary system. But
(taxpayer)
the government-as-firm metaphor is daffy. In the Madisonian vision, inefficiency isnt
a bug, its a feature a check on the facility and excess of law-making the diseases
to which our governments are most liable, per Federalist No. 62. If the firm in
question also generates public bads like unnecessary federal programs and
destructive foreign wars and if the consumer (taxpayer) has no choice about whether to
consume them he might well favor constraints on production. From Franklin
Roosevelt onward, weve had something close to vertical integration under presidential command.
Whatever benefits that system has brought, its imposed considerable costs
not least over 100,000 U.S. combat deaths in the resulting presidential
wars. That system has also encouraged hubristic occupants of the Oval Office to burnish their legacies by
engaging in humanitarian war an oxymoron, according to Posner. In a sharply argued 2006
Washington Post op-ed, he noted that the Iraq War had killed tens of thousands of innocents and observed
archly, polls do not reveal the opinions of dead Iraqis .
AT Signal
No internal link war power authority is irrelevant for
signaling
Sitaraman 14 - Assistant Professor of Law, Vanderbilt Law School
(Ganesh, Credibility and War Powers, Harvard Law Review, January 2014,
www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/127/january14/forum_1024.php#_ftnref19)
//AD
political scientists have offered devastating critiques of
For all the talk of credibility,
credibility arguments in the context of military threats. They have demonstrated not
only that the concept is often deployed in incomplete and illogical ways but also that as a historical
matter, a countrys credibility based on its reputation and past actions has
little or no effect on the behavior of opponents in high-stakes international
crises. In the crises in the run-up to World War I, in the Berlin crises of the late 1950s and early 1960s,
and even in the crises leading to World War II, threats from countries that had
previously backed down were not seen as less credible by their opponents. In
some cases, the threats were even thought to be more credible. For constitutional
lawyers, this research should be particularly troubling because credibility has migrated from
foreign policy into the constitutional law of war powers . In a series of opinions,
including on Somalia (1992), Haiti (2004), and Libya (2011), the Justice Departments Office of Legal
Counsel (OLC) has argued that the credibility of the United Nations Security Council is
a national interest that can justify presidential authority to use military
force without prior congressional authorization .4 This Essay argues that the credibility
justification for the use of force should be removed from the constitutional
law of presidential war powers. Incorporating credibility as one of the national
interests that justify presidential use of force expands the Presidents war powers
significantly without a legitimate policy justification. I. Understanding
Credibility As a justification for the use of military force, the preservation of
credibility is ubiquitous in foreign policy. President Clinton thought that if the United States
failed to uphold its commitments in Somalia after the Black Hawk Down incident, then [o]ur own
credibility with friends and allies would be severely damaged. Our leadership in world affairs would be
undermined . . . .5 President Reagan argued that if the United States failed to confront guerrillas in
Truman said that defeat
Central America, our credibility would collapse.6 Years earlier, President
in Korea would be an open invitation to new acts of aggression elsewhere.7
For decades during the Cold War, credibility arguments were prominent in
game theory analyses of deterrence, arms control, and U.S.-Soviet relations .8
Despite the importance of these theories, political scientists at the time acknowledged
that they know remarkably little about credibility9 and had neither
theoretically grounded expectations nor solid evidence of how behavior
affects expectations of future action.10 More recently, political scientists have turned to
serious study of credibility. These studies call into question the use of credibility
arguments in the context of military threats. A. Theories of Credibility The credibility
of a threat is the perceived likelihood that the threat will be carried out if the
conditions that are supposed to trigger it are met.11 When people believe a threat will be
carried out, it is credible; when they believe it is a bluff, the threat is not
credible. Credibility is an audiences perception. If the United States thinks its
threats are credible, but opponents do not, then the threats are not credible.
Credibility is also not universal. Different actors might assess the credibility of
a threat differently and different individuals within the same government might debate the
credibility of a threat.12 Political scientists have identified five different theories by which people perceive
the one consistently invoked as
threats as credible. The most prominent and
credibility in foreign policy debates from Vietnam to Syria is the past
actions theory.13 The past actions theory links credibility to a countrys
historical record of fulfilling its threats. It has two central claims: First, credibility is
determined by the historical evidence of a countrys actions . Second, there is a
direct relationship between the perception that a country historically follows through on its commitments
and the countrys credibility. The theorys rationale is that p ast
actions might illustrate
something important about the adversarys character, interests, or capacity
to act. But the core of the theory is narrower: the likelihood of a country following through on a threat
today is dependent on whether the country followed through on its threats in the past. Commentators
have also frequently offered a variation of the past actions theory of credibility that focuses on reputation
arguments.14 A reputation is a judgment of someones character (or disposition) that is then used to
predict or explain future behavior.15 Reputation arguments in international politics assume that
decisionmakers attribute behavior to character or dispositional traits, rather than to situational factors
(such as national interests, public pressure, or military capabilities). When decisions are attributed to
situation, the assumption is that most people in the same situation would act the same way. When
decisions are attributed to disposition, it means that this individual actor will behave a certain way,
independent of the situation. Note that the reputation and past actions theories are not exactly the same:
A nations past actions may lead to a reputation if others interpret its behavior in dispositional rather than
A nations
situational terms and then use that past conduct to predict similar behavior in the future.
reputation, however, might also be ascribed to other dispositional traits (such
as ideological commitments or inherent characteristics). The leading alternative to the past
actions and reputation theories of credibility is the current calculus theory.16
Current calculus theory holds that credibility is not a function of past actions
or reputation, but rather a function of a countrys present capabilities and
interests in a particular situation. On this theory, an adversary assesses credibility based on the countrys
ability to effectuate its threat and the costs and benefits to that country in enforcing its threat. Two other
theories are worth noting. The ingrained lessons theory holds that decisionmakers do not look to the
threatening countrys history, but instead to their own history. For example, they will expect todays
The never again theory
adversary to back down if their previous adversaries also backed down.
holds that breaking a commitment actually increases credibility of future
threats because decisionmakers will understand that backing down a second
time is too costly. This Essay focuses on the past actions and reputation theories, and given their
dominance in foreign policy, refers to them together as credibility arguments. B. The Logical Limits of
In the context of military threats and the use of force,
Credibility Arguments
credibility arguments suffer from some important limitations. First, because
both past actions and reputation are based on audience interpretations, a
country can have multiple reputations and a single action can create different
reputations among different audiences.17 To some, following through on a threat
demonstrates resolve; to others, foolishness. Second, action in one context might not migrate into
reputation in another.18 If the United States sets a red line on a fishing issue for Micronesia and then
backs down, it is unlikely to send a signal to Iran that all American red lines are bluffs. The Iranians may
ignore the Micronesian case because it is fundamentally different from their own. Third, if we assume
that credibility matters, then both sides know that it matters , and both sides can
take it into account. Social scientists call the resulting problem recursion,19 but we generally know it as
the if she knows that I know that she knows . . . problem. Take Syria.20 If we assume Assad is
simpleminded, and the United States backs down, then Assad will think he can use chemical weapons
again. But if Assad also knows that credibility is important, and the United States backs down, then Assad
knows President Obama has paid a reputation cost in bluffing. Perhaps some in the United States will even
say never again! If Assad then uses chemical weapons again, it will be harder for Obama to bluff a
second time. As a result, backing down the first time actually makes any future threat by Obama more
credible. And Assad knows this. Now take it one step further. If Assad knows that Obama knows this, then
Assad will reason that Obamas threat is a bluff because Obama knows Assad will think Obamas action is
more credible. Keepingthe logic straight is difficult, as Jonathan Mercer puts it,
but it is also irrelevant: no one knows how many rounds the game will go on ,
for there is no logical place to stop.21 Credibility arguments are self-defeating because if we assume they
matter, everyone else knows they matter too and can account for them. Because the recursion game
goes on ad infinitum, it is impossible to determine what policy to pursue. C. Evidence from History
Credibility arguments could also be justified with real world evidence . For
example, data could shed light on the manner of leaders credibility determinations: Do they actually pay
attention to the disposition of the opponent based on their past actions? Or do they undertake a current
calculus and focus on interests, capabilities, and the immediate situational context? In a series of
political scientists have shown that past actions and reputation
qualitative studies,
theories of credibility have little historical basis for support.22 When leaders
evaluate their opponents, they assess threats based on current calculations,
not on past actions. And when leaders have justified conflicts based on preserving a reputation for
resolve, others have not always interpreted their actions as was intended. Note that these studies are
limited to the context of military threats and international crises. Scholars hypothesize that military threats
might differ from other contexts because the stakes are so high that leaders analyze the situation instead
of using heuristics like reputation.23 These findings therefore do not extend to all international issues.24 In
the most extensive research on credibility theories, Professor Daryl Press reviewed thousands of pages of
archival documents and found that the current calculus theory, not the past action theory, best explains
decisionmaking in the appeasement crises of the 1930s, the Berlin crises of the late 1950s and early
1960s, and the deliberations during the Cuban Missile Crisis. On the past actions theory, the Nazis should
have interpreted British and French threats as not credible because the Allies repeatedly backed down
when Germany took aggressive steps in the 1930s. The historical evidence, however, shows that German
leaders believed British and French threats were credible even after the Allies backed down. For the
German leaders, credibility was a function of the Allies power, not their reputation. Indeed, Press finds that
German leaders almost never referenced past actions by the British and French. Accordingly, he concludes
that appeasement was poor strategy not because the Allies undermined their credibility, but because it
allowed Germany to increase its power.25 From 1958 to 1961, the world watched a number of Berlin crises
unfold between the Soviets and the West. Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev set six-month deadlines for the
Allies to withdraw from West Berlin, and he threatened to cut off access to the city. Yet every time,
On the past actions theory, British and American leaders
Khrushchev backed down.
should have interpreted each successive threat as less credible . However, Press
found that Soviet threats actually became more credible, not less credible.26 During this same period, the
Soviets expanded their nuclear arsenal; as their nuclear prowess grew, so did their credibility. Indeed, by
the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, American leaders strongly believed that Khrushchev would not back
down if the United States acted in Cuba. Here too Press finds that British and American leaders almost
never mentioned Khrushchevs record of bluffing.27 In an important book on reputation, Mercer analyzed
finds that decisionmakers interpreted their
the crises leading up to World War I.28 He
adversaries backing down based more on the specific situational context,
rather than on the disposition of the actors .29 Thus, when the Germans backed down, the
Triple Entente of Britain, France, and Russia attributed those defeats to situational factors. To the extent
they considered past actions, the Entente believed Germany would be more likely to follow through on its
threats in the future because it had previously been defeated. Note also that both Presss and Mercers
the players were the same, there were
cases stack the deck in favor of past actions theory:
repeated crises in a short period of time, and the crises involved the same
issues. These are precisely the situations in which we would expect past
action theories of credibility to be most powerful at explaining behavior.
Looking specifically at military actions justified by credibility arguments,
political scientists have also provided historical evidence that allies and
adversaries do not necessarily interpret these actions as enhancing
Americas reputation or credibility. In a study of the Korean War, Mercer recounts how
Secretary of State Dean Acheson believed that Western European allies were at near-panic over whether
the United States would act.30 They were not. When the British Cabinet met to discuss the issue, Korea
was fourth on their agenda and some of the ministers could not locate Korea on the map.31 Meanwhile,
the French were concerned that the Americans would be too resolute. They worried that the United States
would start a world war over what they saw as an area that was strategically unimportant.32 In another
study, Professor Ted Hopf analyzed the Soviet reaction to the United Statess withdrawal from Vietnam.
Hopf found that the Soviets did not see United States withdrawal as decreasing American credibility in the
Cold War.33
EXT Flex Not Key
Flex isnt key
Streichler 8 Stuart Streichler, Adjunct Faculty at Seattle University School
of Law. Ph.D. at Johns Hopkins University; J.D. at the University of Michigan
Law School; B.S. at Bowling Green State University, "Mad about Yoo, or Why
Worry about the Next Unconstitutional War", The Journal of Law 26 Politics,
Winter, 24 J. L. 26 Politics 93, Lexis) //AD
When Yoo discusses the need for flexibility in the process for warmaking, he
creates a false dilemma. He suggests that the president has discretionary
power to start wars or that the president must secure prior authorization from
Congress through a fixed, legalistic process. 230 For Yoo, the latter would
inevitably hamper the governments ability to respond to terrorist threats.231
Yet even if Congress has the power to decide whether to go to war, the
president retains substantial powers to respond quickly to defend the country.
No lawmaker would insist on Congress deliberating while terrorists set off
weapons of mass destruction in the United States. Americans who lived with the risk of
nuclear attack during the Cold War accepted the presidents authority to respond to the Soviet Union
Congress has demonstrated
without waiting for the results of legislative debate. Additionally,
that it can move quickly to authorize the use of military force. Three days after
September 11, the Senate voted 98-0 to authorize the president to use force in response to the
attacks,232 and the House approved the measure a few hours later (420- 1).233 Another four days passed
before the president signed it.234 The last time Congress declared war in response to an attack on the
United States, it did not take lawmakers long to do so. The Senate (82-0) and the House (388-1) issued a
declaration of war thirty-three minutes after President Franklin D. Roosevelts Day of Infamy speech.235
Furthermore, whatever their capacity for dynamic response, presidents do not
always react to security threats with speed and energ position with flexibility,
there is more to constructing an adaptive foreign policy than letting the
president initiate military hostilities. Executive decisions on war that appear,
in the short term, to reflect a flexible approach may limit policy options over the
long run, constraining foreign policymakers and military planners . Yoo expresses
no doubt that the presidents capacity to make decisions in foreign affairs and defenseto consider policy
choices and to evaluate threatsis far superior to Congresss.236 That overstates the reach such an
Seemingly for every example where executive decision-
unqualified conclusion.
making works well, another can be cited exposing its de y affect the
presidents decision on whether to take the nation to ficiencies . President John F.
Kennedys management of the Cuban missile crisis, though not without its critics, is often cited as a classic
model of decision-making in crisis. The same presidents handling of the Bay of Pigs invasion has been
roundly criticized.237 As Yoo presents his argument on executive decision-making, it does not matter who
With the
occupies the office of the president. In fact, that can make a good deal of difference.
presidency structured around one individual, the decision-making process is
shaped by the chief executives native abilities, judgment, and experience.238
A whole range of personal qualities ma war: how the president assesses risk (especially with the uncertain
conditions that prevail in foreign affairs); whether he or she engages in wishful thinking; whether he or she
While every president consults with advisers,
is practical, flexible, and openminded.239
small group dynamics add another layer of difficulties in the executive
decision-making process. Even talented White House staffers and independent-minded cabinet
secretaries succumb to groupthink, as it has been calledthe overt and subtle pressures driving group
cohesiveness that can distort the decisionmaking process.240 This effect can be pronounced in foreign
policy, with stressful crises that often involve morally difficult choices.241 Members of the presidents
team, not fully aware they are doing so, may overrate their own power or moral position, cut off the flow of
information, downplay contrary views of outside experts, limit consideration of long-term consequences,
Once the
underestimate the risks of a particular policy, or fail to develop contingency plans.242
group coalesces around a particular view, it becomes increasingly difficult for
individual members to press the group to reassess rejected alternatives.243
The unique circumstances of working for the president can make matters
worse. Members of the administration generally share the presidents outlook, ideology, and policy pref
wed because executive officials give advice based on what they think the president wants to hear. Even if
the presidents subordinates differ with the chief executive on particular questions, they can only go so far
to challenge the president.244 In short, there are more questions surrounding presidential decisionmaking
on war than Yoo is willing to admit. Congress, with the president still involved, may be able to offset the
structural disadvantages of a decision-making process taking place behind closed doors in the White
House.While the executive branch tends to concentrate command authority in
one person, power is dispersed on Capitol Hill. Not all members of Congress
are equal, but no person has influence comparable to the presidents power
within the executive branch. In comparison with the select handful of advisers who have the
most influence with the president, the number of elected legislators and their diverse ideologies,
constituencies, and persp ntrary to the presidents decision-making process, insulated by executive
privilege, the legislative process involves on-the-record votes and speeches by elected representatives
To be sure, Congress is not an
and thus provides a forum for public deliberation.245
idealized debating society. Lawmakers have parochial concerns. They often
bargain in private. Their public debates can be grounded in emotional
appeals as much as reason.246 Yet in eagerness to rate the president far
above Congress in deciding to go to war, Yoo overlooks the value in having a
decision-making process conducted in relatively open view and the
possibilities for lawmakers to engage in serious deliberations on vital
questions of national security.
EXT Cred Turn
The plans balance of power solves boosts policy
effectiveness
Weinberger 9 - Assistant Professor in the Department of Politics and
Government at the University of Puget Sound, M.A. and Ph.D. in Political
Science from Duke University (Seth, "Balancing War Powers in an Age of
Terror", The Good Society, 18(2),
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/good_society/v018/18.2.weinberger.html) //AD
For the Founding Fathers, that balance emerged from the fundamental structure of constitutional
government that they created. "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition," James Madison wrote in a
powerful argument for the separation of powers.2 At first glimpse, this might seem to contradict Ford's
advice to avoid "a constant rivalry" over the conduct of America's war efforts. But,if the rivalry over
control of war powers occurs not with the branches fighting over the right to
use this or that particular power but rather involves the presidency and
Congress wielding their own specific powers both in pursuit of a coherent policy
as well as to prevent the other from becoming too strong, then Ford's vision
can be merged with that of the Founders. While constant rivalry and
competition between the branches may not be desirable, neither is a
situation in which one branch exercises unchecked power . A sound
theory of war powers should create a situation in which each branch uses its
unique strengths and weaknesses not only to check the ambitions of the
other but also to develop common solutions to the challenges that
threaten the security of the nation.3 The war on terror has posed considerable
problems for the constitutional balance of powers between the executive and legislative
branches. In its efforts to protect the United States in the wake of the September 11 attacks, the Bush
administration has tried to expand the scope and breadth of executive power.
Time and time again, when the constitutionality of its policies have been
challenged, the executive branch has responded with claims of inherent
presidential power to take actions necessary to defend the country. However,
in almost every instance of a legal challenge to those policies, the
administration has lost . What do these challenges and defeats mean for the overall
the powers claimed by the executive branch
distribution of war powers? On the one hand,
would give the president unprecedented powers for a potentially
indefinite period, as it is hard to imagine that terrorism a tactic rather than an enemy
will ever be defeated. On the other hand, it must be recognized that the threat of international
terrorism is no idle matter. Terrorism of the kind that manifested itself on September 11, 2001, is a threat
The question of allocating war
unlike any other that the United States has ever faced.
powers between the president and Congress is a critical one. If too much
power is concentrated in the hands of the executive , the country risks
undermining basic constitutional protections of individual freedoms
and eroding the democratic nature of the republic; if too much of a
role is given to Congress, the country may not be able to effectively develop
policies to protect itself. And when there is no clear theory guiding the actions of the government,
policy muddles along, with the executive branch taking the lead by putting an
idea into action and hoping that it will withstand judicial scrutiny. Thus there
is a need for a balanced theory of war powers that respects the constitutional allocation
of power and heeds the advice of President Ford.
EXT Tyranny Turn
Executive flexibility fails it results in worse decision-
making only a risk it increases conflict
Schneier 5 Chief Technology Officer of Resilient Systems, fellow at
Harvard's Berkman Center for Cyber-law Internet and Society, and a board
member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (Bruce, The Security Threat of
Unchecked Presidential Power, 12-21-05,
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/12/the_security_th_1.html) //AD
Yoo's memo ignored this. Written 11 days after Congress refused to grant the president wide-ranging
powers, it admitted that "the Joint Resolution is somewhat narrower than the President's constitutional
authority," but argued "the President's broad constitutional power to use military
force ... would allow the President to ... [take] whatever actions he deems
appropriate ... to pre-empt or respond to terrorist threats from new quarters." Even if Congress
specifically says no. The result is that the president's wartime powers, with its
armies, battles, victories, and congressional declarations, now extend to the rhetorical "War
on Terror": a war with no fronts, no boundaries, no opposing army, and --
most ominously -- no knowable "victory." Investigations, arrests, and trials are
not tools of war. But according to the Yoo memo, the president can define war
however he chooses, and remain "at war" for as long as he chooses. This
is indefinite dictatorial power . And I don't use that term lightly; the very
definition of a dictatorship is a system that puts a ruler above the law.
In the weeks after 9/11, while America and the world were grieving, Bush
built a legal rationale for a dictatorship . Then he [the president]
immediately started using it to avoid the law. This is, fundamentally, why this
issue crossed political lines in Congress. If the president can ignore laws
regulating surveillance and wiretapping, why is Congress bothering to debate
reauthorizing certain provisions of the Patriot Act? Any debate over laws is predicated
on the belief that the executive branch will follow the law. This is not a
partisan issue between Democrats and Republicans; it's a president unilaterally
overriding the Fourth Amendment, Congress and the Supreme
Court . Unchecked presidential power has nothing to do with how much
you either love or hate George W. Bush. You have to imagine this power in the
hands of the person you most don't want to see as president , whether it be Dick
Cheney or Hillary Rodham Clinton, Michael Moore or Ann Coulter. Laws are what give us
security against the actions of the majority and the powerful. If we discard
our constitutional protections against tyranny in an attempt to protect us
from terrorism, we're all less safe as a result .
TSA Resource
2ac AT Borders
This evidence is literally about the National ID system
which isnt the affirmative in fact, their trade-off isnt
possible cause were an internal TSA policy our trade-off
evidence is way more specific and logical and says it
would be spent on counter-terror and intelligence
2ac AT Police State
Happening in the squo its detrimental now
Airport Policy and Security News #97,
http://reason.org/news/show/1013705.html#d)//twemchen
TSA--have
Two branches of the Department of Homeland SecurityCustoms & Border Protection and
been conducting (or condoning) warrantless searches . Unexpected ramp searches of
general aviation aircraft by CPB have aroused the Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association (AOPA). The second
TSA has encouraged operators of valet parking at commercial
type of search, in which
airports to search cars parked there, has received far less publicity. Over 40 GA pilots have told
AOPA that they and their plane have been searched by Customs & Border Protection agents (or by local
law enforcement acting at CBP's request). In September AOPA President Mark Baker met with Rep. Sam
Graves (R, MO) to discuss the issue, which led to Graves requesting the Inspector Generals of both DHS
and DOT to investigate these actions. Graves pointed out that no evidence of criminal activity has been
found in any of these searches. Thomas Winkowski, acting commissioner of CBP, has responded that
various federal regulations permit "any federal agent" to check pilot and aircraft
documents as the basis for stopping , searching , and even detaining law-
abiding GA pilots on domestic flights. AOPA General Counsel Ken Mead cites an internal CPB memo
that calls such searches "zero-suspicion seizures " as indicating that the agency has
overstepped its bounds . "We don't object to law enforcement officers stopping and searching
general aviation aircraft when they have a legitimate reason to do soin other words, when they have
probable cause or reasonable suspicion of illegal activity." But he adds, "It is our position that federal law
enforcement officers have absolutely no authority to stop GA aircraft without meeting that legal standard."
In a troubling sign that CPB has no intention of backing down, it has recently moved to reclassify the data
in its Air and Marine Operations Surveillance System (AMOSS) to exempt them from the Privacy Act, which
makes them unavailable to reporters, attorneys, and everyone else. Stories also appeared in the media
last year about a number of cases in which TSA-approved airport security plans call for inspecting every
vehicle left in the care of airport valet parking. Shocked passengers at Birmingham, Rochester, and San
Diego have complained about learningsometimes via a card left inside the carthat the vehicle had
been searched "under TSA regulations." Bob Burns of the TSA Blog Team responded to the initial outcries
by trying to deflect attention from the agency itself to the airport's own security plan (which of course is
worked out under the direction of the airport's TSA Federal Security Director). The rationale for searching
valet-parked cars is that such cars may be left at curbside, next to the terminal, for an uncertain period of
time until the valet attendant drives them to the valet parking area. And that if a bomb were inside the car
when next to the terminal, it could kill or injure many more people than if it went off inside the nearby
parking structure. But many other vehicles linger for a while at the terminal curbside and could be an
equally large threatbut they are not searched. The underlying problem with both the GA aircraft searches
and the valet parking searches is that they are done without probable cause and without a warrant. The
Fourth Amendment supposedly protects Americans from such searches. In historical context, it was a huge
change to "search" every single airline passenger before permitting him or her to proceed to the gate. But
given what appeared to be the dire threat to aircraft and passengers exemplified by Al Qaeda, Congress
and most Americans agreed to this exception to the Fourth Amendment. More than 12 years later, even
searching private planes
mandatory screening of every passenger is looking like overkill. And
and passengers' cars without probable cause and a warrant is exactly
the kind of DHS mission creep [what]Congress should put a stop to.
Only a risk we reduce civil rights abuses
Lexis)//twemchen
Aviation screening is an important element of aviation security, but that does not mean that all
TSA actions are appropriate .93 Some TSA practices push the legal boundaries of
permissible searches and seizures. Another issue is whether the TSA is using
its screening activities to discover evidence of crimes that are beyond the scope of its
proper role in aviation security. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars
unreasonable searches and seizures. With airport searches, individuals do have a
reduced expectation of privacy, and federal courts have held that warrantless searches of all
passengers prior to boarding are permissible.94 But some of TSAs current practices, such as
full body pat-downs and the use of A dvanced I maging T echnology machines, may be
over the legal line . AIT machines were designed as secondary screening
devices, but their current use as primary screening devices arguably fails the legal
tests set by federal courts.95 When the AIT machines were first deployed, the
invasiveness of the machines full-body images led to a public backlash . In
response, Congress now requires TSA to use the machines with software to protect
privacy. There are two types of AIT machines: millimeter wave and X-ray backscatter. The latter
machines raised both privacy and health concerns and have been removed from U.S. airports.96 The
millimeter wave machines have been upgraded with software that renders a stick-figure image of a person
intrusiveness of TSA pat-downs
with dots appearing for potentially threatening items.97 The
has also caused a lot of concern . Americans have been appalled at reported
incidents of offensive pat-downs of young children , the disabled , the elderly ,
and people with medical conditions that require them to wear items such
as insulin pumps , urine bags , and adult diapers . In one case, a woman
dying of leukemia was taking a trip to Hawaii. She had called the TSA ahead of time to ask
about her special needs. But in the airport security line, TSA agents lifted her
bandages from recent surgeries, opened her saline bag and contaminated it, and
lifted her shirt to examine the feeding tubes she needed to prevent
organ failure all in front of other passengers and after the TSA refused her request for
a private screening.98 Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and other policymakers have condemned the needless
harassment that some passengers have received from the TSA.99 Another civil-liberties
concern is that the TSA sometimes acts as if it had broad police power outside of
its transportation security role. For example, recent sweeps by teams of TSA agents at rail
and transit stations have resulted in arrests for minor offenses such as drug
possession, and this activity seems to simply duplicate local police functions .100
When Americans travel by air, they do not surrender all their privacy , and
case law bars TSA airport screeners from looking for evidence of crimes
beyond plots against aviation security.101 Yet TSA seems to have developed
mission creep at airport checkpoints.102 In one incident in 2009, TSA harassed Steven Bierfeldt,
who had just left a convention in Missouri and was flying out of a local airport when he was subjected to
detention by TSA screeners.103 He was carrying $4,700 in a lockbox from the sale of tickets and
paraphernalia from a political group that he belonged to, but TSA screeners considered the cash
suspicious. They interrogated Bierfeldt and threatened him with arrest and prosecution unless he revealed
why he had the money. Bierfeldt was eventually released, but he recorded the incident with his cell phone.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit on his behalf, and in response TSA revised its screening
guidelines. Current TSA rules now state that screening may not be conducted to detect evidence of
crimes unrelated to transportation security.104 However, there have since been other troubling incidents.
In 2010, TSA screeners scrutinized Kathy Parker while she was departing from the Philadelphia airport.105
Parker was carrying an envelope with $8,000 worth of checks, about which Philadelphia police and TSA
screeners interrogated her. They told her that they suspected her of embezzling the money and leaving
town in a divorce situation.106 Police tried to contact her husband by phone, but they were unsuccessful
and eventually released Parker. Aside from invasions of privacy, the frequent congestion at U.S. airports
caused by security procedures has a large cost in terms of wasted time. There are about 740 mil-lion
passenger flights a year in the United States.107 For example, if a new security procedure adds 10
minutes to each flight, travelers would consume another 123 million hours per year. That is a lot of time
Policymakers need
that people could have used earning money or enjoying life with their families.
to remember that citizens value their time and that unneeded bureaucratic
procedures destroy that precious resource.
Util and consequences first

Goodin 95 professor of government at the University of Essex, and
professor of philosophy and social and political theory at Australian National
University (Robert E., Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy, Cambridge
University Press, Print)BC
As,an Account of the peculiar role responsibilities of public officials
that vice
(and, by extension, of ordinary individuals in their public capacities as citizens)
becomes a virtue, though. Those agents, too, have to come from
somewhere, bringing with them a whole raft of baggage of personal
attachments, commitments, principles and prejudices. In their public
capacities, however, we think it only right and proper that they should
stow that baggage as best they can. Complete neutrality might be
an impossible ideal. That is another matter." But it seems indisputable that
that is an ideal which people in their public capacities should strive
to realize as best they are able. That is part (indeed, a central part) of what it is
to be a public official ,it all. It is the essence of public service as such that public servants
should serve the public at large. Public servants must not play favorites. Or
consider, again, criticisms revolving around the theme that util-
itarianism is a coldly calculating doctrine.23 In personal affairs that is an
unattractive feature. There, we would like to suppose that certain sorts of actions proceed immediately
from the heart, without much reflection much less any real calculation of consequences. Among intimates
it would be extremely hurtful to think of every kind gesture as being contrived to produce some particular
The case of public officials is, once again, precisely the opposite.
effect.
There, it is the height of irresponsibility to proceed careless of the
consequences . Public officials are, above all else, obliged to take care: not to
go off half cocked, not to let their hearts rule their heads. In Hare's telling example, the very worst thing
that might be said of the Suez misadventure was not that the British and French did some perfectly awful
things (which is true, too) but that they did so utterly unthinkingly.24 Related to the critique of
utilitarianism as a calculating doctrine is the critique of utilitarianism as a consequentialist doctrine.
According to utilitarianism, the effects of an action are everything. There are no actions which are, in and
of themselves, morally right or wrong, good or bad. The only things that are good or bad are the effects
that actions produce.25 That proposition runs counter to certain ethical intuitions which, at least in certain
quarters, are rooted deeply. Those who harbor a Ten Commandments view of the nature of morality see a
moral code as being essentially a list of "thou shalts" and "thou shall nots " a list of things that are right or
wrong in and of themselves, quite regardless of any consequences that might come from doing them.2"
That may or may not be a good way to run one's private affairs. 1Even those who think it is, however, tend
public officials' role respon-
to concede that it is no way to run public affairs. It is in the nature of
sibilities that they are morally obliged to "dirty their hands " - make hard
choices, do things that are wrong (or would ordinarily be wrong, or would be wrong for
in the service of some greater public good.2 It
ordinary private individuals)
would be simply irresponsible of public officials (in any broadly secular society, at least) to
adhere mindlessly to moral precepts read off some sacred list,
literally "whatever the consequences."3 Doing right though the
heavens may fall is not (nowadays, anyway) a particularly attractive posture
for public officials to adopt.
3
Israel
2ac F/L
Non-unique the Iran deal pissed them off already either
that kills coop or the plan wont
They dont have a link card they care about the NSA, not
the TSA
Jones says the Secretary of Defense is appeasing Israel by

selling them weapons which should solve the impact
Their Bob evidence says the NSA freedom act hurt

cooperation with Israel their Jones evidence post-dates
by a month and a half and says this loss was offset with
enhanced intelligence guarantees proves the plan would
be offset too
AT Econ
They have no evidence that security cooperation spills

over to disrupt long-standing trade and investment ties
managed by the private sector
AT Cyber
Their ev only says private investment in Israeli R&D

solves cybersecurity no reason TSA screening spill over
AT Iran Nuke Prolif
The Iran nuclear deal definitely collapses cooperation over

Iran nukes way more than TSA screening can
EXT Low
Iran deal triggers the impact

NYT 7/14/2015
(http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-
israel.html?_r=0, Isabel Kershner, EM)
JERUSALEM Furiously denouncing the accord to limit Irans nuclear program on Tuesday as a historic
mistake, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not be bound by the agreement and
warned of negative repercussions in a region already riven with rivalries and armed conflict. Contrary to
President Obamas assertion that the agreement will cut off every pathway for Iran to obtain nuclear
Israels leaders rejected the deal as a dangerous compromise that will
weapons,
exacerbate regional tensions and pave the way over time for Iran to produce multiple bombs
an entire arsenal with the means to deliver it, Mr. Netanyahu said. Israel views a nuclear-armed Iran as a
the accord is the bitter culmination of a long
threat to its survival. For Mr. Netanyahu,
struggle that has severely strained Israels relations with the United States , its
crucial ally. The disagreement showed no sign of abating. In a phone call hours after the signing of the
deal, Mr. Obama told Mr. Netanyahu that it will remove the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran, an outcome in
the national security interest of the United States and Israel, according to a statement from the White
House. Mr. Netanyahu told Mr. Obama that the agreement raised the danger that Iran would obtain nuclear
weapons either by waiting out the 10 to 15 years of restrictions specified by the accord, or by violating it.
Referring to the expected lifting of sanctions Mr. Netanyahu said in a televised statement in English: In the
coming decade, the deal will reward Iran, the terrorist regime in Tehran, with hundreds of billions of dollars.
This cash bonanza will fuel Irans terrorism worldwide, its aggression in the region and its efforts to destroy
Israel, which are ongoing. Describing Iran as a rogue regime, he added, We will always defend
ourselves. Israeli experts said that even though the agreement contained positive aspects that freeze or
even roll back Irans nuclear program over the coming decade, it was still deeply problematic given the
Israeli conviction that Iran is patient when it comes to building its nuclear capabilities. Ephraim Asculai,
who worked at the Israel Atomic Energy Commission for over 40 years, said the main problem he foresaw
after reading the agreement was verification of Iranian compliance, particularly inspecting sites other than
declared nuclear installations. Mr. Asculai said the verification mechanism is lacking. Access is limited,
said Mr. Asculai, who is now at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv. One cannot go and
search for undeclared facilities or undeclared materials and activities. Permission to visit an undeclared
facility depends on inspectors presenting evidence of why they want to go there, he said. Since he
speculated that that would involve revealing sensitive intelligence to the Iranians, he said their hands are
tied from the beginning. Emily Landau, the director of the institutes arms control and regional security
project, asked, If there is no perceivable change in Irans military aspirations in the nuclear realm, the
question is, why would sun-setting the deal be a good idea? More fundamentally, Israeli experts say the
agreement empowers Iran and affords legitimacy to its nuclear program, which it insists is for peaceful
purposes. That, they say, is likely to trigger a nuclear arms race in the region, with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and
Turkey likely to want to acquire similar capabilities. In a rare display of Israeli consensus, criticism of the
deal crossed the political lines. Isaac Herzog, the leader of the center-left Zionist Union party and head of
the opposition in Parliament, said that Israel was on the verge of a new era in the Middle East that poses
security and diplomatic challenges for Israel that are more dangerous and complex than any we have
known before. Avigdor Lieberman, the former foreign minister and leader of the ultranationalist Yisrael
Beiteinu party, which is also in the opposition, compared the accord to the Munich Agreement reached with
Nazi Germany in 1938, saying, It is an agreement of total capitulation to unrestrained terrorism and
violence in the international arena. But Mr. Netanyahus domestic opponents have differed on Israels
approach, particularly toward relations with the Obama administration. Some critics are portraying the deal
the prime minister, who infuriated the White House by
as a personal failure for
addressing a joint meeting of Congress in the spring to attack the negotiations.
They say that the spoiled relations with the Obama administration harmed
Israels ability to influence the outcome. Mr. Netanyahu is now gearing up for the
next fight: to lobby Congress to reject the deal and ultimately override any presidential veto.
But that is likely to lead to further confrontation between Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Obama at
a time when many Israelis say what is needed is the rebuilding of trust and
intimacy between the allies. Amos Yadlin, a former chief of Israels military intelligence, said in
an interview that his recommendation was for Israel not to meddle in internal American affairs. But he
said that Israel could still come to understandings with the United States about what happens if Iran
violates the agreement or decides to race toward building a bomb. At the same time, Mr. Yadlin said, Israel
should maintain its operational options, including a military option against Irans nuclear facilities for
when all other options are exhausted. Aside from a possible nuclear arms race in the Middle East, Israeli
experts are also concerned that American compensation for the deal in the form of arms packages for
other United States allies in the region, such as Saudi Arabia, could also erode Israels so-called qualitative
edge when it comes to weapons. Although Israel and Saudi Arabia share concerns about Iran, they do not
have diplomatic relations. There is an agreement between Israel and the United States, which I hope
wont be violated, that Israel should keep its qualitative edge under any circumstances, said Yaakov
Amidror, a former Israeli national security adviser who is now at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic
Studies at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv. This is not compensation but an obligation, he added. In the
Middle East, Mr. Amidror said, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend, but another enemy.
US-Israeli relations have collapsed now

Steele 15 (Michael, 4-2-15, Can US-Israeli relations get any worse?,
MSNBC columnist and former RNC chairman, http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/can-us-israeli-
relations-get-any-worse, MJW)
US-Israeli relations have collapsed now
Steele 15 (Michael, 4-2-15, Can US-Israeli relations get any worse?,

MSNBC columnist and former RNC chairman, http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/can-us-israeli-
relations-get-any-worse, MJW)
relations between the United States and

Who would have thought, just a few years ago, that
Israel would hit such an historic rock bottom? Whether its from the assorted
tantrums, slights or outright in-your-face moments, the clear and present
danger of the United States and Israel at odds with one another is troublesome.
With the March 17 re-election of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
behind them and the establishment of a possible Palestinian state thrown into
doubt, as well as Netanyahus legitimate opposition to the nuclear deal that
the Obama administration is negotiating with Iran, now is the time for both the
president and the prime minister to act less like playground bullies with each other and more like the
leaders we need them to be.
The US-Israeli relationship is completely and permanently broken
Rosenberg 15 (MJ, contributor for the Huffington Post, 5-12-15, The US-
Israel Relationship Has Changed Permanently, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-
rosenberg/us-israel-relationship_b_6854930.html, MJW)
Don't believe it when you read that in a few days, weeks or months,
everything will be back to normal in the U.S.-Israel relationship. They won't
be. This is an old lobby mantra and it tends to emanate from friends of the
lobby who simply cannot contemplate that anything will ever break the hold
it has on policymakers. In one sense it's true. It is as unlikely that AIPAC will
go down as it was 10 years ago that most U.S. states would legalize gay
marriage! But it is going to happen because Prime Minister Netanyahu along
with AIPAC (and its Congressional cutouts) have deeply embarrassed the
American Jewish community in several ways. Note: when it comes to the
power of the lobby, the Jewish community is the ball game. Those millions of
Christian Zionists out there do not fund Congressional candidacies, nor are
their votes in play. Moreover, for them Israel takes a way back seat to such
issues as gay rights, illegal immigration, abortion and hating liberals and
secularism. AIPAC is focused on only one issue, and directs money to
campaigns on only one issue. The conservative Christians are irrelevant. That
last point gets to one of the ways the Netanyahu/Letter of 47 brouhaha has
permanently damaged Israel's standing in America. It has made it partisan.
Even before anyone contemplated Netanyahu coming to Congress to
challenge President Obama, support for Israel was becoming a Republican
issue, with Republicans in near solid support while Democrats were divided
down the middle. That trend is only accelerating now, as the Israeli
government has made clear that it has no use for Democrats, and certainly
not the Democratic president who it has treated with an open contempt
rarely seen in international relations. Given that the overwhelming majority of
American Jews are Democrats and Obama supporters, Netanyahu (with
AIPAC's connivance) has successfully launched a wrecking ball at the
foundation of Israel's support base in America.
Relations with Israel are dead

Bremmer 15 (Ian, 5-2-15, President of Eurasia Group, and Global Research
Professor at New York University, The U.S. and Israel Are Divided and That
Wont Change, http://time.com/3768165/us-israel-relations-middle-east-iran-
divide/, MJW)
Obama and Netanyahu don't like each other, but Israel and the U.S. will have
problems even when they're both out of office. Some accuse President
Obama of undermining Israels security to protect a peace process thats
going nowhere. Others say Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is poisoning
Israels relations with his countrys superpower protector and isolating Israel
internationally. Its clear that Obama and Netanyahu dont trust or like each
other. But the widening divide between these countries cant be reduced to a
personality conflict between leaders . Differences in the interests and
worldviews of the two governments are becoming more important. Begin with
the two-state solution. In Washington, leaders of both parties will continue
to prioritize the U.S. commitment to Israels security. But Obama isnt the
only U.S. official who publicly supports the idea of an eventual Israeli
compromise with Palestinians. Former President George W. Bush described
himself in 2008 as the first American president to call for a Palestinian
state. Support for this aspiration remains part of the Republican Party
platform. Israelis, on the other hand, even those who support a two-state
solution in principle, are far more aware of the challenges in creating a viable
country that connects Gaza and the West Bankto say nothing of the
political nightmare of trying to evict thousands of Israeli settlers from
disputed land. Support for a two-state solution is not dead in either country,
but Americans and Israelis do not look at this question with the same eyes.
With every surge in Israeli-Palestinian violence, that gap becomes more
obvious. Obama and Netanyahu also hold opposing views on how best to
ensure that Iran doesnt develop nuclear weapons, but that difference reflects
divergent ideas within their governments on the role Iran might play in the
future. For the Obama administration, Iran might one day become an agent of
change in the Middle East, because its a country that holds genuinely
contested elections, however flawed, and its one in which a sizeable majority
isnt old enough to remember the religious revolution that the countrys
leaders say gives them their mandate. For Israels government, Irans
hardliners remain in firm control. Whatever the aspirations of its young
people, Israel believes Iran must remain isolated until its elections are fully
free and fair and its leaders recognize Israels right to exist. Nuclear
negotiations have widened this gap.
IGR
2ac F/L
IGR low
Wittes 8 - Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution,
co-founder and editor-in-chief of the Lawfare blog, member of the Hoover
Institutions Task Force on National Security Law (Benjamin, Law and the Long
War: The Future of Justice in the Age of Terror, June 2008, google books) //AD
What the Supreme Court has done is carve itself a seat at the table. It has
intimated, without ever deciding, that a constitutional basis for its actions
existsin addition to the statutory bases on which it decided the casesmeaning that its
authority over overseas detentions may be an inherent feature of judicial
power, not a policy question on which the legislature and executive can work
their will. Whether the votes exist on the court to go this extra step we will find out soon enough. But
the specter of a vastly different judicial posture in this area now haunts the
executive branchone in which the justices assert an inherent authority to
review executive detention and interrogation practices, divine rights to apply with that
jurisdiction based on due process and vaguely worded international humanitarian law principles not clearly
implemented in U.S. law, and allow their own power to follow the militarys
anywhere in the world. Such a posture would constitute an earthquake in
the relationships among all three branches of government, and the doctrinal seeds
for it have all been planted. Whether they ultimately take root depends on factors
extrinsic to the war on terrorparticularly the future composition of a Supreme Court now
closely divided on these questions. It will also pivot on the manner in which the
political branches posture the legal foundations of the war in the future.
Building a strong legislative architecture now may be the only way to avert a
major expansion of judicial power over foreign policy and warfare.
Freedom Act thumps
No internal link coop over their impacts are inevitable

because of DHS policies plus, their impact ev is about
DHS policies, not about cooperation no reason the DA is
key
HR Cred Bad
Russia 2ac F/L
No impact
Hoffman 12 (David E. Hoffman, contributing editor to Foreign Policy and the
author of The Dead Hand: The Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race and Its
Dangerous Legacy, which won the 2010 Pulitzer Prize for general non-fiction,
"Hey, Big Spender," Foreign Policy,
www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/22/hey_big_spender?page=full,
October 22, 2012)
Despite tensions that flare up, the United States and Russia are no longer
enemies; the chance of nuclear war or surprise attack is nearly zero.
We trade in each other's equity markets. Russia has the largest audience of
Facebook users in Europe, and is open to the world in a way the Soviet Union
never was.
Alt causes
a) Laundry list and even if the plan solves influence, the

US wont use it
Mariam 13, 8/18/13 PhD, JD, teaches political science at California State
University, San Bernardino Is America Disinventing Human Rights?,
http://www.ethiopianreview.us/48632
the
In a New York Times op-ed piece in June 2012, Carter cautioned, At a time when popular revolutions are sweeping the globe,
United States should be strengthening, not weakening, basic rules of law and
principles of justice enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. But instead of making the world safer, Americas violation of
international human rights abets our enemies and alienates our friends. Carter
also raised a number of important questions: Has the U.S. abdicated its moral leadership in the
arena of international human rights? Has the U.S. betrayed its core values by maintaining a detention facility at
Guantnamo Bay, Cuba, and subjecting dozens of prisoners to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
and leaving them without the prospect of ever obtaining their freedom? Does the arbitrary killing of a person suspected to be
an enemy terrorist in a drone strike along with women and children who happen to be nearby comport with Americas professed commitment
to the rule of law and human rights? In 1948, the U.S. played a central leadership role in inventing the principal instrument which today
serves as the bedrock foundation of modern human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the UN General
Assembly in December 1948, set a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations in terms of equality, dignity and rights.
Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, the widow of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, chaired the committee that drafted the UDHR. Eleanor remains an
unsung heroine even though she was the mother of the modern global human rights movement. Without her, there would have been no
UDHR; and without the UDHR, it is doubtful that the plethora of subsequent human rights conventions and regimes would have come into
existence. Remarkably, she managed to mobilize, organize and proselytize human rights even though she had no legal training, diplomatic
experience or bureaucratic expertise. She used her skills as political activist and advocate in the cause of freedom, justice and civil rights to
It seems the U.S. is disinventing

work for global human rights. Is America disinventing human rights?
human rights through the pursuit of double (triple, quadruple) standard of

human rights policy wrapped in a cover of diplocrisy . In Africa, the U.S. has
one set of standards for Robert Mugabes Zimbabwe and Omar al-Bashirs
Sudan. Mugabe and Bashir are classified as the nasty hombres of human rights in Africa. The U.S. has targeted
both regimes for crippling economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure . The
U.S. has frozen the assets of Mugabes family and henchmen because the
Mugabe regime rules through politically motivated violence and intimidation
and has triggered the collapse of the rule of law in Zimbabwe. The U.S. calls
partners equally brutal regimes in Africa which serve as its proxies . Paul Kagame of
Rwanda, Yuweri Museveni of Uganda and the deceased leader of the regime in
Ethiopia are lauded as the new breed of African leaders and crowned
partners. Uhuru Kenyatta, recently elected president of Kenya and a suspect
under indictment by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes against
humanity is said to be different than Bashir who faces similar ICC charges . In
2009, Ambassador Susan E. Rice, then-U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, demanded Bashirs arrest and prosecution: The
people of Sudan have suffered too much for too long, and an end to their anguish will not come easily. Those who committed atrocities in
The U.S.
Sudan, including genocide, should be brought to justice. No official U.S. statement on Uhurus ICC prosecution was issued.
maintains excellent relations with Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea
who has been in power since 1979 because of that countrys oil reserves ; but all
of the oil revenues are looted by Obiang and his cronies. In 2011, the U.S. brought legal action in federal court
against Obiangs son to seize corruptly obtained assets including a $40 million estate in Malibu, California overlooking the Pacific Ocean, a
luxury plane and a dozen super-sports cars worth millions of dollars. The U.S. has not touched any of the other African Ali Babas and their forty
Despite lofty rhetoric in

dozen thieving cronies who have stolen billions and stashed their cash in U.S. and other banks.
support of the advancement of democracy and protection of human rights in

Africa, the United States continues to subsidize and coddle African
dictatorships that are as bad as or even worse than Mugabes . The U.S. currently provides
substantial economic aid, loans, technical and security assistance to the repressive regimes in
Ethiopia, Congo (DRC), Uganda, Rwanda and elsewhere. None of these

countries holds free elections, allow the operation of an independent press or
free expression or abide by the rule of law. All of them are corrupt to the core,
keep thousands of political prisoners, use torture and ruthlessly persecute
their opposition. Yet they are deemed U.S. partners. Principled
disengagement as a way of reinventing an American human rights
policy? If the Obama Administration indeed has a global or African
human rights policy, it must be a well-kept secret . In March 2013, Michael Posner, U.S.
Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor said American human rights policy is based on principled
engagement: We are going to go to the United Nations and join the Human Rights Council and were going to be part of it even though we
recognize it doesnt work Were going to engage with governments that are allies but we are also going to engage with governments with
tough relationships and human rights are going to be part of those discussions. Second, the U.S. will follow a single standard for human
rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it applies to all including ourselves Third, consistent with President Obamas
personality, the Administration believes change occurs from within and so a lot of the emphasis [will be] on how we can help local actors,
change agents, civil society, labor activists, religious leaders trying to change their societies from within and amplify their own voices and give
them the support they need On August 14, according to Egyptian government sources, 525 protesters, mostly members of the Muslim
Brotherhood, were killed and 3,717 injured at the hands of Egyptian military and security forces. It was an unspeakably horrifying massacre of
Obama criticized the

protesters exercising their right to peaceful expression of grievances. On August 15, President
heavy-handed crackdown on peaceful protesters with the usual platitudes .

The United States strongly condemns the steps that have been taken by Egypts interim government and security forces. We deplore violence
against civilians. His message to the Egyptian people was somewhat disconcerting in light of the massacre. America cannot determine the
future of Egypt. We do not take sides with any particular party or political figure. I know its tempting inside Egypt to blame the United
States. In July 2009, in Ghana, President Obama told Africas strongmen, History offers a clear verdict: governments that respect the will
of their own people are more prosperous, more stable, and more successful than governments that do not. No person wants to live in a
society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality Make no mistake: history is on the side of these brave Africans [citizens and
their communities driving change], and not with those who use coups or change Constitutions to stay in power. Africa doesnt need strongmen,
it needs strong institutions. President Obama has a clear choice in Egypt between those who use coups to stay in power and the people of
Egypt peacefully protesting in the streets. Now he says, We dont take sides By not taking sides, it seems he has taken sides with
Egypts strongmen who use coups to stay in power. So much for principled engagement! Obama reassured the Egyptian military that the
U.S. does not intend to end or suspend its decades-old partnership with them. He cautioned the military that While we want to sustain our
relationship with Egypt, our traditional cooperation cannot continue as usual while civilians are being killed in the streets. He indicated his
disapproval of the imposition of martial law but made no mention of the manifest military coup that had ousted Morsy. He obliquely referred
to it as a military intervention. He made a gesture of action cancelling a symbolic military exercise with the Egyptian army. There will be no
suspension of U.S. military aid to Egypt and no other sanctions will be imposed on the Egyptian military or government. I am not clear what
Obamas human rights policy of principled engagement actually means. But I have a lot of questions about it: Does it mean moral
complacency and tolerance of the crimes against humanity of African dictators for the sake of the war on terror and oil? Is it a euphemism for
abdication of American ideals on the altar of political expediency? Does it mean overlooking and excusing the crimes of ruthless dictators and
turning a blind eye to their bottomless corruption? Does principled engagement mean allowing dictators to suck at the teats of American
taxpayers to satisfy their insatiable aid addiction while they brutalize their people? The facts of Obamas
principled engagement tell a different story . In May 2010, after the ruling party in Ethiopia declared it
had won 99.6 percent of the seats in parliament, the U.S. demonstrated its principled engagement by issuing a Statement expressing
concern that international observers found that the elections fell short of international commitments and promised to work diligently with
Ethiopia to ensure that strengthened democratic institutions and open political dialogue become a reality for the Ethiopian people. There
is no evidence that the U.S. did anything to strengthen democratic
institutions and open political dialogue to become a reality for the Ethiopian
people. When two ICC indicted suspects in Kenya (Kenyatta and Ruto) won
the presidency in Kenya a few months ago, the U.S. applied its principled
engagement in the form of a robust defense of the suspects . Johnnie Carson, the former
United States Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, said the ICC indictments of Bashir and Uhuru/Ruto are different. I dont want to
What makes Bashir and

make a comparison with Sudan in its totality because Sudan is a special case in many ways.
Sudan different, according to Carson, is the fact that Sudan is on the list of
countries that support terrorism and Bashir and his co-defendants are under
indictment for the genocide in Darfur. Since none of that applies to Kenya,
according to Carson, it appears the U.S. will follow a different policy . President
Obama says the U.S. will maintain its traditional partnership with
Egypts military, Egypts strongmen. At the onset of the Egyptian Revolution in 2011, Obama and
his foreign policy team froze in stunned silence, flat-footed and twiddling their thumbs and scratching their heads for days before staking out a
They could not bring themselves to use the D word

position on that popular uprising.
(dictator as in Hosni Mubarak) to describe events in Egypt then. Today Obama cannot
bring himself to say the C word (as in Egyptian military coup). Obama is in an
extraordinary historical position as a person of color to advance American
ideals and values throughout the world in convincing and creative ways. But
he cannot advance these ideals and values through a hollow notion of
principled engagement. Rather, he must adopt a policy of principled
disengagement with African dictators. That does not mean isolationism or a
hands off approach to human rights. By principled disengagement I mean a
policy and policy outcome that is based on measurable human rights metrics .
Under a policy of principled disengagement, the U.S. would establish clear, attainable and measurable human rights policy objectives in its
relations with African dictatorships. The policy would establish minimum conditions of human rights compliance. For instance, the U.S. could
set some basic criteria for the conduct of free and fair elections, press and individual freedoms, limits on arbitrary arrests and detentions,
prevention of extrajudicial punishments, etc. Using its annual human rights assessments, the U.S. could make factual determinations on the
extent to which it will engage or disengage with a particular regime. Partnership status and the benefits that come with it will be reserved to
those regimes that have good and improving records on specific human rights measures. Regimes that steal elections, win elections by 99.6
percent, engage in arbitrary arrests and detentions and other human rights violations would be denied partnership status and denied aid,
loans and technical assistance. Persistent violators of human rights would be given a compliance timetable to improve their records and
provided appropriate assistance to achieve specific human rights goals. If regimes persist in a pattern and practice of human rights violations,
the U.S. could raise the stakes and impose economic and diplomatic sanctions. The Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007
Obamas
contained many important statutory provisions that could serve as a foundation for principled disengagement.
principled engagement seems to be a justification for expediency at the

cost of American ideals. Until he decides to stand for principle, instead of
standing behind the rhetoric of principled engagement, he will continue to
find himself on a tightrope of moral, legal and political ambiguity. The U.S.
cannot condemn and deplore its way out of its human rights obligations
or global leadership role. Yes, the U.S. must take sides! It must take a
stand either with the victims of human rights abuses throughout the world or
the human rights abusers of the world. If Obama wants to save the world from strongmen with boots and in
designer suits with briefcases full of cash, he should pursue a policy of principled disengagement. But he should start by reflecting on the
words he spoke during his first inauguration speech:
b) Health things
HRW 14, (Human Rights Watch is an international non-governmental
organization that conducts research and advocacy on human right and has
won the Peabody award for Prestigious Journalism, WORLD REPORT 2014,
http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/united-states, pages
1 2, //VZ)
The United States has a vibrant civil society and media that enjoy
strong constitutional protections. Yet its rights record is marred by
abuses related to criminal justice, immigration, national security,
and drug policy. Within these areas, victims are often the most
vulnerable members of society: racial and ethnic minorities,
immigrants, children, the elderly, the poor, and prisoners. Revelations in 2013 of
extensive government surveillance and aggressive prosecutions of whistleblowers raised concerns about infringement of privacy rights and freedom of expression, generating a firestorm of
international protest against US practices. Federal policymakers proposed reforms to harmful longstanding immigration and sentencing laws and policies. The outcome of these initiatives
was uncertain at time of writing. A renewed commitment by President Barack Obama to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility remained unfulfilled. Lack of transparency made it
impossible to assess the implementation of promised reforms to the practice of targeted killings abroad, including through use of unmanned aerial drones; new information on individual
strikes found instances of violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. Harsh Sentencing The US has the largest reported incarcerated population in the world, and by far
the highest rate of imprisonment, holding 2.2 million people in adult prisons or jails as of year-end 2011. Mass incarceration reflects three decades of harsh state and federal sentencing
regimes, including increased use of life and life without parole sentences, high mandatory minimum sentences, and three strikes laws. The Sentencing Project reported that one in nine US
prisoners are serving a life sentence. The growing number of elderly prisoners poses a serious challenge to correctional authorities: as of 2011, the latest year for which complete numbers
are available, 26,136 persons aged 65 and older were incarcerated in state and federal prisons, up 62 percent in five years. In a positive step, the US Department of Justice in August
announced revisions to its rules for reviewing requests for compassionate release of elderly or disabled prisoners, making more federal inmates eligible for this rarely used mechanism. Also
in August, US Attorney General Eric Holder instructed federal prosecutors to try to avoid charges carrying mandatory minimum sentences for certain low-level, nonviolent drug offenders.
Though welcome, this policy change still leaves many drug offenders subject to disproportionately long mandatory sentences. Legislative efforts to grant judges more discretion in such
cases are under debate. In 2013, Maryland joined 17 other states and the District of Columbia in abolishing the death penalty, but 32 states still allow it. At time of writing, 34 people had
been executed in the US in 2013. North Carolina repealed its 2009 Racial Justice Act, which allowed death row prisoners to appeal their sentences on the basis of racial discrimination. Racial
Disparities in Criminal Justice Whites, African Americans, and Latinos have comparable rates of drug use but are arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated for drug offenses at vastly different
rates. For example, African Americans are nearly four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites, even though their rates of marijuana use are roughly equivalent.
While only 13 percent of the US population, African Americans represent 41 percent of state prisoners, and 44 percent of federal prisoners serving time for drug offenses. Because they are
disproportionately likely to have criminal records, members of racial and ethnic minorities are more likely than whites to experience stigma and legal discrimination in employment, housing,
education, public benefits, jury service, and the right to vote. In August, a federal court found that the stop and frisk policy of the New York City Police Department (NYPD) violated the
rights of minorities. A disproportionate share of people stopped and frisked under the policy are African American or Latino, and the New York Civil Liberties Union reports that 89 percent
of those stopped are innocent of any wrongdoing. The NYPD appealed the ruling. Drug Policy Reform In recent decades the US has spent hundreds of billions of dollars to arrest and
incarcerate drug offenders in the US. Its heavy reliance on criminal laws for drug control has had serious human rights costs, including infringement of the autonomy and privacy rights of
those who simply possess or use drugs. In a welcome shift, the US Department of Justice announced in August that it would not interfere with states legalization of marijuana so long as
states comply with certain federal priorities, such as prohibiting sale of drugs to children or transport of drugs across state lines. It also noted that a robust state regulatory approach to
marijuana may prevent organized crime from benefiting from the illicit marijuana trade. Washington and Colorado moved forward with implementation of state ballot initiatives to legalize
the recreational use of marijuana, as well as to regulate its production, sale, and distribution. Twenty other US states have legalized marijuana for medical purposes. Prison Conditions
September 2013 marked the 10-year anniversary of the passage of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), which resulted in the development of national standards to detect, prevent, and
punish prison rape. Implementation remains a challenge: approximately 4 percent of state and federal prison inmates and 3 percent of jail inmates report having experienced one or more
incidents of sexual abuse in 2011-2012, and many incidents continue to go unreported. Transgender prisoners continue to experience high levels of violence in detention. Many prisoners
and jail inmatesincluding youth under age 18are held in solitary confinement, often for weeks or months on end. In July, an estimated 30,000 inmates in Californias prison system
engaged in a hunger strike to protest conditions, including the use of solitary confinement. Prolonged solitary confinement is considered ill-treatment under international law and can
amount to torture. Poverty and Criminal Justice Poor defendants across the country languish in pretrial detention because they are too poor to post bail. The most recent data indicates 60
percent of jail inmatesat a cost of $9 billion a yearare confined pending trial, often because they lack the financial resources to secure their release. In 2013, the chief judge of New York
supported legislative reforms that would begin to reduce the pretrial incarceration of indigent defendants. Extremely high court fees and surcharges are also increasingly common, as cash-
strapped counties and municipalities often expect their courts to pay for themselves or even tap them as sources of public revenue. The impact on poor defendants is particularly harsh.
Practices that exacerbate and even punish economic hardship are increasingly common. In Arkansas, tenants who fall behind on their rent face criminal prosecution. In states across the US,
courts put hundreds of thousands of misdemeanor offenders on probation with private, for-profit companies that charge local authorities nothing for their services but collect tens of millions
of dollars in fees each year from the offenders they supervise. In August, a decade after a group of inmates families filed a petition challenging the exorbitant rates charged for interstate
jail and prison phone calls, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to cap the cost of the calls. In cities throughout the US, homeless people are targeted and arrested under
laws that prohibit loitering, sitting, and occupying public space. Youth in the Criminal Justice System In nearly all US jurisdictions, substantial numbers of youth offenders are tried in adult
court and sentenced to serve time in adult jails and prisons. The widespread practice of sentencing youth offenders to life without the possibility of parole is changing as states grapple with
how to comply with recent US Supreme Court decisions. Separate decisions have held that the sentence cannot ever be mandatory for youth offenders, nor can it be imposed on youth
offenders convicted of non-homicide crimes. The Supreme Court has not yet abolished application of the sentence to juveniles, however, and youth offenders continue to receive life without
parole sentences for homicide crimes. In 2012, Human Rights Watch reported that of 500 youth offenders serving life without parole, nearly every one reported physical violence or sexual
abuse by inmates or corrections officers. Youth are also sentenced to other extreme prison terms that are the functional equivalent of life without parole because the sentence exceeds an
average lifespan. In September 2013, California passed a law creating a review process for youth sentenced to adult prison terms, requiring the parole board to provide a meaningful
opportunity for release based on the diminished culpability of youth as compared to adults. In many cases this will mean earlier release. Federal law requires jurisdictions to register
juveniles convicted of certain sexual offenses on a national, publicly accessible online registry. Registration impacts youth offenders access to education, housing, and employment. The
Rights of Noncitizens There are approximately 25 million noncitizens in the US, nearly 12 million of whom are in the country without authorization. The vast network of immigration
detention centers in the US now holds about 400,000 noncitizens each year. At any given time, hundreds of detainees are held in solitary confinement. In September, US Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced it would limit but not ban the use of solitary confinement. The criminal prosecution of immigration offenses, which historically had been largely dealt
with through deportation and other non-criminal sanctions, continues to increase. In 2012, immigration cases constituted 41 percent of all federal criminal cases; illegal reentry is now the
most prosecuted federal crime. Many of those prosecuted have minor or no criminal history and have substantial ties to the US such as US citizen family members they were seeking to
rejoin when arrested. In 2013, after years of inaction, the US Congress began debating a major overhaul of the US immigration system. In June, the Senate passed a bill that would create a
path to citizenship for millions of unauthorized immigrants and allow for greater consideration of the right to family unity in some deportation decisions. If enacted into law, the bill would
better align immigration enforcement and detention practices with human rights requirements, including eliminating a one-year filing deadline for asylum applicants, though it would
continue to mandate the automatic deportation of noncitizens with criminal convictions, even for minor offenses. The bill calls for an additional $47 billion to be spent on enforcement efforts
along the US-Mexico border, including a major increase in federal prosecutions of immigration offenses and substantial increases in penalties for illegal entry and reentry. At time of writing,
the House of Representatives had not made any serious progress on comprehensive immigration reform. Secure Communities and other federal programs involving local law enforcement
agencies continued to play an important role in deportations. The federal government has portrayed these programs as focused on dangerous criminals, but most immigrants deported
through Secure Communities are non-criminal or lower level offenders. These programs also exacerbate distrust of police in immigrant communities. Connecticut and California, along with
the cities of Newark and New Orleans, have joined a growing number of states and localities that have placed limits on local law enforcement participation in Secure Communities, largely by
declining to hold people without charge for federal immigration authorities if they have no or minor criminal history. Labor Rights Hundreds of thousands of children work on American
farms. The 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act exempts child farmworkers from the minimum age and maximum hour requirements that apply to other working children. As a result, child
farmworkers often work 10 or more hours a day and risk pesticide exposure, nicotine poisoning, heat illness, injuries, life-long disabilities, and death. Seventy-five percent of children under
16 who died from work-related injuries in 2012 worked in agriculture. Federal protections that do exist are often not enforced. Congress has still not closed a legal loophole allowing children
to do hazardous work in agriculture starting at age 16; hazardous work is prohibited in all other jobs until age 18. Millions of US workers, including parents of infants, are harmed by weak or
non-existent laws on paid leave, breastfeeding accommodation, and discrimination against workers with family responsibilities. Inadequate leave contributes to delaying babies
immunizations, postpartum depression, and other health problems, and causes mothers to stop breastfeeding early. In 2013, several federal bills were introduced to improve national work-
family policies; Rhode Island joined California and New Jersey in establishing state paid family leave insurance; and several cities adopted paid sick day laws. In September, the Obama
administration issued a regulation ending the exclusion of certain homecare workers from minimum wage and hour protections. These workers, most of whom are women, including many
Sixteen states have refused

immigrants and minorities, provide essential services to people with disabilities and the elderly. Health Policy
to expand Medicaid services under the Affordable Care Act, impeding

the right to health for the poor, African Americans, and other groups
with limited access to medical care. HIV infections in the US continue
to disproportionately affect minority communities, men who have
sex with men, and transgender women. Many states continue to
undermine human rights and public health through restrictions on
sex education, inadequate legal protections for HIV-positive
persons, resistance to harm-reduction programs such as syringe
exchanges, and failure to fund HIV prevention and care. Harmful
criminal justice measures include laws that target people living with
HIV for enhanced penalties and police use of condom possession as
evidence of prostitution.
c) Racism
http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/united-states, page 1,
//VZ)
extensive government surveillance and aggressive prosecutions of whistleblowers raised concerns about infringement of privacy rights and
freedom of expression, generating a firestorm of international protest against US practices. Federal policymakers proposed reforms to harmful
longstanding immigration and sentencing laws and policies. The outcome of these initiatives was uncertain at time of writing. A renewed
commitment by President Barack Obama to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility remained unfulfilled. Lack of transparency made it
impossible to assess the implementation of promised reforms to the practice of targeted killings abroad, including through use of unmanned
aerial drones; new information on individual strikes found instances of violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. Harsh
Sentencing The US has the largest reported incarcerated population in the world, and by far the highest rate of imprisonment, holding 2.2
million people in adult prisons or jails as of year-end 2011. Mass incarceration reflects three decades of harsh state and federal sentencing
regimes, including increased use of life and life without parole sentences, high mandatory minimum sentences, and three strikes laws. The
Sentencing Project reported that one in nine US prisoners are serving a life sentence. The growing number of elderly prisoners poses a serious
challenge to correctional authorities: as of 2011, the latest year for which complete numbers are available, 26,136 persons aged 65 and older
were incarcerated in state and federal prisons, up 62 percent in five years. In a positive step, the US Department of Justice in August
announced revisions to its rules for reviewing requests for compassionate release of elderly or disabled prisoners, making more federal
inmates eligible for this rarely used mechanism. Also in August, US Attorney General Eric Holder instructed federal prosecutors to try to avoid
charges carrying mandatory minimum sentences for certain low-level, nonviolent drug offenders. Though welcome, this policy change still
leaves many drug offenders subject to disproportionately long mandatory sentences. Legislative efforts to grant judges more discretion in such
cases are under debate. In 2013, Maryland joined 17 other states and the District of Columbia in abolishing the death penalty, but 32 states
still allow it. At time of writing, 34 people had been executed in the US in 2013. North Carolina repealed its 2009 Racial Justice Act, which
allowed death row prisoners to appeal their sentences on the basis of racial discrimination. Racial Disparities in
Criminal Justice Whites, African Americans, and Latinos have
comparable rates of drug use but are arrested, prosecuted, and
incarcerated for drug offenses at vastly different rates . For
example, African Americans are nearly four times more likely to be
arrested for marijuana possession than whites , even though their
rates of marijuana use are roughly equivalent. While only 13
percent of the US population, African Americans represent 41
percent of state prisoners, and 44 percent of federal prisoners
serving time for drug offenses. Because they are disproportionately
likely to have criminal records , members of racial and ethnic
minorities are more likely than whites to experience stigma and
legal discrimination in employment, housing, education, public
benefits, jury service, and the right to vote. In August, a federal
court found that the stop and frisk policy of the New York City
Police Department (NYPD) violated the rights of minorities. A
disproportionate share of people stopped and frisked under the
policy are African American or Latino, and the New York Civil
Liberties Union reports that 89 percent of those stopped are
innocent of any wrongdoing. The NYPD appealed the ruling.
HR cred solves extinction
Burke-White 4 William W., Lecturer in Public and International Affairs
and Senior Special Assistant to the Dean at the Woodrow Wilson School of
Public and International Affairs, Princeton University and Ph.D. at Cambridge,
Human Rights and National Security: The Strategic Correlation, The Harvard
Human Rights Journal, Spring, 17 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 249, Lexis
the promotion of
This Article presents a strategic--as opposed to ideological or normative--argument that
human rights should be given a more prominent place in U.S. foreign
policy. It does so by suggesting a correlation between the domestic human rights practices of states and their
propensity to engage in aggressive international conduct. Among the chief threats to U.S.
national security are acts of aggression by other states. Aggressive acts of war
may directly endanger the United States, as did the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, or they may require U.S.
Evidence from the post-Cold War period [*250]
military action overseas, as in Kuwait fifty years later.
indicates that states that systematically abuse their own citizens' human
rights are also those most likely to engage in aggression. To the
degree that improvements in various states' human rights records
decrease the likelihood of aggressive war, a foreign policy informed by
human rights can significantly enhance U.S. and global security . Since 1990, a
state's domestic human rights policy appears to be a telling
indicator of that state's propensity to engage in international
aggression. A central element of U.S. foreign policy has long been the preservation of peace and the prevention
of such acts of aggression. 2 If the correlation discussed herein is accurate, it provides U.S. policymakers with a powerful
new tool to enhance national security through the promotion of human rights. A strategic linkage between national
security and human rights would result in a number of important policy modifications. First, it changes the prioritization of
those countries U.S. policymakers have identified as presenting the greatest concern. Second, it alters some of the policy
prescriptions for such states. Third, it offers states a means of signaling benign international intent through the
improvement of their domestic human rights records. Fourth, it provides a way for a current government to prevent future
it
governments from aggressive international behavior through the institutionalization of human rights protections. Fifth,
addresses the particular threat of human rights abusing states obtaining weapons of mass
destruction ( WMD ). Finally, it offers a mechanism for U.S.-U.N. cooperation on human rights issues.
Global norms ensure pressures inevitable

Moravcsik 5, PhD and a Professor of Politics and International Affairs at
Princeton, 2005, "The Paradox of U.S. Human Rights Policy," American
Exceptionalism and Human Rights,
http://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/library/paradox.pdf
What are the consequences of U.S. "exemptionalism and
It is natural to ask:
noncompliance? International lawyers and human rights activists

regularly issue dire warnings about the ways in which the apparent
hypocrisy of the United States encourages foreign governments to violate
human rights , ignore international pressure, and undermine
international human rights institutions . In Patricia Derian's oft-cited
statement before the Senate in I979: "Ratification by the United States
significantly will enhance the legitimacy and acceptance of these
standards. It will encourage other countries to join those which have already accepted the treaties. And, in countries where human
rights generally are not respected, it will aid citizens in raising human rights issues.""' One constantly hears this
refrain. Yet there is little empirical reason to accept it. Human rights
norms have in fact spread widely without much attention to U.S.
domestic policy. In the wake of the "third wave" democratization in
Eastern Europe, East Asia, and Latin America, government after
government moved ahead toward more active domestic and
international human rights policies without attending to U.S.
domestic or international practice." The human rights movement has
firmly embedded itself in public opinion and NGO networks, in the
United States as well as elsewhere, despite the dubious legal status
of international norms in the United States . One reads occasional
quotations from recalcitrant governments citing American
noncompliance in their own defense-most recently Israel and Australia-but there is little evidence
that this was more than a redundant justification for policies made
on other grounds . Other governments adhere or do not adhere to
global norms, comply or do not comply with judgments of tribunals,
for reasons that seem to have little to do with U.S. multilateral
policy.
Russia/China 2ac F/L
The impacts inevitable
Schoen and Kaylan 1/21, (Douglas Schoen is an American political
analyst who graduated from Harvard, Melik Kaylan, covers conflicts, frontiers
and upheavals mired in history that covers an area from the China-North
Korea border to the Caucasus, to Iraq, Iran, Syria, Turkey to Eastern Europe.9
Ways China And Russia Are Partnering To Undermine The US,
http://www.businessinsider.com/china-and-russia-are-partnering-on-an-
unprecedented-scale-2015-1, 1/21/15//VZ)
Russia and China now cooperate and coordinate to an
unprecedented degree politically, militarily, economically and
their cooperation, almost without deviation, carries anti-American
and anti-Western ramifications. Russia, China and a constellation of
satellite states seek to undermine American power, dislodge
America from its leading position in the world, and establish a new,
anti-Western global power structure. And both Russia in Eastern and Central
Europe and China throughout Asia are becoming increasingly
aggressive and assertive, even hegemonic, in the absence of a
systematic US response not withstanding the Obama
administration's "strategic pivot to Asia." For now, the most obvious
example of American impotence is the Russian repossession of
Crimea in March 2014 and the seemingly inexorable preparation for
further territorial claims in Ukraine. Here as elsewhere, Russia, with the quiet
but clear backing of China, has called America's and the West's
bluff, with little consequence. In short, there is a new Cold War in
progress, with our old adversaries back in the game, more powerful
than they have been for decades, and with America more confused and tentative than it has
been since the Carter years. Those in the Russia-China Axis now operate against
American and Western interests in nearly every conceivable area.
Their efforts include the following: Overseeing massive military
buildups of conventional and nuclear forces, on which they often
collaborate and supply each other, as well as of missile defenseon
which they have signed an agreement of partnership. Conducting
aggressive and often underhanded trade and economic policies in
everything from major gas and oil deals to collaboration with newly
developed nations on creating alternative international financial
institutions. Taking aggressive action to consolidate and expand
territorial claims in their spheres of influence, often in violation of UN norms: Russia in
Central Asia and its near abroad; China, with its belligerence toward various disputed islands in the East and South
Facilitating rogue regimes, both
China Seas and also toward its Asian neighbors.
economically and militarily, especially in regard to nuclear weaponry.
China has kept the deranged North Korean regime afloat for years
with economic aid and enabled Pyongyangs nuclear pursuits by its
refusal to enforce UN sanctions. Russia has bankrolled Irans nuclear
program and also acted as Syrian dictator Bashar Assads strongest
ally, showering his regime with weapons systems, bases, and
funding even as Putin has played a key role in spearheading the
diplomatic agreement calling for Assad to turn over his chemical
weapons. Using energy resources and other raw materials as
weapons in trade wars. Acting as the two leading perpetrators of
cyberwarfare worldwide activity almost entirely directed against
US or Western targets. Waging a war of intelligence theft and
espionage against the West an effort that has gone on for years
but was epitomized in 2013, when China temporarily sheltered, and
then Russia accepted for asylum, American NSA contractor and
intelligence leaker Edward Snowden. Facilitating, albeit indirectly,
terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Standing together at
the UN, as when the Russians vetoed and the Chinese abstained
from voting on a Security Council resolution declaring the Crimea
referendum invalid. Indeed, Russia and China exacerbate virtually every
threat or problem facing the United States today from terrorism to
the war in Afghanistan to instability in the Western Hemisphere and
the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran.
Alt causes

US wont use it
the


The U.S.





The facts of Obamas
taxpayers to satisfy their insatiable aid addiction while they brutalize their people?
There
Ethiopia to ensure that strengthened democratic institutions and open political dialogue become a reality for the Ethiopian people.



Obamas

b) Health things
1 2, //VZ)
immigrants, children, the elderly, the poor, and prisoners. Revelations in 2013 of extensive
government surveillance and aggressive prosecutions of whistleblowers raised concerns about infringement of privacy rights and freedom of expression, generating a firestorm of international protest against US
practices. Federal policymakers proposed reforms to harmful longstanding immigration and sentencing laws and policies. The outcome of these initiatives was uncertain at time of writing. A renewed commitment by
President Barack Obama to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility remained unfulfilled. Lack of transparency made it impossible to assess the implementation of promised reforms to the practice of targeted
killings abroad, including through use of unmanned aerial drones; new information on individual strikes found instances of violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. Harsh Sentencing The US
has the largest reported incarcerated population in the world, and by far the highest rate of imprisonment, holding 2.2 million people in adult prisons or jails as of year-end 2011. Mass incarceration reflects three
decades of harsh state and federal sentencing regimes, including increased use of life and life without parole sentences, high mandatory minimum sentences, and three strikes laws. The Sentencing Project
reported that one in nine US prisoners are serving a life sentence. The growing number of elderly prisoners poses a serious challenge to correctional authorities: as of 2011, the latest year for which complete
numbers are available, 26,136 persons aged 65 and older were incarcerated in state and federal prisons, up 62 percent in five years. In a positive step, the US Department of Justice in August announced revisions to
its rules for reviewing requests for compassionate release of elderly or disabled prisoners, making more federal inmates eligible for this rarely used mechanism. Also in August, US Attorney General Eric Holder
instructed federal prosecutors to try to avoid charges carrying mandatory minimum sentences for certain low-level, nonviolent drug offenders. Though welcome, this policy change still leaves many drug offenders
subject to disproportionately long mandatory sentences. Legislative efforts to grant judges more discretion in such cases are under debate. In 2013, Maryland joined 17 other states and the District of Columbia in
abolishing the death penalty, but 32 states still allow it. At time of writing, 34 people had been executed in the US in 2013. North Carolina repealed its 2009 Racial Justice Act, which allowed death row prisoners to
appeal their sentences on the basis of racial discrimination. Racial Disparities in Criminal Justice Whites, African Americans, and Latinos have comparable rates of drug use but are arrested, prosecuted, and
incarcerated for drug offenses at vastly different rates. For example, African Americans are nearly four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites, even though their rates of marijuana use
are roughly equivalent. While only 13 percent of the US population, African Americans represent 41 percent of state prisoners, and 44 percent of federal prisoners serving time for drug offenses. Because they are
disproportionately likely to have criminal records, members of racial and ethnic minorities are more likely than whites to experience stigma and legal discrimination in employment, housing, education, public
benefits, jury service, and the right to vote. In August, a federal court found that the stop and frisk policy of the New York City Police Department (NYPD) violated the rights of minorities. A disproportionate share of
people stopped and frisked under the policy are African American or Latino, and the New York Civil Liberties Union reports that 89 percent of those stopped are innocent of any wrongdoing. The NYPD appealed the
ruling. Drug Policy Reform In recent decades the US has spent hundreds of billions of dollars to arrest and incarcerate drug offenders in the US. Its heavy reliance on criminal laws for drug control has had serious
human rights costs, including infringement of the autonomy and privacy rights of those who simply possess or use drugs. In a welcome shift, the US Department of Justice announced in August that it would not
interfere with states legalization of marijuana so long as states comply with certain federal priorities, such as prohibiting sale of drugs to children or transport of drugs across state lines. It also noted that a robust
state regulatory approach to marijuana may prevent organized crime from benefiting from the illicit marijuana trade. Washington and Colorado moved forward with implementation of state ballot initiatives to
legalize the recreational use of marijuana, as well as to regulate its production, sale, and distribution. Twenty other US states have legalized marijuana for medical purposes. Prison Conditions September 2013
marked the 10-year anniversary of the passage of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), which resulted in the development of national standards to detect, prevent, and punish prison rape. Implementation
remains a challenge: approximately 4 percent of state and federal prison inmates and 3 percent of jail inmates report having experienced one or more incidents of sexual abuse in 2011-2012, and many incidents
continue to go unreported. Transgender prisoners continue to experience high levels of violence in detention. Many prisoners and jail inmatesincluding youth under age 18are held in solitary confinement, often
for weeks or months on end. In July, an estimated 30,000 inmates in Californias prison system engaged in a hunger strike to protest conditions, including the use of solitary confinement. Prolonged solitary
confinement is considered ill-treatment under international law and can amount to torture. Poverty and Criminal Justice Poor defendants across the country languish in pretrial detention because they are too poor to
post bail. The most recent data indicates 60 percent of jail inmatesat a cost of $9 billion a yearare confined pending trial, often because they lack the financial resources to secure their release. In 2013, the chief
judge of New York supported legislative reforms that would begin to reduce the pretrial incarceration of indigent defendants. Extremely high court fees and surcharges are also increasingly common, as cash-
strapped counties and municipalities often expect their courts to pay for themselves or even tap them as sources of public revenue. The impact on poor defendants is particularly harsh. Practices that exacerbate
and even punish economic hardship are increasingly common. In Arkansas, tenants who fall behind on their rent face criminal prosecution. In states across the US, courts put hundreds of thousands of misdemeanor
offenders on probation with private, for-profit companies that charge local authorities nothing for their services but collect tens of millions of dollars in fees each year from the offenders they supervise. In August, a
decade after a group of inmates families filed a petition challenging the exorbitant rates charged for interstate jail and prison phone calls, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to cap the cost of the
calls. In cities throughout the US, homeless people are targeted and arrested under laws that prohibit loitering, sitting, and occupying public space. Youth in the Criminal Justice System In nearly all US jurisdictions,
substantial numbers of youth offenders are tried in adult court and sentenced to serve time in adult jails and prisons. The widespread practice of sentencing youth offenders to life without the possibility of parole is
changing as states grapple with how to comply with recent US Supreme Court decisions. Separate decisions have held that the sentence cannot ever be mandatory for youth offenders, nor can it be imposed on
youth offenders convicted of non-homicide crimes. The Supreme Court has not yet abolished application of the sentence to juveniles, however, and youth offenders continue to receive life without parole sentences
for homicide crimes. In 2012, Human Rights Watch reported that of 500 youth offenders serving life without parole, nearly every one reported physical violence or sexual abuse by inmates or corrections officers.
Youth are also sentenced to other extreme prison terms that are the functional equivalent of life without parole because the sentence exceeds an average lifespan. In September 2013, California passed a law
creating a review process for youth sentenced to adult prison terms, requiring the parole board to provide a meaningful opportunity for release based on the diminished culpability of youth as compared to adults. In
many cases this will mean earlier release. Federal law requires jurisdictions to register juveniles convicted of certain sexual offenses on a national, publicly accessible online registry. Registration impacts youth
offenders access to education, housing, and employment. The Rights of Noncitizens There are approximately 25 million noncitizens in the US, nearly 12 million of whom are in the country without authorization. The
vast network of immigration detention centers in the US now holds about 400,000 noncitizens each year. At any given time, hundreds of detainees are held in solitary confinement. In September, US Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced it would limit but not ban the use of solitary confinement. The criminal prosecution of immigration offenses, which historically had been largely dealt with through
deportation and other non-criminal sanctions, continues to increase. In 2012, immigration cases constituted 41 percent of all federal criminal cases; illegal reentry is now the most prosecuted federal crime. Many of
those prosecuted have minor or no criminal history and have substantial ties to the US such as US citizen family members they were seeking to rejoin when arrested. In 2013, after years of inaction, the US Congress
began debating a major overhaul of the US immigration system. In June, the Senate passed a bill that would create a path to citizenship for millions of unauthorized immigrants and allow for greater consideration of
the right to family unity in some deportation decisions. If enacted into law, the bill would better align immigration enforcement and detention practices with human rights requirements, including eliminating a one-
year filing deadline for asylum applicants, though it would continue to mandate the automatic deportation of noncitizens with criminal convictions, even for minor offenses. The bill calls for an additional $47 billion
to be spent on enforcement efforts along the US-Mexico border, including a major increase in federal prosecutions of immigration offenses and substantial increases in penalties for illegal entry and reentry. At time
of writing, the House of Representatives had not made any serious progress on comprehensive immigration reform. Secure Communities and other federal programs involving local law enforcement agencies
continued to play an important role in deportations. The federal government has portrayed these programs as focused on dangerous criminals, but most immigrants deported through Secure Communities are non-
criminal or lower level offenders. These programs also exacerbate distrust of police in immigrant communities. Connecticut and California, along with the cities of Newark and New Orleans, have joined a growing
number of states and localities that have placed limits on local law enforcement participation in Secure Communities, largely by declining to hold people without charge for federal immigration authorities if they
have no or minor criminal history. Labor Rights Hundreds of thousands of children work on American farms. The 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act exempts child farmworkers from the minimum age and maximum hour
requirements that apply to other working children. As a result, child farmworkers often work 10 or more hours a day and risk pesticide exposure, nicotine poisoning, heat illness, injuries, life-long disabilities, and
death. Seventy-five percent of children under 16 who died from work-related injuries in 2012 worked in agriculture. Federal protections that do exist are often not enforced. Congress has still not closed a legal
loophole allowing children to do hazardous work in agriculture starting at age 16; hazardous work is prohibited in all other jobs until age 18. Millions of US workers, including parents of infants, are harmed by weak
or non-existent laws on paid leave, breastfeeding accommodation, and discrimination against workers with family responsibilities. Inadequate leave contributes to delaying babies immunizations, postpartum
depression, and other health problems, and causes mothers to stop breastfeeding early. In 2013, several federal bills were introduced to improve national work-family policies; Rhode Island joined California and New
Jersey in establishing state paid family leave insurance; and several cities adopted paid sick day laws. In September, the Obama administration issued a regulation ending the exclusion of certain homecare workers
from minimum wage and hour protections. These workers, most of whom are women, including many immigrants and minorities, provide essential services to people with disabilities and the elderly. Health Policy
Sixteen states have refused to expand Medicaid services under the

Affordable Care Act, impeding the right to health for the poor,
African Americans, and other groups with limited access to medical
care. HIV infections in the US continue to disproportionately affect
minority communities, men who have sex with men, and transgender
women. Many states continue to undermine human rights and
public health through restrictions on sex education, inadequate
legal protections for HIV-positive persons, resistance to harm-
reduction programs such as syringe exchanges, and failure to fund
HIV prevention and care. Harmful criminal justice measures include
laws that target people living with HIV for enhanced penalties and
police use of condom possession as evidence of prostitution.
c) Racism
//VZ)

the promotion of
it


policy.
Bahrain 2ac F/L
No impact
a) Empirically denied by literally centuries of Middle East
conflicts
b) Theyll never kick us out
Lagon 11, (Mark P. Lagon, Ph.D. in Government at Georgetown and A.B.
from Harvard Lagon was the Chair for Global Politics and Security at
Georgetown Universitys Master of Science in Foreign Service Program, and
Adjunct Senior Fellow for Human Rights at the Council on Foreign Relations.
He was previously Executive Director and CEO of the leading anti-human
trafficking nonprofit, Polaris. He earlier served at the State Department as
U.S. Ambassador at Large, directing the Office to Monitor and Combat
Trafficking in Persons, and previously Deputy Assistant Secretary in the
Bureau of International Organization Affairs, with responsibility for human
rights, humanitarian issues and United Nations reform.
http://www.cfr.org/human-rights/promoting-human-rights-us-consistency-
desirable-possible/p26228, //VZ)
Conventional wisdom from most U.S. military experts and planners

in the Department of Defense is that losing Fifth Fleet
Headquarters in Bahrain is unlikely and the Saudis and the
United States would never allow it . The only course of action for military planners have set is
to ensure that Plan A works. Plan A ensures that Bahrains government
remains intact, the security situation remains stable, and the United
States retains basing in the region.
Turn HR pressure solves continued deployment

Lagon 11, (Mark P. Lagon, Ph.D. in Government at Georgetown and A.B.
from Harvard Lagon was the Chair for Global Politics and Security at
Georgetown Universitys Master of Science in Foreign Service Program, and
Adjunct Senior Fellow for Human Rights at the Council on Foreign Relations.
He was previously Executive Director and CEO of the leading anti-human
trafficking nonprofit, Polaris. He earlier served at the State Department as
U.S. Ambassador at Large, directing the Office to Monitor and Combat
Trafficking in Persons, and previously Deputy Assistant Secretary in the
Bureau of International Organization Affairs, with responsibility for human
rights, humanitarian issues and United Nations reform.
http://www.cfr.org/human-rights/promoting-human-rights-us-consistency-
desirable-possible/p26228, //VZ)
Bahrain is a striking case of the appearance of inconsistency by the
United States compared to the ultimate U.S. embrace of dissent and
change in Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Tunisia. A Human Rights Watch
report documented Bahrain's punitive and vindictive campaign of
violent repression via arbitrary arrests, hidden detention, torture,
biased military court trials, and the sacking of protest sympathizers
from jobs. The United States stood largely silent as Saudi Arabia
supplied forces to help Bahrain put down dissent. The United States
ought to view its important naval base in Bahrain as a reason to
discourage repression, which could make that nation less stable .
Bahrain limits the freedom of women, foreign workers, and political
opposition. The United States is capable of deftly asserting more
pressure on this small power to avoid counterproductive
suppression of dissent (helped by the Saudis no less), without losing access to a
strategic base.
Alt causes

US wont use it
the


The U.S.





The facts of Obamas



Obamas

b) Health things
1 2, //VZ)

c) Racism
//VZ)
the promotion of
it


policy.
China 2ac F/L
No impact
Xudong 12 (Han, professor at the PLA University of National Defense, Risk
of armed Asian conflict on the rise, but trade links rule out war,
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/735653.shtml)
Island sovereignty and maritime interest disputes in the Asia-Pacific region
have attracted an increasing amount of global attention recently . With external
powers ready to intervene, conflicts among the relevant parties have intensified and the unrest has gotten worse. If the
With the US pivot to the Asia-Pacific
trend cannot be curbed, armed conflicts are more likely.
region and the global economic focus moving toward the region, the region
has gradually entered into a troubled period . The US has set the region as the focus of its
overseas military deployment and is taking advantage of the unrest in the region so as to adjust the power structure.
Moreover, the US has carried out military exercises with relevant countries to create unrest and instigated them to
confront neighboring countries. For example, over the Huangyan Island dispute, the US backs the Philippines through
holding joint military exercises on island defense, as it has done with Japan over the Diaoyu Islands dispute. This is the
As the territorial disputes
usual tactic by the US to back relevant countries' confront actions with China.
among relevant countries are closely related to core national interests, no
involved parties will compromise easily. Relevant countries usually use comprehensive national
strength, especially military strength, as a lever to adjust their interests. Take the dispute over the South Kuril Islands
between Russia and Japan. Russia has increased its military presence on the islands and used military power to deal with
Japanese provocations. Similarly, South Korea has begun to deploy its forces on Dokdo Islands, where it has disputes with
Japan. At present, while China has repeatedly advocated a peaceful settlement of the Diaoyu Islands dispute, the nation
has sufficient confidence and courage to face up to the challenges and safeguard its sovereignty and interests. All those
conflicts mentioned above have the potential to further deteriorate. After all, international politics is the continuation and
key players in hot issues of the
manifestation of domestic politics. Since the beginning of this year,
Asia-Pacific region all have been confronted with the sensitivity of domestic
power transition. Russia had its presidential election in March. And South Korea, Japan, the US and China will
soon see elections or leadership change. At such a critical moment, attitudes on
safeguarding the core interests of the nation had been used as a stake to
gain support, as particularly seen in Japan. Currently, the right-wing forces in Japan are promoting the campaigners
to form a consistent approach over the Diaoyu Islands dispute, that is, to take an increasingly tough stance and policy.
Japan hasn't made a full reflection on its war crimes. The right-wing frequently blusters about the use of force to solve the
This adds to the uncertainty of the security situation in the Asia-
territorial disputes.
Pacific region. But one certain thing is that a war is unlikely in the Asia-Pacific.
Even if the parties in a dispute had a collision of forces, it wouldn't develop
into full-blown war. The use of force is the highest means but the last resort to
maintain core interests of nations. The current situation is totally different
from other periods in history. With global economic integration , the
expanding of armed conflicts will be no good to any country involved. Therefore,
the relevant countries all hope the scale of conflicts could be restrained. Besides, the US is not willing to
see a regional war in the Asia-Pacific. A turbulent situation without war is in its best interests. From
this perspective, the Asia-Pacific region does face the potential danger of low
intensity conflicts and operations. The possibility of an armed collision is on
the rise, but the scale will be limited.
Alt causes
US wont use it
the


The U.S.





The facts of Obamas



Obamas

b) Health things
1 2, //VZ)

c) Racism
//VZ)

the promotion of
it
1ar EXT Alt Cause GITMO
Lots of alt causes Guantnamo Bay and torture
Sanchez-Moreno 15 (Maria McFarland, co-director of the U.S. program
at Human Rights Watch, Hold the US accountable on human rights,
Aljazeera, http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/5/holding-the-us-
accountable-on-human-rights.html, 5/11/2015)//HW
At the top of the list should be Washingtons failure to hold
accountable those responsible for the systematic torture carried out
by the Central Intelligence Agency in the global war on terrorism. Five
years ago, the U.S. accepted a UPR recommendation from Denmark to take
measures to eradicate and thoroughly investigate all forms of
torture and abuse by military or civilian personnel within its jurisdiction. But the only
investigation into CIA torture conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice was limited in
scope and closed in 2012 with no charges filed. Nor does it seem to have met basic
standards of credibility or thoroughness; investigators apparently never bothered to interview key witnesses of the abuse:
the detainees. The U.S. has finally begun to tell the truth about what
happened: the December 2014 release of a partially redacted summary of a detailed
U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report that describes, in harrowing detail, many
of the acts of torture to which CIA officials subjected detainees. Yet the
full 6,700-page report remains classified, and Barack Obamas administration has expressed
no interest in appointing a special prosecutor and opening new
investigations. Countries that have succeeded in bringing to justice those responsible for atrocities should take
the lead in pressing the U.S. to act. Indefinite detention at Guantnamo Bay remains
another outstanding concern. The administration has reiterated its
commitment to close the facility and has gradually transferred some detainees to other
countries. But 122 men remain locked up in the detention center because of
congressional restrictions on transfers and apparent foot dragging by the Department of Defense. These men
have no clear prospect of release or a fair trial under military
commissions, which are fundamentally flawed. Among other
problems, they allow the use of evidence obtained by coercion, fail
to protect attorney-client privilege and use rules that block the
defense from obtaining information essential to the case, including
about the CIAs treatment of the detainees on trial while they were
in its custody.
1ar EXT Alt Cause Drones
Drones trigger the link reduce perspectives of US HR
cred
Schrich 12 Lisa, prof of Peacebuilding, Eastern Mennonite University. "9
Costs of Drone Strike." Huffington Post. 06/28/12 Accessed 6/24/15.
scar.gmu.edu/articles/9-costs-of-drone-strikes
6.Drones Contribute to Perceptions of U.S. Double Standards: The
U.S. has blocked efforts for drone victims to pursue their claims in
Pakistani courts. Meanwhile USAID fosters "rule of law" programs in
Pakistan. But Pakistani's note these USAID efforts are undermined
by the continuing series of events in Pakistan that grant Americans
immunity for their crimes, such as civilian drone victims, the saga of
Raymond Davis, the CIA's use of immunization campaigns to identify bin Laden, and accidental deaths of
citizens of countries where the U.S. uses drones
Pakistani forces. Furthermore,
ask whether American citizens would accept the use of drones on an
American religious center or school if insurgents were hiding there
alongside civilians. In local perspectives, drone attacks are undemocratic
and illustrate that the U.S. devalues the lives of people in other
countries, putting U.S. interests above the lives of Pakistanis,
Somalis, and Yemenis. 7. Drones Undermine Government Authority and Legitimacy, Cause
State Fragility: Unilateral U.S. use of drones is seen to undermine state
sovereignty and legitimacy, stir political unrest, and challenge
alliances. The governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan publically denounced
drone strikes to distance themselves from public anger . Rumors posit
that the government's privately consented to the strikes. The
public's already tenuous relationship with their governments suffer
as the public critiques drones strikes as merely furthering U.S.
interests and undermining their own interests and sovereignty.
Racism
2ac F/L
The TSA is already racist the plan causes improvements

in customer service which reduces screening abuses
theres a competitive incentive to avoid discrimination
Wilkening 9 (David Wilkening, 10/22/9, Inept TSA leads to growing
privatization of airport security,
http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?
news_id=1139052&c=setreg&region=3)//twemchen
Rude customer service and long wait lines prompted Glacier Park
International Airport in Alaska to do what others are doing: privatize their airport
security force . The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) created in 2004 Screening
Partnership Program allows all commercial airports an opportunity to apply to
use private security screeners. So far, 15 of 450 airports across the nation have opted to
privatize, says Daily Inter Lake.com. Airport Director Cindi Martin said Glacier Park International
has applied to privatize because what TSA offers the airport is not meeting its
needs. "We've had a fair share of complaints about customer service and wait times," Martin
said. "If we don't have adequate staffing, it frustrates travelers. This is an ongoing problem
with TSA nationwide ." This does not make the TSA employees happy. "We're concerned about
our jobs, our seniority, our benefits," Eric Wood, a security worker at the airport, was quoted as saying. He
said some employees were concerned the private force would lead to higher costs for consumers. Dwayne
Baird, a regional spokesman for TSA, said the decision to privatize is up to each airport, but the agency
requires that the private contractors maintain the same standards of security and the same benefits for
employees during the duration of the contract. However, Baird and others maintain that TSA is already
operating an efficient program.
All lives are valuable ethics mean you maximize the

number saved
Cummisky 96 (David, professor of philosophy at Bates, Kantian
Consequentialism, p. 131)
Finally, even if one grants that saving two persons with dignity
cannot outweigh and compensate for killing onebecause dignity
cannot be added and summed in this waythis point still does not
justify deontological constraints. On the extreme interpretation, why would not killing
one person be a stronger obligation than saving two persons? If I am concerned with the
priceless dignity of each, it would seem that I may still save two ; it is
just that my reason cannot be that the two compensate for the loss of the one. Consider Hill's example of a
priceless object: If I can save two of three priceless statutes only by destroying one, then I cannot claim
that saving two makes up for the loss of the one. But similarly, the loss of the two is not outweighed by the
even if dignity cannot be simply summed up,
one that was not destroyed. Indeed,
how is the extreme interpretation inconsistent with the idea that I
should save as many priceless objects as possible? Even if two do
not simply outweigh and thus compensate for the loss of the one,
each is priceless; thus, I have good reason to save as many as I can .
In short, it is not clear how the extreme interpretation justifies the ordinary killing/letting-die distinction or
even how it conflicts with the conclusion that the more persons with dignity who are saved, the better.8
Consequentialism
As, an Account of the peculiar role responsibilities of public officials
(and, by extension, of ordinary individuals in their public capacities as citizens) that vice
effect.
ordinary private individuals) in the service of some greater public good.5 It
4
5
ECURITY COMPANIES, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-

113hhrg92898/html/CHRG-113hhrg92898.htm)//twemchen
the solicitation and award process for the past several SPP RFP's
Unfortunately,
have been plagued by problems involving questionable provisions ,
unexplainable adjustments , improper evaluations , and other issues --
besides the underlying FCE and minimum pay issues--that have caused
serious confusion , delays, pre-award protests, and set up the eventual awards for successful bid
protests. These incidents raise concerns about TSA's ability to manage the procurement process and its
commitment to the program.
This attitude of evasion is sufficient to deck solvency

Hudson 14 representative from North Caroline, Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Transportation Security (Richard Hudson, 7/29/14,
EXAMINING TSA'S MANAGEMENT OF THE SCREENING PARTNERSHIP
PROGRAM, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg92898/html/CHRG-
I believethe strength of this program is important . I want to see it grow, but I want
to work with you to make sure there aren't structural concerns. I want to make sure there aren't
biases within TSA against this program. I think it is an important
component in our overall safety footprint. So it is an issue that is very
important to me and something I think we need it continue to talk about and continue to work on.
But I thank both of you for being here today and your testimony in this.
6
1ar AT Best Value Rating
Best value assessments are the squo
Benner 14 Screening Partnership Program Office of Security Operations at
the TSA (William Benner, 7/29/14, STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BENNER,
SCREENING PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM, OFFICE OF SECURITY OPERATIONS,
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-
we do select the best value. That does
Mr. Benner. I am glad you put it that way, sir, because
There is three general criteria that we use to evaluate: There is a
not mean the lowest bid.
technical solution that the offeror provides; there is the past performance; and then
there is the cost. All those three are actually evaluated. Then you have different teams that
actually evaluate each of those. Then that goes to a source selection authority, who then compares all
those relative to each other and makes a final selection. In some cases, there is even another level, a
source selection evaluation board, which is in the case of--the last time we went through MCI, there was
we are selecting the
another level of observation there as well. So I am confident that
vendor who had the best proposal and provides the best value to
overall
the Government. Does that mean that it won't be protested? Absolutely not. Because any vendor
can obviously protest it, any time if they feel they have been wronged or the process
has been wronged, but I am confident in the process that we use.
Politics
Strait Turns
Winners Win
PC not real and winners win
Hirsh 13 --- Chief correspondent (2/7/2013, Michael, Theres No Such
Thing as Political Capital; The idea of political capitalor mandates, or
momentumis so poorly defined that presidents and pundits often get it
wrong, http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-
political-capital-20130207))
On Tuesday, in his State of the Union address, President Obama will do what every president does this time of year. For
about 60 minutes, he will lay out a sprawling and ambitious wish list highlighted by gun control and immigration reform,
climate change and debt reduction. In response, the pundits will do what they always do this time of year: They will
talk about how unrealistic most of the proposals are, discussions often informed by sagacious reckonings of
how much "political capital" Obama possesses to push his program
through. Most of this talk will have no bearing on what actually happens
over the next four years. Consider this: Three months ago, just before the November election, if someone had talked
seriously about Obama having enough political capital to oversee passage of both immigration reform and gun-control
legislation at the beginning of his second termeven after winning the election by 4 percentage points and 5 million votes
(the actual final tally)this person would have been called crazy and stripped of his pundit's license. (It doesn't exist, but it
ought to.) In his first term, in a starkly polarized country, the president had been so frustrated by GOP resistance that he
finally issued a limited executive order last August permitting immigrants who entered the country illegally as children to
work without fear of deportation for at least two years. Obama didn't dare to even bring up gun control, a Democratic
"third rail" that has cost the party elections and that actually might have been even less popular on the right than the
for reasons that have very little to do with
president's health care law. And yet,
Obama's personal prestige or popularity variously put in terms of a "mandate" or "political
capital" chances are fair that both will now happen. What changed? In the case of gun
control, of course, it wasn't the election. It was the horror of the 20 first-graders who were slaughtered in Newtown, Conn.,
in mid-December. The sickening reality of little girls and boys riddled with bullets from a high-capacity assault weapon
seemed to precipitate a sudden tipping point in the national conscience. One thing changed after another. Wayne LaPierre
of the National Rifle Association marginalized himself with poorly chosen comments soon after the massacre. The pro-gun
lobby, once a phalanx of opposition, began to fissure into reasonables and crazies. Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz.,
who was shot in the head two years ago and is still struggling to speak and walk, started a PAC with her husband to
appeal to the moderate middle of gun owners. Then she gave riveting and poignant testimony to the Senate, challenging
lawmakers: "Be bold." As a result, momentum has appeared to build around some kind of a plan to curtail sales of the
most dangerous weapons and ammunition and the way people are permitted to buy them. It's impossible to say now
whether such a bill will pass and, if it does, whether it will make anything more than cosmetic changes to gun laws. But
one thing is clear: The political tectonics have shifted dramatically in very little time. Whole new possibilities exist now
that didn't a few weeks ago. Meanwhile, the Republican members of the Senate's so-called Gang of Eight are pushing hard
for a new spirit of compromise on immigration reform, a sharp change after an election year in which the GOP standard-
bearer declared he would make life so miserable for the 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. that they would "self-
deport." But this turnaround has very little to do with Obama's personal influencehis political mandate, as it were. It has
almost entirely to do with just two numbers: 71 and 27. That's 71 percent for Obama, 27 percent for Mitt Romney, the
breakdown of the Hispanic vote in the 2012 presidential election. Obama drove home his advantage by giving a speech on
immigration reform on Jan. 29 at a Hispanic-dominated high school in Nevada, a swing state he won by a surprising 8
percentage points in November. But the movement on immigration has mainly come out of the Republican Party's recent
introspection, and the realization by its more thoughtful members, such as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. Bobby
Jindal of Louisiana, that without such a shift the party may be facing demographic death in a country where the 2010
It's got nothing to do
census showed, for the first time, that white births have fallen into the minority.
with Obama's political capital or, indeed, Obama at all. The point is not that "political
capital" is a meaningless term. Often it is a synonym for "mandate" or "momentum" in the aftermath of a decisive
electionand just about every politician ever elected has tried to claim more of a mandate than he actually has. Certainly,
Obama can say that because he was elected and Romney wasn't, he has a better claim on the country's mood and
direction. Many pundits still defend political capital as a useful metaphor at least. "It's an unquantifiable but meaningful
concept," says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. " You
can't really look at a
president and say he's got 37 ounces of political capital. But the fact is, it's a
concept that matters, if you have popularity and some momentum on your side." The real problem is that the idea of
political capitalor mandates, or momentumis so poorly defined that presidents and pundits often get it wrong. "Presidents
usually over-estimate it," says George Edwards, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. "The best kind of political
capitalsome sense of an electoral mandate to do somethingis very rare. It almost never happens. In 1964, maybe. And to
political capital is a concept that misleads far more
some degree in 1980." For that reason,
than it enlightens. It is distortionary. It conveys the idea that we know more than we really do
about the ever-elusive concept of political power, and it discounts the way unforeseen
events can suddenly change everything . Instead, it suggests,
erroneously, that a political figure has a concrete amount of political
capital to invest, just as someone might have real investment capital that a particular leader can bank his
gains, and the size of his account determines what he can do at any given moment in history. Naturally, any president has
practical and electoral limits. Does he have a majority in both chambers of Congress and a cohesive coalition behind him?
Obama has neither at present. And unless a surge in the economyat the moment, still stuckor some other great victory
gives him more momentum, it is inevitable that the closer Obama gets to the 2014 election, the less he will be able to get
done. Going into the midterms, Republicans will increasingly avoid any concessions that make him (and the Democrats)
stronger. But the abrupt emergence of the immigration and gun-control issues
illustrates how suddenly shifts in mood can occur and how political interests can
align in new ways just as suddenly. Indeed, the pseudo-concept of political capital
masks a larger truth about Washington that is kindergarten simple:

You just don't know what you can do until you try. Or as Ornstein
himself once wrote years ago, "Winning wins." In theory, and in practice,
depending on Obama's handling of any particular issue, even in a

polarized time, he could still deliver on a lot of his second-term
goals, depending on his skill and the breaks. Unforeseen catalysts can appear, like
Newtown. Epiphanies can dawn, such as when many Republican Party leaders suddenly woke up in panic to the huge
disparity in the Hispanic vote. Some political scientists who study the elusive calculus of how to
pass legislation and run successful presidencies say that political capital is, at best, an
empty concept , and that almost nothing in the academic literature successfully quantifies or even defines it.
"It can refer to a very abstract thing, like a president's popularity, but there's no mechanism there.
That makes it kind of useless ," says Richard Bensel, a government professor at Cornell University.
Even Ornstein concedes that the calculus is far more complex than
the term suggests. Winning on one issue often changes the
calculation for the next issue ; there is never any known amount of
capital. "The idea here is, if an issue comes up where the conventional wisdom is that president is not going to get
what he wants, and he gets it, then each time that happens, it changes the calculus of the other actors" Ornstein says.
"If they think he's going to win, they may change positions to get on
the winning side . It's a bandwagon effect ."
Heavy Weights
Popular with political heavyweights
As frustration with TSA screening practices and perceived security lapses continue to
grow not only with the general flying public , but with political
heavyweights in Washington D.C., the cry for the return to private security
screeners in our nations airports is reaching an audible pitch .
Sen. Mica
Mica likes the plan
SB 10 smart brief (11/17/10, As uproar continues, Rep. Mica urges airports
to privatize security, http://www.smartbrief.com/s/2010/11/uproar-continues-
rep-mica-urges-airports-privatize-security)//twemchen
The Republican lawmaker in line to head the House Transportation and

Infrastructure Committee is urging airports around the country to consider
privatizing security screening. Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., says the law specifically allows
airports to opt out of the federalized TSA system, and 17 have already done so. " It is both
inappropriate and inefficient for the TSA to serve as the administrator,
quality assurance regulator, operator and auditor of its own activities," Mica wrote in a
letter dated Nov. 5. Though Mica did not specifically mention the controversy over full-body scanners and
security pat-downs, other groups continued to press their opposition to such techniques, and several
lawsuits were filed on the basis of safety and civil liberties concerns.
Key to the agenda

Zaldivar 88 Herald Washington Bureau (R.A. Zaldivar, 1/4/88, INTERNAL
STATIC, The Miami Herald, Lexis)//twemchen
Mas doesn't get involved in the daily running of the station. Instead, as advisory board chairman, he
provides the political leverage needed to fix problems with Congress or the
bureaucracy. Mas can pick up the phone, call United States Information Agency (USIA) Director
Charles Wick or Rep. Mica , and get a prompt response .
Airlines
Airport lobbies support privatization
Principato 13 (Gregory Principato, 8/29/13, Let's All Work Together,
http://www.aviationpros.com/article/11033254/airport-business-checks-in-
with-gregory-principato-as-he-steps-down-as-president-of-aci-na-with-advice-
that-the-more-aviation-industry-works-together-the-better-off-well-
be)//twemchen
stance on privatization? ACIs position has always been if an airport

Whats ACI-NAs
wants to privatize , it should be allowed to , and if it doesnt want to it shouldnt
have to. When I arrived at ACI-NA, the intellectual momentum in the U.S. industry was going in the
direction of privatization. Now that intellectual momentum has stopped.There are still people
interested in it as a concept. But if you look around the world, a growing number of airports are run on
Thats key to the agenda

Elliott 6/4 staff writer at the Washington Post (Christopher Elliot, 6/4/15, Is
Shuster (R-Pa.), who chairs the House Transportation and
First was news that Rep. Bill
Infrastructure Committee, is dating Shelley Rubino, an airline lobbyist . Consumer
advocates claim the relationship has influenced Shusters committee ,
including the adoption of a bill called the Transparent Airfares Act.
Airlines Link
They like the aff
Isenberg 14 Analyst in National and International Security Affairs (David
Isenberg, 6/30/14, AfA urges TSA to allow privately trained dogs to screen
cargo, http://iissonline.net/afa-urges-tsa-to-allow-privately-trained-dogs-to-
screen-cargo/)//twemchen
The U.S. Airforwarders Association told a congressional panel that the U.S. Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) should move toward permitting private contractors to train explosive-sniffing dogs
and make them available for use at government-certified cargo screening facilities. Appearing before the
U.S. House of Representatives Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation Security, AfA board
urged TSA to finalize its efforts to develop a program for

member Chris Connell
private companies to use their own canines, certified to TSA standards, to meet federal air
cargo screening mandates. Presently, TSA permits only the use of the agencys dogs in cargo
screening, and only at on-airport facilities. Connell, who is president of Los Angeles-based freight forwarder
Commodity Forwarders, Inc., said enabling the use of private sector dogs will help broaden the security
options for freight forwarders who operate off-airport Certified Cargo Screening Facilities, which are
supervised by TSA. We are not saying that privatized canines are a magic bullet when it comes to
screening cargo, but they are a potentially valuable part of this multilayer approach another important
tool in the toolbox, if you will that includes a range of other technology solutions that our members can
use to meet their screening requirements, he said. Connell told the subcommittee that in a recent
survey of AfA members, 75 percent of respondents said they would strongly
consider using dogs provided by private companies if they were given the option. Time
is money in our business. And right now, our company believes that we could save over $1 million a year
at our LAX facility if we had access to a third-party solution deploying canines. And of course our
customers would highly appreciate the time savings that this solution would help us achieve, Connell said.
Connell also noted that use of specially trained dogs is one of the methods for screening airfreight that are
identified in the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act.
Airlines hate squo TSA practices

Ciaramella 10 staff writer at the Washington Daily Caller (C.J. Ciaramella,
6/14/10, "TSA blocks private airport screeners",
http://archives.californiaaviation.org/airport/msg47640.html)//twemchen
But Martin said it took more than a year of "rattling the chain in Washington" to get TSA to revise its
"Given
model. And when TSA agreed to send extra screeners, she said it took months for them to arrive.
TSA's cumbersome hiring practices , they couldn't get them here in time for the
summer swell," she said. The lack of screeners led to significant delays for passengers and
airlines , she said.
Especially security
Bender 14 Forbes contributor (Andrew Bender, 8/1/14, Airline Industry
Takes Gloves Off, Sues TSA Over Security Fee Hike,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewbender/2014/08/01/airline-industry-takes-
gloves-off-sues-tsa-over-security-fee-hike/)//twemchen
Last week, the Transportation Security Administration raised the security fee charged to airline
passengers. This week, the airline industry struck back . Airlines for America (A4A), the
U.S. airline trade group, and the International Air Transport Association (IATA), which represents
240 international carriers, filed a petition over the fee increase in federal court. The main
complaint: The removal of a cap on security fees. Lets start with the basics. After 9-11, TSA
security fees were pegged at $2.50 per flight (enplanement, in industry lingo) with a $10 maximum.
If you flew nonstop point to point, youd pay $2.50 each way, or $5 round trip (two enplanements). With a
change of planes in each direction, youd pay $5 each way (two enplanements), or $10 round trip (four
enplanements).
Airlines Key
Most recent evidence mergers strengthened lobbying
efforts
Levinthal 13 -- Senior Reporter The Center for Public Integrity (Dave
Levinthal, 3-4-2013 http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/03/04/12267/us-
airways-strengthens-lobbying-force)//twemchen
US Airways in the midst of merger proceedings with American Airlines is
blostering its already robust lobbying force with a pair of new government
relations firms, documents filed with the U.S. Senate this weekend indicate. Joseph Gibson of The Gibson Group
will handle one lobbying account, while Scott Reed of Chesapeake Enterprises will lead the other, according to US Airways'
filings. Both contracts went into effect in mid-February, just days after the airlines announced the merger proposal.
Gibson, for his part, brings extensive government experience to bear, having most notably
served as chief minority counsel to the House Judiciary Committee , deputy assistant
attorney general for the Department of Justice's Office of Legislative Affairs and chief of staff for Rep. Lamar Smith, R-
Texas. His lobbying responsibilities include "issues relating to the proposed merger of US Airways and American Airlines,"
Reed lists his lobbying duties as "House and Senate hearings;
the filing states.
merger activities," according to his filing. During 2012, US Airways spent more money on
federal-level lobbying activity, $2.83 million, than during any previous year ,
federal records show. Such spending paid 31 lobbyists at four firms Podesta Group, Cormac
Group, Ogilvy Government Relations and Vandor Strategies most of whom have previously
worked for the government , according to the Center for Responsive Politics. US Airways, a
representative for which could not be immediately reached for comment, also employed a pair of in-
house lobbyists.
Aviation is key
Randall 1 staff writer @ WSWS (Kate Randall, 10/18/1, How the US airlines
got their $15 billion bailout, http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2001/10/air-
o18.html)//twemchen
The intimateties between corporate America, the Bush administration and the two main
political parties were illustrated in sharp relief last month by the speed with which Congress
passed the bailout of the airline industry. Less than two weeks following the September 11 terror
attacks the airlines had secured $15 billion dollars in federal money, with none of it going to the thousands
of airline workers who have lost their jobs and seen their benefits slashed. Only the day after the attacks,
airlines sprung into action. Their lobbyists converged on Capitol Hill to
the
convince Congress that the industry needed billions of dollars. In fact, they argued that the very
survival of America was dependent on the injection of huge sums of federal money into the airline
companies coffers. Senator Peter G. Fitzgerald (R-Illinois), the only senator to vote against the bailout
package, told the New York Times: The airline industry made a full-court press to convince
Congress that giving them billions in taxpayer cash was the only way to save the republic. He
described the airlines lobbying efforts as masterful. The airlines have a powerful
lobby in Congress, including 27 lobbyists working directly for the airlines and another 42 from
Washington firms. Included among them are former White House aides, transportation secretaries and
retired congressmen. Haley Barbour, a former Republican National Committee chairman, and Rebecca Cox,
a former Reagan administration official and the wife of Representative Christopher Cox, a California
Republican, were also on board for the airlines cause. Linda Hall Daschle, the wife of Senate Majority
Leader Tom Daschle, is a lobbyist for American Airlines. While reportedly avoiding her husband and Senate
Democrats in her lobbying efforts, Ms. Daschle campaigned vigorously among House Democrats for the
bailout. Airline top executives lobbied for their companies in person. Among them were Donald J. Carty,
CEO of American Airlines parent company AMR, and Gordon Bethune, chief executive of Continental
Airlines. Both companies are based in Texas, and Carty and Bethune have known George W. Bush for years.
Delta Airlines CEO Leo F. Mullin was also on hand. Board members of the six major airlines made calls to
leading members of Congress and the Bush administration to support their case. Kirbyjon Caldwell, a
Continental director, phoned three senators on September 19, saying the bailout was needed to transform
a moment of fear to a moment of faith. American Airlines Director John W. Bachmann called Missouri
Representatives Richard Gephardt and Roy Blunt to say the airline industrys losses were nothing less than
a big contributor
breathtaking and required immediate action. The airline industry has long been
to the Democratic and Republican parties, and this support was rewarded
generously in the bailout package.
Airlines garner public support

Sarkar 7 AP Business Writer (Dibya Sarkar, 8/22/7, Airlines recruit frequent
fliers to lobby Congress, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2007-
08-22-airlines-lobby_N.htm)//twemchen
WASHINGTON Major airlines are asking passengers for help convincing

Congress that private aircraft owners should pay more to modernize an outdated air traffic control
system. U.S. carriers are drumming up customer support through e-mails, airline
magazine commentaries and in-flight videos, blaming a surge in corporate jet and small plane
traffic for delays that are at record levels. Delta Air Lines sent an e-mail to its frequent fliers this month,
asking them to write their congressional representatives and request corporate jet owners
ante up for a new air-traffic control system. The airline plans to start showing a short animated video on
most flights Sept. 1, blaming air congestion on increased flying by corporate jets and small planes. The
video also suggests operators and owners of those aircraft aren't paying their fair share for a new air-traffic
control system.
Bipart Link Turn
The only empirical example is the Security Enhancement
and Jobs Act that was popular and bipartisan
Hodges 11 Chicago Homeland Security Examiner at The Examiner (Cynthia
Hodges, 4/18/11, House of Representatives has its own gang of six,
http://www.examiner.com/article/house-of-representatives-has-its-own-gang-
of-six)//twemchen
a bipartisan "Gang of Six" U.S. Senators leading
Lately, there has been a lot of talk about
the compromise toward an agreement on the budget deal. There's another
bipartisan gang of six making serious moves on Capitol Hill, this one consisting of six
members of the U.S. House of Representatives all in agreement that reforming the TSA
is urgent . On April 8, 2011, Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D. MS) introduced the "Aviation Security
Stakeholder Participation Act of 2011" (H.R.1447) to direct the TSA to establish an Aviation Security
Advisory Committee. The Aviation Security Advisory Committee would include experts from a variety of
groups in the avation industry including unions members in the travel industry, airport operators, and
several others. In addition, Working Groups would be established from within the Advisory Committee for
air cargo security, perimeter security, and general aviation security. On April 14, Rep. Nita Lowey, (D-NY)
introduced legislation (H.R. 1554) that would prohibit advance notice to certain individuals, including
security screeners of covert testing of security screening at airports. The Bill is co-sponsored by Democrats
Bennie G. Thompson and Sheila Jackson-Lee from Texas. Both proposed bills were then referred to the
House Committee on Homeland Security which has sole jurisdiction over all TSA security matters. On April
powerful Republican Congressmen added their own proposed bill,
15, three
known as the "Security Enhancement and Jobs Act of 2011" to expand the
Screening Partnership Program which allows airport operators to replace
TSA screeners with private screening companies operating under federal supervision and
guidelines.
Biparts key
Eilperin 14 Washington Post (Juliet, 11/18/14, A handful of bills could
bridge the partisan divide. But will they start a trend?,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-handful-of-bills-could-bridge-the-
partisan-divide/2014/11/17/b4fed0da-6e74-11e4-8808-
afaa1e3a33ef_story.html)
measures share some obvious characteristics they all enjoy strong
While these
bipartisan support and would affect vulnerable populations they also hint at a
broader trend . After an extended period of dysfunction on Capitol
Hill, weary lawmakers and administration officials are eager to show
a disaffected electorate that they can make modest changes to the
way government functions. There are plenty of signs that President Obama and
congressional Republicans remain on a collision course this week, over energy and possibly immigration.
So it is not clear that the successful passage of these bills would spill over into more-
contentious parts of the legislative arena , such as trade and tax reform. But, at
least for the moment, there are some very concrete results. This is the beginning of
green shoots , said Rich Gold, who heads Holland & Knights public policy practice and represents
the coalition backing the Sunscreen Innovation Act. What youre seeing with these bills is that, even
with the general gap yawning between the two parties, theres a
beginning vision of what the government should be doing going
forward. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) is spearheading an effort to pass as many bills as possible
that have already cleared the House and have at least had hearings in the Senate. While they deal with a
range of topics from using foreign visa fees to promote U.S. tourism abroad to collecting taxes on
compromise and could make it easier to
Internet sales she said they all reflect
strike broader deals in the next congressional session. For the institution,
its important to get the grease in the wheels again, Klobuchar
Congress,
it is going to
said in an interview. Even if we dont pass all of them, going into the first six months
make people feel better about the work they do, and its going let the public
see things can get done.
The plans method is bipartisan

Competitive contracting has been widely used at local, state and federal
levels of government. In recent decades, it has been embraced by elected officials of
both parties as a way of achieving greater value for the taxpayers dollar. One of
the most influential books on the subject was Reinventing1Government by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler,
advisors to then Vice President Gores National Performance Review.7 Under this approach, a government
wanting a service delivered more cost-effectively must define the outcomes it wishes to achieve, leaving
qualified bidders free to propose their own procedures and technology for achieving those outcomes. Such
contracts typically stress measurement of outcome variables, and often provide financial penalties and
bonuses. By contrast, under the Screening Partnership Program (SPP) set up by TSAs
interpretation of the opt-out provisions in the ATSA legislation , the entire process is micromanaged
by TSA. Instead of permitting the airport in question to issue a request for proposals (RFP) to TSAcertified
firms, TSA itself selects the company and assigns it to the airport. And TSA itself manages the contract
with the screening company, rather than allowing the airport to integrate screening into its security
program, under overall TSA supervision and regulation. Moreover, TSA spells out procedures and
technology (inputs) rather than only specifying the desired screening outcomes, thereby making it very
difficult for screening companies to innovate. As well, the ATSA legislation mandates that compensation
levels for private screeners be identical to those of TSA screeners. Under a performance contracting
approach, with screening devolved to the airport, TSA would continue to certify screening companies that
met its requirements (e.g., security experience, financial strength, screener qualifications, training, etc.). It
would also spell out the screening performance measures (outcomes) that companies or airports would be
required to meet. Airports would be free to either provide screening themselves (with screeners meeting
those same TSA requirements) or to competitively contract for a TSA-certified screening company.
Companies bidding in response to the airports RFP would propose their approach to meeting the
performance requirements, in terms of staff, procedures and technology. This could include, for example,
cross-training screeners to carry out other airport security duties, such as access and perimeter control.
The airport would select the proposal that offered the best value, subject to TSA approval. TSA, in its role
as regulator, would oversee all aspects of the airports security operations, including adherence to federal
laws and screening.
Privatization bipartisan
Cravaack 12 Representative from Minnesota (Chip Cravaack, 2/7/12,
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security,
Mr. Cravaack. Yeah, I know it.It is a bipartisan issue . We have worked on a lot of different
issues regarding transportation as well. The big thing I think we want to make sure that we have
public is that there is a beneficial cost associated with the privatized, if there is one;
and, No. 2, that we have an effective system that you are able to manage.
Public Link Turn
The public loves the plantheir evidence cites a vocal
majority
Reed 11 (Kristi, 3/6/11, "Airport Privatization Proponent Speaks Out",
Peachtree Corners Patch, patch.com/georgia/peachtreecorners/airport-
privatization-proponent-speaks-out-2)//twemchen
Smith said he conducted a poll to
COMMUNITY OPINION Before approaching the county,
determine community interest and support for the project. I wanted to make sure
the majority of people were in favor of this, he said. If theyre not, its a waste of time. In a poll of 531
registered voters, Smith said roughly 80 percent favored privatization with commercial
service.Later polls reportedly yielded similar results . According to Smith, a poll of

1,050 people showed 85 percent of respondents favored privatization with
commercial service and a poll of just Lawrenceville residents showed 70 percent of poll participants
is a way to take this airport and turn it into a small
favored the plan. This
origin and destination airport, Smith said. The plan includes a maximum of 10 gates with
up to an additional 80 flights a day, or an increase from the current 14 flights each hour to 18 per hour.
the problem he currently faces is that those opposed are protesting
Smith said
while those in favor have remained silent. I think it would have
gone a lot smoother if people understood what it was , he said.
Key to the agenda

Hobley 12 The Guardian (Marcus, Public opinion can play a positive role in
policy making, 9/3/12, http://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-
network/2012/sep/03/public-opinion-influence-policy)
a consequence of
As demonstrated during Tony Blair's evidence to the Leveson inquiry,
ignoring public opinion is the public's long memory , which can hold
their leaders to account for their decisions long after leaving office. It
has even been claimed that public opinion has the ability to change the course
of history. In the midst of the great US depression, Franklin D Roosevelt's reluctance to
join the anti-German war effort was finally decided by the bombing
of Pearl Harbour. This event changed everything in the hearts and
mind of the American public , giving the president the public support he
needed. So how do today's public leaders better use public opinion to achieve
their ministerial set public policy objectives ? Within reach of Whitehall's civil servants and
minsters is a vast array of research and publications than can be used to inform the policy formation and
implementation process. Examples such as Ipsos Mori's understanding society series provides a detailed
insight into what the public value, think and want from the state. The Britain 2012 report is an example of
a piece of research that encapsulates the nation's mindset. The Cabinet Office is seeking new ways to
involve the public in policy formation in both the transparency and open data agendas which allow us to
see exactly where every penny of our taxes is going and opens up the space for political and public debate
on previously untouchables areas of state expenditure. Areas such as benefits reform at the Department of
Work and Pensions (including free TV licences, winter fuel allowance, free bus passes) could all be up for
discussion. This would have been thinking the unthinkable in the past. Public opinion could
also help set the pace of reform . To overcome frustrations around the lengthy timetable
required to implement reform, why not allow policy to be timetabled to align with public opinion?
Therein lies the momentum and impetus to accelerate the speed at
which the aptly labelled dead hand of the state implements policy. The
findings from Britain 2012 depict a generation whose view of the state is highly contrasted to views held
by their parents and grandparents. Broadly speaking, the report found a differing view between the
generations about what the state should or should not be doing. At one end of the spectrum the elder
"collectivist" post-war generation who, unsurprisingly, places value in a society and state that cares for the
most needy, and at the other, a younger generation of teenagers and those in their 20's who broadly take
a more "individualist" view of the world where each needs to take greater responsibility for themselves. In
either case, underlying changes in public opinion across generations
highlight the profound impact this may have on drawing up the
public policy priorities of the future .
Export Import
Straight Turn


PCs not key it has bipartisan support

VOA 7/22/15 Voice of America News (VOA,
http://www.voanews.com/content/obama-to-pressure-congress-on-ex-im-
bank/2872957.html)//JJ
The bank has strong bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, but a group of staunch
conservative Republicans has criticized the agency as a form of "corporate welfare" that only helps a few
The White House says the
large corporations that do not need government assistance.
business owners who will meet with the president have worked with the Ex-Im Bank in
the past "to expand their exports and sustain and create jobs ." Supporters
have also noted that rival nations such as China and Germany have similar agencies assisting their
companies sell exports on the global market. "The Export-Import Bank is a critical tool in
the bipartisan trade agenda that helps U.S. businesses succeed in global
markets and grow their exports . Ex-Im equips companies with financing they need to go toe-
to-toe with foreign rivals, resulting in more exports and more well-paying jobs in cities and towns here in
America, rather than overseas," a White House official said. There is growing support in
the Senate to attach a measure to restore the Ex-Im Bank's charter on a bill that would provide
funding for the federal Highway Trust Fund, which must be approved by July 31.
It wont pass now but the plan allows the ex-im

reauthorization to ride a must-pass measure thats
necessary for passage
Howell 7/15 [Tom, Ted Cruz and tea partyers: Let the Ex-Im Bank stay
dead, Washington Times, 7/15/15,
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/15/ted-cruz-and-tea-
partyers-let-ex-im-bank-stay-dead/>]//shrek
Sen. Ted Cruz and other conservatives told GOP leaders Wednesday not to let
Congress revive the federal Export-Import Bank, an agency that financed the sale of
U.S. goods overseas for decades but is creeping toward a slow death after
lawmakers failed to renew its charter by the June 30 deadline.
Conservatives want the bank to stay dead, arguing the product of
the New Deal handed out corporate welfare and should fade away once it
meets its existing obligations. After 81 years, Congress finally, finally, finally decided to let a wasteful
spending program expire, said Mr. Cruz, Texas Republican, who is running for president.
Youll notice the sky hasnt fallen, he later added, peering up to the heavens outside the
Capitol. The 2016 contender rallied with likeminded Republicans, conservative
groups and the Tea Party Patriots because supporters of the bank say they
have the votes to resuscitate it in the coming weeks. Theyre hoping to amend a highway bill
in the Senate and send it to the House as must-pass legislation . Senate

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, is committed to an open
amendment process in the upper chamber and has acknowledged that the banks supporters
want to use the highway bill as their vehicle. The leader is trying to assemble a long-term bill before the
highway fund lapses July 31, meaning the federal government would no longer be able to reimburse state
and local governments for their road projects. The House, however, is making the first move, passing
Wednesday afternoon a bill that extends the highway fund through the end of the year. That would buy
enough time for lawmakers to devise an international tax overhaul that could cobble together the $90
billion needed to fill the gap between projected costs and expected revenues from the federal gas tax over
the next six years. Known in Capitol-speak as Ex-Im, the banks supporters say it bolsters more than
160,000 jobs and helps U.S. goods compete overseas. In a joint statement, the Texas Association of
Business and Texas Association of Manufacturers said their members rely on a host of tools to continue
growing and hiring, including the Export-Import Bank. Senator Ted Cruz has failed to understand that and
chooses, again and again, to put politics ahead of economic progress and payrolls for his constituents, the
groups said. Rep. Bill Flores, Texas Republican and chairman of the Republican Study Committee, said
Wednesday it is unclear whether the GOP would move to block a legislative rule that would bring a Senate
version with Ex-Im attached to the House floor. Conservatives said it is up to Mr.
McConnell and Speaker John A. Boehner to stand against Ex-Im,
which they said benefits corporations with lobbyists at the expense
of taxpayers. They even praised GOP leaders for letting the bank
expire, saying no one had to lift a finger to let the bank wind down its existing lines of credit. If
theres one thing Congress is good at, Mr. Cruz said, its doing nothing.
its time for Mr. McConnell to play
Former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said
hardball in the Senate and block any Democratic amendment to revive Ex-Im.
Try or die to provide must-pass legislation now

otherwise, the legislation wont be brought up till October
Reuters 7/28 [Congress embraces highway bill, July 28, 2015,
http://triblive.com/usworld/nation/8821619-74/bank-senate-republican#axzz3hF6lZz60] //khirn
WASHINGTON In a rapidly shifting battle,

Republican leaders in Congress
prepared to pass a three-month highway funding extension Tuesday
while leaving the idled Export-Import Bank's fate hanging at least into September. With the
House of Representatives and Senate rushing toward a five-week summer recess, Republican leaders in
both chambers embraced the newest version of a bill to temporarily fund road and mass transit
construction projects. Failure by Congress to act by Friday would lead to a cutoff of federal transport funds,
disrupting projects nationwide. The lifeline until Oct. 29 is expected to pass the House on Wednesday
followed by quick action in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, vowed to
pass a highway trust fund extension with three years of funding in the hope the House would follow suit in
coming months. Late Monday, the Senate demonstrated strong support for renewing the Ex-Im Bank,
whose charter expired June 30, by attaching a renewal to its longer-term transportation bill. But House
Republican leaders effectively blocked that measure by arranging to pass the three-month highway
extension and leave Washington on Wednesday. That would leave the Ex-Im Bank
unable to make or guarantee loans until September or October , when its
backers in Congress will have another chance to revive it. The hard right
is running the Republican Party, said Sen. Chuck Schumer, the chamber's third-ranking Democrat.
Republicans are leaving Ex-Im shuttered for the summer.
Ensures thumpers will overwhelm

Lee 7/2 (Carol E. Lee, 7/2/15, White House Gears Up for Domestic Policy
Offensive, Wall Street Journal,
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/02/white-house-gears-up-for-
domestic-policy-offensive/)//Jmoney
While President Barack Obamas top foreign-policy initiativesparticularly on Cuba, trade and Iranhave dominated the
the White House is gearing up for a domestic policy push thats
headlines lately,
largely been under the radar. The effort is designed both to burnish Mr.
Obamas domestic-policy legacy and to try to make headway on issues where
progress has lagged. Mr. Obama has already begun to showcase the strategy.
The White House announced this week a proposal to expand overtime pay to
about five million more Americans, and on Wednesday Mr. Obama traveled to
Tennessee to highlight his health-care lawin the wake of last weeks Supreme Court
ruling that upheld federal subsidies to millions of low-income In coming weeks, the
White House is expected to roll out more executive orders, perhaps on gun
safety. And top White House officials are hoping to capitalize on their successful collaboration
with congressional Republicans on trade to advance a business-tax overhaul and
transportation initiatives targeted at shoring up the countrys infrastructure.
Changes to the criminal justice system are also at the top of the
presidents domestic wish list . He telegraphed his renewed domestic focus this week during a
news conference with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. The list is long, Mr. Obama said. What were going to
do is just keep on hammering away at all the issues that I think are going to have an impact on the American people.
Some of them will be left undone . But were going to try to make progress
on every single one of them . The renewed domestic offensive, coupled with an aggressive front on
foreign-policy issues, are a reflection of a president who is, as former senior White House adviser David Axelrod recently
told The Wall Street Journal, feeling the pressures of time. The challenge for Mr. Obama will be in the places where his
domestic and foreign policy agendas intersect. The president has limited political capital
in Congress. And he needs lawmakers to backor at least not amass
a veto-proof majority opposition toa nuclear deal with Iran if one is
finalized in coming days. Hell also need to generate enough support among Republican and Democratic lawmakers for
lifting the embargo on Cuba, which on Wednesday he again called on Congress to do as he announced finalized plans to
Its unclear if Mr. Obama will also be able to persuade
open an American embassy in Havana.
Congress to act on issues such as infrastructure, business taxes and the
criminal justice system. But White House officials have been
instructed to make a strong effort . We are going to squeeze every last ounce of progress that
we can make when I have the privilegeas long as I have the privilege of holding this office, Mr. Obama said Tuesday.
AT Losers Lose I/L
No link Obama pushes the plan
a) He supports most agenda items most predictable
its the only way to get things through congress no one
else would support it
b) Prevents abusive 2ac clarifications that spike out of all
DAs and CPs
c) USFG is all three branches
DGP 98 (Ed. P.H. Collin, p. 292)
United States of America (USA) [ju:naitid steits av emerike] noun independent country, a
federation of states (originally thirteen, now fifty in North America; the United States Code = book containing all the
permanent laws of the USA, arranged in sections according to subject and revised from time to time COMMENT: the
federal government (based in Washington D.C.) is formed of a legislature (the
Congress) with two chambers (the Senate and House of Representatives), an executive (the President) and a
judiciary (the Supreme Court). Each of the fifty states making up the USA has its own legislature and executive (the
Governor) as well as its own legal system and constitution
d) The plans a win for Obama

Rausnitz 14 Editor in the Government Publishing Group at FierceMarkets
(Zach Rausnitz, 1/23/14, Omnibus spending law pushes for privatized TSA
screening, http://www.fiercehomelandsecurity.com/story/omnibus-spending-
law-pushes-privatizated-tsa-screening/2014-01-23)//twemchen
Lawmakers instructed the Transportation Security Administration to more aggressively

privatize airport security screening in the fiscal 2014 omnibus legislation. President
Obama signed the omnibus spending bill (H.R. 3547) into law Jan. 17. The bill report says that TSA
"is expected to more proactively utilize the [ Screening Partnership
Program ]" the airport screening privatization program and to "expeditiously approve
the applications of airports seeking to participate in the program." Additionally, the report instructs
TSA to commission an independent study comparing the performance of federal and private screening, in
terms of security effectiveness, cost, wait times, customer service and more.
AT Normal I/L
Plan popular
AT Econ
Ex-Im is not key to the economy
Flynn 7/16 [Mike, Senate GOP plants to resurrect ex-im bank,Breitbart,
7/16/15, <http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/16/senate-gop-
plans-to-resurrect-ex-im-bank/>]//shrek
Humans may be mortal, but thegovernment programs they create tend to live on
forever. Just weeks after the New Deal-era Export-Import Bank finally expired, Senate Republicans are
planning to resurrect the corporate welfare arm through a highway funding bill. Conservatives may well
ask what was the point of Republicans winning the Senate. The Export-Import Bank was created by FDR to
provide taxpayer-backed loans to foreign companies to purchase American products. Perhaps the idea
made some sense in the depths of the worldwide Great Depression, but any rationale for the program has
Today, less than 2 percent of Americas
long since been confined to the history books.
exports are financed by the Ex-Im Bank. In a world of very cheap money, it isnt clear
that the taxpayer-backed loans are necessary for even this small amount of sales. This is especially true
over 60 percent of the loans backed by the bank go to a small
because
handful of American corporations, with giants like Caterpillar and
Boeing reaping the overwhelming majority of the benefits. The federal
lending agency is really just another financing arm for a few well-connected companies. The Export-Import
Its benefits are concentrated
Bank is simply a poster child of federal corporate welfare.
on a few companies that donate considerable funds to politicians
and its costs are spread, in minuscule amounts, across all taxpayers.
Its only real economic benefits are confined to those who can navigate
the agency for their own ends. There is no real benefit to the overall economy. If this
federal welfare agency cant be allowed to expire, then nothing the government does will ever come to an
end. Thankfully, the banks charter expired on June 30, so it legally no longer exists. This being
Washington, however, dead isnt quite dead. Next week, the Senate is expected to take up a short-term
spending fix for the federal highway trust fund. The fix is a must-pass piece of legislation to shore up
funding for infrastructure spending. The Senate GOP is likely to attach an amendment reauthorizing the
Sens. Sen.
Bank, forcing the House to accept its resurrection in order to maintain highway spending.
Ted Cruz (R-TX)96% and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)100% have threatened to
filibuster the spending patch if such an amendment is added to the
spending bill. I am willing to use any and all procedural tools to stop this corporate welfare, this
corruption, from being propagated, Cruz said. As admirable as this sentiment is, the effort is likely to fail.
The principled point will be lost in a sea of news stories about threatened infrastructure spending.
Senators will posture about the critical needs of our nations
highways and bridges, cheered on by Washingtons donor class . And,
yet again, an antiquated relic of corporate welfare will rise again on the
banks of the Potomac. The new Republican majority will again prove that adage that the more
things change, the more they remain the same.
Wont Pass
Ex-im controversial conservatives hate it
Quinn 7/15 (Melissa Quinn is a news reporter for The Daily Signal. The
Daily Signal: Ted Cruz Willing to Use Any and All Tools to Stop Export-Import
Bank Reauthorization published July 15th, 2015. Accessed July 16th, 2015.
http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/15/ted-cruz-willing-to-use-any-and-all-tools-to-
stop-export-import-bank-reauthorization-even-the-filibuster/)KalM
Ted Cruz said
With talk of the Export-Import Banks reauthorization continuing on Capitol Hill, Sen.
today he plans to use any and all tools possible to stop the 81-
year-old agency from coming back to life. Speaking to reporters in front of the U.S.
Capitol today, Cruz, R-Texas, raised the prospect of filibustering a highway
funding bill that could be used as a vehicle for Ex-Ims
reauthorization. I am willing to use any and all procedural tools to
stop this corporate welfare , this corruption from being
propagated, Cruz said when asked if he would attempt to stop the advancement of the
highway legislation if it included Ex-Im reauthorization. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who joined Cruz, agreed. I
those of us who oppose it will continue to use any and all procedural
think
tools at our disposal in order to oppose it, he said. The two senators were joined by
Republican Study Committee Chairman Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, and House Freedom Caucus Chairman
Conservatives Fund,
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, as well as leaders of the Club for Growth, Senate
Heritage Action for America and Tea Party Patriots. Ex-Ims charter expired June 30, and
conservatives in the House and Senate are working to ensure the bank is not
reauthorized . However, Senate Democrats are working to attach an

amendment reauthorizing Ex-Im to the highway funding bill.
Conservative backlash prevents Export Import Bank

renewal
Werner 6/30 [Erica, Associated Press Congressional Reporter, What is the
federal Export-Import Bank and why wont Congress renew it? UpNorthLive,
6/30/15, <http://www.upnorthlive.com/news/story.aspx?
id=1224404#.VZ7fkRNViko>]//eugchen
Conservatives cheered the demise of the federal Export-Import Bank
Tuesday and vowed to beat back efforts to revive it, even as business
leaders issued dire warnings that letting the agency expire at
midnight would hurt U.S. competitiveness globally. "Ding Dong, the Ex-Im Bank
is dead!" declared FreedomWorks, one of the outside groups responsible for transforming the bank from an
obscure government lending institution into a conservative rallying cry. "This is a critical blow to
manufacturers," countered Aric Newhouse, a senior vice president at the National Association of
Manufacturers, arguing that the bank plays a necessary role in underwriting loans to help foreign
customers purchase U.S. goods. The charter of the 81-year-old government agency expires at midnight
Tuesday without congressional action, and with the House and Senate on recess for the July 4 holiday there
was no chance of a last-minute reprieve. Supporters warn that billions of dollars in pending deals are at
risk because of the failure to renew the bank's charter, something that's been done numerous times over
the years with little to no controversy. But although the Export-Import Bank will be unable to make new
loans as of midnight, it will stay in business for the time being to service more than $100 billion in
outstanding loans and guarantees, and no immediate lay-offs or changes are planned, bank officials said.
The bank is funded through Sept. 30. Supporters are making plans to revive the bank in the coming weeks
by attaching it to must-pass legislation to extend the highway trust fund. Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell, R-Ky., told The Associated Press this week that supporters
of the bank have the votes to pass it and he will give them the opportunity to do so.
Whether it could then get through the House is less certain, and
conservative groups pledged to redouble their efforts to oppose it . "It
is up to Republican leaders to accept and preserve this major policy victory," said Michael A. Needham,
Under pressure from tea party-backed
chief executive of Heritage Action for America.
conservatives, GOP congressional leaders and presidential
candidates have lined up against the bank, defying their traditional
allies in the business community who support it. That's led to bitter grumbling
from some business leaders. Two business officials on a conference call Tuesday organized by the
Exporters for Ex-Im Coalition, a group backed by the National Association of Manufacturers and others,
attacked House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., in unusually personal terms for turning against
the bank. One of them, Don Nelson, president of California-based ProGauge Technologies, said he'd met
with McCarthy personally to explain that his company that makes oil industry equipment will have to stop
exporting if the Export-Import Bank is dissolved. "Truth be told, he has zero experience or knowledge on
the topic and yet he and other misguided congressmen portray they're experts on this topic and say the
private sector can take over," Nelson said. "They really don't have a clue what they're doing or the damage
they're going to inflict on small businesses in America by closing the Ex-Im bank." McCarthy's office did not
immediately offer a response.
House conservatives will prevent Ex-Im from passing

Livingston 7/16 [Abby, political writer, Ghost of Export-Import Bank
Haunts Highway Bill, The Texas
Tribune<https://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/16/texans-ex-im-highway-
bill/>]//eugchen
WASHINGTON Two weeks after it was supposedly killed, the ghost of the Export-Import Bank continues to
haunt Capitol Hill. Advocates of the bank, a federal agency that supports companies doing business
abroad, are busy trying to resuscitate it by attaching reauthorization to a so-called must-pass bill that will
help fund the nations highway system. But the bank has fierce adversaries on the Hill, including several
Ted Cruz, essentially
from the Texas delegation. One, U.S. Sen. and Republican presidential aspirant
threatened to bring down the entire highway bill if needed to finish
off the Ex-Im Bank, which officially expired on June 30, though it continues to operate finishing
out its pending business. I am willing to use any and all procedural tools to stop this corporate welfare,
this corruption from being propagated, Cruz said at a news conference in front of the U.S. Capitol on
Wednesday. But by tucking the bank's renewal into a highway funding bill that most lawmakers support,
the bank's backers hope to overcome the conservative blockade that has stymied efforts to keep it alive.
Though it occupies a small niche in the federal government, it has become a lightning rod in conservative
politics, serving as the current battleground between limited-government groups and business interests
like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The bank uses loan guarantees, insurance and other support to help
American companies do business abroad. The House passed the highway funding measure Wednesday
without the Ex-Im provision, but many Capitol Hill sources expect it to be added when the Senate takes up
More than
the bill in the coming days or weeks, setting up a showdown between the chambers.
almost any other federal government program, constituents feel the
effects of Highway Trust Fund from the moment they leave their
houses each day and drive to work. In Texas alone, the federal
government subsidized $3.3 billion worth of road construction and
repairs in 2014. Now that other major issues the controversial Pacific Rim trade deal and a
nuclear treaty with Iran are in holding patterns until the fall, the most pressing issue for
Congress is this reauthorization of the Highway Trust Fund, now set to
expire on July 31. But thanks to continual congressional gridlock and the
ghost of Ex-Im, the legislation that will replenish the fund is
creeping from must-pass to might-pass. If the highway bill
returns from the Senate with the bank authorization included, House
conservatives who oppose the bank, led by House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling of
Dallas, are expected to pull out all the stops to take it back out again.
U.S. Rep. Bill Flores, R-Bryan, is another vocal critic of Ex-Im and appeared with Cruz
at the morning press conference. He promised to "try to make sure that this
never comes to the floor again, ever." Bank advocates say that a majority of the
House Democrats and Republicans combined would probably back the bank if given the chance to
vote on it. And not all Texas Republicans despise it. Im for reforming the process," said U.S. Rep. Pete
Sessions, R-Dallas. "Not killing it. Cruz entered the fray on Wednesday morning with his filibuster threat,
which like many of Cruzs tactics startled operatives and members. But most on Capitol Hill shrugged off
the threat, pointing to an early June vote when 65 senators voted in favor of the bank more than enough
to break a filibuster. Other Republicans scoffed at Cruz, speculating that his news conference had more to
do with presidential campaign fundraising than Senate procedure. And Ex-Im advocates blasted out press
releases questioning the credibility of many of Cruzs charges against the bank. Texas exports more than
any other state for a reason: We have the best workers and businesses. And our businesses rely on a host
of tools to continue growing and hiring, including the Export-Import Bank, the Texas Association of
Businesses and the Texas Association of Manufacturers responded in a statement. Senator Ted Cruz has
failed to understand that and chooses, again and again, to put politics ahead of economic progress and
payrolls for his constituents. Still, there are mixed opinions whether Ex-Im will survive, or whether it could
blow up the highway bill. A Republican leadership source prognosticated a grim stretch ahead for the bank,
while multiple Democratic sources in both chambers insisted the highway bill will return to the House with
Ex-Im, and it will arrive on the presidents desk. Well see when it gets to here. Ive heard this, Sessions
said of the Senate speculation on Ex-Im. I do recognize that the Senate is more fired up than some of our
House people have been, but they have to pass it first.
EXT Rider Link Turn
The rider is key to passage
Flynn 7/16 [Mike, Senate GOP plants to resurrect ex-im bank,Breitbart,
7/16/15, <http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/16/senate-gop-
plans-to-resurrect-ex-im-bank/>]//shrek
the banks charter expired on June 30, so it legally no longer exists. This being
Thankfully,
Washington, however , dead isnt quite dead . Next week, the Senate is expected to take
up a short-term spending fix for the federal highway trust fund. The fix is a must-pass
piece of legislation to shore up funding for infrastructure spending. The Senate GOP is
likely to attach an amendment reauthorizing the Bank, forcing the House to
accept its resurrection in order to maintain highway spending.
1ar EXT PC Low
Obamas recent wins wont spillover --- no chance for
cooperation on other issues
Drezner 6/30 professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of
Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University (Daniel W., What can Obama really do
in his fourth quarter? He had a good week last week. What does that mean
for his presidency going forward?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/06/30/what-can-
obama-really-do-in-his-fourth-quarter/, JMP)
So the consensus among the political cognoscenti was that last week was the best week of Barack Obamas presidency. I
guess that includes me. Last week I tweeted: [image omitted] And this was all before the Supreme Court eliminated all
restrictions on same-sex marriage and Obama gave the speech of his presidency in eulogizing the Rev. Clementa
Pinckney: So, naturally, the Sunday morning shows were all about Obama
reborn and the political press was writing all about After
momentous week, Obamas presidency is reborn, and I think its
time to just take a step back and think real hard about this meme a
bit. This kind of analysis is akin to sports-writing about momentum:
The notion that a player is on a hot streak implies that he will
continue to go on his hot streak, when in point of fact, regression to the mean is the far more
likely outcome. To be fair, in politics, theres the political capital argument
that prior successes burnishes a presidents popularity, which in
turn gives him some form of political capital to seek out even more
successes. And Obamas popularity is rising in some (but not all) polls. Still, a dose of realism
seems useful here . A president can advance his agenda through a number of means: acts of legislation,
executive actions in domestic policy, foreign affairs accomplishments and burnishing his political legacy. Lets think about
these in turn. The president could reel off 10 consecutive speeches like he did in Charleston, but thats not going to make
The GOP leadership has just cooperated
this Congress any more amenable to his policies.
with Obama on the one policy initiative that they agree on there
isnt anything left in the hopper . And buried within Politicos Obama reborn! story is this little
nugget: Meanwhile, progressives on the Hill, especially those still burning over how hard he steamrolled them on trade,
are rolling their eyes at the lionizing. Remember, they point out, that many of the big things Obama gets the credit for
didnt originate with him people like Nancy Pelosi were pushing him further on health care than the White House
wanted to go, or out in favor of a gay marriage plank in the 2012 convention platform when he was still deciding what to
say. So the congressional route is pretty much stymied. Then theres executive action, a route that this administration has
been super-keen on since last year, particularly with respect to climate change (see also: new overtime rules). But lost
among all the huzzahs! and WTFs!! about King vs. Burwell was the fact that Chief Justice John Robertss ruling actually
constricted the executive branchs ability to do that very thing. Robertss opinion placed significant limits on the Chevron
deference that the courts have bestowed to the executive branch in the past, as Chris Walker explains: [T]he Chief went
the extra step of reasserting the judiciarys primary role of interpreting statutes that raise questions of deep economic
and political significance. This is a major blow to a bright-line rule-based approach to Chevron deference. One could say
that King v. Burwellwhile a critical win for the Obama Administrationis a judicial power grab over the Executive in the
modern administrative state. It will also be interesting to see how this amplified major questions doctrine affects other
judicial challenges to executive action. Especially in light of the King Courts citation to UARG, one context that
immediately comes to mind is the EPAs Clean Power Plan. So while the health-care ruling was a substantive victory for
the Obama administration, it was a process loss, and could make it difficult for the president to implement parts of his
agenda through executive action. Then theres foreign policy, his most promising avenue. Obama has the ability to rack
up some significant accomplishments over the next 18 months: the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership, an opening to Cuba, an Iran nuclear deal and a climate change deal in Paris at the end of this
year. I think it says something, however, that of the five things listed above, the Cuba opening is likely the least
controversial. TPP and T-TIP are important but will not build him political capital since his own domestic allies hate it. The
Iran deal and climate change negotiations are significant but will run into considerable opposition. And, connected with
the point above, political polarization will make it harder for Obama to make credible commitments in Paris. More
significantly, I think foreign policy is an area where the president has lost the broader debate about how the United States
should approach the world. Finally, theres his political legacy. If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency in 2016, then Obama
can legitimately compare himself to Ronald Reagan as the only postwar presidents who managed to bequeath his party
the presidency after his two terms were up. But as Jonathan Martin noted over the weekend in the New York Times, the
paradoxical effect of last week is that it clears the deck for GOP candidates: [E]ven as conservatives appear under siege,
some Republicans predict that this moment will be remembered as an effective wiping of the slate before the nation
begins focusing in earnest on the presidential race. As important as some of these issues may be to the most conservative
elements of the partys base and in the primaries ahead, few Republican leaders want to contest the 2016 elections on
social or cultural grounds, where polls suggest that they are sharply out of step with the American public. Every once in a
while, we bring down the curtain on the politics of a prior era, said David Frum, the conservative writer. The stage is now
cleared for the next generation of issues. And Republicans can say, Whether youre gay, black or a recent migrant to our
will Obama be
country, we are going to welcome you as a fully cherished member of our coalition. So
able to build on his great week to have a successful fourth quarter?
Color me somewhat skeptical. On the domestic policy front, the
president is likely to find his political options more restricted rather
than less restricted after last week . There are significant but polarizing opportunities on
foreign policy. And his political legacy rests on Clintons ability to fend off Bernie Sanders and a Republican who will be
battle-tested from the most competitive party primary Ive ever seen. Hes got decent chances on the latter two fronts
but lets put last week into perspective. It was a great week for the president. It does not mean that his presidency is
reborn.
Presidential influence is wildly exaggerated --- their ev

just quotes political pundits
Nyhan 14, assistant professor of government at Dartmouth, 14 (Brendan,
Obama and the Myth of Presidential Control,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/25/upshot/obama-and-the-myth-of-
presidential-control.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1, JMP)
One of the most common criticisms of presidents especially struggling ones
during their second term is that they have lost control of events. This charge, which has
been leveled at chief executives such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, has become a mantra lately in coverage of
President Obama, who faces a stalled legislative agenda and crises in Ukraine, Gaza and at the border with Mexico. What
One frequent explanation from pundits and journalists is that
happened?
Mr. Obama has little control and is instead being driven or
buffeted by events. This notion pervades commentary and debate

on the presidency. We want to believe that the president is (or
should be) in control. Its the impulse behind holding the president responsible for a bad economy and
giving him credit for a good one (the most important factor in presidential approval and election outcomes). The
reassuring nature of presidential control is also why news media
coverage of foreign policy crises and other events that rally the
country tends to use language that depicts the president as being in
command. The flip side of the demand for presidential control is disappointment when he cant magically work his
will. Advocates of what Ive called the Green Lantern theory of the presidency
suggest that Mr. Obamas failure to achieve his goals in Congress
reflects a lack of effort or willpower. If he only tried harder or were tougher, they suggest, he
could control events rather than being controlled by them. These analyses get the direction of
causality backward, however. Under favorable circumstances,

presidents seem to be in command of events, but
thats [is] largely a reflection of the context they
face. Its not hard to seem in control when the economy is booming, the presidents party has a large majority in
Congress or the nation is rallying around the president after a national tragedy. Once unfavorable circumstances arise,
though, even the most accomplished chief executives seem to lose control. My research has found, for example, that
scandals are not simply about misconduct. They are more likely to arise when presidents are unpopular with self-identified
members of the opposition party or when there are few competing stories in the news. Obviously, the modern presidency
is a powerful office with enormous influence, especially in foreign policy. Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance, might look
very different today if Mr. Bush had made different decisions. Even in the domestic realm, the president can have success
with a supportive Congress, as Mr. Obamas success in passing the Affordable Care Act demonstrates. At the same time,
the powers of the presidency are outstripped by the unrealistic
expectations placed on the chief executive in the modern era . When
problems arise, its only natural that people want the most powerful person in the country to fix them, but these demands
often lack a plausible account of how the problem could be solved. And even when the president has a proposal that he
thinks would provide a solution, hes likely to struggle to persuade Congress or the public to support it, as Mr. Reagan
discovered despite his reputation as the Great Communicator. The limits of the presidents
power can be scary as human beings, we find a lack of control threatening but the idea
that they can control events is a comforting fiction , not an
explanation for their success or failure. As Abraham Lincoln (perhaps our greatest
president) wrote, I claim not to have controlled events, but confess
plainly that events controlled me. Imagine what the pundits would
do with that admission today!
1ar EXT PC Fake
Presidential influence is wildly exaggerated their ev just
quotes political pundits
Nyhan 14 -- assistant professor of government at Dartmouth (Brendan,
during their second term is that they have lost control of events . This charge,
which has been leveled at chief executives such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, has become a
mantra lately in coverage of President Obama, who faces a stalled legislative agenda and crises in Ukraine,
One frequent explanation from
Gaza and at the border with Mexico. What happened?
pundits and journalists is that Mr. Obama has little control and is
instead being driven or buffeted by events. This notion
pervades commentary and debate on the presidency. We want to
believe that the president is (or should be) in control. Its the impulse behind
holding the president responsible for a bad economy and giving him credit for a good one (the most
The reassuring nature of
important factor in presidential approval and election outcomes).
presidential control is also why news media coverage of foreign
policy crises and other events that rally the country tends to use
language that depicts the president as being in command. The flip side of
the demand for presidential control is disappointment when he cant magically work his will.
Advocates of what Ive called the Green Lantern theory of the presidency
reflects a lack of effort or willpower. If he only tried harder or were tougher, they
suggest, he could control events rather than being controlled by them. These analyses get the
direction of causality backward, however. Under favorable
circumstances, presidents seem to be in command of events, but
thats largely a reflection of the context they face. Its not hard to seem in
control when the economy is booming, the presidents party has a large majority in Congress or the nation
is rallying around the president after a national tragedy. Once unfavorable circumstances arise, though,
even the most accomplished chief executives seem to lose control. My research has found, for example,
that scandals are not simply about misconduct. They are more likely to arise when presidents are
unpopular with self-identified members of the opposition party or when there are few competing stories in
the news. Obviously, the modern presidency is a powerful office with enormous influence, especially in
foreign policy. Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance, might look very different today if Mr. Bush had made
different decisions. Even in the domestic realm, the president can have success with a supportive
Congress, as Mr. Obamas success in passing the Affordable Care Act demonstrates. At the same time,
problems arise, its only natural that people want the most powerful person in the country to fix them, but
these demands often lack a plausible account of how the problem could be solved. And even when the
president has a proposal that he thinks would provide a solution, hes likely to struggle to persuade
Congress or the public to support it, as Mr. Reagan discovered despite his reputation as the Great
Communicator. The limits of the presidents power can be scary as human
beings, we find a lack of control threatening but the idea that they can control
events is a comforting fiction , not an explanation for their success
or failure. As Abraham Lincoln (perhaps our greatest president) wrote, I claim not
to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events controlled
me. Imagine what the pundits would do with that admission today!
Political capital isnt key

Beckmann and Kumar 11 Matt, Professor of Political Science, and
Vimal, How presidents push, when presidents win: A model of positive
presidential power in US lawmaking, Journal of Theoretical Politics 2011 23: 3
For political scientists, however, the resources allocated to formulating and implementing the White Houses lobbying
offensive appear puzzling, if not altogether misguided. Far from highlighting each
presidents capacity to marshal legislative proposals through
Congress, the prevailing wisdom now stresses contextual factors
as predetermining his agendas fate on Capitol Hill. From the
particular political time in which they happen to take office (Skowronek, 1993) to the state
of the budget (Brady and Volden, 1998; Peterson, 1990), the partisan composition of
Congress (Bond and Fleisher, 1990; Edwards, 1989) (see also Gilmour (1995), Groseclose and McCarty (2001),
and Sinclair (2006)) to the preferences of specific pivotal voters (Brady and Volden, 1998;
Krehbie, l998), current research suggests a presidents congressional
fortunes are basically beyond his control. The implication is straightforward, as Bond and
Fleisher indicate: presidential success is determined in large measure by the results of
the last election. If the last election brings individuals to Congress whose local interests and
preferences coincide with the presidents, then he will enjoy greater success. If, on the other hand, most
members of Congress have preferences different from the
presidents, then he will suffer more defeats, and no amount of
bargaining and persuasion can do much to improve his success. (Bond and
Fleisher, 1990: 13
8% chance of the internal link

Beckman and Kumar 11 (Matthew associate professor of political science
UC Irvine, and VImal economic professor at the Indian Institute of Tech,
Opportunism in Polarization, Presidential Studies Quarterly, 41.3)
The final important piece in our theoretical modelpresidents' political capital also finds support
in these analyses, though the results here are less reliable. Presidents operating under
the specter of strong economy and high approval ratings get an important,
albeit moderate, increase in their chances for prevailing on "key" Senate roll-
call votes (b = .10, se = .06, p < .10). Figure 4 displays the substantive implications of these results in the context of
polarization, showing that going from the lower third of political capital to the upper
third increases presidents' chances for success by 8 percentage points (in a

setting like 2008). Thus, political capital's impact does provide an important boost to
presidents' success on Capitol Hill, but it is certainly not potent enough
to overcome basic congressional realities. Political capital is just strong
enough to put a presidential thumb on the congressional scales, which often
will not matter, but can in
1ar EXT Winners Win
Winners-win is true in the current political climate
Nelson 6/30 Colleen McCain Nelson, is a Washington D.C. Reporter for the
Wall Street Journal, Obama Sees Recent Wins as Culmination of Hard
Work, June 30, 2015, Wall Street Journal,
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/30/obama-sees-past-week-as-
culmination-of-hard-work/NV
After celebrating victories in the last several days on trade, health care and
gay marriage, President Barack Obama deemed it a gratifying week and
pledged to keep pushing on his agenda. In many ways, last week was
simply a culmination of a lot of work that weve been doing since I
came into office, Mr. Obama said Tuesday in a joint press conference
with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. How am I going to spend
whatever political capital that Ive built up? You know, the list is long
and my instructions to my team and my instructions to myself have always
been that we are going to squeeze every last ounce of progress that
we can make as long as I have the privilege of holding this office. Congress
last week gave the president broad authority to negotiate trade deals, and the Supreme Court upheld a key provision of
the Affordable Care Act, preserving Mr. Obamas signature domestic achievement. The Supreme Court also ruled that
thunderbolt of justice.
same-sex marriage is a nationwide right, a decision that Mr. Obama lauded as a
The White House claimed another victory when the Supreme Court ruled that
minorities could continue using a civil-rights era statute in housing
discrimination lawsuits. And Mr. Obama closed last week by delivering an
emotional eulogy for the pastor of the black church where nine people were
slain, calling for gun-control measures and action to address racial disparities.
The string of wins and the presidents compelling address in
Charleston, S.C., prompted pronouncements that this had been Mr.
Obamas best week in office . On Tuesday, the president brushed aside

such commentary, suggesting that other life events trump a good week in
politics.
Winners win is true now --- momentum from TPP proves

Nakamura 6/24 David Nakamura, reporter on the White House for the
Washington Post, Obama scores a major trade win, burnishing his foreign
policy legacy, June 24, 2015, The Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-poised-for-a-major-trade-win-
burnishing-his-foreign-policy-legacy/2015/06/24/e940c6fa-1a77-11e5-93b7-
5eddc056ad8a_story.html/NV
President Obama won new powers from Congress on Wednesday to bring
home an expansive Pacific Rim free-trade deal that analysts said could
boost U.S. economic standing in Asia and ultimately burnish his
foreign policy legacy. Obamas victory on Capitol Hill, coming 12 days after
House Democrats nearly scuttled his bid for fast-track trade authority, sets
the stage for his administration to complete the multi-nation Trans-Pacific
Partnership, or TPP, by years end. It represents a hard-won payoff for a
president who was willing to partner with his Republican rivals and
defy a majority of his party in pursuit of an accord that aides have said
will ensure that the United States maintains an economic edge over a rising
China. This looks like a big, strategic piece, said Ian Bremmer, president of
the Eurasia Group, a global risk analysis firm. Its a global strategy doctrine
that will move the world in a direction that, in the long term, is useful for the
investments of America. The intensive legislative fight waged for
months by a White House eager to score a rare, bipartisan
legislative victory late in Obamas tenure appeared to be coming
to a close after the Senate voted 60-38 to grant final approval to the
fast-track bill. Also Wednesday, key House Democrats signaled that they
would concede defeat and support related legislation which they had
blocked two weeks ago to stall the trade agenda that provides retraining
assistance for displaced workers. Within reach is an opportunity to shape
tomorrows global economy so that it reflects both our values and our
interests, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said. [Earlier: Trade war
heating up among Democrats] The trade-promotion bill now heads to
Obamas desk for his signature. It gives the executive branch additional
powers for six years and authorizes the president, and his successor, to
present trade deals to Congress for a vote on a specified timeline without
lawmakers being able to amend the terms. Although the outcome is a full-
fledged victory for Obama , the acrimony along the way has raised
questions about the Democratic Partys cohesion heading into the 2016
election cycle. Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton, who
supported the TPP as Obamas secretary of state, sought to distance herself
from the pact more recently. Most Democrats have dismissed the strategic
foreign policy benefits of the trade deal, warning instead that the TPP will
cost U.S. workers jobs in traditional manufacturing industries and exacerbate
the nations widening income gap. The foreign policy establishment of the
executive branch has divorced itself from the domestic policy, said Rep.
Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), who opposed the legislation. U.S. officials expect the new authority
to jump-start the final rounds of talks. Negotiators still must hammer out deals on a number of thorny issues, including
new rules on access to Japanese auto and agriculture markets. In addition to lowering tariffs, the trade pact also aims to
and regulate the flow of information on
expand copyright and intellectual property protections
the Internet. Once negotiations are complete, the administration will
have to get a final deal through another vote in Congress, during
which labor unions are certain to renew their opposition efforts. The whole
process could take six months or more and plunge the Democratic Party into
further political turmoil in the middle of a presidential campaign. The passage
of the fast-track bill does not end our fight for working families, said House
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who opposed the legislation.
Winners win
Gergen 13 CNN Senior Political Analyst (David, 1/19. Obama 2.0:
Smarter but wiser?, http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/18/opinion/gergen-
obama-two/index.html)
Obama appears smarter, tougher and
On the eve of his second inaugural, President
bolder than ever before. But whether he is also wiser remains a key question for his new term. It is
clear that he is consciously changing his leadership style heading
into the next four years. Weeks before the November elections, his top advisers were
signaling that he intended to be a different kind of president in his second
term. "Just watch," they said to me, in effect, "he will win re-election decisively and then he will throw
down the gauntlet to the Republicans , insisting they raise taxes on the wealthy. Right on the
edge of the fiscal cliff, he thinks Republicans will cave." What's your Plan B, I asked. "We don't need a Plan B," they
answered. "After the president hangs tough -- no more Mr. Nice Guy --
the other side will buckle ." Sure enough, Republicans caved on taxes.
Encouraged, Obama has since made clear he won't compromise with
Republicans on the debt ceiling, either. Obama 2.0 stepped up this past
week on yet another issue: gun control. No president in two decades has been as forceful or
sweeping in challenging the nation's gun culture. Once again, he portrayed the right as the
enemy of progress and showed no interest in negotiating a package
up front. In his coming State of the Union address, and perhaps in his inaugural, the president will begin a hard
push for a comprehensive reform of our tattered immigration system. Leading GOP leaders on the issue -- Sen. Marco
Obama wants to go
Rubio, R-Florida, for example -- would prefer a piecemeal approach that is bipartisan.
for broke in a single package, and on a central issue -- providing a clear path to
citizenship for undocumented residents -- he is uncompromising. After losing out on getting Susan Rice
as his next secretary of state, Obama has also shown a tougher side on personnel appointments. Rice went down after
Democratic as well as Republican senators indicated a preference for Sen. John Kerry. But when Republicans also tried to
kill the nomination of Chuck Hagel for secretary of defense, Obama was unyielding -- an "in-your-face appointment," Sen.
Lindsay Graham, R-South Carolina, called it, echoing sentiments held by some of his colleagues. Republicans would have
Hagel and Lew -- both
preferred someone other than Jack Lew at Treasury, but Obama brushed them off.
substantial men -- will be confirmed, absent an unexpected
bombshell, and Obama will rack up two more victories over
Republicans. Strikingly, Obama has also been deft in the ways he has drawn upon Vice President Joe Biden.
During much of the campaign, Biden appeared to be kept under wraps. But in the transition, he has been invaluable to
Obama in negotiating a deal with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on the fiscal cliff and in pulling together the gun
package. Biden was also at his most eloquent at the ceremony announcing the gun measures. All of this has added up for
Obama to one of the most effective transitions in modern times. And it is paying rich dividends: A CNN poll this past week
pegged his approval rating at 55%, far above the doldrums he was in for much of the past two years. Many of
his long-time supporters are rallying behind him . As the first Democrat since
Obama is in the
Franklin D. Roosevelt to score back-to-back election victories with more than 50% of the vote,
strongest position since early in his first year. Smarter, tougher,
bolder -- his new style is paying off politically . But in the long run, will it also pay off in
better governance? Perhaps -- and for the country's sake, let's hope so. Yet, there are ample reasons to wonder, and worry.
Ultimately, to resolve major issues like deficits, immigration, guns and energy , the president
and Congress need to find ways to work together much better than they did in the first term. Over the past two years,
Republicans were clearly more recalcitrant than Democrats, practically declaring war on Obama, and the White
House has been right to adopt a tougher approach after the elections. But a
growing number of Republicans concluded after they had their heads handed to them in November that they had to move
away from extremism toward a more center-right position, more open to working out compromises with Obama. It's not
that they suddenly wanted Obama to succeed; they didn't want their party to fail. House Speaker John Boehner led the
way, offering the day after the election to raise taxes on the wealthy and giving up two decades of GOP orthodoxy. In a
similar spirit, Rubio has been developing a mainstream plan on immigration, moving away from a ruinous GOP stance.
One senses that the hope, small as it was, to take a brief timeout on hyperpartisanship in order to tackle the big issues is
conservatives
now slipping away. While a majority of Americans now approve of Obama's job performance,
increasingly believe that in his new toughness, he is going overboard, trying

to run over them . They don't see a president who wants to roll up his sleeves and negotiate; they see
a president who wants to barnstorm the country to beat them up . News
that Obama is converting his campaign apparatus into a nonprofit to support his second term will only deepen that sense.
And it frustrates them that he is winning : At their retreat, House Republicans learned that
their disapproval has risen to 64%. Conceivably, Obama's tactics could pressure
Republicans into capitulation on several fronts. More likely, they will be spoiling for
more fights. Chances for a "grand bargain" appear to be hanging by a
thread.
Engaging congress k2 regenerate PC

Dowd 14- Pulitzer Prize winning political journalist at the NYT (Maureen,
8/19/14, Alone Again, Naturally,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/opinion/maureen-dowd-alone-again-
naturally.html, Accessed: 8/20/14, FG)
WASHINGTON Affectations can be dangerous, as Gertrude Stein said. When Barack Obama first ran
for president, he theatrically cast himself as the man alone on the stage.
From his address in Berlin to his acceptance speech in Chicago, he eschewed ornaments and other
politicians, conveying the sense that he was above the grubby political
scene, unearthly and apart. He began Dreams From My Father with a description of his time living on the Upper
East Side while he was a student at Columbia, savoring his lone-wolf existence. He was, he wrote, prone to see other
people as unnecessary distractions. When neighbors began to cross the border into familiarity, I would soon find reason
to excuse myself. I had grown too comfortable in my solitude, the safest place I knew. His only kindred spirit was a
silent old man who lived alone in the apartment next door. Obama carried groceries for him but never asked his name.
When the old man died, Obama briefly regretted not knowing his name, then swiftly regretted his regret. But what started
as an affectation has turned into an affliction. A front-page article in The Times by Carl Hulse, Jeremy Peters and Michael
Shear chronicled how the presidents disdain for politics has alienated many
of his most stalwart Democratic supporters on Capitol Hill. His bored-
bird-in-a-gilded-cage attitude, the article said, has left him with few loyalists to
effectively manage the issues erupting abroad and at home and could
imperil his efforts to leave a legacy in his final stretch in office.
Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, an early Obama backer, noted that for him, eating his spinach is schmoozing with
First the president couldnt work with Republicans
elected officials.
because they were too obdurate. Then he tried to chase down
reporters with subpoenas. Now he finds members of his own party
an unnecessary distraction. His circle keeps getting more inner. He
golfs with aides and jocks, and he spent his one evening back in Washington from Marthas Vineyard at a nearly five-hour
dinner at the home of a nutritional adviser and former White House assistant chef, Sam Kass. The president who was
elected because he was a hot commodity is now a wet blanket. The extraordinary candidate turns out to be the most
ordinary of men, frittering away precious time on the links. Unlike L.B.J., who devoured problems as though he were being
chased by demons, Obamas main galvanizing impulse was to get himself elected. Almost everything else from an all-
out push on gun control after the Newtown massacre to going to see firsthand the Hispanic children thronging at the
border to using his special status to defuse racial tensions in Ferguson just seems like too much trouble. The 2004
speech that vaulted Obama into the White House soon after he breezed into town turned out to be wrong. He
misdescribed the country he wanted to lead. There is a liberal America and a conservative America. And the red-blue
divide has only gotten worse in the last six years. The man whose singular qualification was as a uniter turns out to be
singularly unequipped to operate in a polarized environment. His boosters argue that we spurned his gift of healing, so
healing is the one thing that must not be expected of him. We ingrates wont let him be the redeemer he could have been.
As Ezra Klein wrote in Vox: If Obamas speeches arent as dramatic as they used to be, this is why: the White House
believes a presidential speech on a politically charged topic is as likely to make things worse as to make things better.
He concluded: There probably wont be another Race Speech because the White House doesnt believe there can be
another Race Speech. For Obama, the cost of becoming president was sacrificing the unique gift that made him
president. So The One who got elected as the most exciting politician in American history is The One from whom we
must never again expect excitement? Do White House officials fear that Fox News could somehow get worse to them?
Sure, the president has enemies. Sure, there are racists out there. Sure, hes going to get criticized for politicizing
Why should the
something. But as F.D.R. said of his moneyed foes, I welcome their hatred.
president neutralize himself? Why doesnt he do something bold and
thrilling? Get his hands dirty? Stop going to Beverly Hills to raise money and go to St. Louis to raise
consciousness? Talk to someone besides Valerie Jarrett? The Constitution was premised on a system full of factions and
polarization.
If youre a fastidious pol who deigns to heal and deal only in
a holistic, romantic, unified utopia, the Oval Office is the wrong job
for you. The sad part is that this is an ugly, confusing and frightening time at
home and abroad, and the country needs its president to illuminate
and lead, not sink into some petulant expression of his aloofness, where he regards himself as
a party of his own and a victim of petty, needy, bickering egomaniacs. Once Obama thought his isolation was splendid.
But it turned out to be unsplendid.
1ar EXT WW AT Unpopular
Passing even controversial policies boosts Obamas
political capital
Singer 9 Juris Doctorate candidate at Berkeley Law (Jonathon, By Expending Capital, Obama Grows His Capital,
3/3/2009, http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/3/3/191825/0428)
Despite the country's struggling economy and vocal opposition to some of his
Obama's favorability rating is at an all-time high. Two-thirds feel hopeful

policies, President
about his leadership and six in 10 approve of the job he's doing in the White House. "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
near-unanimous 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 NBC-WSJ 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
with President Obama
Democrats, and a mere 11 percent blame the Obama administration. So at this point,
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.
1ar EXT Iran Thump
The Iran deal thumps the disad will burn up PC AND
failure will stall Obamas political momentum
Fabian 7/7 Jordan Fabian, is a reporter who covers the White House for the
Hill, Nuclear deal with Iran appears elusive, July 7, 2015, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/247156-nuclear-deal-with-iran-
appears-elusive/NV
White House hopes for a nuclear deal with Iran a top foreign policy
achievement for President Obama seemed in danger of crumbling on Tuesday.
Negotiators extended their talks again in Geneva, as Iran made new hard-line demands, including that the
United Nations lifts its arms embargo on the country. It was the second time the parties blew through a
deadline since the original June 30 cutoff, and it raised fresh questions on whether Obamas push to use
The White House
diplomacy to cut off Tehrans path to a nuclear weapon can succeed.
acknowledged a number of difficult issues stand in the way of a deal
but said the countries involved have never been closer to reaching
a final agreement than we are now. Thats an indication that these
talks, at least for now, are worth continuing, White House spokesman Josh
Earnest told reporters. At the same time, Earnest declined to put odds on reaching a deal. Im
not feeling like a betting man today, he said. The parties extended an interim agreement to July 10,
allowing the talks to last into Friday. But Iran is warning it wont sit at the negotiating table indefinitely.
Weve come to the end, an Iranian official told Reuters on Tuesday. Either it happens in the next 48
hours or not.The stakes are high for Obama. Along with his bid to re-
establish ties with Cuba, the Iran deal is a major test of the
presidents doctrine of engaging with the U.S.s traditional
adversaries to address common interests. If the talks falter, it would
wipe away an elusive legacy-defining foreign policy achievement for
Obama, who has grappled with instability in the Middle East and the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and
Syria. While Obama is riding the momentum from a series of successes
on the domestic front, on trade, same-sex marriage and healthcare,

failure on Iran could blunt his gains . He had secured his domestic legacy in a pretty
dramatic fashion in the last two weeks. Thats always been his No. 1 priority, said
James Jeffrey, a distinguished fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former
ambassador to Iraq under Obama. He realizes his international legacy is a mess. Obama has
spent a tremendous amount of political capital in pursuit of the deal

both with Democrats in Congress and the U.S.s traditional allies
in Persian Gulf states and Israel, who fear the deal could embolden Iran in its pursuit of
dominance in the Middle East. Deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes acknowledged last week the
he said the aim of
president is taking on some sacred cows in dealing with hostile regimes. But
dealing with Iran is to avoid being pulled into another conflict in the
Middle East while preventing it from becoming a nuclear power.
Administration officials told The Wall Street Journal Monday that they hope a successful Iran deal could
Obama is
open the door to resolving lingering conflicts in Syria and Yemen, where Iran is involved. But
coming under pressure from lawmakers in both parties not to agree
to a deal at all costs. On Tuesday evening, the president met with
Senate Democrats at the White House, where he was expected to
sooth members of his party who are worried about the talks. Influential
Democrats, including Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Ben Cardin (Md.), have
demanded anytime, anywhere inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities. But those conditions are unlikely
to be met, making it tougher for the administration to prevent a veto-proof majority from voting to
Complicating that effort further is the fact
disapprove of a deal, if one is reached.
that a deal is unlikely to be reached by Thursday, when the
congressional review period doubles from 30 days to 60 days. That
could allow opposition to build. Republicans were emboldened in
their calls for Obama to walk away from the talks following Tuesdays extension.
The stakes are too high for this diplomatic charade to continue, Sen.
Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a 2016 presidential candidate, said in a statement. Iranian leaders continue to
walk back previous commitments, even as they actively sponsor terrorism, pursue regional domination and
At the same time, Obama seems to understand
hold American citizens hostage.
the risks failure could pose to his legacy. Look, 20 years from now, Im still going to
be around, God willing. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, its my name on this, he told The Atlantic in May.
Obama is closely following the talks, receiving updates from national security adviser Susan Rice and other
aides multiple times daily, Earnest said. There are major risks for Iran too. The regime in Tehran
desperately wants relief from international sanctions related to its nuclear program, which have crippled
the countrys economy. Sanctions caused its gross domestic product to shrink by 5 percent in 2013, and its
economy has recovered only slightly since an interim agreement was reached that year. Despite the delay,
Jeffrey believes Obama is in a strong position heading into the final stretch of the talks. He
predicted the presidents legacy would not be hurt if, at this point, a
deal falls through because Iranian intransigence. By taking a tough position at
the talks to the point where well walk out or the Iranians will have to walk out were basically making it
clear to the Iranians that we cant be pushed around, he said. That we are deadly serious in this
process.
1ar EXT LL Thumper
Multiple issues thump the link, including infrastructure,
overtime, criminal justice, and education
Balan 6/30 --- news analyst at Media Research Center, Bachelors in
political science and history at University of Delaware (Matthew Balan,
6/30/15, CNNs Acosta Tosses Softball to Obama Over his Best Week Ever,
newsbusters, http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2015/06/30/cnns-
acosta-tosses-softball-obama-over-his-best-week-ever)//Jmoney
CNN's Jim Acosta quoted colleague John King at a Tuesday press conference at the White House by asking
President Obama about "what some people are calling 'your best week ever.'" Acosta played up that "you
had two Supreme Court decisions supportive of the Affordable Care Act and of gay rights. You also
delivered a speech down in Charleston that was pretty warmly received." The correspondent then
underlined that 'it seems that you've built up some political capital for the
remaining months of your presidency." He asked, "I'm curious, how you want to
use it? What hard things do you want to tackle at this point?" [video below] The President led his answer
with the obvious personal answer to the question that the real "best weeks" in his life were the weeks
where he married his wife, Michelle, and where his daughters were born. The CNN correspondent gushingly
replied, "Good thing you remembered those." He then spotlighted something Acosta didn't mention:
Congress passing his fast-track trade legislation. He continued by cheering the Supreme Court's
ObamaCare decision, before touching on his remarks at the Charleston funeral of Rev. Clementa Pinckney,
who was killed days earlier in a mass shooting. Interestingly, the President didn't mention the Court's
Obama spoke for
decision on same-sex "marriage." Near the end of his extended answer (altogether,
outlined that he
ten-plus minutes answering Acosta's "multi-part" question), the chief executive
planned to use his "political capital" to press for the passage of overtime
rules, infrastructure spending, reforming the criminal justice system,
education, and generally making "a difference in the lives of ordinary
Americans." When the President cracked that wanted to "see if we can make next week even better,"
Acosta wondered if there would be "another press conference." The Democrat replied by joking, "I love
press conferences. It's my press team that's always holding me back. I want to talk to you guys everyday."
Congresss agenda is also filled with a number of must

pass bills this month
Mimms 7/5 --- Staff Correspondent for the National Journal (Sarah Mimms,
7/5/15, Must-Pass Highway Bill Dominates Jammed July, NationalJournal,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/must-pass-highway-bill-dominates-
jammed-july-20150705)//Jmoney
With a month-long recess looming in August, Congress is going to try to pack as much as
possible into July. In the next three weeks, members will have to contend with
several pieces of must-pass legislation, meet a July 31 deadline to fill the
nation's Highway Trust Fund, and lay the groundwork for even more critical
legislation due in the early fall. The House plans to take up two appropriations
bills during its remaining summer stint in D.C., funding the Department of the Interior and
filling the coffers for financial services, the White House, and a handful of
other related agencies. Passing those two bills will get the House a third of the way
through its appropriations process before the August recess, giving the lower
chamber just three weeks to deal with eight additional billsand coordinate
passage through the Senatebefore the government's funding runs out on
Sept. 30. The Senate is much further behind and has not passed a single
appropriations bill yet this year. Whether the upper chamber will attempt to pass any of the 12 spending
bills in July is unclear, given the current stalemate between the two parties. Democrats have not backed
off their vow to block each of them until Republicans agree to raise the
coming sequestration on nondefense programs. Given that each of the 12
appropriations bills takes about a week in the Senate, the upper chamber is
already running short on time, raising the likelihood of a last-minute omnibus spending bill to prevent a
government shutdown this fall. In the meantime, the Senate will take up education legislation
revising No Child Left Behind as its first act of the July session. The bipartisan bill, coauthored by
Republican Lamar Alexander and Democrat Patty Murray, looks likely to pass. But the House will revive its
own, much more conservative version of the education legislation during this
session as well, likely leading both chambers to conference. The only true deadline
this session is July 31, when the nation's Highway Trust Fund which gives federal funding to states
to build and maintain roads and other infrastructure projects runs dry. With just three weeks to find
a solution, neither chamber seems to have made much progress . Many in the Senate
are pushing for a multi-year solution, with bipartisan legislation out of the Environment and Public Works Committee
calling for a six-year extension, but the Senate's Finance Committee has yet to announce how it would be paid for. The
Complicating
House, meanwhile, appears to be moving toward another short-term patch, the third in the last year.
matters further, Democrats and some Republicans in the Senate plan to
attach a bill reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank's charter as an amendment
to the highway bill, or perhaps some other legislation. That won't go over well
with House conservatives, who have been pushing to wind down the bank for years and praised its
expiration on July 1. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has promised his members a vote to reopen the bank's doors
sometime this month, and it's clear that there are enough votes in the upper chamber to pass it. But it's unclear what
House Speaker John Boehner, who opposed letting the bank expire abruptly, will do. Boehner has kept mum, telling
reporters last month that the House would wait on the Senate before deciding what to do. The bank was not mentioned in
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy's list of upcoming legislation for the July session. The Senate could also see action
on a forthcoming U.S. nuclear deal with Iran, which is set to be released to Congress by July 9, setting off a 30-day review
period in the Senate on one of the most contentious issues the upper chamber has handled this year. If the administration
misses that deadline, howeverwhich is a possibility, given that negotiators this week announced they'll have to extend
talks through July 7senators will have 60 days to review the final accord whenever it comes through. Both chambers will
also begin conferences to resolve their differences on the National Defense Authorization Act as well as a customs-
enforcement bill.
Iran
2ac Schumer
Schumer opposes it now
Drew 7/17/15 regular contributor to The New York Review (Elizabeth, The
Iran Deal Goes to Washington, NYR Daily,
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2015/jul/17/congress-iran-deal-goes-
to-washington/)//JJ
The two figures to whom the most attention is being paid are Bob
Corker, the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
and Chuck Schumer, odds on the next Democratic leader in the Senate.
Schumer has a history of taking a pro-Israeli government point of
view, and his going against the administration on the Iran deal
would probably present it with an uphill climb. Corker is in a difficult
position: a Tennessean with finely chiseled features, he seemingly wants to
play the part of the responsible statesman, following in the footsteps of, say,
Richard Lugar, the former Republican Senator from Indiana who was an
influential leader on foreign policy. But Corker is consigned to working
within a party that is now far more conservative and partisanand
unforgiving of apostatesthan it was in Lugars day. Some observers
believe that Corker might not come out flatly for or against the deal,
but might propose some legislative wording or maneuver that would
make him not seem a knee-jerk partisan. Its quite possible that both
Corker and Schumer will leave their ultimate positions on the deal
unknown for some time. When great issues are before Congress and
the country, public opinion can take big swings. This is why August
could be a critical month for the Iran agreement. Because the
negotiators didnt finish before July 9, and because of its month-long recess,
Congress has sixty days (instead of thirty) to decide on the deal. With
Congress gone and the President usually on vacation for some of the time,
August is supposedly a slow news period, which leaves ample room for
coverage of local uprisings against members, which can then become
contagious. The Clintons health care plan took a battering in August of 1994;
the Tea Party revolt against President Obamas health care plan boiled up in
August of 2010, and while the plan survived, so did the Tea Party as a force.
2ac Straight Turn


Link turn
a) Political heavyweights like the plan theyre key to the

agenda
b) Airline lobbies support privatization

be)//twemchen

Whats ACI-NAs
Theyre key to the agenda

b) The plan is empirically bipartisan

of-six)//twemchen
15, three
guidelines.

While these
Congress, its important to get the grease in the wheels again, Klobuchar
said in an interview. Even if we dont pass all of them, going into the first six months it is going to
c) The public loves the plan their evidence cites a vocal
majority

Smith said

a consequence of
The link only works in one direction aviation agencies

draw blame, which shields their link
Helicopter News 2k (May 19, 2000, Air Tour Operators Fighting Latest
Regulatory Assault, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-
Air Tour operators are fighting the latest regulatory assault from the National Park Service (NPS) and
Aviation Administration (FAA). The two federal government agencies last month
Federal
promulgated new regulations that would result in further restrictions on commercial air tours
over the national parks. The FAA regs are the object of a lawsuit brought by the Mountain States Legal
Foundation on behalf of the United States Air Tour Association (USATA) and seven air tour operators: Air
Vega Airlines, Scenic Airlines, Papillon Grand Canyon Helicopters, Grand Canyon Airlines, AirStar
Helicopters, Las Vegas Helicopters, and Maverick Helicopters. The NPS regs, Director's Order #47
(DO47), likewise, are being vigorously opposed by USATA, Helicopter Association International (HAI), and
the National Air Transportation Association (NATA). The FAA regs are part of a "final rule" and thus
have the force of law. They took effect earlier this month. Director's Order #47 (DO47), by contrast,
seeks to clarify NPS's authority to regulate noise within the national parks. The agency has sought public
comment on the order, but has not made clear its ultimate intentions. The deadline for comment passed
last week. If the NPS implements its directive, HAI, USATA, NATA and the air tour operators have all
indicated that they might sue and/or seek congressional redress. These groups and companies charge
the NPS with unlawfully seeking to arrogate to itself sole authority to regulate noise--and, by extension, air
tour operations--in the national parks. They say Director's Order #47 is the latest in a long series of hostile
and unresponsive actions the NPS has taken against them. "Rather than developing plans to share our
national parks with all Americans, the NPS is trying to exclude air tour visitors before the 'managing'
process even starts," says HAI President Roy Resavage. "There are some conciliatory sounding gestures
in there," he adds, "but what they basically mean is, 'We will permit you to negotiate the terms of your
surrender.'" The FAA regs, similarly, contravene federal law and thus constitute an abuse of regulatory
power, say the air tour operators. "We cannot sit by and permit these agencies to ignore the will of
Congress, to kill an important and vibrant part of the economy of the rural West, and to close the Grand
Canyon to visits by elderly and physically infirm visitors, who depend on air tours because of their inability
walk and hike," says USATA president Steve Bassett. Congressional Intent At issue is
congressional intent, which is not always so readily apparent due to the
compromises and tradeoffs inherent in the legislative process . Indeed,
Congress, as is its wont, clearly sought to split the difference between the two warring camps: Clinton
administration environmentalists who run the regulatory agencies, and air tour operators. Consequently,
there is little doubt that
both groups can and do cite federal law in support of their position. Still,
the regulatory agencies are attempting to achieve through bureaucratic fiat
what cannot be achieved legislatively. However, it is not clear that there is sufficient legal
grounds--or political will--to overturn their edicts. This may well be just what a
politically skittish Congress wanted when it passed these laws:
sufficient ambiguity to avoid responsibility for the necessary and tough follow-
up decisions, which it can then blame on the bureaucrats. This may make
for bad public policy and unaccountable decision-making, but it surely helps at election time when
lawmakers can point the finger and assign blame for controversial
decisions . Politics According to the FAA, its regs are "part of an overall strategy to control
aircraft noise in the park environment and to assist the NPS [with restoring] the natural quiet and
experience of the park."
Wont pass
a) GOP and dems

Garland 7/14, staff writer at The Hill, (Eric, 7/14/15, Menendez: Iran deal
'preserves' nuclear program instead of ending it, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/247819-menendez-iran-deal-only-
preserves-nuclear-program)//kap
Menendez (D-N.J.) on Tuesday said the multinational deal with Iran
Sen. Bob
preserves Tehran's nuclear ambitions instead of ending them. "The
deal ultimately legitimizes Iran as a threshold nuclear state ," Menendez, who
stepped down as the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee earlier this year amid corruption charges, said on
"The deal doesn't end Iran's nuclear program, it
MSNBC's "The Rundown."
preserves it." The New Jersey senator, a long-time critic of the negotiations, refuted President
Obama's claim that the deal allows for 24/7 access to inspect any
site believed to be violating the deal. Host Jose-Diaz Balart asked Menendez if lifting United
Nations Security Council sanctions, in addition to removing ballistic missile restrictions in eight years or sooner, is too
Iran wants that," Menendez said. "It wants to
beneficial for Iran. "The reality is, there's a reason why
continue to deploy its terrorism throughout the region , as it is presently doing,
even in desperate economic straights." The Democrat also criticized
Obama for not explicitly saying the U.S. will not allow Iran to make a
nuclear weapon. "In a decade from now, when most of the elements of this program are over,
Iran is going to be able to move forward," he said. "It has a significant part of its infrastructure in
place, it can reassemble that and off we go." Republican members of
Congress have already signaled they will try to kill the deal, with Sen.
Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) echoing Menendez's comments that the deal isn't tough enough on Iran. "The American
people are going to repudiate this deal, and I believe Congress will kill the deal ," Cotton said
earlier on MSNBC. Legislation passed in May states that Congress has 60 days to review the deal, and decide whether to
accept or reject it.
b) UN review galvanizes opposition

Pecquet 7/19/15 congressional reporter for Al Monitor (Julian, Kerry begins
Iran deal sales push on Capitol Hill, Congressional Pulse, Al Monitor,
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/07/iran-nuclear-congress-
kerry-zarif-putin-unsc.html)//JJ
The administration's bid to draw Democrats and the handful of undecided
Republicans to its side is further complicated by the international negotiating partners'
intention to ask the UN Security Council to vote to lift multilateral sanctions ,
possibly as early as July 20. The gambit has infuriated lawmakers on both sides of the
aisle , with Sen. Ted Cruz , R-Texas, threatening to hold up State Department funding
and new ambassadors and House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce , R-Calif.,
saying lawmakers would try to block the administration from lifting the arms embargo on
Iran if the UN votes before Congress get a chance to review the deal . It seems your
Administration intended all along to circumvent this domestic

review by moving the agreement to the UN Security Council before the
mandatory 60-day review period ends, thus adopting an agreement without
Congressional consent , Cruz, a presidential candidate, wrote to President Barack Obama. That [US
Ambassador to the UN] Samantha Power has already introduced a draft resolution to the Security Council portrays an
offensive level of disrespect for the American people and their elected
representatives in Congress.
Impact D
Loads of thumpers
headlines lately,
No link the plans an internal TSA policy

recommendations would improve U.S.
Based on the foregoing assessment, the following two
airport screening. The most urgent one is to further reform the current SPP .
Recent legislation that puts the burden of proof on TSA in denying an airports request to opt out of TSA
provided screening is a modest step in the right direction, given that ATSA allows all airports to opt out via
SPP. But what still needs correcting is TSAs overly centralized approach . SPP
should be further reformed so that: Q The airport, not TSA, selects the contractor, choosing the best-value
proposal from TSA-certified contractors. Q The airport, not TSA, manages the contract, under TSAs
These changes could be
regulatory oversight of all security activities at the airport in question.
made by directing TSA to adopt them as policy changes , without the need to
revise the actual language of the ATSA legislation .
Wont passboth GOP and Dems fight the deal

Garland 7/14, staff writer at The Hill, (Eric, 7/14/15, Menendez: Iran deal
'preserves' nuclear program instead of ending it, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/247819-menendez-iran-deal-only-
preserves-nuclear-program)//kap
Menendez (D-N.J.) on Tuesday said the multinational deal with Iran
Sen. Bob
preserves Tehran's nuclear ambitions instead of ending them. "The
deal ultimately legitimizes Iran as a threshold nuclear state ," Menendez, who
stepped down as the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee earlier this year amid corruption charges, said on
"The deal doesn't end Iran's nuclear program, it
MSNBC's "The Rundown."
preserves it." The New Jersey senator, a long-time critic of the negotiations, refuted President
Obama's claim that the deal allows for 24/7 access to inspect any
site believed to be violating the deal. Host Jose-Diaz Balart asked Menendez if lifting United
Nations Security Council sanctions, in addition to removing ballistic missile restrictions in eight years or sooner, is too
Iran wants that," Menendez said. "It wants to
beneficial for Iran. "The reality is, there's a reason why
continue to deploy its terrorism throughout the region , as it is presently doing,
even in desperate economic straights." The Democrat also criticized
Obama for not explicitly saying the U.S. will not allow Iran to make a
nuclear weapon. "In a decade from now, when most of the elements of this program are over,
Iran is going to be able to move forward," he said. "It has a significant part of its infrastructure in
place, it can reassemble that and off we go." Republican members of
Congress have already signaled they will try to kill the deal, with Sen.
Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) echoing Menendez's comments that the deal isn't tough enough on Iran. "The American
people are going to repudiate this deal, and I believe Congress will kill the deal ," Cotton said
earlier on MSNBC. Legislation passed in May states that Congress has 60 days to review the deal, and decide whether to
accept or reject it.
UN review increasing opposition to the deal

Pecquet 7/19/15 congressional reporter for Al Monitor (Julian, Kerry begins
Iran deal sales push on Capitol Hill, Congressional Pulse, Al Monitor,
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/07/iran-nuclear-congress-
kerry-zarif-putin-unsc.html)//JJ
The administration's bid to draw Democrats and the handful of undecided
Republicans to its side is further complicated by the international negotiating partners'
intention to ask the UN Security Council to vote to lift multilateral sanctions ,
possibly as early as July 20. The gambit has infuriated lawmakers on both sides of the
aisle , with Sen. Ted Cruz , R-Texas, threatening to hold up State Department funding
and new ambassadors and House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce , R-Calif.,
saying lawmakers would try to block the administration from lifting the arms embargo on
Iran if the UN votes before Congress get a chance to review the deal . It seems your
Administration intended all along to circumvent this domestic

review by moving the agreement to the UN Security Council before the
mandatory 60-day review period ends, thus adopting an agreement without
Congressional consent , Cruz, a presidential candidate, wrote to President Barack Obama. That [US
Ambassador to the UN] Samantha Power has already introduced a draft resolution to the Security Council portrays an
offensive level of disrespect for the American people and their elected
representatives in Congress.

Federal
both groups can and do cite federal law in support of their position. Still, there is little doubt that
PC fails and isnt key

McManus 7/15/15 Washington columnist for the Los Angeles Times (Doyle,
Why partisan polarization will be Obama's friend on the Iran deal, Los Angeles
Times, http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-polarization-obama-
iran-20150715-story.html)//JJ
As I noted in my column today, President Obama thinks he can win the fight over his nuclear
deal with Iran by invoking a three-word argument: Whats the alt ernative? But
Obama has another ace in the hole that is likely to frustrate Republican-led
efforts to block the agreement: partisan polarization. The same polarization that
has produced congressional gridlock and frustrated occasional attempts to strike a fiscal grand bargain will be the
presidents ally in the case of Iran. Heres why: To block the Iran agreement,
Congress must pass a resolution of disapproval and Obama has already
said he will veto any such bill. To override the veto, opponents of the deal will need to assemble
a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Thats always a difficult bar to
clear and its even harder when partisan passions are running high . In the
Senate, if all 54 Republicans voted to kill the Iran deal, 13 Democrats or independents would
need to join them to reach the 67 needed to override a veto. But so far, only
one Democrat, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, has indicated that hes likely to vote
against the deal and even he hasnt made a final decision, a spokeswoman said
Wednesday. Plenty of others, including the incoming Democratic leader, Charles E. Schumer of New York, are on the fence.
not even clear that opponents of the deal
But at this point, as my colleague Lisa Mascaro notes, its
can muster the 60 votes they would need to bring a resolution of disapproval to the
floor. In the House, the obstacles are even higher. To override a veto,
opponents of the deal would need at least 44 of the Houses 188 Democrats (assuming all
members voted and all 246 Republicans stayed together). But the House has been even more
polarized than the Senate, mostly because so many members come from lopsidedly
partisan districts . House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco has already made it clear that she
plans to fight to protect the deal and Pelosi has been able to keep her members in
line on key votes . One more factor may prevent many Democrats from bolting: Hillary Rodham
Clinton. The presidential front-runner announced on Tuesday that she not only supports the Iran deal, she
intends to campaign for it. That means any Democrat who votes against the deal would
be going up not only against the partys incumbent president, but against the
partys most likely presidential nominee . So while Obama has often bemoaned the
partisan polarization that has made bipartisan cooperation impossible, in this case he may be (quietly) grateful for it.
Link turn

agenda

be)//twemchen

Whats ACI-NAs
direction of privatization. Now that intellectual momentum has stopped. There are still people

of-six)//twemchen
15, three
guidelines.

While these
Deal fails - Iran will cheat

Devany 7/19, staff writer at The Hill, (Tim, 7/19/15, Deal critic: Iran will cheat, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/policy/international/248454-deal-critic-iran-will-cheat)//kap
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) warned Sunday that Iran will cheat on the nuclear
agreement with the Obama administration and other power and could develop a
nuclear weapon within a decade. He called on Congress to reject the Iranian nuclear deal,
because the inspection, verification and enforcement procedures are
too weak to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon. I think we
have to assume that they will cheat on the deal, Cotton said on NBCs Meet the
Press. "Ultimately, even if they obey every single detail of the deal, it puts
them on the path to be a nuclear weapons state in eight to 10

years , he added. Cotton, who served in the Army on tours in Iraq and Afghanistan before running for office, warned
that Iran should not to be trusted. "Iran is a terror-sponsoring, anti-
American, outlaw regime, Cotton said. "Theyve got the blood of hundreds of
American soldiers and Marines on their hands. "If you think Iran is going to
change their behavior in a decade, I can tell you how unlikely that is ,
he added. "Because just nine years ago, they were trying to kill me and my soldiers. We were lucky, but hundreds of other
American troops were not.

some degree in 1980." For that reason, political capital is a concept that misleads far more


Regardless of who pushes the plan, the GOPs defeat

causes a party fracture this causes passage
Dickerson 13 (John, Slate, Go for the Throat!,
www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/01/barack_obama_s_s
econd_inaugural_address_the_president_should_declare_war.single.html)
Obamas only remaining option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing

legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of
clarifying fights over controversial issues , he can force Republicans

to either side with their coalition's most extreme elements or cause a rift in the party that will
leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray .
AT Losers Lose

DAs and CPs


The plan causes a GOP fracture



Outweighs their internal link and, losers dont lose
Sargent 13 (Greg, 9/10/2013, Washington Post.com, No, a loss on Syria
would not destroy the Obama presidency, Factiva, JMP)
Get ready for a lot more of this sort of thing, should Congress vote No on Syria strikes: The fate of President Obama's
second term hangs on his Tuesday speech to the nation about Syria. This is a particularly cartoonish version of what much
of the punditry will be like if Obama doesn't get his way from Congress, but make no mistake, the roar of such punditry
will be deafening. Jonathan Bernstein offers a much needed corrective: There's one permutation that absolutely, no
question about it, would destroy the rest of Barack Obama's presidency is: a disastrous war. Ask Lyndon Johnson or George
W. Bush. Or Harry Truman. Unending, seemingly pointless wars are the one sure way to ruin a presidency. Now, I'm not
saying that's in the cards; in fact, I don't think it is. I'm just saying: that's the kind of thing that really does matter a lot to
presidencies. And if you do believe that the administration is going down a path that winds up there, or a path that has a
high risk of winding up there, then you should be very worried about the health of this presidency. If not? None of the
other permutations here are anywhere close to that kind of threat to the Obama presidency. Presidents lose
key votes which are then mostly forgotten all the time . They pursue
policies which poll badly, but are then mostly forgotten, all the time.
Look, there is no question that if Obama loses Syria vote, the coverage will be absolutely merciless.
But let's bring some perspective. The public will probably be relieved, and eventually all the "Obama
is a loser" talk will sink out of the headlines and be replaced by

other big stories with potentially serious ramifications for the country. It's key to distinguish between two
things here. One question is: How would a loss impact the credibility of the President and the United States with regard to
upcoming foreign policy crises and confrontations? That's not the same as asking: How would a loss impact Obama's
relations with Congress in upcoming domestic battles? And on that latter score, there's a simple way to think about it:
the government shutdown and
Look at what's ahead on the calendar. The two looming items are
debt ceiling battles, and when it comes down to it, there's no reason to believe a
loss on Syria would substantially alter the dynamics on either. Both
are ultimately about whether House Republicans can resolve their
own internal differences. Will a Syria loss weaken Obama to the point where Republicans would be
even more reluctant than they are now to reach a deal to continue funding the government? Maybe, but even if a
shutdown did result, would a loss on Syria make it any easier for the GOP to dodge blame for it? It's hard to see how that
Is the argument really going to be,
work in the eyes of the public. Same with the debt limit.
See, Obama lost on Syria, so we're going to go even further in
threatening to unleash economic havoc in order to defund
Obamacare and/or force cuts to popular entitlements? There's just
no reason why a Congressional vote against Syria strikes would
make the "blame game" on these matters any easier for
Republicans. Is it possible that a loss on Syria will make
Congressional Dems less willing to draw a hard line along with the
president in these talks, making a cave to the GOP more likely? I
doubt it. It will still be in the interests of Congressional Dems to stand firm, because the bottom line remains the
same: House Republicans face potentially unbridgeable differences over how far to push these confrontations, and a
united Dem front exploits those divisions. Syria doesn't change any of that. If a short term deal on funding the
government is reached, the prospects for a longer term deal to replace the sequester will be bleak, but they've been bleak
for a long time. Syria will fade from public memory, leaving us stuck in the same stalemate -- the same war of attrition --
as before. What about immigration? The chances of comprehensive reform passing the House have always been slim.
Could a Syria loss make House Republicans even less likely to reach a deal? Maybe, but so what? Does anyone really
imagine Latinos would see an Obama loss on Syria as a reason to somehow become less inclined to blame the GOP for
Whatever happens on
killing reform? The House GOP's predicament on immigration will be unchanged.
Syria, and no matter how much "Obama is weak" punditry that

results from it , all of the remaining battles will be just as perilous
for the GOP as they appeared before the Syria debate heated up.
Folks making the case that a Syria loss throws Obama's second term
agenda into serious doubt -- as if Congressional intransigence were
not already about as bad as it could possibly get -- need to explain
what they really mean when they say that. It's not clear even they
know.
AT Normal I/L


AT Prolif/Iran War
No war from deal failure their ev is all rhetoric
Pollak 7/17/15 reporter for The Weekly Standard (Noah, Obama's Claim of
War If Congress Rejects Iran Deal Doesn't Pass Laugh Test, The Weekly
Standard, https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamas-claim-war-if-
congress-rejects-iran-deal-doesnt-pass-laugh-test_992618.html)//JJ
The Obama administration's latest argument for the Iran deal -- support it, or
there will be war -- is shameful . It is borderline political blackmail . It reveals an
administration desperate to avoid debating the deal on its merits , preferring instead
to intimidate its critics into acquiescence by accusing them of being warmongers. What should be said in response? Three
things: 1. Anyone who claims war will break out if the deal is rejected must explain why the United
States and its allies are powerless to avoid it . One scenario is that Iran decides to race to a
bomb, forcing U.S. or Israeli airstrikes on its nuclear facilities. But President Obama has already all but ruled
out airstrikes, claiming last month that there is no military solution to the problem -- and
nobody believes that this president would actually take military action against a
country he has spent his entire presidency courting in the hope of vindicating his belief
that rogue states can be reformed through diplomatic outreach. The president
has also ruled out an obvious non-military way that the West could respond to an Iranian escalation of its
program, which is new sanctions and embargoes that cripple Iran's economy and
force the regime to choose between its survival or domestic stability and the
nuclear program. Yet Obama and Kerry have said explicitly that additional sanctions will not force an Iranian
capitulation. Thus, by ruling out both military action and new sanctions, the
administration has constructed a preferred reality -- a false one -- in which the

only option is supporting the deal. Step out of this false reality, and there are several
options for avoiding war: A military threat that is actually credible ;
increased sanctions ; embargoes ; sabotage ; helping allies and
partners roll back Iranian expansion in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, and
Gaza; and a tougher negotiation that achieves, if it's possible, a genuinely good deal. 2. Over the
past two years, Obama administration officials, including the president and the secretary of state, have repeated on
dozens of occasions the following claim: "No deal is better than a bad deal." This concise go-to talking point was meant to
reassure Americans that the president was not negotiating out of desperation, because we had options other than a bad
deal. It meant that the alternative to a bad deal is not war, but maintaining pressure on Iran through sanctions, political
isolation, and other measures. There was never a war corollary. Yet now, suddenly there is: support the deal or there will
be war. If this new talking point is actually true, it means that the original talking point was false, and what the
administration should have told the American people is that a bad deal is better than no deal, because no deal will cause
a war. As it turns out, neither the past nor the present talking point is true -- and so targets of Obama's war threats may
wish to remind the president that here, he has a serious credibility problem. 3. The claim that the sanctions regime would
a contrivance of an administration that is throwing
not survive the rejection of the deal is
every threat it can think of into its effort to bludgeon Congress into approving a
bad deal. There are a half-dozen U.N. Security Council resolutions and
numerous U.S. and EU laws that comprise the sanctions regime, and there
is no clause written into any of them stipulating that congressional rejection
of a deal rescinds the sanctions regime . President Obama has been ruthless and singleminded in
pursuing the things that he wants -- Obamacare, executive action on immigration, Palestinian statehood, Iran
negotiations, etc. Yet we are now to believe that when it comes to enforcing sanctions, the President of the United States
is suddenly transformed into a powerless bystander compelled to accept the violation of dozens of laws with impunity?
This doesn't pass the laugh test -- and neither does the administration's larger threat
that Congress must approve its terrible deal lest it spark a war .
No cascading proliferation
Esfandiary and Tabatabai 15 Dina Esfandiary and Ariane Tabatabai April
28 Why an Iran deal wont lead to nuclear proliferation
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/04/28/why-an-
iran-deal-wont-lead-to-nuclear-proliferation// Dina Esfandiary is a McArthur
Fellow in the Centre for Science and Security Studies at Kings College
London. Ariane Tabatabai is a visiting assistant professor in the Security
Studies Program at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service and
a columnist for The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Tina
Those who invoke the proliferation cascade theory often confuse
both the cause and the actual result. Would a nuclear agreement with Iran or nuclear-
armed Iran cause a cascade? Does the regional spread of civilian nuclear programs count as a proliferation
cascade, or is it restricted to the spread of the bomb? On their own, civilian nuclear
programs are not a threat. They are permitted under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are
pursuing or exploring nuclear power to address growing energy demands needs that have been growing
developing nuclear power is neither
irrespective of Irans nuclear program or plans. But
easy, nor cheap. There are a number of technical, legal and political
hurdles regional states need to overcome. Should they do so, then the fear is
that aspects of their civilian nuclear programs will pave the way for
the bomb. But that, too, is implausible. First, the entire region, except for
nuclear-armed Israel, is party to the NPT. This means that theyve already
legally given up the nuclear weapon option. Moreover, nuclear
weapon states cant legally provide them nuclear weapons either.
Second, many countries have safeguards agreements and some, the
additional protocol, in place. This means that their programs are
under close International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) scrutiny. None of these
states have expressed an interest in reprocessing, which closes the plutonium
path to the bomb. Some have even foregone enrichment, which blocks the uranium
path to the bomb. Thats the case for the UAE. But some states, such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, want to
reserve the right to enrich. Riyadh went further and stated it wanted whatever Iran got out of the
Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan and the
negotiations, including enrichment.
UAE are all dependent on foreign suppliers and expertise for their
programs. They lack the human capacity for the programs. Foreign
involvement makes it difficult, though not impossible, to covertly develop a
nuclear weapon. This means that suppliers also need to do their due diligence and ensure that
buyers use their equipment for purely peaceful purposes. One explanation as to why Tehran went so far in
developing its indigenous nuclear technology, including enrichment, is that international suppliers werent
as involved and reliable after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Following the revolution, Irans original
suppliers, the United States, France and Germany, dumped the country, which then looked East. It went to
Pakistan, including the illicit nuclear procurement network led by Pakistans A.Q. Khan, Russia and China.
But Irans government believed it could not rely on any of these partners. Without a strong involvement in
its program by foreign suppliers committed to nonproliferation, Iran was able to pursue indigenous nuclear
The Iranian
technology. This diminished the international communitys leverage on Tehran.
context, however, is different from other countries in the region, which
depend on the West and U.S. allies for their nuclear programs.
Todays nuclear newcomers must comply with certain international
requirements for their programs to be completed by these suppliers.
This means that suppliers can and should try to limit the further proliferation of enrichment and
reprocessing. But technical constraints aside, there are political obstacles
to the proliferation cascade theory. Countries like Turkey and Saudi
Arabia are dependent on Western allies for their security.
Washington can leverage this influence to stop them from going
nuclear. The United States showed its willingness to do just that in
1988, when it learned that Riyadh purchased Chinese missiles and it
threatened to block the sale of military equipment. A final agreement on the
Iranian nuclear program would be a win for the region . A regional proliferation cascade
is an unlikely result. There are too many barriers to it. It is time to
remove the cascade assumption from the policy equation. Most
importantly, killing a diplomatic process and negotiated deal for the
sake of yet another ill-founded domino theory would be a grave
mistake.
They cause more prolif

Rogin 6/24 - Josh Rogin is a Bloomberg View columnist who writes about
national security and foreign affairs. He has previously worked for the Daily
Beast, Newsweek, Foreign Policy magazine, the Washington Post,
Congressional Quarterly and Asahi Shimbun. (Josh, Clinton Defense Chief:
Iran Deal Could Spark Proliferation, Bloomberg, June 24, 2015,
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-24/clinton-defense-chief-
iran-deal-could-spark-proliferation//DM)
Gulf Arab powers are likely to respond to President Barack Obamas pending
nuclear deal with Iran by developing their own nuclear programs , former
Defense Secretary William Cohen said Wednesday. He said they dont trust either
the Iranians or the United States to protect their interests. The
administrations intent was to have a counter-proliferation program .
And the irony is, it may be just the opposite , he told a meeting of Bloomberg reporters
Wednesday morning. As Secretary of State John Kerry prepares to meet Iranian leaders for the final push toward a
theres growing angst in countries like Saudi
comprehensive nuclear deal with Iran,
Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Israel about the deal ,
which will leave Iran with significant uranium enrichment capabilities and may not give the international community the
right to inspect all of Irans nuclear facilities. The administration argues that a deal with Iran will remove the need for
other regional powers to pursue their own nuclear enrichment and weapons programs. Cohen said the region doesnt see
Once you say they are allowed to enrich, the game is pretty much up
it that way.
in terms of how do you sustain an inspection regime in a country that has
carried on secret programs for 17 years and is still determined to maintain as
much of that secrecy as possible, said Cohen, who was a Republican lawmaker from Maine before
serving under President Clinton from 1997 to 2001. Other regional powers are further
skeptical of the international communitys ability to enforce any

deal with Iran because the Obama administration has lost credibility
in the region , according to Cohen. He said America's relationships in the region were
damaged in 2013, when President Obama backed away from striking Syria
after telling Gulf allies he would do so, even though the Assad regime had
crossed his "red line" on chemical weapons. It was mishandled and everybody in the region saw
how it was handled. And I think it shook their confidence in the administration . The
Saudis, the UAE and the Israelis were all concerned about that, Cohen said. They are looking at what
we say, what we do, and what we fail to do, and they make their judgments.
In the Middle East now, they are making different calculations.
AT Terrorism
No nuke terror
Mueller 10 (John, professor of political science at Ohio State, Calming Our
Nuclear Jitters, Issues in Science and Technology, Winter,
http://www.issues.org/26.2/mueller.html)
Politicians of all stripes preach to an anxious, appreciative, and very numerous choir when they,
like President Obama, proclaim atomic terrorism to be the most immediate and extreme threat to global
security. It is the problem that, according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, currently keeps every senior
leader awake at night. This is hardly a new anxiety. In 1946, atomic bomb maker J. Robert Oppenheimer
ominously warned that if three or four men could smuggle in units for an atomic bomb, they could blow up
New York. This was an early expression of a pattern of dramatic risk inflation that has
persisted throughout the nuclear age. In fact, although expanding fires and fallout might increase the
effective destructive radius, the blast of a Hiroshima-size device would blow up about 1% of the citys
areaa tragedy, of course, but not the same as one 100 times greater. In the early 1970s, nuclear
physicist Theodore Taylor proclaimed the atomic terrorist problem to be immediate, explaining at length
how comparatively easy it would be to steal nuclear material and step by step make it into a bomb. At
the time he thought it was already too late to prevent the making of a few bombs, here and there, now
and then, or in another ten or fifteen years, it will be too late. Three decades after Taylor, we continue
to wait for terrorists to carry out their easy task. In contrast to these predictions , terrorist
groups seem to have exhibited only limited desire and even less progress in
going atomic. This may be because, after brief exploration of the possible routes, they, unlike generations
of alarmists, have discovered that the tremendous effort required is scarcely likely to be successful. The
most plausible route for terrorists, according to most experts, would be to manufacture an atomic device
themselves from purloined fissile material (plutonium or, more likely, highly enriched uranium). This task,
however, remains a daunting one, requiring that a considerable series of difficult hurdles be conquered
and in sequence. Outright armed theft of fissile material is exceedingly unlikely not
only because of the resistance of guards, but because chase would be immediate. A more
promising approach would be to corrupt insiders to smuggle out the required substances. However, this
requires the terrorists to pay off a host of greedy confederates, including brokers and money-transmitters,
any one of whom could turn on them or, either out of guile or incompetence, furnish them with stuff that is
useless. Insiders might also consider the possibility that once the heist was accomplished, the terrorists
would, as analyst Brian Jenkins none too delicately puts it, have every incentive to cover their trail,
beginning with eliminating their confederates. If terrorists were somehow successful at obtaining a
sufficient mass of relevant material, they would then probably have to transport it a long
distance over unfamiliar terrain and probably while being pursued by security forces. Crossing
international borders would be facilitated by following established smuggling routes, but these are not as
chaotic as they appear and are often under the watch of suspicious and careful criminal regulators. If
border personnel became suspicious of the commodity being smuggled, some of them might find it in their
interest to disrupt passage, perhaps to collect the bounteous reward money that would probably be offered
Once outside the country
by alarmed governments once the uranium theft had been discovered.
terrorists would need to set up a large and well-equipped
with their precious booty,
machine shop to manufacture a bomb and then to populate it with a very select team of highly
skilled scientists, technicians, machinists, and administrators. The group would have to be
assembled and retained for the monumental task while no consequential suspicions were generated
among friends, family, and police about their curious and sudden absence from normal pursuits back
home. Members of the bomb-building team would also have to be utterly devoted to the cause, of course,
and they would have to be willing to put their lives and certainly their careers at high risk, because after
their bomb was discovered or exploded they would probably become the targets of an intense worldwide
dragnet operation. Some observers have insisted that it would be easy for terrorists to assemble a crude
bomb if they could get enough fissile material. But Christoph Wirz and Emmanuel Egger, two senior
physicists in charge of nuclear issues at Switzerlands Spiez Laboratory, bluntly conclude that the task
could hardly be accomplished by a subnational group. They point out that precise blueprints are
required, not just sketches and general ideas, and that even with a good blueprint the terrorist group
would most certainly be forced to redesign. They also stress that the work is difficult, dangerous, and
extremely exacting, and that the technical requirements in several fields verge on the
unfeasible. Stephen Younger, former director of nuclear weapons research at Los Alamos
Laboratories, has made a similar argument, pointing out that uranium is exceptionally difficult to
machine whereas plutonium is one of the most complex metals ever discovered, a material whose basic
properties are sensitive to exactly how it is processed. Stressing the daunting problems associated with
material purity, machining, and a host of other issues, Younger concludes, to think that a terrorist group,
working in isolation with an unreliable supply of electricity and little access to tools and supplies could
fabricate a bomb is farfetched at best. Under the best circumstances, the process of making a bomb
could take months or even a year or more, which would, of course, have to be carried out in utter secrecy.
In addition, people in the area, including criminals, may observe with increasing curiosity and puzzlement
the constant coming and going of technicians unlikely to be locals. If the effort to build a bomb was
successful, the finished product, weighing a ton or more, would then have to be transported to and
smuggled into the relevant target country where it would have to be received by collaborators who are at
once totally dedicated and technically proficient at handling, maintaining, detonating, and perhaps
assembling the weapon after it arrives. The financial costs of this extensive and extended operation could
easily become monumental. There would be expensive equipment to buy, smuggle, and set up and people
to pay or pay off. Some operatives might work for free out of utter dedication to the cause, but the vast
conspiracy also requires the subversion of a considerable array of criminals and opportunists, each of
whom has every incentive to push the price for cooperation as high as possible. Any criminals competent
and capable enough to be effective allies are also likely to be both smart enough to see boundless
opportunities for extortion and psychologically equipped by their profession to be willing to exploit them.
Those who warn about the likelihood of a terrorist bomb contend that a terrorist group could, if with great
difficulty, overcome each obstacle and that doing so in each case is not impossible. But although it may
not be impossible to surmount each individual step, the likelihood that a group could surmount a series of
them quickly becomes vanishingly small. Table 1 attempts to catalogue the barriers that must be
overcome under the scenario considered most likely to be successful. In contemplating the task before
them, would-be atomic terrorists would effectively be required to go though an exercise that looks much
like this. If and when they do, they will undoubtedly conclude that their prospects are daunting and
accordingly uninspiring or even terminally dispiriting. It is possible to calculate the chances for success.
Adopting probability estimates that purposely and heavily bias the case in the terrorists
favorfor example, assuming the terrorists have a 50% chance of overcoming each of the 20 obstacles
the chances that a concerted effort would be successful comes out to be less than one in a million. If one
assumes, somewhat more realistically, that their chances at each barrier are one in three, the
cumulative odds that they will be able to pull off the deed drop to one in well over
three billion. Other routes would-be terrorists might take to acquire a bomb are even more
problematic. They are unlikely to be given or sold a bomb by a generous like-minded
nuclear state for delivery abroad because the risk would be high, even for a country led by extremists, that
the bomb (and its source) would be discovered even before delivery or that it would be exploded in a
manner and on a target the donor would not approve, including on the donor itself. Another concern would
The terrorist group
be that the terrorist group might be infiltrated by foreign intelligence.
might also seek to steal or illicitly purchase a loose nuke somewhere. However, it seems
probable that none exist. All governments have an intense interest in controlling any weapons on
their territory because of fears that they might become the primary target. Moreover, as technology has
bombs have been out-fitted with devices that trigger a non-nuclear
developed, finished
explosion that destroys the bomb if it is tampered with. And there are other security
techniques: Bombs can be kept disassembled with the component parts stored in separate high-security
vaults, and a process can be set up in which two people and multiple codes are required not
only to use the bomb but to store, maintain, and deploy it. As Younger points out, only a few people in the
world have the knowledge to cause an unauthorized detonation of a nuclear weapon. There could be
dangers in the chaos that would emerge if a nuclear state were to utterly collapse; Pakistan
is frequently cited in this context and sometimes North Korea as well. However, even under such
conditions, nuclear weapons would probably remain under heavy guard by people who
know that a purloined bomb might be used in their own territory. They would still have locks and, in the
case of Pakistan, the weapons would be disassembled. The al Qaeda factor The degree to which al Qaeda,
the only terrorist group that seems to want to target the United States, has pursued or even has much
interest in a nuclear weapon may have been exaggerated. The 9/11 Commission stated that al Qaeda has
tried to acquire or make nuclear weapons for at least ten years, but the only substantial evidence it
supplies comes from an episode that is supposed to have taken place about 1993 in Sudan, when al Qaeda
members may have sought to purchase some uranium that turned out to be bogus. Information about this
supposed venture apparently comes entirely from Jamal al Fadl, who defected from al Qaeda in 1996 after
being caught stealing $110,000 from the organization. Others, including the man who allegedly purchased
the uranium, assert that although there were various other scams taking place at the time that may have
served as grist for Fadl, the uranium episode never happened. As a key indication of al Qaedas desire to
obtain atomic weapons, many have focused on a set of conversations in Afghanistan in August 2001 that
two Pakistani nuclear scientists reportedly had with Osama bin Laden and three other al Qaeda officials.
Pakistani intelligence officers characterize the discussions as academic in nature. It seems that the
discussion was wide-ranging and rudimentary and that the scientists provided no material or specific
plans. Moreover, the scientists probably were incapable of providing truly helpful information because their
expertise was not in bomb design but in the processing of fissile material, which is almost certainly beyond
the capacities of a nonstate group. Kalid Sheikh Mohammed, the apparent planner of the 9/11 attacks,
reportedly says that al Qaedas bomb efforts never went beyond searching the
Internet. After the fall of the Taliban in 2001, technical experts from the CIA and the Department of
Energy examined documents and other information that were uncovered by intelligence agencies and the
media in Afghanistan. They uncovered no credible information that al Qaeda had obtained fissile material
or acquired a nuclear weapon. Moreover, they found no evidence of any radioactive material suitable for
weapons. They did uncover, however, a nuclear-related document discussing openly available concepts
about the nuclear fuel cycle and some weapons-related issues. Just a day or two before al Qaeda was to
flee from Afghanistan in 2001, bin Laden supposedly told a Pakistani journalist, If the United States uses
chemical or nuclear weapons against us, we might respond with chemical and nuclear weapons. We
possess these weapons as a deterrent. Given the military pressure that they were then under and taking
into account the evidence of the primitive or more probably nonexistent nature of al Qaedas nuclear
program, the reported assertions, although unsettling, appear at best to be a desperate bluff. Bin Laden
has made statements about nuclear weapons a few other times. Some of these pronouncements can be
seen to be threatening, but they are rather coy and indirect, indicating perhaps something of an interest,
but not acknowledging a capability. And as terrorism specialist Louise Richardson observes, Statements
claiming a right to possess nuclear weapons have been misinterpreted as expressing a determination to
use them. This in turn has fed the exaggeration of the threat we face. Norwegian researcher Anne
Stenersen concluded after an exhaustive study of available materials that, although it is likely that al
Qaeda central has considered the option of using non-conventional weapons, there is little evidence that
such ideas ever developed into actual plans, or that they were given any kind of priority at the expense of
more traditional types of terrorist attacks. She also notes that information on an al Qaeda computer left
behind in Afghanistan in 2001 indicates that only $2,000 to $4,000 was earmarked for weapons of mass
destruction research and that the money was mainly for very crude work on chemical weapons. Today, the
key portions of al Qaeda central may well total only a few hundred people, apparently assisting the
Talibans distinctly separate, far larger, and very troublesome insurgency in Afghanistan. Beyond this tiny
band, there are thousands of sympathizers and would-be jihadists spread around the globe. They mainly
connect in Internet chat rooms, engage in radicalizing conversations, and variously dare each other to
actually do something. Any threat, particularly to the West, appears, then, principally to derive from self-
selected people, often isolated from each other, who fantasize about performing dire deeds. From time to
time some of these people, or ones closer to al Qaeda central, actually manage to do some harm. And
occasionally, they may even be able to pull off something large, such as 9/11. But in most cases, their
capacities and schemes, or alleged schemes, seem to be far less dangerous than initial press reports
vividly, even hysterically, suggest. Most important for present purposes, however, is that any notion that al
Qaeda has the capacity to acquire nuclear weapons, even if it wanted to, looks farfetched in the extreme.
It is also noteworthy that, although there have been plenty of terrorist attacks in the world since 2001, all
have relied on conventional destructive methods. For the most part, terrorists seem to be heeding the
advice found in a memo on an al Qaeda laptop seized in Pakistan in 2004: Make use of that which is
available rather than waste valuable time becoming despondent over that which is not within your
reach. In fact, history consistently demonstrates that terrorists prefer weapons that they know and
understand, not new, exotic ones. Glenn Carle, a 23-year CIA veteran and once its deputy intelligence
officer for transnational threats, warns, We must not take fright at the specter our leaders have
exaggerated. In fact, we must see jihadists for the small, lethal, disjointed, and miserable opponents that
they are. al Qaeda, he says, has only a handful of individuals capable of planning, organizing, and leading
a terrorist organization, and although the group has threatened attacks with nuclear weapons, its
capabilities are far inferior to its desires. Policy alternatives The purpose here has not been to argue that
policies designed to inconvenience the atomic terrorist are necessarily unneeded or unwise. Rather, in
contrast with the many who insist that atomic terrorism under current conditions is rather likely indeed,
exceedingly likelyto come about, I have contended that it is hugely unlikely. However, it is important to
consider not only the likelihood that an event will take place, but also its consequences. Therefore, one
must be concerned about catastrophic events even if their probability is small, and efforts to reduce that
likelihood even further may well be justified. At some point, however, probabilities become so low that,
even for catastrophic events, it may make sense to ignore them or at least put them on the back burner; in
short, the risk becomes acceptable. For example, the British could at any time attack the United States
with their submarine-launched missiles and kill millions of Americans, far more than even the most
monumentally gifted and lucky terrorist group. Yet the risk that this potential calamity might take place
evokes little concern; essentially it is an acceptable risk. Meanwhile, Russia, with whom the United States
has a rather strained relationship, could at any time do vastly more damage with its nuclear weapons, a
fully imaginable calamity that is substantially ignored. In constructing what he calls a case for fear, Cass
Sunstein, a scholar and current Obama administration official, has pointed out that if there is a yearly
probability of 1 in 100,000 that terrorists could launch a nuclear or massive biological attack, the risk
would cumulate to 1 in 10,000 over 10 years and to 1 in 5,000 over 20. These odds, he suggests, are not
the most comforting. Comfort, of course, lies in the viscera of those to be comforted, and, as he suggests,
many would probably have difficulty settling down with odds like that. But there must be some point at
which the concerns even of these people would ease. Just perhaps it is at one of the levels suggested
above: one in a million or one in three billion per attempt.
AT Cred
Our internal link outweighs perception is irrelevant if we
have the guns to back it up thats being diverted now
only the plan solves
Their card sucks its like three lines and written on a

blog plus is about concluding the deal, which already
happened
The perception of credibility doesnt matter

Lord 14 Kristin M. Lord is President and CEO of IREX, a global education and development NGO.
(12/23/2014, Kristin, Foreign Policy, Soft Power Outage, http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/12/23/soft-power-
outage/?wp_login_redirect=0 // SM)
Despite its comparative advantage in soft power, the United States is still
far more adept at the strategy and tactics of military, economic, and
diplomatic coercion than the strategy and tactics of attraction. It
takes its soft power for granted, like oxygen in the air, assuming it will
always be there. This approach not only carries risk, it underutilizes
a strategic resource. How might the United States take soft power more seriously? First, it has
to walk the walk, aligning actions and values, rhetoric and deeds. This is understandably difficult in a
the United States could
country with complex and wide-ranging foreign policy interests, but
do better in one key respect: weighing potential damage to
Americas moral authority when considering policy options. Such
considerations are often trumped, and not without cause. Policymakers are
regularly forced to choose from a series of bad options, and when
they do, clear and short-term consequences weigh more heavily than
diffuse costs to notions like reputation. If the United States is
serious about countering challenges to its national security interests
and democratic ideals, however, this must change. Perceptions that the United
States does not live up to its own values fundamentally undermine American power and inhibit the
countrys ability to defend not just its own interests, but also universal standards of what is right and just.
They undermine Americas ability to defend the time-proven value of the moral high ground, and they
empower cynical actors eager to seize the propaganda advantage. The constant din of social and
traditional media is raising the stakes, subjecting policymakers to unrelenting scrutiny and empowering
those who are loud and opinionated, whether or not they are right. The simultaneous trends of proliferating
information and the decentralization of control over it present real challenges to leaders in government
and elsewhere. These trends are a fact, for good or ill, but they are also opportunities. Scrutiny pressures
the United States to be better, forcing it to reflect on how its actions will be perceived and whether those
perceptions should lead it to behave differently in the first place. The link between scrutiny and virtuous
behavior is long recognized. Indeed, Adam Smiths under-studied text The Theory of Moral Sentiments asks
the just (hu)man to consider how his/her actions would be perceived by an impartial spectator as a test of
their virtue. If the publicity of our actions and how they would be received gives us pause, Smith argued,
perhaps we should reconsider those actions in the first place. The most challenging aspect of todays
information environment is the constant presence of partial spectators, who are all too ready to eager to
soft
seize on any perceived failing, publicize it widely, and use it to their own advantage. Second,
power should also be used proactively , which entails actively
exposing others to ideas. Confidence is required; others may not choose to share ideas to
which they are introduced. But time and time again, people who are exposed to accurate information and
universally held values become positive forces in their own communities and strong (if not entirely
uncritical) partners. All too often and across presidential administrations soft power
falls down the list of foreign policy priorities, underweighted in comprehensive
strategies that include diplomacy and defense. Dominating the moral high ground
and using it to spur social change is not at the center of national
security policymaking , but it should be. Serious public engagement
strategies , which are natural components of soft power, are rare. The once
frequently heard term public diplomacy is falling into increasing
disuse .
AT Democracy
No democratic peace --- their evs biased and ignores
history
Manan 15 [Munafrizal- Professor of IR @ University of Al Azhar Indonesia,
Hubungan International Journal, cites a bunch of profs and scholars of DPT,
The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems,
http://journal.unpar.ac.id/index.php/JurnalIlmiahHubunganInternasiona/article/view/1315 , mm]
In the literature of democracy, there has been a debate among social scientist,
especially political scientists, about what democracy really is as well
as which countries should be called democratic and which types of
democracies are more peaceful. Speaking generally, the experts agree that the
democratic theories can be grouped into two broad paradigms. The
first is elitist, structural, formal, and procedural. It tends to understand democracy in a
relatively minimalist way . A regime is a democracy when it passes some structural threshold of free and open
elections, autonomous branches of government, division of power, and checks and balances. This state of affairs precludes a tyrannical
The second
concentration of power in the hands of the elites. Once this structure is in place, a regime is a democracy.
paradigm, which is called 'normative', 'cultural', 'deliberative

democracy', and 'participatory democracy', tends to focus on other
issues and to demand much more of democracy. First, the emphasis is on the society and
the individual citizens, not the political system and the regime. Second, there is also a demand for the existence of democratic norms and
democratic culture. This implies, among other things, political rights, tolerance, openness, participation, and a sense of civic responsibility.
Nevertheless, there is no consensus among the democratic peace

theoreticians about the nature of democracy in relation to the
democratic peace theory. If the democratic peace theory is based on the first paradigm, then there are many
countries should be called democratic. Democracy in such a paradigm is relatively easy
to build, but also relatively easy to dismantle it. 167 It seems that the
democratic peace theory is not strongly supported by the structural
paradigm of democratic theory because interstate wars or at least
armed conflicts remain taking place in countries that committed to
this structural paradigm. The armed conflicts between Russia and
Georgia as well as Thailand and Cambodia in 2008, for example,
which were triggered by border disputes, strengthen such a view. Within
this context, Chan argues that although a large number of countries have recently
adopted democratic structures of governance (for instance, universal suffrage, multiparty

competition, contested elections, legislative oversight), it is not evident that their leaders and
people have internalized such democratic norms as those regarding

tolerance , compromise, and sharing power.168 Conversely, if it is
based on the second paradigm, then there are only a few countries
should be classified democratic. It is likely to focus merely on mature
democratic countries especially in the regions of North America and West Europe. As a consequence,
numerous cases of warring democracies will be excluded. 169 It means that the
democratic peace theory is only relevant to countries in this region and hence it cannot be applied to other countries. In other words, the
proponents of the democratic peace theory do not have a justifiable

reason to spread democracy around the world in order to enforce
international peace. Like democracy, the definition of war is also
contested by scholars. The proponents of the democratic peace theory who argue that democratic countries have not
involved in wars against each other have tended to rely on the definition most widely used in academic research on the causes of war in the
last two or three decades. 170War is defined as, according to that definition, no
hostilityqualified as an interstate war unless it led to a minimum of
1,000 battle fatalities among all the system members involved. 171
Such a definition excludes the wars that do not fulfil the 1,000
battle-death threshold and hence minimizes the number of cases
that can be categorized war. As Ray observes, in any case, there are not numerous incidents having just below
1,000 battle deaths that would otherwise qualify as wars between democratic states.172 Moreover, it allows
democratic peace proponents to exclude some troublesome

cases .173 The case of Finland is one of examples for this. The case
suggests that although democratic peace proponents code Finland
as a democracy, Finlands alliance with Germany in World War II is
summarily dismissed because fewer than 1,000 Finns were killed in
armed combat. 174 Another example is the 1967 Six Day War
between Israel and Lebanon in which Lebanon only sent a few
aircraft into Israel air space and sustained no casualties.
175Obviously, such an old definition is not adequate to explain the
changing character of war in the contemporary era. 176 In addition, by using historical
analysis Ravlo, Gleditsch and Dorussen show that the claim of the democratic peace theory
that democratic states never get involved in a war against each

other is undermined by historical ev idence. Their finding demonstrates that most of extrasystematic
wars have been fought by democracies 177 and only in the postcolonial period are democracies less involved in extrasystemic war.178 But
in the colonial and imperial periods, wars occurred among

democracies . Similar to democracy and war, the definition of peace is
also debated by scholars. Put it simply, according to the realists, peace can be defined as
the absence of war. As Waltz argues, the chances of peace rise if
states can achieve their most important ends without actively using
force.179However, the absence of war is something temporary and therefore peace is no more than a
transient lack of war.180 For realists, the absence of war does not simply mean that there will be no war in the future
and they ridicule people who are happy with such a peace. Realists believe that war is the common and unavoidable feature of international
relations and it means that peace as dangerous as war. 181 In the view of Waltz, in an anarchic realm, peace is fragile. 182 Thus, for realists,
peace is a period to prepare war. Other definitions of peace highlight different aspects. Brown defines international war as violence between
organized political entities claiming to be sovereign nation.183 Boulding who rebuts the realist definition of peace defines peace as a
situation in which the probability of war is so small that it does not really enter into the calculations of any of the people
involved.184According to Boulding, peace should be a real peace which means a stable peace. Boulding rejects the realist definition of
peace since it is an unstable peace.185
AT Heg
Our internal link outweighs perception is irrelevant if we
have the guns to back it up thats being diverted now
only the plan solves
Their card sucks its like three lines and written on a

blog plus is about concluding the deal, which already
happened
AT US-EU Rels
Alt causes or prolif inevitable
Walt 11- Robert and Rene Belfer Professor of International Affairs at Harvard
Universitys John F. Kennedy School (Stephen, The coming erosion of the
European Union, Foreign Policy News, 8/18/11,
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/18/the_coming_erosion_of_the_eu
ropean_union) //AD
the glory days of transatlantic security cooperation also lie in
Third, I argued that
the past, and we will see less cooperative and intimate security partnership
between Europe and America in the future . Why do I think so? One obvious
reason is the lack of common external enemy . Historically, that is the
only reason why the United States was willing to commit troops to Europe,
and it is therefore no surprise that America's military presence in Europe has
declined steadily ever since the Soviet Union broke up . Simply put: there is no
threat to Europe that the Europeans cannot cope with on their own, and thus
little role for Americans to play. In addition, the various imperial adventures that
NATO has engaged in since 1992 haven't worked out that well. It was said in
the 1990s that NATO had to "go out of area or out of business," which is one reason it started planning for
these operations, but most of the missions NATO has taken on since then have been something of a bust.
Intervention in the Balkans eventually ended the fighting there, but it took
longer and cost more than anyone expected and it's not even clear that it
really worked (i.e., if NATO peacekeepers withdrew from Kosovo tomorrow, fighting might start up
again quite soon). NATO was divided over the war in Iraq, and ISAF's disjointed
effort in Afghanistan just reminds us why Napoleon always said he liked to

fight against coalitions. The war in Libya could produce another disappointing result, depending on
how it plays out. Transatlantic security cooperation might have received a new
lease on life if all these adventures had gone swimmingly; unfortunately, that
did not prove to be the case. But this raises the obvious question: If the United States
isn't needed to protect Europe and there's little positive that the alliance can
accomplish anywhere else, then what's it for? Lastly, transatlantic security
cooperation will decline because the United States will be shifting its
strategic focus to Asia . The central goal of US grand strategy is to
maintain hegemony in the Western hemisphere and to prevent other great
powers from achieving hegemony in their regions . For the foreseeable future, the
only potential regional hegemon is China. There will probably be an intense
security competition there, and the United States will therefore be deepening
its security ties with a variety of Asian partners . Europe has little role to play
in this competition, however, and little or no incentive to get involved . Over time,
Asia will get more and more attention from the U.S. foreign policy
establishment, and Europe will get less. This trend will be reinforced by
demographic and generational changes on both sides of the Atlantic, as the
percentage of Americans with strong ancestral connections to Europe
declines and as the generation that waged the Cold War leaves the stage . So in
addition to shifting strategic interests, some of the social glue that held Europe and
America together is likely to weaken as well. It is important not to overstate this trend --
Europe and America won't become enemies, and I don't think intense security competition is going to
Europe and the United States will continue to
break out within Europe anytime soon.
trade and invest with each other, and we will continue to collaborate on a
number of security issues ( counter-terror ism, intelligence sharing,
counter- prolif eration, etc.). But Europe won't be America's "go-to" partner in
the decades ahead, at least not the way it once was. This will be a rather different world than the
one we've been accustomed to for the past 60 years, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Moreover,
becauseit reflects powerful structural forces , there's probably little we can
do to prevent it. Instead, the smart response -- for both Americans and
Europeans -- is to acknowledge these tendencies and adapt to them, instead
of engaging in a futile effort to hold back the tides of history.
Prolif Turn
Iran deal leads to proliferation cascades in the Middle
East
Rogin 6/24 - Josh Rogin is a Bloomberg View columnist who writes about
national security and foreign affairs. He has previously worked for the Daily
Beast, Newsweek, Foreign Policy magazine, the Washington Post,
Congressional Quarterly and Asahi Shimbun. (Josh, Clinton Defense Chief:
Iran Deal Could Spark Proliferation, Bloomberg, June 24, 2015,
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-24/clinton-defense-chief-
iran-deal-could-spark-proliferation//DM)
Gulf Arab powers are likely to respond to President Barack Obamas pending
nuclear deal with Iran by developing their own nuclear programs , former
Defense Secretary William Cohen said Wednesday. He said they dont trust either
the Iranians or the United States to protect their interests. The
administrations intent was to have a counter-proliferation program .
And the irony is, it may be just the opposite , he told a meeting of Bloomberg reporters
Wednesday morning. As Secretary of State John Kerry prepares to meet Iranian leaders for the final push toward a
theres growing angst in countries like Saudi
comprehensive nuclear deal with Iran,
Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Israel about the deal ,
which will leave Iran with significant uranium enrichment capabilities and may not give the international community the
right to inspect all of Irans nuclear facilities. The administration argues that a deal with Iran will remove the need for
other regional powers to pursue their own nuclear enrichment and weapons programs. Cohen said the region doesnt see
it that way.Once you say they are allowed to enrich, the game is pretty much up
in terms of how do you sustain an inspection regime in a country that has
carried on secret programs for 17 years and is still determined to maintain as
much of that secrecy as possible, said Cohen, who was a Republican lawmaker from Maine before
serving under President Clinton from 1997 to 2001. Other regional powers are further
skeptical of the international communitys ability to enforce any

deal with Iran because the Obama administration has lost credibility
in the region , according to Cohen. He said America's relationships in the region were
damaged in 2013, when President Obama backed away from striking Syria
after telling Gulf allies he would do so, even though the Assad regime had
crossed his "red line" on chemical weapons. It was mishandled and everybody in the region saw
how it was handled. And I think it shook their confidence in the administration . The
Saudis, the UAE and the Israelis were all concerned about that, Cohen said. They are looking at what
we say, what we do, and what we fail to do, and they make their judgments.
In the Middle East now, they are making different calculations.
Iran will cheat

Devany 7/19, staff writer at The Hill, (Tim, 7/19/15, Deal critic: Iran will cheat, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/policy/international/248454-deal-critic-iran-will-cheat)//kap
Iran will cheat on the nuclear agreement

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) warned Sunday that
with the Obama administration and other power and could develop a nuclear weapon
within a decade. He called on Congress to reject the Iranian nuclear deal, because the inspection,
verification and enforcement procedures are too weak to prevent Iran from
building a nuclear weapon. I think we have to assume that they will cheat on
the deal, Cotton said on NBCs Meet the Press. "Ultimately, even if they obey every single
detail of the deal, it puts them on the path to be a nuclear weapons
state in eight to 10 years , he added. Cotton, who served in the Army on tours in Iraq and Afghanistan
before running for office, warned that Iran should not to be trusted . "Iran is a terror-
sponsoring, anti-American, outlaw regime, Cotton said. "Theyve got the blood of
hundreds of American soldiers and Marines on their hands. "If you think Iran is going to
change their behavior in a decade, I can tell you how unlikely that is , he added.
"Because just nine years ago, they were trying to kill me and my soldiers. We were lucky, but hundreds of other American
troops were not.
Instability Turn
Iran deal is bad doesnt deter Iran from making bombs
and aids it in its pursuit for regional hegemony
Dr. Kuperman 6/23/15 teaches courses in global policy studies and is coordinator of the Nuclear
Proliferation Prevention Project (Alan, The Iran Deals Fatal Flaw, The New York Times, June 23, 2015,
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/opinion/the-iran-deals-fatal-flaw.html//DM)
PRESIDENT OBAMAS main pitch for the pending nuclear deal with Iran is that
it would extend the breakout time necessary for Iran to produce enough
enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon. In a recent interview with NPR, he said that the
current breakout time is about two to three months by our intelligence
estimates. By contrast, he claimed, the pending deal would shrink Irans nuclear
program, so that if Iran later decided to break the deal, kick out all the
inspectors, break the seals and go for a bomb, wed have over a year to
respond. Unfortunately, that claim is false, as can be demonstrated with
basic science and math. By my calculations, Irans actual breakout
time under the deal would be approximately three months not
over a year. Thus, the deal would be unlikely to improve the worlds
ability to react to a sudden effort by Iran to build a bomb. Breakout
time is determined by three primary factors: the number and type of
centrifuges; the enrichment of the starting material; and the amount of
enriched uranium required for a nuclear weapon. Mr. Obama seems to make
rosy assumptions about all three. Most important, in the event of an overt attempt
by Iran to build a bomb, Mr. Obamas argument assumes that Iran would
employ only the 5,060 centrifuges that the deal would allow for uranium
enrichment, not the roughly 14,000 additional centrifuges that Iran would be
permitted to keep mainly for spare parts. Such an assumption is
laughable . In a real-world breakout, Iran would race, not crawl, to the bomb . These
additional centrifuges would need to be connected, brought up to speed and equilibrated with the already operating ones.
But at that point, Irans enrichment capacity could exceed three times what Mr. Obama assumes. This flaw could be
addressed by amending the deal to require Iran to destroy or export the additional centrifuges, but Iran refuses. Second,
since the deal would permit Iran to keep only a small amount of enriched uranium in the gaseous form used in
Obama assumes that a dash for the bomb would start mainly from
centrifuges, Mr.
unenriched uranium, thereby lengthening the breakout time. But the deal
would appear to also permit Iran to keep large amounts of enriched uranium
in solid form (as opposed to gas), which could be reconverted to gas within
weeks, thus providing a substantial head-start to producing weapons-grade
uranium. Third, Mr. Obamas argument assumes that Iran would require 59
pounds of weapons-grade uranium to make an atomic bomb . In reality, nuclear
weapons can be made from much smaller amounts of uranium (as experts assume North Korea does in its rudimentary
study by the Natural Resources Defense Council concluded that
arsenal). A 1995
even a low technical capability nuclear weapon could produce an explosion
with a force approaching that of the Hiroshima bomb using just 29 pounds
of weapons-grade uranium. Based on such realistic assumptions, Irans breakout time
under the pending deal actually would be around three months, while its
current breakout time is a little under two months . Thus, the deal would increase the breakout
time by just over a month, too little to matter. Mr. Obamas main argument for the agreement extending Irans breakout
time turns out to be effectively worthless. By contrast, Iran stands to gain enormously. The deal would lift nuclear-
In addition, the deal
related sanctions, thereby infusing Irans economy with billions of dollars annually.
could release frozen Iranian assets, reportedly giving Tehran a $30

billion to $50 billion signing bonus. Continue reading the main story Showering
Iran with rewards for making illusory concessions poses grave risks. It would
entrench the ruling mullahs, who could claim credit for Irans economic
resurgence. The extra resources would also enable Iran to amplify the havoc it is
fostering in neighboring countries like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. Worst of
all, lifting sanctions would facilitate a huge expansion of Irans nuclear
program. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Irans supreme leader, says that he wants
190,000 centrifuges eventually, or 10 times the current amount , as would appear to
be permissible under the deal after just 10 years. Such enormous enrichment capacity would shrink the
breakout time to mere days, so that Iran could produce enough

weapons-grade uranium for a bomb before we even knew it was
trying thus eliminating any hope of our taking preventive action.
Nothing in the pending deal is worth such risks . Unless President Obama
can extract significantly greater concessions at the negotiating table,
Congress should refuse to lift sanctions, thereby blocking implementation of a
deal that would provide Iran billions of dollars to pursue nuclear weapons and
regional hegemony.
The deal gives Iran resources and motivation to expand

destabilization in the region
Singh, 6/30/15 --- managing director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. From 2005 to 2008, he
worked on Middle East issues at the National Security Council (Michael, Can We Trust How Iran Would Spend Funds From
a Nuclear Deal? http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/30/can-we-trust-how-iran-would-spend-funds-from-a-nuclear-
deal/)
The deadline in the Iran nuclear negotiations has just been extended. But if an agreement is ultimately reached, Tehran is
an influx of funds will permit
expected to receive a substantial financial windfall. Critics have argued that
Iran to expand its destabilizing regional activities . The Obama administration has argued that
Iran will use the funds primarily for domestic needs. Who is correct? An estimated $100 billion to $140 billion in Iranian
foreign exchange reserves are being held in escrow in banks overseas (primarily oil revenues that U.S. sanctions block
It is not clear how much of these funds would be made
from being repatriated to Iran).
available to Iran under a nuclear agreement, or when. U.S. officials have reportedly indicated
that Iran would receive $30 billion to $50 billion after completing initial steps to comply with an agreement (deactivating
centrifuges in excess of those it is permitted to operate, reducing its stockpile of enriched uranium, and converting its
heavy-water reactor). That work could take six months or more. In his most recent budget, Iranian President Hasan
Rouhani proposed government expenditures of approximately $300 billion. While some domestic programs were increased
health-care spending rose 59%so were security expenditures. Saeed Ghasseminejad and Emanuele Ottolenghi of the
Foundation for Defense of Democracies noted that funding was up 48% for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and
40% for the Ministry of Intelligence and Security; overall defense spending, which amounts to 3% of Irans gross domestic
product, rose 33%. These figures likely understate Irans security spending; as the Congressional Research Service
recently noted, the Revolutionary Guard Corps spends significant amounts of unbudgeted funds on arms, technology,
The Obama administrations position
support to pro-Iranian movements, and other functions.
assumes that while Iran was willing to substantially increase security
spending when sanctions were in effect it will not do so in the wake of a deal,
when economic conditions would improve. This thinking is likely based on the
notion that in the wake of a deal Iran will feel pressure to satisfy public
expectations that the deal will yield tangible benefits and spend more at
home. But there are good reasons to think this will not be the case. Irans
security spending is driven by more than tensions over its nuclear program.
The Revolutionary Guards are heavily engaged in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and
Afghanistan; none of these conflicts will end if an Iran deal is reachedand the
situations may get worse. To the extent that a deal is seen as a win for
pragmatists led by President Rouhani, Irans supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, may want to placate hard-liners by boosting his financial
support to the security apparatus they dominate . Irans security
spending goes to both foreign endeavors and monitoring its own people, an
imperative that is likely to grow if the deal permits greater economic and
diplomatic openness to the outside world. The Obama administration has also argued that
unfreezing Irans assets will not lead to an increase in its destabilizing regional activities because the cost of Irans
support for terrorism and regional interventions is relatively small. This conflates two very distinct activities. It is arguably
correct that the cost of individual terrorist acts is small; this is one reason that terrorism is so widespread and difficult to
prevent. There is, however, little reason to believe that Irans sponsorship of terrorist organizations and efforts to coopt or
subvert governments (see: Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq) is inexpensive. Consider that Irans declared military budget
is $12 billion to $15 billion. Iranian annual support for Syrias Assad regime was recently estimated at $6 billion to $15
billion. Irans funding of Hezbollah has been estimated at $200 million per year, though that may have increased with the
organizations heavy losses in Syria. Iran also funds Shiite militias in Iraq, and it sponsors groups in Gaza, Yemen, and
Iran is likely to spend any financial windfall from a nuclear
elsewhere. In short,
agreement on both domestic and foreign prioritiesas it has done in good
economic times and bad. The two are not mutually exclusive, and Iran is not likely to reorder its priorities.
The agreement terms reportedly under discussion provide Iran with substantial economic relief while demanding precisely
nothing from it regarding its sponsorship of terrorism and destabilizing regional behavior. Good policymaking demands
that the benefit of any nuclear agreement be weighed against this cost, rather than pretending it does not exist.
Iran deal is counterproductive sets dangerous

precedents and ensures Middle Eastern war
Schoen 6/29/15 - Im a longtime political strategist, Fox News contributor and author of several books,
including the recently published The End of Authority: How a Loss of Legitimacy and Broken Trust are Endangering our
Future (Doug, Iran Negotiations: No Deal Is Still Better Than A Bad Deal, Forbes, June 19, 2015,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougschoen/2015/07/07/patent-protections-within-the-tpp-arent-unprecedented-theyre-what-
american-innovators-deserve//DM)
The Iranian nuclear deal looks increasingly problematic for the

United States, even perilous. Yet our negotiators appear to be doing
everything possible to accommodate an erratic and secretive Iranian regime in their
quest for an agreement that could well facilitate Iran developing a
bomb, as well as encouraging additional terrorism around the world.
There are a few simple facts that it seems our negotiating team has forgotten as we move towards the deadline. First and
foremost, the Iranians need this deal much more than we do. So much more, in
fact, that their economy wont survive if we dont lift the sanctions. Second, we
have allies in the region specifically Israel that may not survive if we dont
push Iran to meet terms that will genuinely halt their program . We have talked
endlessly about our support for Israel, now is the crucial time to show it. Third, Iran is the largest state
sponsor of terrorism in the world . President Obama admitted this himself just a few months ago,
which makes it all the more disheartening that we are negotiating with them as if were the ones who need this deal, at
any cost. Iran is in the drivers seat and it seems that theyve almost completely lost the plot here. While Secretary of
State John Kerry says that Were just working an its too early to make any judgments, Irans Supreme Leader Ayatollah
Ali Khamenei appears on state television calling our terms excessive
coercion and making it clear that [Iran doesnt] accept a 10-year
restriction. He continued, We have told the negotiating team how many
specific years of restrictions are acceptable. Research and development must
continue during the years of restrictions. It follows that very little progress has been made since
the deals framework was hashed out in early spring. What was initially met with partying in the streets in Tehran quickly
became insufficient in the eyes of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who now has declared new red lines as
Five former members of
negotiators worked towards a deal. His red lines prompted harsh reactions.
Obamas foreign policy team including General David Petraeus wrote an
open letter to this effect. Their concern centers on the fact that the deal, as it
is, will not require Iran to dismantle their nuclear enrichment infrastructure ,
even if it will reduce it for the next 10-15 years. Under the framework deal, the US and its partners are aiming for one year
breakout time, with some potential constraints in place after the deals timeline has played out. This just isnt enough.
Furthermore, Iran wants to pursue industrial-scale production of uranium after
the deal, which could essentially push breakout time to zero. In a region that has
already seen an uptick in tension and violence in anticipation of a bad deal, a nuclear Iran would all
but ensure war. Inspections are also a huge point of contention. Whereas Irans Supreme Leader essentially
wants to keep all inspectors out of Irans facilities, the authors of the letter make it quite clear that we need to be able to
take samples, interview scientists, review and copy documents about Irans past nuclear program at any time. This should
be non-negotiable. History has taught us the Iranians are not to be trusted,
and now is no time to make an exception. Moreover, what message would caving on
inspections send to the region? Whatever deal is reached with Iran would set a
dangerous precedent, especially for any country that wanted to avoid inspections. Lets hope that as Irans
lead negotiator, Mohammed Zarif, regroups with Iranian leadership in Tehran, Kerry and his colleagues take the
Now is the time for the US to buckle
opportunity to be mindful of whats at stake here.
down and stay true to the original intent of these negotiations. The
United States negotiators need to remember why were at the table, and that we could, and should, walk away if the
Iranians push for a bad deal. They need us more than we need them.
Iran deal only aids its regional ambitions economic relief

will go towards sponsoring hegemonic initiatives
The Tower.org Staff 7/1/15 (The Tower.org, Expert: Economic Benefits of Sanctions Relief Likely to
Boost Irans Regional Threat, July 1, 2015, http://www.thetower.org/2242-expert-economic-benefits-of-sanctions-relief-
likely-to-boost-irans-regional-threat//DM)
The expected windfall Iran would receive from sanctions relief as part of a
nuclear deal would likely benefit its internal and external security services
including proxy terrorist groups such as Hezbollah which would further
destabilize the Middle East, according to an analysis published today in The Wall Street Journal by Michael
Singh, the managing director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. In his most recent budget, Iranian President
Rouhani proposed government expenditures of approximately
Hasan
$300 billion . While some domestic programs were increasedhealth-care spending rose 59%so were security
expenditures. Saeed Ghasseminejad and Emanuele Ottolenghi of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies noted that
funding was up 48% for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and 40% for
the Ministry of Intelligence and Security; overall defense spending, which
amounts to 3% of Irans gross domestic product, rose 33%. These figures likely
understate Irans security spending; as the Congressional Research Service recently noted, the Revolutionary Guard Corps
spends significant amounts of unbudgeted funds on arms, technology, support to pro-Iranian movements, and other
functions. There is, however, little reason to believe that Irans sponsorship of terrorist organizations and efforts to
coopt or subvert governments (see: Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq) is inexpensive. Consider that Irans declared military
budget is $12 billion to $15 billion. Iranian annual support for Syrias Assad regime was recently estimated at $6 billion to
$15 billion. Irans funding of Hezbollah has been estimated at $200 million per year, though that may have increased with
the organizations heavy losses in Syria. Iran also funds Shiite militias in Iraq, and it sponsors groups in Gaza, Yemen, and
elsewhere. In short, Iran
is likely to spend any financial windfall from a nuclear
agreement on both domestic and foreign prioritiesas it has done in good
economic times and bad. The two are not mutually exclusive, and Iran is not
likely to reorder its priorities. The agreement terms reportedly under discussion provide
Iran with substantial economic relief while demanding precisely
nothing from it regarding its sponsorship of terrorism and
destabilizing regional behavior . Good policymaking demands that the benefit of any nuclear
agreement be weighed against this cost, rather than pretending it does not exist. Agence France-Presse reported that
Iran plans to devote greater resources over the next five years to
developing ballistic missile capabilities, arms production and
modern weaponry. The fear that Iran would use its windfall to further its
hegemonic designs on the Middle East is something that the administration
has dismissed. But other regional actors disagree. Earlier this week, Lebanese politician
Ahmad el-Assaad wrote that he feared that the nuclear deal would ensure that
Lebanon wont be able to free itself in the foreseeable future from

the control of Hezbollah. More generally, numerous experts expect that with its expected windfall,
Iran will seek to export its revolution more aggressively across the
Middle East. In April, three fellows with the Washington Institute for
Near East Policy warned that a deal would allow Iran to project its
power into corners of the Middle East in ways that were never
possible before . Similarly, David Rothkopf, editor of Foreign Policy magazine, wrote that focusing on
the Iran nuclear deal without simultaneously addressing Irans regional threat
is a serious error. Former State Department official Aaron David Miller wrote that an unless the deal really does
change Irans behavior, weve only bought ourselves a bigger [crisis] down the
road.
Lifting sanctions wont change Irans malignant foreign

policies they dont like the U.S.
Michaels 7/18 military writer for USA TODAY (Jim, Top U.S. officer worries Iran deal will fund 'malign
activities', USA Today, 6/18/15, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/07/18/martin-dempsey-iran-nuclear-
deal-malign-activities/30344067/, accessed 7/18/15)//RZ
"The agreement has managed to set aside for now one of the malign
activities with which we were concerned, but there are other malign
activities ," Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said en route to Iraq
for a tour Saturday. Washington opposes Iran's support for the regime of Syrian
President Bashar Assad during a long civil war in his country . Iran also supports
insurgents in Yemen and the State Department says it is a primary sponsor of terrorism in the
Middle East. In Tehran on Saturday, Iran's Supreme Leader , Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said in a
televised speech that the nuclear deal won't change Iran's policy towards the
"arrogant" U.S. government . Khamenei said U.S. policy in the Middle

East runs counter to Iran's strategy and his country will continue to
support allies that include the Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon, Palestinians and the
Assad government, the Associated Press reported. "Our policy toward the arrogant U.S.
government won't change at all," Khamenei said, according to the AP. The agreement requires
Iran to limit its nuclear program and ensure it is only for peaceful purposes in exchange for a lifting of sanctions that have
crippled Iran's economy. Removal of sanctions would produce a financial windfall for
oil-rich Iran, which would receive funds previously frozen and be able to sell oil on
world markets again. Israel and many Republicans in Congress have assailed the deal between Iran
and six world powers, saying Tehran will be able to expand its support for terrorist
groups once sanctions are lifted. President Obama, who championed the negotiations, said he hoped
Iran would use the money to rebuild its country and rejoin the world economic community, from which it has long been
isolated. Dempsey made a similar case with a caveat. "There is every reason to believe" that Iran will use increased
I am also alert to the
revenues from the lifting of sanctions to strengthen its economy,"he said. "But
possibility that some of it will be used to support the other malign activities where
we have concerns with Iran," he said.
1ar AT Losers Lose
The plans a win Obama empirically supports privatizing
surveillance
Cesca 14 staff writer at the Daily Banter (Bob Cesca, 3/25/14, Obama to
Propose the Privatization of NSAs Metadata Collection Program,
http://thedailybanter.com/2014/03/obama-to-propose-the-privatization-of-
nsas-metadata-collection-program/)//twemchen
President Obamas decision to end the National Security Agencys
If it turns out to be true,
metadata storage program is absolutely a lateral move, both politically and practically.
Politically, it scores him some points on his left flank while disarming libertarian cranks like Sen. Rand Paul
(R-KY). Meanwhile, the high-fives being tossed around among the pro-Snowden crowd in reaction to the
trial balloon only manages to underscore the emerging pro-corporation libertarianism of that clique.
the president
Yesterday, an unnamed source close to the administration told The New York Times that
plans to ask Congress to pass legislation that would shut down NSAs phone metadata
storage program, authorized under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, and, instead, force the
telecoms to retain the metadata from which NSA could continue to access information about
targets. In other words, the Section 215 program is being privatized . And this is
somehow good news.
1ar EXT No Congress
TSA can act on security without congress
Akaka 11 Senator from Hawaii (Daniel K. Akaka, 2/17/11, SEN. JOSEPH I.
LIEBERMAN HOLDS A HEARING ON THE HOMELAND SECURITY BUDGET, CQ
Transcriptions, Lexis)//twemchen
Madam Secretary, TSA proposes to remove the statutory cap on airline security fees so it
can raise them without Congress acting . As an initial increase, TSA would lift airline security
fees by 60 percent to raise more than $1 billion annually. I understand that TSA needs substantial funding
to address very real air security threats, but that is quite a large increase.
1ar EXT Not Perceived
Especially for security
Willis and Edson 13 Hosts for the Fox Business Networks (Gerri Willis, Rich
Edson, 8/7/13, WILLIS REPORT for August 7, 2013, Willis Report,
Lexis)//twemchen
TSA pat-downs coming to a game, concert, or rodeo near you. I'm not kidding. The agency
notorious for stealing your belongings and patting down Granny has been flying under the
radar expanding its reach beyond airport security.
1ar EXT PC Fails
Impact inevitable elections AND Obama pc is irrelevant
Bradner 7/19/15 politics reporter for CNN (Eric, State Dept. sends Iran deal
to Congress, CNN Politics, http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/19/politics/john-kerry-
iran-deal-congress/)//JJ
Republican presidential candidates have said they'd undo President Barack Obama's
Iran deal. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said Sunday on "State of the Union" that he'd revoke the
national security waiver under which Obama is implementing the deal,
effectively re-instituting U.S. sanctions against Iran . "We will not use the national security
waiver to hold back U.S. sanctions against Iran -- especially not as a result of this flawed deal that he is pursuing," Rubio
Walker told CNN's Dana Bash that he would rip up the agreement on
said. Wisconsin Gov. Scott
"Day 1" of his presidency. The Obama administration got some help lobbying for the agreement
Sunday from foreign allies who were involved in the negotiations. British
Prime Minister David Cameron hailed the agreement as a victory in an appearance on

NBC's "Meet the Press." "The threat of a nuclear-armed Iran -- that is now off the table. I mean, that's a success," Cameron
said. "What we've done is make sure the timeline for them possibly getting a nuclear weapon has gotten longer, not
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the deal's leading
shorter." But
critic, questioned whether Iran can be trusted not to build hidden sites that
would make its path to a nuclear bomb easier in an interview on ABC's "This Week." He said Iran
gets to keep too much of its nuclear infrastructure in the deal. "The hardliners in Iran are actually going to come out
strong because they're getting everything they want," Netanyahu said. "They're getting a pathway down the line, within a
decade or so, to the capacity to be a threshold state with practically zero breakout time to many nuclear bombs, and
billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars, which they'll siphon off to their terror and war machine."
Lobbying is irrelevant the deal will pass-- political

dynamics force democrats will have little choice but to
back the deal
Brown and Mimms 7/14 Congressional Correspondent and Staff
Correspondent (Alex, Sarah, Democrats Don't Trust Iran. Do They Trust
Obama?, National Journal, 7/14/15,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/democrats-don-t-trust-iran-do-they-
trust-obama-20150714, accessed 7/19/15)//RZ
While most congressional Democrats played wait-and-see, Obama
did have one important ally in the Capitol on Tuesday morning. Former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton, attending previously scheduled meetings with
Democrats in both chambers, gave the plan her backing. "I think we have to
look at this seriously, evaluate it carefully, but I believe based on what I know now, this is an
important step," she told reporters after the meeting. Obama called Clinton late Monday night
to brief her on the deal. And Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the vice chairwoman of the
powerful Intelligence Committee, said in a statement that she will
support the deal. "This is a strong agreement that meets our national security needs and I believe will stand
the test of time. I stand behind the U.S. negotiating team and will support this agreement in the Senate," Feinstein said.
House Democrats inside a meeting with Clinton on Tuesday morning
said the former secretary of State's support was far from tepid. "She
endorsed it full-throated," Rep. Gerald Connolly said. "She was not equivocal at
all in her support of the agreement as she understands it." Clinton's stance on the
issue , Israel said, carries a lot of weight , second only to Obama. "There's
no question that her opinion is critically important, profoundly important," he said.
For now, though, Clinton's support does not have many Democrats rushing to back the deal. "I come to this with a great
deal of distrust for the Iranian government, and as [Clinton] said, an existential threat that it poses not only to the state of
Israel, but to all of our friends in the region and to our friends in Europe and the United States as well," said Rep. Joseph
"[I'm] certainly hoping that the
Crowley, vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.
agreement is something I can support if it puts out of reach of the
Iranian people to create nuclear weapons." House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking
member Eliot Engel added: "I remain uncomfortable with the fact that we have spent so much time negotiating with a
country that opposes our interests in so many ways across the region." Engel expressed concern that lifting sanctions on
Coons, another Democrat on the
Iran could allow it to further destabilize the region. Sen. Christopher
was also highly skeptical Tuesday, but
Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
emphasized that he and his colleagues have a lot of reading and
research left to do before making any final decision. "Iran has certainly earned
our distrust. So I begin the process of reading and reviewing this historic agreement with a position of suspicion and
distrust of Iran and their intentions going forward," Coons said. "And as a result, I am more-than-ever concerned that we
have a strong and durable verification and inspection regime, that we have sanctions that can snap back significantly and
meaningfully ifor I should say whenIran cheats on this deal." Other high-profile Democrats
were in no hurry to take a position. "[A]ny deal must ensure that Iran can never achieve their
goal of developing a nuclear weapon," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee,
in a statement. "As I have said from the beginning, no deal is better than a bad deal, particularly given Iran's horrific track
record of deception and continued facilitation of terrorism against the United States and our allies worldwide." House
Pelosi issued a statement commending the White
Minority Leader Nancy
House's efforts to find a diplomatic solution, but shied away from
pronouncing the deal a favorable one. "Congress will closely review
the details of this agreement," she said. Similarly, Caucus Chair Xavier Becerra said
members are waiting to see the text. "We should be prepared to
read it all, to make sure that what we're reading is what we're
hearing, so that we can have confidence of moving forward." Ultimately,
though, some think Democrats will have little choice but to back the deal . "[Vice
President Joe] Biden's coming over tomorrow to sway us in one direction, "
Rep. Brad Sherman said. " It will be hard to sway us in the other direction,
because you've got Obama and Hillary and Democratic activists

around the country all on one side . ... The two problems in overriding
a veto are every Democratic institution is saying not to and there's
no crisp answer to 'and then what?' " While leadership has mostly avoided weighing in, the
plan did garner endorsements from a few progressives Tuesday. Sen.
Bernie Sanders, a presidential candidate, called the deal a "victory
for diplomacy over saber rattling." Rep. Barbara Lee, one of the most
outspoken anti-war members of Congress, hailed it as well. "Today's
announced deal with Iran, if fully implemented, will prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon while ensuring greater stability in
the Middle East," she said.
Obamas not key Pelosi is pushing the deal and she can
afford to lose 42 democrats
Ferrechio 7/16 Chief Congressional Correspondent for the Washington
Examiner (Susan, Pelosi pushing Democrats to back nuclear deal, 7/16/15,
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pelosi-pushing-democrats-to-back-
nuclear-deal/article/2568398?custom_click=rss, accessed 7/19/15)//RZ
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she is working to
convince rank-and-file House Democrats to approve the nuclear deal
with Iran, which she fully supports. "Yes, yes," Pelosi said when asked
whether she'll lobby her undecided caucus to back the plan. "I'm so proud of
this. I'm already making sure, not lobbying but making sure, people have the
answers to the questions they have. I made clear to them my own
standing on this issue and why I think this is a good agreement . It's
pretty exciting." Pelosi started the briefing by proudly holding up the deal. "I've closely examined this document, and it
Pelosi rejected criticisms that the agreement should have
will have my strong support," she said.
he s said the
included a deal to free four Americans currently imprisoned by the Iranian government. Instead,
accord itself will benefit the prisoners. "No, not, it would have been good, but no," Pelosi
said, when asked about including the hostages as part of the agreement. "This is a nuclear deal," Pelosi added. "This is a
nuclear agreement. Since we have a nuclear negotiation and a nuclear agreement, a much brighter light is going to shine
Democrats in
on the prisoners of conscience in Iran. This will shine a very bright light. I'm very optimistic."
both chambers have expressed mostly tepid support for the deal, with
some lawmakers far more skeptical than others that the agreement goes far enough to stop Iran from
building a nuclear weapon. Pelosi acknowledged "some of our members are in
different places," and have questions about the deal, but she plans
to work to convince them to vote in favor of it when it comes to the
House floor after a 60-day review period. She said Democrats are in the "education
phase" of considering the agreement. The White House has stepped up efforts to sell the
deal to Congress. Vice President Joe Biden met with Democrats in the House
on Wednesday and is headed to the Senate today. Pelosi called
Biden's talk to Democrats "spectacular." House Republicans will have the option of passing
a resolution approving the deal, or disapproving the deal. The GOP is expected to push for a
disapproval resolution, which is expected to pass , because it will only need a simple
majority. If that resolution can pass the Senate, it would then be vetoed
by President Obama, which would send it back to both chambers. To override that
veto, a two-thirds vote would be needed in the House and Senate. For Pelosi,
that means she needs to convince 146 Democrats to vote against the
override. That means she could lose up to 42 Democrats and still ensure
the safety of the Iran deal in the House.
1ar EXT Wont Pass
Senate vote wont occur for a few more monthsallows
for mobilization against Obama
Carney 7/14, staff writer at The Hill, Jordain, 7/14/15, Senate Iran vote
unlikely until after August recess, The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-
action/senate/247869-senate-iran-vote-unlikely-until-after-august-recess)//kap
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said Tuesday that the Senate would likely vote after the
August recess on the Iran nuclear deal. "Likely, what we'll do is vote on this
when we return from recess," Corker told reporters. That would push any vote
in the Senate until at least Sept. 8, when Congress returns to Washington
after a month-long break. The Tennessee Republican said that the Foreign Relations Committee, which he
chairs, would start also holding hearings in the next two or three weeks. Corker said that lawmakers are
still waiting for the administration hand over classified portions and
certifications of the agreement, adding that "we expect to receive those materials over the next several
days." Corker suggested that he would withhold final judgement on the deal until he has had time to review it, but added
that "the agreement has taken a downward trend." Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) added
that the Armed Services Committee would hold separate hearings, focusing on verifying that Iran is complying with a long-
lawmakers will be briefed by the
term agreement. Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) added that
administration and that those talks will be extensive in nature. Pushing a

Senate vote on the Iran nuclear deal until September would give
opponents of the deal more time to mobilize and pressure
Democrats to buck the administration. But Democrats have brushed aside
a 60-day review, compared to the
questions about if they are concerned about allowing for
30-day review. They're going to need some time to get members of
Congress, especially their friends, comfortable with the detailed inspection
regime, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told reporters late last week. This isn't the Affordable Care Act. There are
unlikely to be town halls full of thousands of people talking about the Iran nuclear negotiations.
Bypassing congress for a UN vote is uniting bipartisan

opposition against Obama
Carney 7/18, staff writer at The Hill, (Jordain, 7/18/15, Protests erupt in Congress as UN races toward Iran vote,
The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/248374-protests-erupt-in-congress-as-un-races-toward-iran-vote)//kap
Senate Republicans have found a new target in the war of words with President
Obama over Iran: the U nited N ations. They argue that the administration is about to
leapfrog Congress by allowing the international body to approve a nuclear pact that
lawmakers have not signed off on, let alone properly reviewed. The battle is uniting
Republicans , from conservative firebrand and presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to GOP leadership and
Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), the chairman of the
Senate Republican Conference, urged the administration to hold off on the U.N.
Security Council vote. Doing otherwise, Thune said, would show that the president holds the opinion of the
United Nations in higher esteem than the American people. The quick move toward the U.N. vote
has also angered rank-and-file Republicans, with Sens. David Perdue (R-Ga.) saying that it
makes it seem like the administration always intended to bypass Congress
by moving through the United Nations. Cruz is threatening to block nominees and
funding for the State Department unless the administration prevents the U.N. Security Council from voting on the
resolution on the nuclear deal, which could happen as early as Monday. One of Cruzs rivals for the GOP nomination, Sen.
Marco Rubio (Fla.), also blasted the administration, suggesting that Obama is taking
the deal to the United Nations first because he knows Congress will ultimately reject
the deal. Its a clear sign that he knows if this deal is reviewed closely by the American
people, it will be rejected, Rubio said. We cannot allow America's security to
be outsourced to the United Nations. The senators have bipartisan support on the
other side of the Capitol. Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.), the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said
during an interview with "Lou Dobbs Tonight" that lawmakers would try to block Obama
from lifting an arms embargo if he lets the U.N. vote take place
before Congress approves, or disapproves, the deal. Rep. Steny Hoyer, the No. 2
House Democrat, is also pushing back against the administration. The Maryland lawmaker said that waiting to take the
deal to the United Nations until after Congress has voted "would be consistent with the intent and substance" of the
review legislation. The administration argues theres nothing in the Iran deal that requires congressional approval before
the international community can act. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest on Friday said the international body is
showing significant deference to Congress by postponing implementation of the order for 90 days. The delay
would allow lawmakers ample opportunity to review the deal , Earnest said. Wendy
Sherman, the State Departments undersecretary for political affairs, suggested to that the administration was under
pressure from the other six countries involved in the talks the so called P5+1 to go to the U.N. sooner rather than
later. It would have been a little difficult when all of the members of the P5+1 wanted to go to the United Nations to get
an endorsement of this for us to say, well excuse me, the world, you should wait for the United States Congress, she
told reporters at a State Department briefing in the wake of the deal. But, the administrations move is threatening to
antagonize Corker, who is among the handful of Senate Republicans who are undecided on the deal. The influential
Tennessee Republican called the decision to take the resolution to the United Nations an affront to Congress. This is
exactly what we were trying to stop, he said, referring to the legislation lawmakers passed earlier this year forcing the
Republicans face an uphill
administration to hand over the deal so Congress could vote on it. While
battle in overriding Obama's veto, there are plenty of Democrats skeptical of the
deal, potentially putting another hurdle in the administration's path. Sen. Ben Cardin (D-
Md.), the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said the issue reflected one of the stark differences
between the administration and Congress. The Maryland Democrat was crucial to brokering a deal on the review
legislation that made the bill more acceptable to the White House. Now, Cardin and Corker are teaming up to ask the
president to hold off on the Security Council vote, suggesting that the move is a contradiction to the presidents pledge to
let Congress and the American people review the deal.
Wont pass AIPAC

Lerner 7/17/15 reporter for Politico (Adam, AIPAC forms new group to
oppose Iran deal, Politico, http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/aipac-iran-
deal-citizens-for-a-nuclear-free-iran-120307.html)//JJ
AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel organization, has launched a new advocacy

group to oppose the Iran nuclear deal. Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, a new 501(c)4 group, is
dedicated to informing the public about the dangers of the proposed Iran
deal, spokesman Patrick Dorton told the New York Times, which first reported the groups launch. The groups
advisory board includes five former Democratic members of Congress: Sens. Evan Bayh
(Ind.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Mary Landrieu (La.) and Joseph Lieberman (Conn.). Former Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.),
who served on the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, will
also advise the group. This Iran deal is dangerous for America, for Israel and for the world, Lieberman, the
former Democratic and Independent senator, said in a statement on the groups site. Iran has violated over 20
international agreements, is the number one sponsor of terrorism in the world, and has been working to acquire nuclear
AIPAC has already come out in
weapons for years. Unfortunately this agreement wont stop them.
opposition to a number of President Barack Obamas policies, including his approach to
negotiations with Iran and treatment of Israel. In a staff meeting earlier this week the groups
executive director, Howard Kohr, told staff to cancel their summer vacations as the
group plans to ramp up its lobbying against the deal in coming weeks. According to the
Times report, Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran will spend approximately $20 million on its
advocacy, including advertising in 30 to 40 states. This will be a sizable and

significant national campaign on the flaws in the Iran deal, Dorton said. Obama
announced earlier this week that the P 5+1 negotiating nations had settled on final language for a nuclear deal which
would dismantle a large majority of Irans nuclear infrastructure, while leaving small portions intact. In order to scuttle the
deal, Republicans in Congress will need to convince enough Democrats to oppose the deal to secure a two-thirds majority
vote.
1ar EXT No Impact
No impact to deal failure
Satloff 7/16/15 executive director of The Washington Institute for Near
East Policy (Robert, If the Iran Deal Fails, Politico,
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/if-the-iran-deal-fails-
120247.html#.Vav6CPl81rk)//JJ
I have not yet decided whether the costs of the Iran nuclear agreement are worth its advantages. But I have reached one
Obamas argument that the alternative to this agreement is
conclusionPresident
war is wrong. Let us assume that Congress overrides the presidents veto of a resolution disapproving the
deal. What happens the day after? The president said that the congressional vote not only vitiates the agreement but
destroys all international constraints on Irans nuclear program, after which the Iranians will race toward a bomb. That
development, so this argument goes, would launch a regional nuclear arms race and likely trigger either American or
Israeli military action to stop Irans march toward a bomb. With Iran likely to respond in either case by launching
thousands of Hezbollah missiles into Israel, the result is war. But is that really the most likely
chain of events? No . Faced with what would be a revolt in his own party, let alone near-universal Republican
opposition, the president might have second thoughts about the Vienna deal. If he still wanted to salvage a nuclear
agreement, this could compel him to go back to the bargaining table first with his P5+1
partners and then with Iranto secure certain improvements. These could include, for example, less
time for Iran to delay inspections; a longer period for the maintenance of the arms embargo; or clear and agreed
a vote for disapproval may
consequences spelled out for various types of Iranian violations. In other words,
just force the president to seek the proverbial better deal. But lets say that the
president holds firm to the current text, despite ignominious defeat on his flagship foreign policy achievement.
Remember precisely what Congress will be voting onto constrain the
Presidents ability to waive sanctions on Iran. Thats all . He will still have the
prerogatives of his office to seek execution of the deal in other ways . In that
case, I believe the likely scenario would be as follows: The administration has said it will seek U.N. Security Council
endorsement of the Vienna accord in the coming days. That means the agreement will be enshrined
in international law well before Congress acts , though that Security Council resolution
will be timed so as not to take effect until after Congress votes on the deal. Then, in early September, lets say
Congress votes to override the presidents veto . Then, a determined president will
still go to the annual convening of the U.N. General Assembly and announce
that he will do everything in his power to execute the agreement. If Congress
wont let him waive sanctions, thenas he did with deportations of certain illegal alienshe will
order the State and Treasury Departments to focus their
enforcement powers elsewhere. Congress will fume; a legal battle looms. But even at that
point, the United States is still not in violation of the agreement. According to the
deal, the next step is that Iran has to implement its nuclear restrictionsmothballing
centrifuges, redesigning the Arak plutonium reactor, etc.to the satisfaction of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Most experts estimate that will take at least six months . Only after the IAEA certifies
that Iran has met its requirements are the P5+1 countries and the United Nations required to implement their
even if Congress
commitments to terminate (or, in Americas case, suspend) sanctions. In other words,
denies the president waiver authority on Iran sanctions in September, he wouldnt
begin to use that authority until next spring, at the earliest. At that point,
when he tries to make an end-run around Congress , Messrs. Boehner and
McConnell can be expected to take their case to court. Eventually, the
Supreme Court will decide. Perhaps the president will still be in office;
perhaps he wont . What does Iran do during this domestic political contest here in the United States? Does
it chuck its enormous diplomatic achievements in Vienna for a mad dash toward a bomb? Highly unlikely. My hunch is that
Iran will seek to exploit our internal squabbles to isolate America from its own negotiating partners. We are very sorry to
see small-minds in Congress try to snuff out hopes for peace and mutual security, savvy Iranian diplomats will say. But
we will not let them. Therefore, we will continue to abide by the terms of the agreement. Thats the best way for Iran to
make sure that the European Union and the United Nations terminate their sanctions and, along the way, deepen divisions
between Washington and its major allies. So, lets put this issue into context. Congressional rejection of the Iran deal wont
be pretty. While it might convince the President to seek a better deal to win legislative support, we shouldnt delude
ourselves into thinking that we can just go back to square one with negotiations or that we can keep the current sanctions
regime in place as if the past two years of diplomacy never happened. We will be in a different place, much grayer than
that messiness is a far cry from war . In my view, the only war that may
before. But
ensue from a Congressional vote of disapproval is a war of words between

our legislative and executive branches, eventually adjudicated by the
Supreme Court. In other words, the worst-case scenario will be business as
usual in Washington.
1ar EXT Thumpers
Loads of thumpers
headlines lately,
1ar EXT PC Low
will Obama be
reborn.

happened?


1ar EXT PC Fake
during their second term is that they have lost control of events. This charge,

Fleisher, 1990: 13


1ar EXT Winners Win

politics.

Obama won new powers from Congress on Wednesday to bring
President
foreign policy legacy. Obamas victory on Capitol Hill, coming 12 days after House Democrats
nearly scuttled his bid for fast-track trade authority, sets the stage for his administration to complete the
multi-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, by years end. It represents a hard-won
payoff for a president who was willing to partner with his
Republican rivals and defy a majority of his party in pursuit of an accord that
aides have said will ensure that the United States maintains an economic edge over a rising China. This
looks like a big, strategic piece, said Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group, a global risk analysis
firm. Its a global strategy doctrine that will move the world in a direction that, in the long term, is useful
The intensive legislative fight waged for
for the investments of America.
to a close after the Senate voted 60-38 to grant final approval to the fast-track bill.
Also Wednesday, key House Democrats signaled that they would concede defeat and support related
legislation which they had blocked two weeks ago to stall the trade agenda that provides retraining
assistance for displaced workers. Within reach is an opportunity to shape tomorrows global economy so
that it reflects both our values and our interests, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said. [Earlier:
Trade war heating up among Democrats] The trade-promotion bill now heads to Obamas desk for his
signature. It gives the executive branch additional powers for six years and authorizes the president, and
his successor, to present trade deals to Congress for a vote on a specified timeline without lawmakers
being able to amend the terms. Although the outcome is a full-fledged victory for
Obama , the acrimony along the way has raised questions about the Democratic Partys cohesion
heading into the 2016 election cycle. Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton, who supported the
TPP as Obamas secretary of state, sought to distance herself from the pact more recently. Most Democrats
have dismissed the strategic foreign policy benefits of the trade deal, warning instead that the TPP will
cost U.S. workers jobs in traditional manufacturing industries and exacerbate the nations widening income
gap. The foreign policy establishment of the executive branch has divorced itself from the domestic
policy, said Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), who opposed the legislation. U.S. officials expect the new
authority to jump-start the final rounds of talks. Negotiators still must hammer out deals on a number of
thorny issues, including new rules on access to Japanese auto and agriculture markets. In addition to
lowering tariffs, the trade pact also aims to expand copyright and intellectual property protections and
Once negotiations are complete, the
regulate the flow of information on the Internet.
administration will have to get a final deal through another vote in
Congress, during which labor unions are certain to renew their opposition efforts. The whole process
could take six months or more and plunge the Democratic Party into further political turmoil in the middle
of a presidential campaign. The passage of the fast-track bill does not end our fight for working families,
said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who opposed the legislation.
Winners win
Obama wants to go
Franklin D. Roosevelt to score back-to-back election victories with more than 50% of the vote, Obama is in the
the White
Republicans were clearly more recalcitrant than Democrats, practically declaring war on Obama, and
conservatives

thread.
elected officials.
Why should the
polarization.
political capital
Obama's
Despite the country's struggling economy and vocal opposition to some of his policies, President
favorability rating is at an all-time high. Two-thirds feel hopeful about his leadership and six in 10
approve of the job he's doing in the White House. "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 near-unanimous 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 NBC-WSJ 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.
1ar EXT LL Thumper
Obama spoke for
outlined that he
GITMO
2ac Straight Turn F/L


Link turn

agenda

be)//twemchen

Whats ACI-NAs


of-six)//twemchen
15, three
guidelines.

While these
majority

Smith said

a consequence of

Federal
Wont pass
a) It definitely wont pass McCain, not Obama, pushes

anyway
Watson 6/30 --- news Editor for Defense One (Ben Watson, 6-30-15, Obama
Names New Envoy to Close Guantanamo, Defense One,
http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2015/06/obama-names-new-envoy-close-
guantanamo/116638/)//Jmoney
Im certainly under no illusions that this is going to be easy, Wolosky told the Miami Herald Monday. Well
before the rise of the Islamic State, or ISIS, closing Guantanamo has confounded the administration, which
right as the president and McCain have
has encountered no shortage of critics on Capitol Hill. But
taken renewed steps to close the facility, the circumstances have
changed , the world is blowing up around us, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R.-S.C., said in
January, adding, There is no appetite to close Guantanamo Bay. And while

Obama is enjoying his highest approval rating in two years, a recent
Defense One and Government Business Council poll of senior defense workers and troops found
only 24 percent supported closing Guantanamo. And as recently as January,
nearly half the country opposed closing the prison in the next several years.
b) Wont pass even if Obama pushes
Gerstein 15 --- White House reporter for politico (Josh Gerstein, 1/12/15,
even in legacy mode, Obamas unlikely to close gitmo, POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/white-house-guantanamo-bay-prison-
114170.html)//Jmoney
Obama is moving aggressively to shrink the prison population at
President Barack
Guantnamo, whittling the number of detainees nearly in half since he took office. But his drive to
close the offshore prison before he leaves office in two years faces
very long odds . Among the obstacles: existing law limits transfers, the new Congress seems
even more hostile to loosening those restrictions than the previous one , and the
presidents plan to bring some prisoners to the U.S. for open-ended detention faces resistance from both the right and the
A terrorism threat that once seemed to be fading has reared up
left. And thats not all.
again, with gains by groups like the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and last weeks attack
on a Paris newspaper stoking fears that released prisoners could return to the fight. So, while Obama has
defied Congress in recent months on issues like immigration and the
environment, and he has stepped up efforts to transfer prisoners overseas moving a flurry of 21 abroad since
mid-November its far from clear that hell succeed in closing the base. Thats
because just chipping away at the numbers wont do it. How close you are to
closing the facility is not now and never has been a function of the number of
people held, said Ben Wittes of the Brookings Institution. The group of people who are
moving out now have been cleared for transfer for a long time . Not until theyre
making disposition decisions for people who have not been cleared for transfer for five years is it that youre going to
convince me that were in some game-changing Guantnamo moment. Administration officials say their strategy is to
keep cutting the number of prisoners, which started at 242 when Obama was sworn in and now stands at 127. When the
tally drops below 100 and perhaps even as low as a few dozen, officials say, the cost per prisoner will zoom so high that
keeping the facility open will be transparently foolish and lawmakers will abandon their resistance to closing the island jail.
I think the facts and the logic will be very compelling, once we get it down to a small core, said Cliff Sloan, who stepped
down last year after 18 months as the State Department envoy for Guantnamo closure. I think the case becomes
overwhelming for them to be able to be moved to the U.S. and placed in very secure facilities. One proponent of closing
the facility said the recent flurry of transfers helps demonstrate that releasing prisoners doesnt unleash chaos. I do think
there is value in creating momentum and the demonstration effect of we do this and the sky is not falling, said Elisa
Massimino of Human Rights First. Several sources also said that in private meetings in recent months Obama has
personally and emphatically underscored his commitment to get the Guantnamo prison closed before he leaves office.
One of his first acts on his first day was to order his new administration to close the facility, established by President
George W. Bush to hold suspected terrorists in a location outside the legal protections of the U.S. judicial system. Its
continued operation not only continues to draw criticism from allies and human rights advocates, but also threatens to
tarnish Obamas legacy. Nobody should underestimate the determination of the president to close Guantnamo in his
In an interview last month, Obama
presidency, Sloan said. He feels very strongly about it.
stopped short of vowing to shut the prison by the time he leaves office, but
he insisted that he would do what he could to make that happen. Im going to be
doing everything I can to close it, he told CNN. It is something that continues to inspire jihadists and extremists around
the world, the fact that these folks are being held. It is contrary to our values and it is wildly expensive. Were spending
millions for each individual there. Some Guantnamo closure advocates and administration officials say theyre optimistic
that the new Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, John McCain of Arizona, could help ease the current
restrictions. During the 2008 presidential campaign, he favored closing Guantnamo a stance that lulled Obama and his
aides into believing it could happen within a year. However, McCain told POLITICO his key concern at the moment is that
released detainees not join up again with Islamic militant groups. I want to see a plan. I dont want to see a situation
[where] 30 percent of those released re-entered the fight, McCain said last week. Theyre going to release lots more. Of
course, thats their plan, to release as many as they can, in fact to the point where it costs X million for Y number of
detainees. Some observers sayits simply illogical to expect the current Republican-
dominated Congress to be more open to closure. And within hours of the new
Congress being sworn in, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) made their point, announcing
plans to pursue legislation that would essentially halt transfers of high-risk
detainees. If Obama couldnt win over Congress on this issue when
the Democrats controlled one house, how much more likely is it hell be
able to win over Congress when the Republicans control both houses? asked
detainee lawyer David Remes. A Republican the White House once counted as an ally in
the Guantnamo closure fight is already mocking the administrations
suggestion that costs should spur debate. I tell you whatever money we spend
to keep a terrorist off the battlefield is money well spent, Sen. Lindsey
Graham (R-S.C.) said. I cant wait to debate somebody who thinks we cant afford to keep a committed
jihadist in jail. At the moment, the administration is not publicly arguing that detainees be released in order to save
money, simply that it would be cheaper to house prisoners in the U.S. But many in the GOP believe the White House is
shipping prisoners out of Guantnamo so that costs per prisoner appear to rise sharply. Graham and other critics also said
the White House drive to shut the prison is ill-timed, given advances terrorist
groups, particularly Islamic State, have made in recent months. ISIS is a Guantnamo
detainees worst nightmare, Cully Stimson, a top Defense Department detainee official during the George
W. Bush administration who now works at the Heritage Foundation, said, using an acronym for Islamic State. It
means further scrutiny and further review of all potential future transfers.
The situation on both sides of Capitol Hill also looks grim for closure
supporters. By 230-184, the House cast a largely party-line vote last year
to put a one-year halt on all transfers out of Guantnamo, a measure stripped
out in talks with the Democratic-controlled Senate . Republicans now have 12 more House
seats than they did last year and have gained a majority in the Senate. New Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has
long opposed bringing Guantnamo prisoners to the U.S. and played a key role in mustering congressional opposition to
Obamas first-year plans to shutter it. Mitch McConnell, back in 2009, was the one who got the whole thing rolling, said
Chris Anders, a legislative liaison for the American Civil Liberties Union. The challenges Obama
faces in closing Guantnamo arent limited to conservatives or even
to Democrats fearful of Republican attacks on the issue. Many of the
most strident backers of closing the prison approve of transferring prisoners
to other countries but strongly oppose bringing them to the U.S. for detention
without putting them on trial. The problem is not where the detention without charge or trial is
happening its the fact that its happening at all, whether its in Guantnamo or Kansas, said Laura Pitter of Human
Rights Watch. Several civil liberties and human rights groups have declared that they would rather see Guantnamo
remain open than have the government detain prisoners without trial on U.S. soil. Bringing the practice of indefinite
detention without charge or trial to any location within the United States will further harm the rule of law and adherence
to the Constitution, the ACLU, Amnesty International and others told Congress in 2010. Its
always been
something of a half-baked idea to bring [detainees] here without charge or
trial, Anders said. They keep proposing that and when everything gets
rejected the administration acts surprised Congress didnt go along.
2ac F/L
This disad makes me want to cry
First of all, the whole uniqueness article is about how

Obama hired some random Polish dude to push Gitmo for
him
President Barack Obama named former National Security Council official Lee Wolosky as his new
special envoy for Guantanamo closure at the State Department, filling a key
post in the administrations bid to shut down the controversial prison by
moving its remaining detainees to foreign countries and the U.S. mainland.
Wolosky will assume lead responsibility for arranging for the transfer of Guantanamos remaining
116 detainees, Secretary of State John Kerry said Tuesday. Woloskys arrival gives the White House
added firepower in its bid with Congress to close the prison before the end of
Obamas second term. Thats an accomplishment fewincluding Defense Secretary Ash Carterexpect will
happen. But last month, Carter and the White Houses chief counterterrorism official, Lisa Monaco,
promised Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, R.-Ariz., a closure plan is coming
soon. Wolosky, 46, now fills the void left by Clifford Sloan, who stepped down in January after nearly 18 months on the
job. He will work closely with Paul Lewis, who holds the counterpart job at the Defense Department. Wolosky, a 1995
graduate of Harvard Law School, was the National Security Councils director of transnational threats for Presidents Bill
Clinton and, briefly, the George W. Bush administration. He left in 2001. Later, Bloomberg in 2013 called his New York law
firm a network of influential Democrats built during his career in counterterrorism, foreign policy and law, including
former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Secretary of State John Kerry,
who brought Wolosky on as his counterterrorism policy advisor during the 2004 presidential campaign. (Related: SPECIAL
REPORT: Beyond Guantanamo) After reporting the administration was planning a transfer of up to 10 detainees in June,
Defense One was first to report on June 12 that six detainees were en route to Oman, the first prisoners to leave
Guantanamo since January. Of the 116 detainees currently held at the prison, 51 are still waiting to be transferred.
Wolosky will inherit the diplomatic effort behind moving each detainee, while
Lewis will continue to work on the security concerns that follow them.
By the way, so is the only other card in the neg section

Condon 7/1 --- (Stephanie Condon, 7/1/15, Obama administration appoints
new Guantanamo Bay Envoy, CBS News,
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-administration-appoints-new-
guantanamo-bay-envoy/
Obama administration has finally found someone to serve as
After a six-month vacancy, the
the State Department's Special Envoy for Guantanamo Closure. Attorney Lee
Wolosky will be charged with the difficult task of facilitating the closure of the
controversial, Pentagon-run prison.
Seriously, this is the best they could do? It definitely
wont pass or McCain will just do it



Federal
both groups can and do cite federal law in support of their position. Still, there is little doubt that
Link turn

agenda
be)//twemchen

Whats ACI-NAs


of-six)//twemchen
15, three
guidelines.

While these
So many things thump overtime pay, gun safety, justice

system reform, transportation, and the Cuba scenario
Fiat means Obama pushes the plan
The plans a win for Obama

President Barack

the "main sticking point" in achieving greater intelligence

frustration at US espionage, saying
cooperation "is the US desire to continue spying on France". But US officials


Regardless of who pushes the plan, the GOPs defeat

causes a party fracture this causes passage



Whatever happens on

know.
AT Losers Lose
DAs and CPs






Whatever happens on

know.
1ar AT Losers Lose
surveillance
the president
somehow good news.
1ar EXT No Congress
Lexis)//twemchen
1ar EXT Wont Pass
Well just keep reading their cards back definitely wont
pass even the Defense Secretary agrees
Condon 7/1 --- (Stephanie Condon, 7/1/15, Obama administration appoints
new Guantanamo Bay Envoy, CBS News,
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-administration-appoints-new-
guantanamo-bay-envoy/
Obama has said since the first day of his presidency that he intends to
President
close the Guantanamo Bay prison, but the task has proven to be much more
difficult than he anticipated. Last week, Defense Secretary Ash Carter told CBS Newsthat he
was not confident that he could close the prison before Mr. Obama
leaves office.
Wont pass even if Obama spends capital

President Barack
always been
Wont pass --- Detainees seen as terrorists

Howell 6/16 --- politics reporter for the Washington Times (Tom Howell Jr., 6/16/15, House GOP votes to keep
checks on Obamas power to transfer Gitmo detainees, The Washington Times,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/16/obamas-guantanamo-transfer-power-detainees-rejecte/)//Jmoney
House Republicans beat back an effort Tuesday to remove parts of an

intelligence bill that would prohibit the use of funds to transfer detainees
from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and make it harder for the administration to
house the suspected terrorists on U.S. soil. Rep. Adam B. Schiff, a California Democrat who sits on the
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, pushed to unshackle the White House, saying he couldnt support the
overarching bill to authorize funding for the National Security Agency, CIA, FBI and other intelligence agencies unless the
Guantanamo measures were removed. Keeping Guantanamo prison open serves as a recruitment tool for militants, he
amendment
said. It undercuts our relationships with our allies and undermines our international standing. But his
failed on a 246-176 vote after Republicans said they were putting national
priorities first and keeping America safe from people who dont like us. Im
sorry, Boko Haram and other do not hate us only because of the prison , said Rep.
Doug Collins, Georgia Republican, referring to an extremist group that has been plaguing West Africa. They hate
use because were free. They hate us because we have an society that is open. He noted there were
no detainees at Guantanamo when terrorists rammed planes into the World
Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. Rep. Alcee Hastings, Florida Democrat, said while terrorist groups would still
attract recruits, a shuttered Guantanamo would be one less arrow in their quiver. For years, Mr. Obama has pushed to
close the prison by working with foreign nations to transfer detainees while putting security measures in place to mitigate
their threat. Operating this facility weakens our national security by draining resources, damaging our relationships with
key allies and partners, and emboldening violent extremists, the White House said in its veto threat to the intelligence
bill. Rather than taking steps to bring this chapter of our history to a close, as the President has repeatedly called upon
Boehner, Ohio Republican, and others
Congress to do, this bill aims to extend it. House Speaker John A.
have accused the administration of transferring prisoners tied to terrorist
groups, including six who were sent to Oman in recent days, with little oversight. The
administration should be honest with the American people regarding the
detainees terrorist affiliations and activities and about what steps are being taken to prevent their return
to terrorism, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire Republican, said after the Oman transfer.
Wont pass-lawmakers are afraid detainees will go back to

terrorism
Perticone 6/23 --- political reporter for IJ Review (Joe Perticone, 6/23/15, Gitmo detainees have been
returning to terrorism-now these congressmen are trying to stop it, IJReview, http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/353328-
preventing-guantanamo-bay-detainees-from-reengaging-in-battle/)//Jmoney
The Guantnamo Bay Naval Station is a 45 square mile base that opened in Cuba in 1903. After the September 11th
terrorist attacks, President George W. 3s to eliminate the law that prevents detainees from being transferred to facilities
inside the U.S.
Obama doesnt have a real plan to close Gitmo

Rogers 6/8 --- Alex Rogers covers Congress as a staff correspondent for National Journal. He previously worked
as a political reporter at TIME (Alex Rogers, 6/8/15, Rand Pauls Off GOP Message Again, This Time on Gitmo,
NationalJournal, http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/rand-paul-s-off-gop-message-again-this-time-on-gitmo-
20150608)//Jmoney
Two presidents have talked about closing Guantanamo. Yet the prison
remains open, largely because neither the Obama nor the Bush administrations have been able
to lay out a plan for dealing with the prisoners deemed too dangerous to
release but impossible to prosecute. Sen. John McCain, the GOP's 2008 nominee and now
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is leading the annual defense authorization
bill and has dangled before Obama a provision that would authorize the
president to close Gitmo so long as Congress gets to approve his plan . McCain,
who was tortured as a prisoner of war, says he supports shuttering Gitmo because it has become a worldwide symbol of
abuse. But he's criticized Obama for not coming up with a viable plan. "For over
six years, the administration has stated that one of its highest policy priorities
is to close the detention facility at Guantanamo, but for that same period of
time members of the Senate have repeatedly requested a plan that explains
how the administration will handle the detainees held there," McCain said on the
Senate floor Monday. "Unfortunately the administration has consistently failed to provide
that plan.">
1ar EXT Thumpers
Loads of thumpers
headlines lately,
1ar EXT PC Low
will Obama be
reborn.

happened?


1ar EXT PC Fake
during their second term is that they have lost control of events . This charge,

Fleisher, 1990: 13


1ar EXT Winners Win

politics.

President Obama won new powers from Congress on Wednesday to bring
foreign policy legacy. Obamas victory on Capitol Hill, coming 12 days after
House Democrats nearly scuttled his bid for fast-track trade authority, sets
the stage for his administration to complete the multi-nation Trans-Pacific
Partnership, or TPP, by years end. It represents a hard-won payoff for a
president who was willing to partner with his Republican rivals and
defy a majority of his party in pursuit of an accord that aides have said
will ensure that the United States maintains an economic edge over a rising
China. This looks like a big, strategic piece, said Ian Bremmer, president of
the Eurasia Group, a global risk analysis firm. Its a global strategy doctrine
that will move the world in a direction that, in the long term, is useful for the
investments of America. The intensive legislative fight waged for
to a close after the Senate voted 60-38 to grant final approval to the
fast-track bill. Also Wednesday, key House Democrats signaled that they
would concede defeat and support related legislation which they had
blocked two weeks ago to stall the trade agenda that provides retraining
assistance for displaced workers. Within reach is an opportunity to shape
tomorrows global economy so that it reflects both our values and our
interests, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said. [Earlier: Trade war
heating up among Democrats] The trade-promotion bill now heads to
Obamas desk for his signature. It gives the executive branch additional
powers for six years and authorizes the president, and his successor, to
present trade deals to Congress for a vote on a specified timeline without
lawmakers being able to amend the terms. Although the outcome is a full-
fledged victory for Obama , the acrimony along the way has raised
questions about the Democratic Partys cohesion heading into the 2016
election cycle. Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton, who
supported the TPP as Obamas secretary of state, sought to distance herself
from the pact more recently. Most Democrats have dismissed the strategic
foreign policy benefits of the trade deal, warning instead that the TPP will
cost U.S. workers jobs in traditional manufacturing industries and exacerbate
the nations widening income gap. The foreign policy establishment of the
executive branch has divorced itself from the domestic policy, said Rep.
Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), who opposed the legislation. U.S. officials expect the new authority
to jump-start the final rounds of talks. Negotiators still must hammer out deals on a number of thorny issues, including
new rules on access to Japanese auto and agriculture markets. In addition to lowering tariffs, the trade pact also aims to
and regulate the flow of information on
expand copyright and intellectual property protections
the Internet. Once negotiations are complete, the administration will
have to get a final deal through another vote in Congress, during
which labor unions are certain to renew their opposition efforts. The whole
process could take six months or more and plunge the Democratic Party into
further political turmoil in the middle of a presidential campaign. The passage
of the fast-track bill does not end our fight for working families, said House
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who opposed the legislation.
Winners win
On the eve of his second inaugural, President Obama appears smarter, tougher and
Obama wants to go
the White
conservatives

thread.

elected officials.
Why should the
polarization.
political capital
Despite the country's struggling economy and vocal opposition to some of his
Obama's favorability rating is at an all-time high. Two-thirds feel hopeful

policies, President
about his leadership and six in 10 approve of the job he's doing in the White House. "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
near-unanimous 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 NBC-WSJ 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.
1ar EXT Iran Thump
appears-elusive/NV
The White House
Weve come to the end, an Iranian official told Reuters on Tuesday. Either it happens in the next 48 hours
or not.The stakes are high for Obama. Along with his bid to re-

dramatic fashion in the last two weeks. Thats always been his No. 1 priority, said

he said the aim of
Administration officials told The Wall Street Journal Monday that they hope a successful Iran deal could open
Obama is
the door to resolving lingering conflicts in Syria and Yemen, where Iran is involved. But
demanded anytime, anywhere inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities. But those conditions are unlikely to
be met, making it tougher for the administration to prevent a veto-proof majority from voting to disapprove
of a deal, if one is reached.Complicating that effort further is the fact that a
deal is unlikely to be reached by Thursday, when the congressional
review period doubles from 30 days to 60 days. That could allow
opposition to build. Republicans were emboldened in their calls for
Obama to walk away from the talks following Tuesdays extension. The stakes
are too high for this diplomatic charade to continue, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-
Fla.), a 2016 presidential candidate, said in a statement. Iranian leaders continue to walk back previous
commitments, even as they actively sponsor terrorism, pursue regional domination and hold American
At the same time, Obama seems to understand the risks
citizens hostage.
failure could pose to his legacy. Look, 20 years from now, Im still going to be around,
God willing. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, its my name on this, he told The Atlantic in May. Obama is
closely following the talks, receiving updates from national security adviser Susan Rice and other aides
multiple times daily, Earnest said. There are major risks for Iran too. The regime in Tehran desperately
wants relief from international sanctions related to its nuclear program, which have crippled the countrys
economy. Sanctions caused its gross domestic product to shrink by 5 percent in 2013, and its economy has
recovered only slightly since an interim agreement was reached that year. Despite the delay, Jeffrey
believes Obama is in a strong position heading into the final stretch of the talks. He predicted the
presidents legacy would not be hurt if, at this point, a deal falls
through because Iranian intransigence. By taking a tough position at the talks to the
point where well walk out or the Iranians will have to walk out were basically making it clear to the
Iranians that we cant be pushed around, he said. That we are deadly serious in this process.
1ar EXT LL Thumper
Obama spoke for
outlined that he

Complicating
enforcement bill.
1ar EXT TI Thumper
Infrastructure bill thumps --- its a priority for Obama
Laing 6/30 --- Reporter at The Hill (Keith Lang, 6/30/15, Obama: Road
funding could be late-term achievement, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/246554-obama-boosting-road-funding-
a-possible-late-term-achievement)//Jmoney
Obama on Tuesday listed boosting the nation's infrastructure funding as an
President
area where progress is possible before he leaves office in 2017. Asked during a joint
press conference with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff about legislation he plans to pursue during his final months in
the White House, Obama identified a long-term transportation bill as a

priority . "I want to see if we can get bipartisan work done with Congress
around rebuilding our infrastructure," he said. "Brazil just talked about their rebuilding of highways
and roads and ports and bridges. You know what? We've got the same work to do and we need to put people
back to work there." Lawmakers face a July 31 deadline for the expiration of the
current infrastructure measure, and are struggling to come up with a way to pay for even an extension
that would keep the spending levels flat past this summer. Obama has proposed a $478 billion
transportation bill that he says would cover six years worth of infrastructure
projects. The administration has proposed paying for the measure by taxing
corporate profits that are stored overseas through a process that is known as
"repatriation." The proposal is an effort to address a transportation funding
shortfall that is estimated to be about $16 billion per year. The federal government
typically spends about $50 billion per year on transportation projects, but the gas tax only brings in approximately $34
billion annually. Congress has been grappling with the deficit for a decade, but they have not passed a transportation bill
that lasts longer than two years in that span.
Infrastructure thumps the link --- there will be a fight over

how to fund it
Bolton 6/28 --- News Reporter for The Hill (Alexander Bolton, 6/28/15,
Looming highway debate stirs tax fight, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/246354-looming-highway-debate-stirs-
tax-fight)//Jmoney
A fight over raising taxes has bloomed as the chief obstacle to

passing a desperately needed multi-year transportation bill by the
end of next month, raising the specter of a possible shutdown of
highway programs . Senate Finance Committee Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who is tasked with finding a way to
pay for a multi-year deal, has ruled out the prospect of raising taxes, putting him on a collision course with Democrats.
Senate Democratic leaders have called for a six-year, $478 billion transportation bill paid largely by taxing overseas
corporate profits. They warn it would be "very hard" for them to accept another short-term extension of highway funds
after having done so 33 times. A bipartisan group of senators, including Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Sen. Barbara Boxer (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the panel, have proposed a less
ambition six-year, $275 billion highway bill. But Inhofe and Boxer are leaving it up to the Finance Committee to find a way
to pay for a $90 billion funding shortfall not covered by federal gasoline and diesel taxes. Lawmakers will have four weeks
to solve the impasse before the Highway Trust Fund runs out of money on July 31. The battle over tax
increases will return to the forefront when lawmakers get back from the
Fourth of July recess, now that the trade debate which consumed May and June is
finally over. We hope we can get the highway bill done before the end of July, Hatch told reporters but he
identified the funding shortfall as a major obstacle. He says a three- or four-year transportation bill is more realistic than
the six-year proposals put forth by the president and Senate colleagues. I know one thing. Its pretty tough to go six
years. Six years is $92 to $94 billion, he said. I hope its a multi-year, thats all I can say, and Im going to make it as
long as we can, he added.Senate Democratic leaders are pushing the six-year
transportation plan included in President Obamas budget, which calls for $317 billion in
spending on roads and $143 billion on federal transit projects. They want to pay for it by requiring
U.S. corporations to repatriate overseas profits at a 14 percent tax rate , which
would raise $238 billion in revenue, and tax future foreign earnings at 19 percent. We're asking them for their proposal.
Here's ours, what's yours? Let's not wait to get to that deadline again and do a short- term funding plan number 34, said
New York Sen. Charles Schumer, who is leading the Democratic messaging strategy in the transportation fight. Senate
Democratic leaders say the six-year, $275 billion bill sponsored by Inhofe and Boxer, which the Environment and Public
Works Committee passed last week, does not go far enough. It's a step in the right direction because it's long term and it
does increase funding, but not by enough to meet our needs and what Democrats would prefer, said a Democratic
Republicans
leadership aide. Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Tom Carper (D-Del.) are cosponsors of the measure.
want to pass a multi-year transportation bill, but a schism has emerged
within their conference over the thorny question of whether they should raise
some taxes to pay for it. Republican Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.) has called for increasing federal taxes on
gasoline and diesel by 12 cents over two years and indexing it to inflation. The gas tax now stands at 18.4 cents per
gallon while the tax on diesel is 24.4 cents per gallon. Inhofe and Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-
S.D.) have not ruled out increasing the gas tax. John Thune made the statement that nothing is off the table, and I
agree with his statement, Inhofe told reporters earlier this year. The Commerce panel is responsible for about $1 billion a
But any proposal to raise taxes would
year of the infrastructure budget, according to a Senate aide.
pick a fight with the conservative base led by Grover Norquist, the president
of Americans for Tax Reform. Norquist said Congress would have more funding for highway construction
projects if it wipes out the federal requirement established by the Davis-Bacon Act to pay local prevailing wages. "There is
zero chance the Republican House and Senate will increase taxes. Highway spending is 25% above what is needed due to
Davis-Bacon prevailing wage law. eliminate that and your funding problem disappears, he said in a statement to The
Hill. No need to raise taxes. This was tried in Michigan and Massachusetts and defeated by a vote of the people," he
added. So far, Hatch is siding with Norquist and other anti-tax conservatives. Were not willing to raise taxes, he said.
Democrats believe,
Im willing to look at everything but were not going to raise taxes to get there.
however, that House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.)
has signaled interest in paying for a multi-year transportation bill with
corporate tax reform. Lots of other Republicans, including Paul Ryan, think
international tax reforms that raise revenues are a good way to go.
Democrats agree, said a senior Democratic aide. Ryan has opposed paying for increased
transportation funding by taxing overseas profits because he wants to use the reservoir of funding for a broader tax
reform initiative. Earlier this month he downplayed the likelihood of a major tax reform package passing Congress this
year. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said last month he is exploring options to pay for a multiyear
infrastructure bill and acknowledged it would need to be partly funded with revenue increases.
Cuba
2ac Strait Turn F/L


Link turn

agenda

be)//twemchen

Whats ACI-NAs


of-six)//twemchen
15, three
guidelines.

While these
majority

Smith said

a consequence of

Federal
Wont pass
a) It definitely wont pass McCain, not Obama, pushes

anyway

b) Wont pass even if Obama pushes
President Barack
always been
2ac LA Rels
<impact defense>
Both the embargo and embassies wont pass

Nachemson 7/1 Andrew Nachemson, staff writer for the Washington
Times, Embargo remains major hurdle in U.S.-Cuba thaw, July 1, 2015, The
Washington Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/1/cuba-
embargo-remains-hurdle-in-us-cuba-thaw/?page=all/NV
The embassies may be reopening, but the embargo will take a lot
longer to come down . President Obama paired the announcement of
renewed diplomatic ties with Havana at the White House Wednesday
with a call for Congress to end the economic embargo , but U.S. business groups
anxious to crack the Cuban market say its already clear the economic track will lag behind the political one for the
president. Cuban President Raul Castro underscored the point himself Wednesday. There could be no normal relations
between Cuba and the United States as long as the economic, commercial and financial blockade continues to be fully
But, without the approval of Congress, Obama
implemented, Mr. Castro said.
cannot lift the economic embargo currently levied against Cuba.
Many in Congress, both Republican and Democrat, are opposed to
restoring diplomatic ties with the Communist island nation. The dissenters cite the
Cuban governments human rights violations, harboring of American
fugitives, and seizure of American-owned property without
compensation. Even the presidents embassy move is in jeopardy ,
as Congress must approve any public spending on the American
embassy in Havana. Public opinion, on the other hand, seems to be embracing the changes. According to a
survey conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, two in three Americans support ending the trade embargo.

No link Congress doesnt do oversight
Berman 3 President of the Center for Democracy and Technology (Jerry
Berman, 7/22/3, THE TERRORIST THREAT INTEGRATION CENTER AND ITS
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DEPARTMENTS OF JUSTICE AND HOMELAND
SECURITY, Federal News Service, Lexis)//twemchen
The issues that Congress has raised about the Total Information Awareness research program and stopped
funding for. And very important that the privacy questions haven't been asked, but I think that's a research
program. What we have are ongoing programs of data mining and data collection, FBI, TSA
and so forth, without Congress coming together and exercising significant sufficient
oversight over -- under what guideline circumstances standards are doing it, and please would you
please make those public so we can discuss them.
Aviation doesnt link only a chance hell take credit

Federal
Link turn

agenda

be)//twemchen

Whats ACI-NAs


of-six)//twemchen
15, three
guidelines.

While these
Alt causes to Latin America relations

Chenghao 7/6 --- assistant research fellow at the Institute of American
Studies at China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations Sun
Chenghao, U.S.-Cuba relations: What should we expect next? July 7, 2015,
CCTV.com,
http://english.cntv.cn/2015/07/06/ARTI1436162187226651.shtml/NV
the Cuban government and its citizens remain suspicious of the U.S.
Additionally,
The two countries haven't reached a consensus on immigration , human
rights , free passage of diplomatic personnel , the issue of returning Guantnamo ,

and compensation of sanction loss, and hence the normalization process will be long
and complicated . Cuba harbors doubts that the U.S. "approach is in
good will " but an attempt to export western values or to seek regime change.
Also, the embargos an alt cause. They have no ev that it

will be lifted now or that embassies are key to relations.
This tanks the DA even if they win relations with Cuba,
they cant solve Latin America.
Inter-American Dialogue 12 Inter-American Dialogue, the center for
policy analysis and communication on Western Hemisphere Affairs,
Remaking the Relationship The United States and Latin America, April,
2012,
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf/NV
Cuba, too, poses a significant challenge for relations between the
United States and Latin America. The 50-year-old US embargo against Cuba is
rightly criticized throughout the hemisphere as a failed and punitive
instrument. It has long been a strain on US-Latin American relations.
Although the United States has recently moved in the right direction and taken steps to relax restrictions on travel to
Cuba, Washington needs to do far more to dismantle its severe,
outdated constraints on normalized relations with Cuba. Cuba is one of
the residual issues that most obstructs more effective US-Latin American
engagement.
Loads of thumpers
headlines lately,
DAs and CPs

President Barack

frustration at US espionage, saying the "main sticking point" in achieving greater intelligence
"is the US desire to continue spying on France". But US officials
cooperation

concept," says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. " You can't really look at a



Grassroots lobbies push Cuba not Obama

Levy 7/2 --- Lecturer and Doctoral Candidate, University of Denver (Arturo
Lopez, Embassies in Havana and Washington: A Victory of Diplomacy and
Democracy, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arturo-lopez-levy/embassies-in-
havana-and-washington-a-victory-of-diplomacy-and-
democracy_b_7708898.html, JMP)
The U.S.-Cuba opening of December 17 was not the product
Let's get history straight.
of a few "Johnny come lately" businessmen and lobbyists who recently joined the anti-embargo
cause. It was the victory of the Cuban people's nationalist resistance against five
decades of an embargo that still is counterproductive, immoral and illegal according to international law. In 1996, the
lawyers of the State Department warned Secretary Warren Christopher that the Helms-Burton law would be damaging to
U.S relations with its allies, its standing in international law and the promotion of democracy in Cuba. Together with the
Cuban nationalists, there were multiple constituencies in the United States winning the
grassroots battle for a change of policy since the 1990s. Particular mention deserves the religious groups of
the National Council of Churches, the Black Congressional Caucus, the American left and the
Cuban American moderates and progressives who took their cause into the heart of misinformed
constituencies indoctrinated in the vision of Cuba as a U.S. national security threat. Cuban-Americans like Carlos Muniz
and Luciano Nieves paid for their devotion to good relations between the two countries with their life. After the end of the
Clinton Administration, the pro-embargo position went on retreat among libertarians, farmers and business groups in
general. The processes of economic reform and political liberalization launched by Raul Castro's government since 2009
opened the appetites of the American business community. By 2014 politics began to align with a long overdue policy
change serving U.S. national interest.





Whatever happens on

know.
AT China
Cuba embassies do literally nothing about this despite
their symbolic impact, they dont change the economics of
Chinas SOI
a) Brazil
Cerna 11 Michael Cerna, a graduate student in International Policy
Management at Kennesaw State University, Chinas Growing Presence in
Latin America: Implications for U.S. and Chinese Presence in the Region,
April 15, 2011, China Research Center,
http://www.chinacenter.net/author/michael-cerna/NV
With both the U.S. and China jockeying for influence in a world
where political power relations are changing, Latin America has the
most to gain. The primary concern for the region is that it does not become a battle ground for a neo-Cold War
between China and the U.S. Brazil already has clearly stated its concerns regarding Chinese influence. Yet, despite this
Brazil is now too reliant on China to turn away from the path on
tension,
which Lula set the country. Agricultural exports to China are crucial
to Brazils economy. Lulas Brazil supported China politically and
made clear moves away from the United States. Now Rouseffs administration has
welcomed Barack Obama with open arms. With all three major actors going through stages that could influence the global
economic and political landscape China implementing its 12th five-year plan, Brazil cementing itself as a prominent
the U.S. still recovering from a terrible financial crisis
world player and
this dynamic relationship is one that deserves close attention from
all those concerned with the future of China-U.S. relations. Where Brazil and
the rest of Latin America were once looking for an alternative to U.S. influence and found China, the region may now be
looking to the U.S. to strike a balance with growing Chinese influence. With the global ambitions of Latin America, namely
Brazil, it is essential to maintain close ties with both the United States and China. The world will be watching.
b) Venezuela
Fontevecchia 15 Agustino Fontevecchia, Staff Writer for Forbes, Obama Is
Using Cuba To Counter Russia, Iran, And China's Growing Influence In Latin
America, April 16, 2015, Forbes,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2015/04/16/obama-is-using-cuba-
to-counter-russia-iran-and-chinas-growing-influence-in-latin-america/NV
Maduros government (based on the legacy of the late Hugo Chvez), has
In Venezuela,
continued the policies of the previous administration by strengthening ties with
Russia, China, and Iran, in opposition to US influence. An example of this has
been Venezuelas growing oil exports to the Asian giant, going from
50,000 barrels per day in 2006 to roughly 600,000 barrels per day sent
to China in 2014. These growing exports have been part of a wider strategy aimed at reducing dependency on exports to
the United States, as well as being used to back loans provided by China that now exceed $56 billion. China has also
expanded its investments in Venezuela by acquiring and developing a plethora of companies, along with the signing of
large military contracts to provide Venezuelan armed forces with aircraft, radars, armored vehicles, and helicopters.
c) Argentina, Brazil, and Ecuador
Fontevecchia 15 Agustino Fontevecchia, Staff Writer for Forbes, Obama Is
Using Cuba To Counter Russia, Iran, And China's Growing Influence In Latin
America, April 16, 2015, Forbes,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2015/04/16/obama-is-using-cuba-
to-counter-russia-iran-and-chinas-growing-influence-in-latin-america/NV
After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, US foreign policy shifted and gave
little to no priority to the Americas with the exception of countries like Mexico and Canada, and
neighboring sub regions such as Central America and the Caribbean. Since then, South America
saw the fast rise of left-leaning governments, anti-American rhetoric
and integration initiatives that emphasized the exclusion of the US
from regional policymaking. Almost a decade and a half later, we see
how US withdrawal from the region allowed for the growing
presence of other international actors such as Russia, China, and even Iran. Russia
positioned itself closely with the countries with the most radicalized anti-imperialist discourse, becoming an investor in the
China on the other hand went further: It focused on
energy sector and a military equipment provider.
commercial ties with the region, actively investing in South-
American countries, selling manufactured goods of all sorts,
purchasing commodities, selling weapons systems, and even
becoming the de facto banker of governments with which it
developed close relationships such as Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil
and Ecuador. Overall, Latin-American countries received $22 billion in Chinese loans in 2014 alone, taking the
total since 2005 to $119 billion. Cuban President Raul Castro gave an historic joint conference with Barack Obama at the
Summit of the Americas in Panama AFP PHOTO/MANDEL NGAN (Photo credit should read MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty
Argentina provides a prime example of increasing
Images) In regards to commerce,
Chinese influence. In 2014, 16.5% of Argentine imports came from China, in sharp contrast to the 3.4% it
bought in 1994. Since 2010, China has been the second largest exporter to Latin
America behind the US, but ahead of the European Union. This rising
presence and influence of China in what the US has historically
considered its own back-yard worried the Obama Administrations
decision makers, leading them to seek a new strategy to reengage with countries in South America as part of a broader
global strategy that applied smart power.
Plan solves China war

GMA News 13 (11/1, China Demands Explanation From US Over Spying
Programs,
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/333572/news/world/china-demands-
us-explanation-over-spying-row)/cc
China has demanded the United States provide an explanation over
its spying program amid reports that Washington's missions in the
country were involved, with state media on Friday urging the withdrawal of
American agents. The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper, amplifying an earlier report by the
German magazine Der Spiegel, said on Tuesday that a top-secret map leaked by fugitive intelligence
analyst Edward Snowden showed 90 US surveillance facilities at embassies and consulates worldwide.
The facilities in East Asia were focused on China , with centers in the
US embassy in Beijing and US consulates in the commercial hub Shanghai and Chengdu, the
capital of the southwestern province of Sichuan, it said. Hua Chunying, spokeswoman for China's Ministry
Beijing had "severe concerns" about the
of Foreign Affairs, said Thursday that
reports. "We require the US to make a clarification and give an
explanation," she told reporters at a regular briefing. "We require friendly
diplomatic missions and personnel in China to strictly abide by
international treaties... and do not engage in any activity that... may
jeopardize China's security and interests." The defense ministry said that the
revelation of the US eavesdropping program has "sounded alarm bells" in
China. "We must continue to strengthen our information security
work," ministry spokesman Yang Yujun told reporters at a briefing on Thursday. The official China Daily
on Friday urged Washington to recall its spies from the country, adding that their activities were "illegal in
nature and not covered by diplomatic immunity". "To many Americans, we are at the very best a potential
rival, if not an enemy, despite all the official rhetoric about partnership," it said in an editorial. "While the
American intelligence system is given overwhelming authority to carry out surveillance operations at home
Australian embassies were being
under the US Patriot Act, this land is China," it said.
secretly used to intercept phone calls and data across Asia as part of
the US-led global spying network, the Sydney Morning Herald said. The US-led
spying network has drawn fire from other Asian countries as the row
spreads. Indonesia-Australia Row Indonesia on Friday summoned the
Australian ambassador over the "totally unacceptable" activities.
Jakarta has also protested strongly to the United States over reports Washington had been monitoring
phone calls and communication networks from its embassy in the Indonesian capital. The Asia-Pacific
dispute comes as a major row rumbles between Washington and several European countries over the scale
and scope of US surveillance of its allies, which has seen accusations that German Chancellor Angela
Merkel's phone was monitored for more than a decade. The Herald said Australia's top secret Defence
Signals Directorate (DSD), which is at the forefront of cyber security intelligence, operates clandestine
surveillance facilities at embassies without the knowledge of most Australian diplomats. "DSD is the most
important of Australian intelligence agencies. It is involved in high-level technical cooperation with its
American counterpart, the National Security Agency," said Richard Tanter, Senior Research Associate at the
Nautilus
AT Russia
Russia not a thing
Sokolsky and Stronski 6/18 senior associates at the Russia and Eurasia
Program at the Carnegie Mosco Center (Richard Sokolsky, Paul Stronski,
6/18/15, Dont Overreact to Russia and Its Forty New Intercontinental
Ballistic Missiles, http://carnegie.ru/eurasiaoutlook/?fa=60446)//twemchen
Putins announcement that Moscow plans to add
Russian President Vladimir
to its nuclear arsenal is troubling. It
more than 40 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)
raises perceptions of Russian threats in Europe at a time when post-Cold War
East-West relations are at a historic low. The announcement is just the latest example of nuclear saber-
rattling from the Kremlin over the past yeara trend that started during an uptick in fighting in Ukraine
last August, when Putin warned that Russia is not to be messed with. Let me remind you that Russia is
one of the largest nuclear powers. In September, Russia tested a new ICBM as the Kremlin talked about
the need to maintain a nuclear deterrent. In March 2015, Putin reportedly claimed that nuclear forces were
put on standby during the Crimean annexation campaign a year earlier. Loose talk about nuclear weapons
heightens tensions, but the actual military threat these missiles pose should not be
exaggerated . Putins pronouncements have been primarily for
propaganda purposes and other Kremlin officials have tried to walk back
some of this rhetoric, likely aware that it does not play well in the West and
even in some corners of Russia itself. Extreme statements about nuclear weapons and
conflict with the West have caused concern among elements of the Russian political and intellectual elite
whipping up confrontation in Europe or the United
some of whom warn that continually
States is a dead end for Russia. Even people close to Putin seem to worry about the
consequences of his rhetoric. Reportedly within 40 minutes of Putins statement, his foreign policy advisor
Yuri Ushakov stated that Russia has no intention of launching an arms race,
underscoring that an arms race would weaken its economic capabilities. This
the Kremlins
weeks rhetoric confirms to Western ears that Russia is an unpredictable actor. But,
nuclear saber-rattling could easily be a sign of the Russian leaderships
lack of confidence in the countrys own conventional capabilities, particularly as the United
States expands its high technology and precision strike capabilities. Russian military strategists have
long feared that their conventional capabilities pale in comparison to NATOs. Some
are starting to worry about Chinas too. These ICBMs likely do not add any new nuclear capabilities to what
Russia has right now. The country is already in the middle of an ICBM modernization program, as
Septembers ICBM test shows. It is unclear whether the announcement actually includes 40 new ICBMs or
whether they are just part of the more than 50 ICBM deployments that Putin already announced for 2015
back in December. Furthermore, Russia already has a large force of tactical nuclear weapons that can
reach most targets in the Baltic states and possibly elsewhere in Central Europe. The added military value
of 40 ICBM warheads is marginal and it is unlikely they will give Moscow a capability it does not already
have. Putin claimed the missiles will be added to the arsenal this year, so it is conceivable that some, if not
all of them, were probably already in production or pre-deployment before the announcement as part of
Russias ongoing strategic force modernization program. Concern in the Western media about these
Russian plans provoking an arms race is misplaced. The United States is already in the middle of a robust
and expensive program to modernize its strategic nuclear forces and its tactical nuclear weapons posture
in Europe. Washington should therefore feel no compelling need to match
these newly announced ICBMs because it is already upgrading its capabilities to meet current
and future threats. There is also some doubt about Russias capacity to produce and
pay for these new ICBMs. Russia previously co-produced ICBMs and many of their components
with Ukraine. The Ukraine war is forcing the Russian military-industrial
complex to become fully self-reliant . Many Russian officials tout this as a positive
development. But even before the war, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who is
responsible for military production, claimed that Russias defense factories and design
bureaus were already " overworked " and " did not have time to do what
the Defense Ministry orders." A prominent example of the problems the Russian defense
industry faces is its next-generation Armata T-14 battle tank. In February, Russian Deputy Minister of
Defense Yuri Borisov publicly stated that the government miscalculated on the Armata by failing to
budget enough money to build the amount of tanks it required. They also seemed to skimp
on quality . One of the new tanks reportedly broke down during a dress rehearsal for this years May
9 Victory Day celebrations. Russias budget is severely stretched and it is unclear where it will get the
money to build additional ICBMs, as the Armata example shows. The rise in defense spending is forcing the
government to rein in spending elsewhere. The Russian government now struggles to balance military
spendingkey to the war in Ukraine and to projecting military powerwith the need to keep up social
spending on pensions, education, and other aspects of the social safety net that underwrite domestic
stability as the economy contracts. A recent poll suggested that the Russian public prioritized social
spending over the military by a wide majority; 67 percent wanted the governments first spending priority
to be raising living standards, while only 12 percent thought the first priority should be military
modernization and rearmament. So, if these ICBMs might not actually be new and if Russia might not have
the money to build them anyway, what was the purpose of the announcement? The Kremlin was likely
speaking to both international and domestic audiences. Russian officials earlier this week lashed out
against U.S. plans to station battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and other heavy weapons in Baltic and
Central European countries that border Russia. That planstill reportedly under developmentis meant to
Putins
assure NATOs easternmost allies of the alliances commitment to their defense.
announcement was likely in response to this U.S. proposal. Its goal was to
unnerve those very same allies . The announcement also could have been an attempt to
stoke discord within NATO between allies (mainly in the east) who believe that
improving NATOs ability to defend the Baltic states is the best way
to deter Russian aggression and those (mainly in the south and west) who fear provoking
Russia even further by being too aggressive either with sanctions or military preparations. The
announcement was also likely to be an attempt to achieve the Russian goal of breaking Western consensus
on how to respond to Russian aggression in Ukraine and threats elsewhere. Domestically, Russia faces
growing economic and social problems due to a combination of low oil prices, sanctions, and the Ukraine
war. This announcement highlights alleged foreign threats to Russiaa tactic frequently used to divert
attention from domestic problems. Furthermore, at least parts of the Kremlin see the military sector as a
means to grow the economy, while defense workers have long been an important Putin constituency.
Making pledges to the defense industry at an arms show outside of Moscow was possibly an attempt to
shore up the countrys image as a producer of modern armamentsimportant both to maintain its market
share in the global arms market and to reinforce perceptions of Russian strength to domestic audiences. It
would be an easy political win, particularly if these weapons were already in development. Putins
announcement is troubling mainly because of its political and
psychological impact on NATO allies. But it is no cause for alarm and the
United States and NATO should avoid an overreaction that will just play
into Putins hands .
This is ludicrous. Latin Americas not key Russia cares

way more about NATO deterrence since its on its border
and threatens its security
Plan solves EU relations
Economic Times 13 (7/8/13, EU, US set for FTA talks in shadow of spying
storm, http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-07-
08/news/40443507_1_eu-offices-fta-negotiations-transatlantic-
trade)//twemchen
The European Union and US are set to kick off long-awaited negotiations on a free trade agreement (FTA)
in Washington today despite growing demands to delay the talks until allegations of American spying on
EU officials and sweeping surveillance of citizens are cleared. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has
made a fresh appeal to stick to the road map agreed when the trade talks were formally launched at the G-
8 summit in Dublin last month and also to hold parallel discussions to investigate America's
unprecedented espionage operations, exposed by intelligence whistleblower Edward
Snowden. The trans-Atlantic negotiations to create the world's largest free trade zone should not be
dropped in the wake of the US espionage scandal and they must be carried out "well-targeted and without
putting the other issues under the table" she told an election campaign rally of her Christian Democratic
Snowden's revelations in
Union (CDU) at the weekend in the state of North Rhine Westphalia.
the past weeks that the US National Security Agency (NSA) had bugged the EU
embassies in Washington and at the U nited N ations as well as its

headquarters in Brussels and systematically collected vast amounts of internet and telephone data
of EU citizens had threatened to derail the EU-US FTA negotiations. Merkel
criticised the NSA's blanket cyber surveillance and bugging of EU offices and said they
cannot be justified with the argument that they are in the interest of
protecting Europe and its citizens against possible terrorist attacks. "Eavesdropping
among friends cannot be tolerated. The era of cold war is over ," she said. However, a "proper
balance" must be maintained between protecting citizens against terrorism and safeguarding their
personal data, she said. The European Commission confirmed at the weekend that an agreement
was reached among the EU member-nations to start the negotiations with the US on
the T ransatlantic T rade and I nvestment P artnership as planned tomorrow and to take up
parallel joint investigations into the alleged US bugging of EU offices and
snooping into the internet and telephone data. However, the discussions on the espionage scandal will be
held only in one joint working group and will be restricted to data privacy and the NSA's surveillance
programmes codenamed PRISM. EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso expressed the hope that
clarifications" on the spying allegations, which
the joint EU-US investigations will provide "sufficient
are necessary to restore mutual confidence as the two sides prepared to usher in
a new era in transatlantic cooperation . An FTA "is not just in the interest of the EU,
but it is also clearly in the interest of the US," Barroso said. German Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser
Schnarrenberger has demanded a detailed clarification from the US on the alleged NSA espionage
activities before FTA negotiations can get under way. Peer Steinbrueck, chancellor Merkel's main opponent
FTA negotiations should be
in the parliamentary election in September, has said that the
delayed until the espionage allegations are sufficiently clarified.
Solves every impact including Russia aggression

NSS 15 National Security Strategy (White House, National Security
Strategy, February 2015,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_st
rategy.pdf, //11)
Strengthen Our Enduring Alliance with Europe The United States maintains a profound commitment to a
A strong Europe is our indispensable partner,
Europe that is free, whole, and at peace.
including for tackling global security challenges , promoting
prosperity , and upholding international norms . Our work with Europe
leverages our strong and historic bilateral relationships throughout the
continent. We will steadfastly support the aspirations of countries in the Balkans and
Eastern Europe toward European and Euro-Atlantic integration, continue to transform our relationship with
Turkey, and enhance ties with countries in the Caucasus while encouraging resolution of
regional conflict. NATO is the strongest alliance the world has ever known and is the hub of an
expanding global security network. Our Article 5 commitment to the collective defense of all NATO
Members is ironclad, as is our commitment to ensuring the Alliance remains ready and capable for crisis
We will continue to deepen our relationship
response and cooperative security.
with the European Union (EU), which has helped to promote peace
and prosperity across the region, and deepen NATO-EU ties to
enhance transatlantic security. To build on the millions of jobs supported by transatlantic
trade, we support a pro-growth agenda in Europe to strengthen and
broaden the regions recovery, and we seek an ambitious T-TIP to
boost exports, support jobs, and raise global standards for trade.
Russias aggression in Ukraine makes clear that European security and the international rules and norms
against territorial aggression cannot be taken for granted. In response, we have led an international effort
to support the Ukrainian people as they choose their own future and develop their democracy and
economy. We are reassuring our allies by backing our security commitments and increasing responsiveness
through training and exercises, as well as a dynamic presence in Central and Eastern Europe to deter
further Russian aggression. This will include working with Europe to improve
its energy security in both the short and long term. We will support partners
such as Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine so they can better work alongside the United States and NATO, as
well as provide for their own defense. And we will continue to impose significant costs on Russia through
sanctions and other means while countering Moscows deceptive propaganda with the unvarnished truth.
We will deter Russian aggression , remain alert to its strategic
capabilities, and help our allies and partners resist Russian coercion
over the long term, if necessary. At the same time, we will keep the door
open to greater collaboration with Russia in areas of common
interests, should it choose a different patha path of peaceful cooperation
that respects the sovereignty and democratic development of neighboring states.
AT Warming
No impact
Lupo 8 (NAPSA, Anthony R. assistant professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri at
Columbia and served as an expert reviewer for the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Global Warming Is Natural, Not Man-Made, 2008, http://www.napsnet.com/pdf_archive/34/50144.pdf)
//AW
One of the fundamental tenets of our justice system is one is innocent until proven guilty. While that doesnt apply to
scientific discovery, in the global warming debate the prevailing attitude is that human induced global warming is already
there is no
a fact of life and it is up to doubters to prove otherwise. To complete the analogy, Ill add that to date,
credible evidence to demonstrate that the climatological changes weve seen
since the mid-1800s are outside the bounds of natural variability inherent in
the earths climate system. Thus, any impartial jury should not come back with a guilty verdict
convicting humanity of forcing recent climatological changes. Even the most ardent supporters of global warming will not
humans are only partially responsible for the
argue this point. Instead, they argue that
observed climate change. If one takes a hard look at the science involved,
their assertions appear to be groundless . First, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant
as many claim. Carbon dioxide is good for plant life and is a natural
constituent of the atmosphere. During Earths long history there has
been more and less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than we see today. Second,
they claim that climate is stable and slow to change, and we are accelerating climate change beyond natural variability.
Climate change is generally a regional phenomenon and not a
That is also not true.
global one. Regionally, climate has been shown to change rapidly in the past
and will continue to do so in the future. Life on earth will adapt as it has
always done. Life on earth has been shown to thrive when planetary
temperatures are warmer as opposed to colder. Third, they point to recent model projections
that have shown that the earth will warm as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. One should be careful
models are crude representations of the real
when looking at model projections. After all, these
atmosphere and are lacking many fundamental processes and interactions that
are inherent in the real atmosphere. The 11 degrees scenario that is thrown around the
media as if it were the mainstream prediction is an extreme scenario. Most
models predict anywhere from a 2 to 6 degree increase over the next
century, but even these are problematic given the myriad of
problems associated with using models and interpreting their
output. No one advocates destruction of the environment, and indeed we have an obligation to take care of our
environment for future generations. At the same time, we need to make sound decisions based on scientific facts. My
research leads me to believe that we will not be able to state
conclusively that global warming is or is not occurring for another 30
to 70 years. We simply dont understand the climate system well enough
nor have the data to demonstrate that humanity is having a substantial
impact on climate change.
LA relations obviously dont solve warming. The US is a

massive alt cause the GOP literally passed a bill saying
climate change cant be mentioned in bills.
1ar AT Losers Lose
surveillance
the president
somehow good news.
1ar EXT No Congress
Lexis)//twemchen
1ar EXT Wont Pass
Congress really hate the idea of lifting the embargo
Maloy 7/2 Simon Maloy, the Salons political writer, GOPs dead-end Cuba
gamble: Republicans Cold War-era tough talk wont come to anything, July
2, 2015, Salon,
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/02/gops_dead_end_cuba_gamble_republicans_
cold_war_era_tough_talk_wont_come_to_anything/NV
After winning a great victory for communism with the Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care
Acts subsidies, Barack Obama went for broke this week and surrendered to Cuba, thus ending the Cold War
in a crippling defeat for global capitalism. Que viva la gran revolucin! Venceremos! Okay, maybe thats
not precisely what happened. But what did happen is that the White House followed
through on a key portion of the presidents plan to normalize
relations with our tiny communist island neighbor. In a Rose Garden ceremony yesterday, Obama
officially announced that the United States and Cuba would open embassies in Havana and Washington,
DC. That announcement came just over a month after Cuba was
removed from the State Departments list of state sponsors of
terrorism. Thats two big changes to the United States Cuba policy,
which had remained essentially unchanged for 50 years and made precisely
zero progress towards its goal of dislodging the Castro regime. But Republicans in Congress
and the 2016 presidential field are, as is their wont, pushing back on
the president and insisting that we stick with what hasnt been
working. The two Cuban-American Republican presidential candidates, Marco Rubio and Ted
Cruz, vowed to block Senate confirmation of any ambassador to
Cuba. House Speaker John Boehner said relations with the Castro regime
should not be revisited, let alone normalized, until Cubans enjoy
freedom and not one second sooner. 2016 hopeful Carly Fiorina outdid everyone,
its not
promising to Hugh Hewitt that as president she would close the U.S. embassy in Cuba. I guess
entirely surprising that the GOP would still be so gung-ho about
fighting the Cold War more than two decades after it ended. But theres
no real reason to think that all this tough talk and posturing on Cuba will amount to anything, even if a
Republican wins the White House in 2016. The reason is simple: corporate America very strongly approves
of Obamas plans to open up Cuba, and Republicans try very hard to not piss off the business community too
much. For half a century the island has just been sitting there off the Florida coast, a market completely
shut off from thorough exploitation by American business interests. Those same business interests would
Obama cant
love nothing more than to see the 50-year trade embargo come crashing down, but
unilaterally end it because Bill Clinton stupidly gave up the executive
branchs authority over the embargo back in 1996. The only way to
end the Cuba embargo is for Congress to vote to kill it, and
statements like the one from the House Speaker quoted above dont
lead one to believe that that will happen any time soon. But Americas
corporate masters are apparently massing their armies of lobbyists to try and convince enough Republicans
in Congress to give up on this obsolete relic from the Kennedy administration.
Wont pass
LaFranchi 14 Howard LaFranchi, a reporter in the Monitors Washington
Bureau, US flag to fly over Havana again, but that won't end America's Cuba
debate (+video), July 1, 2015, The Christian Monitor,
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2015/0701/US-flag-to-fly-over-
Havana-again-but-that-won-t-end-America-s-Cuba-debate-video/NV
The United States and Cuba may have agreed Wednesday
WASHINGTON
to open embassies in each others capital for the first time in half a
century, but that doesnt mean it will be all salsa music and
humdrum diplomacy between the two longtime adversaries anytime
soon . President Obama emphasized that very serious differences remain between the two neighboring
countries, particularly on human rights and democracy, as he announced a long-awaited accord between the
two governments Wednesday. The agreement will allow each countrys existing diplomatic offices in
Washington and Havana to reopen as full-fledged embassies as of July 20. I believe that American
engagement through our embassy, our businesses, and most of all, through our people is the best way to
advance our interests and support for democracy and human rights, Mr. Obama said Wednesday in a Rose
Garden speech. Cuba is one of a number of key foreign-policy issues Iran and Iraq also come to mind in
which Obama has sought to get beyond what he has seen as mistaken policies of the past. Such a foreign
policy emphasizes trying diplomacy where, to the presidents thinking, isolation and unilateral action have
not worked. And in each instance, whether Cuba or Iran, it is still being hotly
debated, with some vaunting and others vilifying the approach . That
debate promises to figure prominently in the 2016 presidential
election, and the emotional topic of Cuba is sure to stand out . On
Wednesday, several Republican presidential hopefuls most notably two from
Florida, with its politically crucial Cuban-American population were quick to blast the
reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba as a gift to a
repressive regime. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said diplomatic ties will
legitimize repression in Cuba, not promote the cause of freedom and
democracy. Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio criticized the Obama
administration for being so eager to open an embassy in Havana that it has continued to look the
other way and offer concession after concession as the Cuban government has stepped up its repression
of the Cuban people. Insisting the US got nothing from the Cubans in the six months of negotiations since
Rubio said, It is time
Obama announced his intention to renew diplomatic relations, Senator
for our unilateral concessions to this odious regime to end . That theme of
the US giving up much to an adversary for little or nothing in return can also be heard in reference to Iran
and the negotiations to limit its nuclear program. Most Democrats, on the other hand, hailed the reopening
of the Havana and Washington embassies by echoing Obamas foreign-policy conviction that Americas
isolation of adversaries does little to resolve differences with them while causing problems with allies who
oppose unilateral steps like the 50-year-old US trade embargo on Cuba. Embargo and isolation failed to
bring fundamental change to Cuba and have instead become a source of friction between the United States
and our partners in the Western Hemisphere and across the globe, said Sen. Christopher Murphy (D) of
Connecticut in a statement. Preserving Americas global stature, Senator Murphy added, depends on
strong diplomatic relationships and a willingness to learn from both our successes and our ... missteps in
What Congress
particular from the failed isolation of Cuba to the disastrous occupation of Iraq.
is expected to do Even as the political debate over Cuba continues,
the Republican-controlled Congress is expected to try to thwart
Obamas opening to Cuba as best it can largely through its control
of government purse strings. Congress cant stop the reestablishing
of full diplomatic ties with Cuba. On Wednesday, in fact, Secretary of State John Kerry said
he will travel to Havana later this summer to mark both the raising of the Stars and Stripes over the
embassy and the beginning of a new era of a new relationship with the Cuban people. It will be the first
time since 1945 that a secretary of State has visited Havana, Mr. Kerry noted. Still, Congress can
continue to place roadblocks on the way to a deeper US diplomatic
presence in Cuba . A number of funding bills for US government
departments have been amended in the House to limit any
expansion of operations in Cuba. Most critically, State Department funding for US
diplomats operating in Cuba has been frozen even though the State Department won Havanas OK to boost
the number of US diplomats in Cuba as part of the transition to a full-fledged embassy. It would be a shame
if Congress impeded implementation of some of the very things we all agree we want to do, says a senior
State Department official, referring to the ability to reach out all over the island with a beefed-up
embassy staff.
1ar EXT PC Low
will Obama be
reborn.

thats [is] largely a reflection of the context they face. Its not hard to seem
in control when the economy is booming, the presidents party has a large majority in Congress or the
nation is rallying around the president after a national tragedy. Once unfavorable circumstances arise,
though, even the most accomplished chief executives seem to lose control. My research has found, for
example, that scandals are not simply about misconduct. They are more likely to arise when presidents are
1ar EXT PC Fake
thats [is] largely a reflection of the context they face. Its not hard to seem
in control when the economy is booming, the presidents party has a large majority in Congress or the
nation is rallying around the president after a national tragedy. Once unfavorable circumstances arise,
though, even the most accomplished chief executives seem to lose control. My research has found, for
example, that scandals are not simply about misconduct. They are more likely to arise when presidents are

Fleisher, 1990: 13


1ar EXT Winners Win

politics.

Obama won new powers from Congress on Wednesday to bring
President
foreign policy legacy. Obamas victory on Capitol Hill, coming 12 days after House Democrats
nearly scuttled his bid for fast-track trade authority, sets the stage for his administration to complete the
multi-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, by years end. It represents a hard-won
payoff for a president who was willing to partner with his
Republican rivals and defy a majority of his party in pursuit of an accord that
aides have said will ensure that the United States maintains an economic edge over a rising China. This
looks like a big, strategic piece, said Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group, a global risk analysis
firm. Its a global strategy doctrine that will move the world in a direction that, in the long term, is useful
The intensive legislative fight waged for
for the investments of America.
to a close after the Senate voted 60-38 to grant final approval to the fast-track bill.
Also Wednesday, key House Democrats signaled that they would concede defeat and support related
legislation which they had blocked two weeks ago to stall the trade agenda that provides retraining
assistance for displaced workers. Within reach is an opportunity to shape tomorrows global economy so
that it reflects both our values and our interests, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said. [Earlier:
Trade war heating up among Democrats] The trade-promotion bill now heads to Obamas desk for his
signature. It gives the executive branch additional powers for six years and authorizes the president, and
his successor, to present trade deals to Congress for a vote on a specified timeline without lawmakers
being able to amend the terms. Although the outcome is a full-fledged victory for
Obama , the acrimony along the way has raised questions about the Democratic Partys cohesion
heading into the 2016 election cycle. Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton, who supported the
TPP as Obamas secretary of state, sought to distance herself from the pact more recently. Most Democrats
have dismissed the strategic foreign policy benefits of the trade deal, warning instead that the TPP will
cost U.S. workers jobs in traditional manufacturing industries and exacerbate the nations widening income
gap. The foreign policy establishment of the executive branch has divorced itself from the domestic
policy, said Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), who opposed the legislation. U.S. officials expect the new
authority to jump-start the final rounds of talks. Negotiators still must hammer out deals on a number of
thorny issues, including new rules on access to Japanese auto and agriculture markets. In addition to
lowering tariffs, the trade pact also aims to expand copyright and intellectual property protections and
Once negotiations are complete, the
regulate the flow of information on the Internet.
administration will have to get a final deal through another vote in
Congress, during which labor unions are certain to renew their opposition efforts. The whole process
could take six months or more and plunge the Democratic Party into further political turmoil in the middle
of a presidential campaign. The passage of the fast-track bill does not end our fight for working families,
said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who opposed the legislation.
Winners win
Obama wants to go
the White
conservatives

thread.
elected officials.
Why should the
polarization.
political capital
Obama's
Despite the country's struggling economy and vocal opposition to some of his policies, President
favorability rating is at an all-time high. Two-thirds feel hopeful about his leadership and six in 10
approve of the job he's doing in the White House. "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 near-unanimous 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 NBC-WSJ 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.
1ar EXT Embargo Alt Cause
Cant solve
Levy 7/2 --- Lecturer and Doctoral Candidate, University of Denver (Arturo
Lopez, Embassies in Havana and Washington: A Victory of Diplomacy and
Democracy, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arturo-lopez-levy/embassies-in-
havana-and-washington-a-victory-of-diplomacy-and-
democracy_b_7708898.html, JMP)
the Helms-Burton
In 1996, the lawyers of the State Department warned Secretary Warren Christopher that
law would be damag ing to U.S relations with its allies , its standing in
international law and the promotion of democracy in Cuba.
1ar EXT Iran Thump
appears-elusive/NV
The White House
Weve come to the end, an Iranian official told Reuters on Tuesday. Either it happens in the next 48 hours
or not.The stakes are high for Obama. Along with his bid to re-

Thats always been his No. 1 priority, said
dramatic fashion in the last two weeks.

he said the aim of
Administration officials told The Wall Street Journal Monday that they hope a successful Iran deal could open
Obama is
the door to resolving lingering conflicts in Syria and Yemen, where Iran is involved. But
demanded anytime, anywhere inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities. But those conditions are unlikely to
be met, making it tougher for the administration to prevent a veto-proof majority from voting to disapprove
of a deal, if one is reached.Complicating that effort further is the fact that a
deal is unlikely to be reached by Thursday, when the congressional
review period doubles from 30 days to 60 days. That could allow
opposition to build. Republicans were emboldened in their calls for
Obama to walk away from the talks following Tuesdays extension. The stakes
are too high for this diplomatic charade to continue, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-
Fla.), a 2016 presidential candidate, said in a statement. Iranian leaders continue to walk back previous
commitments, even as they actively sponsor terrorism, pursue regional domination and hold American
At the same time, Obama seems to understand the risks
citizens hostage.
failure could pose to his legacy. Look, 20 years from now, Im still going to be around,
God willing. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, its my name on this, he told The Atlantic in May. Obama is
closely following the talks, receiving updates from national security adviser Susan Rice and other aides
multiple times daily, Earnest said. There are major risks for Iran too. The regime in Tehran desperately
wants relief from international sanctions related to its nuclear program, which have crippled the countrys
economy. Sanctions caused its gross domestic product to shrink by 5 percent in 2013, and its economy has
recovered only slightly since an interim agreement was reached that year. Despite the delay, Jeffrey
believes Obama is in a strong position heading into the final stretch of the talks. He predicted the
presidents legacy would not be hurt if, at this point, a deal falls
through because Iranian intransigence. By taking a tough position at the talks to the
point where well walk out or the Iranians will have to walk out were basically making it clear to the
Iranians that we cant be pushed around, he said. That we are deadly serious in this process.
1ar EXT LL Thumper
Obama spoke for
outlined that he

Complicating
enforcement bill.
1ar EXT TI Thumper
Infrastructure bill thumps --- its a priority for Obama
Laing 6/30 --- Reporter at The Hill (Keith Lang, 6/30/15, Obama: Road
funding could be late-term achievement, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/246554-obama-boosting-road-funding-
a-possible-late-term-achievement)//Jmoney
Obama on Tuesday listed boosting the nation's infrastructure funding as an
President
area where progress is possible before he leaves office in 2017. Asked during a joint
press conference with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff about legislation he plans to pursue during his final months in
the White House, Obama identified a long-term transportation bill as a

priority . "I want to see if we can get bipartisan work done with Congress
around rebuilding our infrastructure," he said. "Brazil just talked about their rebuilding of highways
and roads and ports and bridges. You know what? We've got the same work to do and we need to put people
back to work there." Lawmakers face a July 31 deadline for the expiration of the
current infrastructure measure, and are struggling to come up with a way to pay for even an extension
that would keep the spending levels flat past this summer. Obama has proposed a $478 billion
transportation bill that he says would cover six years worth of infrastructure
projects. The administration has proposed paying for the measure by taxing
corporate profits that are stored overseas through a process that is known as
"repatriation." The proposal is an effort to address a transportation funding
shortfall that is estimated to be about $16 billion per year. The federal government
typically spends about $50 billion per year on transportation projects, but the gas tax only brings in approximately $34
billion annually. Congress has been grappling with the deficit for a decade, but they have not passed a transportation bill
that lasts longer than two years in that span.
Infrastructure thumps the link --- there will be a fight over

how to fund it
Bolton 6/28 --- News Reporter for The Hill (Alexander Bolton, 6/28/15,
Looming highway debate stirs tax fight, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/246354-looming-highway-debate-stirs-
tax-fight)//Jmoney
A fight over raising taxes has bloomed as the chief obstacle to

passing a desperately needed multi-year transportation bill by the
end of next month, raising the specter of a possible shutdown of
highway programs . Senate Finance Committee Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who is tasked with finding a way to
pay for a multi-year deal, has ruled out the prospect of raising taxes, putting him on a collision course with Democrats.
Senate Democratic leaders have called for a six-year, $478 billion transportation bill paid largely by taxing overseas
corporate profits. They warn it would be "very hard" for them to accept another short-term extension of highway funds
after having done so 33 times. A bipartisan group of senators, including Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Sen. Barbara Boxer (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the panel, have proposed a less
ambition six-year, $275 billion highway bill. But Inhofe and Boxer are leaving it up to the Finance Committee to find a way
to pay for a $90 billion funding shortfall not covered by federal gasoline and diesel taxes. Lawmakers will have four weeks
to solve the impasse before the Highway Trust Fund runs out of money on July 31. The battle over tax
increases will return to the forefront when lawmakers get back from the
Fourth of July recess, now that the trade debate which consumed May and June is
finally over. We hope we can get the highway bill done before the end of July, Hatch told reporters but he
identified the funding shortfall as a major obstacle. He says a three- or four-year transportation bill is more realistic than
the six-year proposals put forth by the president and Senate colleagues. I know one thing. Its pretty tough to go six
years. Six years is $92 to $94 billion, he said. I hope its a multi-year, thats all I can say, and Im going to make it as
long as we can, he added.Senate Democratic leaders are pushing the six-year
transportation plan included in President Obamas budget, which calls for $317 billion in
spending on roads and $143 billion on federal transit projects. They want to pay for it by requiring
U.S. corporations to repatriate overseas profits at a 14 percent tax rate , which
would raise $238 billion in revenue, and tax future foreign earnings at 19 percent. We're asking them for their proposal.
Here's ours, what's yours? Let's not wait to get to that deadline again and do a short- term funding plan number 34, said
New York Sen. Charles Schumer, who is leading the Democratic messaging strategy in the transportation fight. Senate
Democratic leaders say the six-year, $275 billion bill sponsored by Inhofe and Boxer, which the Environment and Public
Works Committee passed last week, does not go far enough. It's a step in the right direction because it's long term and it
does increase funding, but not by enough to meet our needs and what Democrats would prefer, said a Democratic
Republicans
leadership aide. Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Tom Carper (D-Del.) are cosponsors of the measure.
want to pass a multi-year transportation bill, but a schism has emerged
within their conference over the thorny question of whether they should raise
some taxes to pay for it. Republican Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.) has called for increasing federal taxes on
gasoline and diesel by 12 cents over two years and indexing it to inflation. The gas tax now stands at 18.4 cents per
gallon while the tax on diesel is 24.4 cents per gallon. Inhofe and Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-
S.D.) have not ruled out increasing the gas tax. John Thune made the statement that nothing is off the table, and I
agree with his statement, Inhofe told reporters earlier this year. The Commerce panel is responsible for about $1 billion a
But any proposal to raise taxes would
year of the infrastructure budget, according to a Senate aide.
pick a fight with the conservative base led by Grover Norquist, the president
of Americans for Tax Reform. Norquist said Congress would have more funding for highway construction
projects if it wipes out the federal requirement established by the Davis-Bacon Act to pay local prevailing wages. "There is
zero chance the Republican House and Senate will increase taxes. Highway spending is 25% above what is needed due to
Davis-Bacon prevailing wage law. eliminate that and your funding problem disappears, he said in a statement to The
Hill. No need to raise taxes. This was tried in Michigan and Massachusetts and defeated by a vote of the people," he
added. So far, Hatch is siding with Norquist and other anti-tax conservatives. Were not willing to raise taxes, he said.
Democrats believe,
Im willing to look at everything but were not going to raise taxes to get there.
however, that House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.)
has signaled interest in paying for a multi-year transportation bill with
corporate tax reform. Lots of other Republicans, including Paul Ryan, think
international tax reforms that raise revenues are a good way to go.
Democrats agree, said a senior Democratic aide. Ryan has opposed paying for increased
transportation funding by taxing overseas profits because he wants to use the reservoir of funding for a broader tax
reform initiative. Earlier this month he downplayed the likelihood of a major tax reform package passing Congress this
year. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said last month he is exploring options to pay for a multiyear
infrastructure bill and acknowledged it would need to be partly funded with revenue increases.
Counterplans
Theory
Adv CP Multi-Plank Bad
Multiplanks a voter the combination isnt real world
because its not advocated by a single author makes it
impossible to predict vote aff for deterrence
Specific Midway
2ac F/L
It doesnt solve the resource trade-off internal link since
all of their evidence speaks to bottom-up innovation
rather than top-down reform means the TSA cant focus
on ensuring meaningful security thats Edwards
The CP isnt modeled a litany of financial, political, and

economic factors ensure failure
GAO 14 (November 2014, Airport Privatization: Limited Interest despite
FAAs Pilot Program, GAO Report to Congress,
http://gao.gov/assets/670/667076.pdf)//twemchen
We spoke with key public sponsor representatives of two of the three APPP applicants that reached the
unanticipated consequences
final application phase. They discussed the planned as well as
of lengthy and costly application procedures, support and learning
resources required throughout, and risk factors that increased
uncertainty . Lengthy airline consent negotiations Public-sector airport
owners, consultants, and private investors that we spoke with all said that obtaining the 65 percent
consent from airlines to use lease or sale proceeds from privatizing the airport for non-airport purposes
was the pivotal and most time-consuming requirement of the application process. As depicted in figure 5
above, the privatization process for the Luis Munoz Marin and Midway airports took a total of 38 and 83
months, respectively. Within those time frames, it took 25 months for PRPA to obtain airlines consent for
Luis Munoz Marin, and a combined 26 months for Midways airline agreement for both privatization efforts.
Stewart was unable to obtain airline approvals to use airport revenue for non-airport purposes; the
airports owner, New York, agreed to use the lease payments for airport purposes and to recoup past state
investments in Stewart and other state-owned airports, in accordance with FAAs airport revenue use
City of Chicago officials said that it
policy. For Luis Munoz Marin and Midway, PRPA and
takes significant time to arrive at an agreement with the airlines, then
submit the agreement to FAA for review, and then share the
agreement with advance-stage private bidders for bid proposals and negotiation
purposes. Additionally, the private sector airport stakeholders and PRPA representatives we interviewed
said that airlines negotiations added an additional layer of complexity and
that they believed the purchase transaction should be strictly between the public seller and the private
buyer. Representatives from two airlines that occupied the position of having dominant air traffic at
Midway and Luis Marin Munoz airports at the time of airports applications said that it could potentially be
more efficient if a dominant airline assumed the responsibilities of coordinating the negotiation with other
carriers. Overall, the airline representatives we spoke with said they were satisfied with their
arrangements, while the public airport owners said there was extra work and time expended to get to an
agreement with the airlines. Evaluation and preparation of privatization deals
by the public airport sponsors can be costly Because APPP applicants must satisfy local, state,
and federal requirements as well as potential investors, the process of drafting the final airport use and
Chicago
lease agreements becomes complex, requiring outside expertise. For example, the City of
spent $13 million overall on privatization-related transaction costs in
the first application, and $3.5 million in the second round, with both
attempts failing to result in privatization. The Puerto Rico Public-Private Partnerships
Authority spent $17.4 million in project costs from December 2009 to February 2013 that
included but were not limited to costs associated with feasibility studies, legal counsel, financial consulting,
engineering and technical consulting, and personnel and operating costs and service charges.59 Costs also
included the estimated statutory fee payable to the IRS as a result of the elimination of tax-exempt bonds
attributable to the airport. Public opposition Public
opposition to privatization can
undermine the public-sector airport owners interest in privatization
unless the goals and benefits are clearly stated. The community association we spoke with in San Juan said
that public concerns can potentially impact public-sector airport owners during the privatization process. In
Chicago, two public interest groups we interviewed said that in their view, the first round of privatization of
Chicagos Midway Airport was not transparent and had limited public input. A representative of one of
those public interest groups said that the State of Illinois tried to remedy this when it passed enabling
legislation for the privatization of Midway.60 In San Juan, a community association we spoke with said that
there were public concerns about the privatization, including over the foreign ownership of the bidder. The
FAA public docket included written public comments and summarized responses from PRPA on how it and
Aerostar intended to address those concerns.61 The Puerto Rico Public-Private Partnership Authority also
provided public notice about the privatization of Luis Munoz Marin on its web site. External
factors can also undermine success External factors can affect the outcome for public
owners and influence decisionmaking by private investors. Given the lengthy timetable for consideration,
application, and review, changes in economic or political climates can influence whether a deal is
Macro-economy Changes in the economy, such as the onset of a
consummated.
recession, can alter the value and outcome of a privatization of a deal. In the first
Midway privatization effort, a lease agreement with a bidder was reached but failed to close, in part,
because broader financial problems in the economy left the private bidder unable to secure sufficient
financing. Since then, the FAA has placed greater scrutiny on the potential private bidders proposed
funding and financing and applied this lesson when reviewing the Aerostar bid for Luis Munoz Marin.
Shifting political agenda In 1996, the city of San Diego entered into an
agreement with a private sector developer, Brown Field Aviation Park LLC, to
implement a comprehensive redevelopment of Brown Field, a general aviation
reliever airport, into an air cargo hub and general aviation airport. After submitting a preliminary
the City withdrew from the pilot program in
application to the APPP in 1999,
2001 due, in part, to diminishing support from elected officials and over
concerns and opposition among the community of the potential adverse affects of the airports being
redeveloped into a cargo hub. Civic and public interest associations and airport experts we spoke with said
that the decision to privatize municipal assets, such as airports, can involve a highly political
decisionmaking process. One private-sector airport investor stated that political uncertainty reduces the
private sectors willingness to invest in an airport as well. Performance risks Even after
privatization occurs there is a risk of poor performance by the private-sector
airport operator if the lease is not properly executed . In the case of the Stewart, as
previously discussed in this report, NEG shifted its business focus from airports soon after it assumed the
lease. NEG managed the airport for immediate financial return and was not interested in investing in the
airport. As noted above, the airport was acquired by the PANYNJ in 2007 after 7 years under private
operation. The PANYNJ officials we spoke with said that the Port Authority made far greater investments
compared to NEG to bring the airport up to Port Authority standards and to retain a key airport tenant.
Its illegal
Fruchbom 7 staff writer at Fortune Magazine (Paul Fruchbom, 2/17/7,
Investors circle Midway Airport,
http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/02/19/84
00177/index.htm?postversion=2007021205)//twemchen
After the landmark privatization of the Chicago Skyway, which the city leased to a foreign consortium for
$1.8 billion in 2005, similar deals followed. Last year Chicago sold a portfolio of municipal parking lots to
Morgan Stanley (Charts) for $563 million. In January the State of Illinois put its lottery, which could fetch as
biggest potential payday may
much as $10 billion, on the block. However, Chicago's
prove to be its most challenging . First there are the political hurdles . Since
several potential buyers are foreign companies , the deal could run into
the same jingoistic smackdown that killed the sale of five U.S. ports to a
there are the economic issues - 65 percent
Middle Eastern company last year. Then
of the carriers at Midway have to approve the transaction, and they may
require that landing fees (the charges they pay to the airport operator) be capped .
The bidders, on the other hand, will push for a fee schedule that
gives them a decent return on their equity. In the past, airlines have argued that
privatization can exacerbate an airport's natural monopoly if landing fees and other economic concessions
are not regulated. Airline deals could be grounded Macquarie's investment in Sydney Airport, for example,
has been profitable for the bank, but it recently lost a court case to low-cost airline Virgin Blue over
anticompetitive practices. Similar complaints have been heard at private-sector airports including Athens,
Auckland and Rome. For passengers, the results have been much more positive. Though a new
phenomenon in the U.S., airport privatization has been prevalent for decades in Europe and Australia,
where the lack of a municipal bond market has forced governments to seek creative means to finance their
infrastructure. In one of the first and most successful examples, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's
government raised $2.3 billion by privatizing the British Airport Authority, now known as BAA, in 1987.
(Ferrovial acquired BAA last year for ten billion pounds.) To boost revenues post-privatization, operators
typically focus on two primary profit streams often overlooked by government owners, both of which can
have a positive impact on the airport experience. One avenue involves monetizing an airport's excess real
estate by building parking lots for travelers or warehouses for companies such as FedEx that want to be on
the runway. The other is adding restaurants or high-end clothing boutiques and getting passengers through
security quickly so that they can spend more time (and money) in the terminal. Mark Florian, head of North
American infrastructure investment banking at Goldman Sachs, points to Heathrow, a BAA property, as one
of the best examples. "There are more opportunities to get into your pocketbook than one could imagine,"
as the Midway sale draws near, it remains unclear how much
he says. Yet
of an impact the transaction could have on the U.S. airport industry
as a whole . Chicago is proceeding under the aegis of a ten-year old FAA
pilot program that allows for five airport privatizations , only one of
which can be a large hub airport. To date, only Stewart International in Newburgh, N.Y.,
has been privatized, but David Bennett, a director with the FAA's Office of Airport Safety and Standards,
says that if Midway is deemed a success, Congress may extend the program and clear others for takeoff.
Their privatization bad DAs are all net-offense against the

CP if they win their modeling claim, that proves the CP
sets off a national wave of privatizations
City-level fiat is a voting issue it explodes limits they

could privatize any of 480 major US airports or
thousands of more local airports they justify fiating
39,000 local governments JUST in the US or 250,000
globally add in permutations of actors plus branches of
city governments and the possibilities are endless
counter-interp they get federal and state CPs reject
the team for deterrence
Doesnt solve privatized airports still use federal
screening standards and oversight which still limits
innovation
---Initiation Version
The CP only fiats the process of the sale begins but
airlines shut down the process
AirGuide 7 Pyramid Media Group (11/26/7, Airport News - North
America, Lexis)//twemchen
Southwest Airlines is the Midway Airport's largest tenant, had been a strong
opponent in the past. Observers noted that its statement regarding the agreement was not a
full endorsement of Daley's plan. The LCC said it "welcomes the opportunity to
increase our collective knowledge about airport privatization in a manner
that hopefully produces a mutually beneficial outcome. We applaud the City of Chicago for
carefully exploring the possibility of a potential long-term lease of
Midway Airport to a private airport operator." Hochtief AirPort, the airport investment
and management unit of the global construction services firm, expects to put in a bid for Midway. Nov 19,
2007 Southwest Airlines, Midway Airport Southwest Airlines reached agreement last week with the City of
Chicago that Mayor Richard Daley's office said is " a
very big first step " toward its
planned privatization of Midway Airport. US legislation enacted in 1996 created
a pilot program for five airport privatizations, but under the law a
city needs the approval of 65% of an airport's airline tenants in order to
use proceeds from a privatization for nonaviation-related purposes, which has been a historical stumbling
block.Daley wants to lease Midway to a private operator but his administration
still must gain approval from four more airlines to reach the
threshold. Nov 19, 200
EXT No Model
No modeling
---economic instability and political opposition sank the

midway deal last time
---Puerto Rico was privatized but not modeled which

empirically denies spillover
Thats GAO
Their ev is rhetorically strong but substantively toothless

the only privatization Chicago has authority would occur
as part of the FAAs privatization pilot program which
leaves room for just five airports (two slots are full
already) and just one hub airport means the likely
extent of their modeling claim is three grassy strips in
Wyoming thats Fruchbom
Local factors mean modelings impossible

McAllister 10 Associate Editor at Airport Business (Brad McAllister, October
2010, Carrier right-sizing and a challenging economy among top issues for
airports, Cygnus Business Media, Lexis)//twemchen
there are also many barriers to airport privatization in the U.S., from
Apart from that,
access to cheap tax-exempt debt to restrictions on revenue diversion
to collective bargaining agreements and public sector unions, says Ernico.
This makes the U.S. airport model unique. When considering airport privatization, Ernico says there are
many resources airports should evaluate, including: Lessons learned from
worldwide airport privatization; Lessons learned from privatization in non-airport transportation modes;
regulatory framework; Domestic policy context (AIP, PFC, tax-exempt bonds,
Legal
municipal budget deficits, etc.); Stakeholder interests and concerns; Case
studies; and Decision tree matrix and evaluation checklist. FAA compliance division's Kevin Willis
explains that privatization is a local decision " ... and our role is to review that
one size does not fit all
decision. We look at privatization as a management tool," adding that
when it comes to airport privatization. Explains Willis, "Privatization is not something
that you create and then walk away from. What happens is a relationship change. You change from
managing a workforce to managing a contract. "You have to map out how you plan to bring an airport
through the initial implementation ... transparency and public outreach is important."
Liabilities
GAO 14 (November 2014, Airport Privatization: Limited Interest
despite FAAs Pilot Program, GAO Report to Congress,
http://gao.gov/assets/670/667076.pdf)//twemchen
Privatized airports (within and outside the APPP) also may not be entitled to local and state
property tax exemptions, unless specifically authorized, and would likely not be exempt
from tort liability claims . In the Midway airport example, City officials had to negotiate with
state lawmakers to maintain Midways property tax-exempt status and the state enabling legislation
required the city to dedicate 90% of lease proceeds to fund capital infrastructure and maintenance or to
fund municipal employee pension funds. According to the recent ACRP report on airport privatizations,
with reduced protections for tort liability claims, privatization (within and
outside the APPP) may create greater tort liability risk for a private operator
than a public operator in the event of, for example, an aircraft accident ,
since the private operator would not likely be entitled to same immunities as a public entity.58
EXT No Model PTX
Finances and opposition

Byrne, Coen, and Dardick 13 staff writers at the Chicago Tribune (John
Byrne, Jeff Coen, Hal Dardick, 9/6/13, Emanuel halts Midway privatization
bidding, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-09-06/news/chi-emanuel-
halts-midway-lease-talks-20130905_1_great-lakes-airport-alliance-midway-
airport-midway-advisory-panel/2)//twemchen
Even if the deal had gone forward, Emanuel would have had to persuade a
wary City Council to go along with it. Aldermen were stung by public criticism for
approving Mayor Richard Daley's roundly reviled 75-year lease of the city's parking meters in 2008, and
have pledged to be more than rubber stamps for Emanuel's plans to lease public assets. Emanuel has
shown the ability to get other controversial revenue-raising packages past the City Council, however. Daley
thought he had a deal to lease the Southwest Side airport for 99 years to a consortium led by a unit of
when the
Citigroup Inc., an agreement that would have brought in $2.5 billion. The plan died in 2009
financial markets froze. After taking office, Emanuel refused to commit to
a nother deal to privatize Midway but petitioned the FAA to maintain the privatization slot for the
airport to keep his options open.
Popular and political opposition

BMIResearch 14 BMI Infrastructure Report, South Africa Infrastructure
Report (January 2014, Global Infrastructure Overview - Q1 2014,
Lexis)//twemchen
In the US, a market offering more promising rewards than Western Europe, progress in introducing PPPs to
Here, rather than financing or rewards, the
the transport sector has seen only mixed success of late.
obstacles are political and popular opposition to private operation of
A prime example is the failure of the Midway Airport privatisation in
infrastructure.
September 2013. The project fell through due to unappealing terms as the
Mayor tried to appease taxpayers, and failed to appeal to private
companies ( see, 'Midway Grounded As Politicians Struggle To Find Middle Ground', September 17
2013).
Specific Privatize
2ac F/L
This for sure has absolutely zero net benefit the spirit of
the CP explicitly promotes the TSAs public-private
partnership program, which links way more to their disads
they have card zero on the distinction in the context of
____
Perm do both
Perm do the plan and all planks of the counter-plan that

dont maintain surveillance oversight
Doesnt solve the CP still sets operational procedures

which ensures they dont solve flexibility the Laing
evidence defines the extent to which they preserve
screening standards, and that ev just describes the status
quo means they cant solve things like risk analysis or
flexibility
Lifting oversight is key Mica says oversight is the extent

of the TSAs explicit regulatory authority over the SPP it
just gets abused to creatively restrict the private sector
means the CP gets circumvented
Thats also empirically proven the TSA will make up new

standards that prevent airports from applying to the SPP
the CP literally happened in 2012
Airport Policy and Security News #91 http://reason.org/news/show/airport-
policy-and-security-news-91#a)//twemchen
Despite Congress more than a year ago directing the TSA to speedily
process airport applications to use TSA-certified screening contractors under its Screening
Partnership Program (SPP), the agency appears to be stone-walling . Industry sources
tell me that even though applications have been approved for six airports, not a single new
SPP contract has been awarded by TSA since the 2012 legislation
(part of FAA reauthorization last February) was enacted. In some cases, procurements
that were under way have been pulled back , to be re-started at some unnamed
future date. That's the case for a four-airport Montana solicitation begun last October, due to be completed
by the end of February 2013. Not a word was heard during March, but finally, on April
17th, contenders received a letter from TSA cancelling the procurement and saying it would be re-started
at a later date. Orlando-Sanford's approved application is still without a contract solicitation and Sarasota-
Bradenton application awaits action. What appears to be happening is that TSA while TSA has
adhered to the letter of the law contained in last year's legislation directing actions on
applications, it has come up with a new hurdle for airports and contractors to
surmount: a " cost-efficiency " factor. At the April 12th bidder's conference for re-
bidding the SPP contract for San Francisco (SFO), bidders were told that no
contract will be awarded unless it meets TSA's cost-efficiency target. The same provision
was added at the last minute to the requirements for re-bidding the Kansas City contract earlier this year.
What this means, exactly, is not yet clear . It appears that TSA has taken
language from the SPP provisions of the 2012 FAA bill and used it to
create a requirement that no SPP contract will be awarded if the cost to
the government would be higher than what it currently costs TSA to provide screening at the airport in
question. Taken at face value, that sounds uncontroversial. But as the GAO has pointed out in several
reports, TSA still has not fully and accurately reported all its screening costs, and TSA still claims that its
own screening costs less than contract screening under SPP. In its 2008 study (GAO-09-27R), the agency
faulted TSA's cost comparisons for omitting the cost of overlapping TSA administrative staff at SPP
airports, and failing to include TSA costs for workers' comp, general liability insurance, and some
retirement costs. Not mentioned in this report, but relevant to accurate cost comparisons, TSA also does
not include the cost of using its screener flying squad (the National Deployment Force) to fill in at TSA-
screened airports. In March 2011, GAO reported that TSA had "made progress in addressing the limitations
related to costs" (GAO-11-375R), but still had work left to do. GAO's most recent report in December 2012
(GAO-13-208) focused on screener performance at TSA and SPP airports, and did not address whether TSA
was finally including all costs in its comparisons of screening. And as I noted at the time, GAO's 2012
report ignored a detailed study by the staff of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee: a case
study of the cost of screening at two major hub airports, both in TSA's high-risk Category XLos Angeles
and San Francisco. The former has TSA screening and the latter is one of the original pilot program airports
using a TSA-approved screening contractor. Even though federal law requires SPP contractors to pay
screeners comparable wages and benefits as TSA, the study found that the cost per screener at SFO was
5.3% less than TSA's cost at LAX. While that may not sound like much, when combined with much higher
productivity at SFO (16,113 passengers per screener at SFO vs. 9,765 at LAX, due mostly to a good mix of
part-time and full-time screeners at SFO), the overall result would be 42.6% lower screening cost at LAX if
the SFO contract model were applied there (see table).
Even if they dont circumvent, theres zero demand for

the CP
Cox 14 national president of the AFGE (David Cox, 7/29/14, Prepared
Statement of J. David Cox, Sr., http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-
only 18 of the Nation's 457 commercial airports have private-sector security
First,
screeners. That's less than 4 percent . Except for San Francisco and four other airports that
were part of the initial SPP pilot program (Kansas City International Airport, Greater Rochester International
Airport, Jackson Hole Airport, and Tupelo Regional Airport), the only airports to seek privatization
have been small airports in Iowa, New Mexico, Montana, Florida, and New Hampshire. A
representative hearing on SPP would include the directors of our airports in New York, Chicago, Los
Angeles, Miami, Denver, Atlanta, Washington, DC, and every other major gateway that have
chosen to work with TSA None of these
and its National network of highly-qualified TSOs.
airports has shown the slightest interest in privatization, yet none is ever
heard from in these hearings. Second, despite legislation passed in 2012 making it
easier for airports to apply to privatize their TSA workforce, only a handful of
airports have applied to do so. Aside from Montana, over the last 2 years, only three airports--
the small Orlando-Sanford and Sarasota Bradenton airports in Florida and the airport in Portsmouth, NH,
The lack of interest was
have asked TSA for permission to make the switch to private screeners.
noted by the GAO in December 2012. `Àirport operators from 3 airports that have not applied to
the SPP expressed no interest in the SPP, and stated that they are generally satisfied with the level of
screening service provided by TSA,'' GAO said.
It doesnt solve the resource trade-off internal link

means the TSA cant focus on ensuring meaningful
security thats Edwards
Perm do the CP
Banning process-based oversight is essential to avoid a

private sector chilling effect which stifles innovation
You know, when you have a--you know, when you have an arm's-length relationship
with TSA doing-- setting policies and doing the regulation and then a private screening
the
company doing the operations, you know, that private screening company is going to do
what it is supposed to do because, also, it realizes that, you know, it could lose
that contract , it could be debarred , or other punitive measures can be taken
against it so it won't be able to do it anymore. This doesn't exist in the Federal screening world. So, you
know, that--that is a major consideration, I think, that other countries have.
The outreach plank is the squo

TSA also utilizes the Federal Business Opportunities website to communicate with a wide
range of vendors on SPP- related topics. For example, TSA advertised and held an SPP -
specific industry day in January 2014, which was attended by approximately 100 vendors. The
industry day provided an overview of the program's direction and goals, informed industry of the
acquisition process, and offered a forum for obtaining feedback and insight
into industry capabilities. TSA has also met with vendors in other forums, such as the National Association
of Security Companies' annual Washington Summit and the Washington Homeland Security Roundtable,
The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012
both held in June 2014.
provided standards for approval of an SPP application, a time line for
approving or denying applications, and specific actions to take in the event an application is
denied. Additionally, under the act, the TSA administrator must determine that the approval would not
compromise the security or detrimentally effect the cost efficiency or effectiveness of the screening of
passengers or property at the airport.
AT Bell Oversight Good
Bell is about oversight to determine if the SPP is good or
not not about security standards means all their
arguments about terrorism are literally all spin
AT GAO Oversight Good
Their GAO ev is about the TSA helping airports fill out the
SPP application questionnaire which we definitely dont
preclude
This isnt offense that oversights weak now and we

dont reduce it
Grover 14 Acting Director at the Department of Homeland Security and
Justice at the Government Accountability Offense, 7/29/14, STATEMENT OF
JENNIFER A. GROVER, ACTING DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND JUSTICE,
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE ,
My remarks today reflect the findings from GAO's previous studies of SPP. We have recently started a new
study to examine TSA's current approach to comparing the cost of providing screening services at SPP and
non-SPP airports. At the end of 2012, GAO found weaknesses , both in TSA's
implementation and in its oversight of SPP. First, regarding implementation, we found
that TSA was not providing airports with clear guidance on how to apply to SPP. This is important to ensure
that all airports have a full and fair opportunity to participate.
1ar EXT Circumvention
Circumvention is empirically proven
First, TSA believes the Federal screening cost estimate, or FCE , which sets the required cost-
efficiency price ceiling for private screening bids, only has to contain Federal screener cost borne
by TSA and not all the Federal or taxpayer cost. Second, as to the requirement that private
screener compensation be ``no less than such Government personnel,'' here TSA believes that
private screening companies do not have to pay compensation to their
screeners that is equivalent with such Federal screeners, but only that they must pay screeners
the minimum or starting Federal screener wage s. How TSA believes that its
contracts for screening services are not subject to the Service Contract Act, even though all other Federal
agencies' screening and security services contracts are subject to the SCA, is confounding . Both
these interpretations fly in the face of a plain reading of the statute,
the intent of Congress , and public security policy . They are both major
threats to the program that detrimentally affect the acquisition and award process.
Even if they dont explicitly misread the law, the TSA

approval process is a black box which ensures theyll
block applications
the solicitation and award process for the past several SPP RFP's
Unfortunately,
have been plagued by problems involving questionable provisions ,
unexplainable adjustments , improper evaluations , and other issues --
besides the underlying FCE and minimum pay issues--that have caused
serious confusion , delays, pre-award protests, and set up the eventual awards for successful bid
protests. These incidents raise concerns about TSA's ability to manage the procurement process and its
commitment to the program.
This attitude of evasion is sufficient to deck solvency
Hudson 14 representative from North Caroline, Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Transportation Security (Richard Hudson, 7/29/14,
EXAMINING TSA'S MANAGEMENT OF THE SCREENING PARTNERSHIP
PROGRAM, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg92898/html/CHRG-
the strength of this program is important . I want to see it grow, but I want
I believe
there aren't
to work with you to make sure there aren't structural concerns. I want to make sure
biases within TSA against this program. I think it is an important
component in our overall safety footprint. So it is an issue that is very
important to me and something I think we need it continue to talk about and continue to work on.
But I thank both of you for being here today and your testimony in this.
1ar AT Best Value Rating
Best value assessments are the squo
we do select the best value. That does
Mr. Benner. I am glad you put it that way, sir, because
There is three general criteria that we use to evaluate: There is a
not mean the lowest bid.
technical solution that the offeror provides; there is the past performance; and then
there is the cost. All those three are actually evaluated. Then you have different teams that
actually evaluate each of those. Then that goes to a source selection authority, who then compares all
those relative to each other and makes a final selection. In some cases, there is even another level, a
source selection evaluation board, which is in the case of--the last time we went through MCI, there was
we are selecting the
another level of observation there as well. So I am confident that
vendor who had the best proposal and provides the best value to
overall
the Government. Does that mean that it won't be protested? Absolutely not. Because any vendor
can obviously protest it, any time if they feel they have been wronged or the process
has been wronged, but I am confident in the process that we use.
Specific Foreign Model
2ac F/L
Perm do both the CP gets rid of the SPP and the plan
curtails authority to oversee airports covered by the SPP
since the CP gets rid of the program, the outcome of the
perm is the same as the CP which solves 100% of the
link to the net benefit
The CP links to politics insofar as the plan does because it

explicitly adopts the private sector abroad as a model for
our security which is perceptually similar to the aff
Doesnt solve Hawley says the TSA is structurally

incompetent even if they spur a single wave of
innovations, terrorists will always outpace them and
traffic shifts will always cause more congestion
Perm do the CP then the plan shields the link since the
plan is an outcome of the CPs assessment its legit
because the CP fiats an assessment then an action which
includes a time-frame differential
US airports are key to solve

McAllister 10 Associate Editor at Airport Business (Brad McAllister, October
2010, Carrier right-sizing and a challenging economy among top issues for
airports, Cygnus Business Media, Lexis)//twemchen
Apart from that, there are also many barriers to airport privatization in the U.S., from
access to cheap tax-exempt debt to restrictions on revenue diversion
to collective bargaining agreements and public sector unions, says Ernico.
This makes the U.S. airport model unique . When considering airport privatization,
Ernico says there are many resources airports should evaluate, including: Lessons
learned from worldwide airport privatization; Lessons learned from privatization in non-airport
transportation modes; Legal regulatory framework; Domestic policy context (AIP, PFC, tax-
exempt bonds, municipal budget deficits, etc.); Stakeholder interests and
concerns; Case studies; and Decision tree matrix and evaluation checklist. FAA compliance
division's Kevin Willis explains that privatization is a local decision " ... and our role is
to review that decision. We look at privatization as a management tool," adding that one size does
not fit all when it comes to airport privatization. Explains Willis, "Privatization is
not something that you create and then walk away from. What happens is a relationship change. You
change from managing a workforce to managing a contract. "You have to map out how you plan to bring
an airport through the initial implementation ... transparency and public outreach is important."
The model their ev concludes we need is privatization

Edwards says maintaining the TSA monopoly ensures the
CP fails
Lexis)//twemchen
With regard to aviation security, the federal government has an important role to
play. But its near-monopoly over airport screening has resulted in it getting
bogged down in managing its bloated federal workforce , as one congressional

report concluded.141 Operating the vast passenger and baggage screening system takes the
governments focus away from proper federal activities such as terrorism intelligence and analysis.
Specific Airport Prizes
2ac F/L
Perm do the CP
Doesnt solve getting airports to join the SPP is

irrelevant if airports arent flexible enough to innovate in
those positions means we solve better sufficient vs
necessary is incoherent for terrorism since the risk is
always linear

Perm do both
Conditionality
Presumption stays aff both the plan and counterplan are

privatization both the plan and the counterplan maintain
security standards they have no DA about decreasing
oversight of the process by which corporations comply
with those standards
We solve wildlife trafficking that was the 1AC it causes

Africa war
Nuclear war
Specific Security Outputs PIC
2ac F/L
Perm do the CP the plan text leaves security outputs
surveillance in place.
Perm do both
Conditionality
The CP doesnt have a comparative solvency advocate

voting issue for deterrence because its not predictable or
educational since the literature doesnt compare the plan
to the CP
Normal means is stupid aff gets to determine the

mandate of the plan especially if theres a solvency
advocate
We solve wildlife trafficking that was the 1AC causes

Africa war
Nuclear war
Adv Brandt
2ac F/L
The CPs a one-shot reform which means it doesnt solve
only we access continuous private-sector innovation
thats Hudson
Doesnt solve the CP does nothing about domestic

security means they dont solve insider threats US
citizens who gain entry within airports and, they dont
solve domestic lone wolves the threat is high
ABC 14 (9/13/14, Terrorism threat: Security ramped up at airports, public
events after threat level increased to high,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-13/terrorism-alert-level-could-stay-high-
for-long-time/5741474)//twemchen
Travellers are being warned to expect tighter security measures at airports and public events as the
intelligence agencies try to combat the threat of a so-called "lone wolf"
country's
terrorist attack . The domestic spy agency, ASIO, yesterday lifted the nation's terrorism alert level
from medium to high meaning an attack is considered likely . However, Prime Minister Tony
Abbott has stressed there is no suggestion of an imminent attack. Security agencies are keeping watch on
it is the threat of someone acting alone
a number of people who are of interest, but
that has them most concerned. It means there will be extra security at airports , public
events and government buildings. Police patrols at the AFL semi-final in Melbourne were boosted last night,
with officers visible at the gates and around the MCG. Victorian Premier Denis Napthine said the increased
security should not deter people from major events. "I don't think any Victorian should change the way
they operate, we should still go to great events like the AFL finals and the Spring Racing Carnival," he said.
"But we just need to be that little bit more aware. "We say to people go about your business but be more
alert and if there are issues of suspicion, we need you to report them." Tourism and Transport Forum
director Trent Zimmerman said tourism operators understand the need for the extra precautions. "Safety is
paramount and we have to at all costs avoid any domestic incident," he said. "I think
that everybody in the industry accepts that the worst outcome would be a successful
terrorism attack on Australian shores. "That would be far more damaging than any restrictions the
Government could put in place to prevent terrorism." Virgin Australia said it would alert passengers if
delays occurred and Qantas said it would work with federal authorities to ensure security measures remain
appropriate. Export Council of Australia chairman Ian Murray said exporters accept the need for tighter
security at ports and airports but the new counter-terrorism measures could affect international trade. "I
think that's something the Minister for Trade and Investment will be very conscious of," he said. Mr Murray
said the elevated risk was expected to continue for quite some time . Australian
counter-terrorism expert Neil Fergus said that could mean months and possibly years. "I think
the reality is given the nature of ISIL [Islamic State], it cannot be defeated in a
matter of days, weeks or even months . It's going to be a long struggle ," he said.
Mr Fergus said there has been a definite spike in radical sentiment in Australia since recent tensions
escalated in the Middle East. "We
have a very small pocket of people in this country who
have been active in recruiting young Sunni Muslims, facilitating their transport to
join ISIL," he said. "These people really must be at the heart of the investigations because they are
continuing to have some success. Until that stops, the threat is likely to stay ." Queensland
criminologist Mark Lauchs said it was not unusual to see a spike in terror activity around the anniversary of
the September 11 attacks on the United States. "A number of groups associated either with Al Qaeda or
offshoots of Al Qaeda or sympathising with Al Qaeda, it could even be local individuals, see this
date asa good time to take some form of activity to obtain some advantage for the overall
goals of this extremist jihad ," Associate Professor Lauchs said. Greens senator Scott
Ludlam said Australia's involvement in the Middle East conflict would only increase the
likelihood of a terrorist attack . "We've got to make very sure that Australia doesn't end up
simply participating in actions that perpetuate the horror and violence, and act perversely as recruiting
activities for the very networks we're trying to close down," he told Sky News.
The CP just streamlines data-sharing infrastructure it

doesnt change the quality of data transferred which
their ev says is key

Adv Screener Prizes
2ac F/L
Perm do both shields the net benefit because whoever is
screening will be more effective at catching terrorists
thats their Kravitz evidence
Doesnt solve
a) It decreases flexibility by imposing burdensome

regulations on the private sector
b) Even if it works, it only affects the 20 SPP airports not

the rest of them
c) It doesnt solve the resource trade-off internal link

Perm do the CP
This is the squo but it doesnt solve TSA overreach

Kravitz 10 Washington Post Staff Writer (Derek Kravitz, 12/31/10, As
Outrage Grows, Airports Consider Ditching TSA,
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/as-outrage-grows-airports-consider-ditching-
tsa/)//twemchen
Every spring,private security officers at San Francisco International Airport compete in a
workplace "March Madness"-style tournament for cash prizes, some as high as $1,500. The
games: finding illegal items and explosives in carry-on bags; successfully picking
locks on difficult-to-open luggage; and spotting a would-be terrorist (in this case
Covenant Aviation Security's president, Gerald L. Berry) on security videos. "The bonuses are
pretty handsome ," Berry said. "We have to be good - equal or better than the
feds . So we work at it, and we incentivize ." Some of the nation's biggest airports are responding
to recent public outrage over security screening by weighing whether they should hire private firms such
as Covenant to replace the Transportation Security Administration. Sixteen airports, including San
Francisco and Kansas City International Airport, have made the switch since 2002. One Orlando airport has
approved the change but needs to select a contractor, and several others are seriously considering it. The
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which governs Dulles International and Reagan National
airports, is studying the option, spokeswoman Tara Hamilton said. For airports, the change isn't about
money.At issue, airport managers and security experts say, is the unwieldy size and
bureaucracy of the federal aviation security system. Private firms may be
able to do the job more efficiently and with a personal touch, they argue.
Agent Delegation
2ac F/L
Perm do the cp its a clarification of the affs
mechanism we get to clarify the agent otherwise every
debate devolves into an unpredictable agent CP the
USFG is all three branches
Perm do both
The CP is a voting issue it steals the entire aff and

obviates jurisdiction which is our only solvency deficit
counter-interp case specific solvency advocate
Solves none of the aff

Spence 97 David Professor Of Law Administrative law and agency policy-
making: Rethinking the positive theory of political control Published in the
yale journal of regulation volume 14, 2, pages 407-450
structural choice is meaningless-rather, that its importance as a
That is not to say that
determinant of agency policy choice is seriously overstated. It is one thing
to say that structural choices about the agency's jurisdiction and mission
influence the agency's subsequent policy preferences.64 It is quite another to
contend that structure influences most agency policy choices. Indeed, a more circumspect and persuasive
version of the structural choice argument is consistent with well-established works from outside the PPT
tradition that describe how an agency can become populated by bureaucrats with certain shared values.
For example, Kaufman65 and Marcus66 have noted that an agency with a well-defined mission will tend to
attract bureaucrats whose goals are sympathetic to that mission. Consequently, the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Water tends to attract people who place a high value on protecting
water quality, while the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Office of Hydropower Licensing
tends to attract people who place a high value on encouraging the development of hydroelectric power.
structural choices can therefore point the agency toward a
Politicians'
general goal. Nevertheless, agencies must face many policy choices
while attaining that goal which are orthogonal to the original
structural choice (as shown in Figure 3). For these policy choices, factors unrelated to
the original structural choice-bureaucrats' technical expertise,
professional norms, or the influence of the relevant policy network-
will determine the agency's policy preferences. Consider the FERC
hydroelectric licensing example mentioned above. Congress has made very few
structural choices affecting the program since the passage of the
Federal Power Act in 1935.67 Yet the FERC has made countless policy decisions about how to achieve
its goals during that time. These aging structural choices exerted little influence
over decisions profoundly affecting national energy and
environmental policy.68
But, it links to politics if the plan is unpopular, congress

would reluctant to grant Obama unilateral control over
the plan
Perm do the part of the CP that delegates authority to

the executive branch, then do the plan. Its not severance
the first part of the perm is clarification of normal
means.
Federalism DA
The CP destroys federalism
Herrman 97 David To Delegate Or Not To Delegate-That Is Preemption:
The Lack Of Political Accountability In Administrative Preemption Defies
Federalism Constraints On Government Power From From the University of
Pacufic law Review Lexis 28 Pac. L.J. 1157
Allowing Congress to avoid responsibility through the delegation of its
essential lawmaking power, particularly in the area of preempting state governmental functions,
thwarts the federalism aspect implicit in our constitutional design.
n222 Although defenders of broad agency powers argue that
administrative bodies are accountable to the legislature through
congressional oversight, n223 this argument runs counter to the
legislators' goal of blurring their own accountability and preventing
divisive legislation. n224 Thus, the important restraints on federal power
fail to protect the states from an overreaching government where
Congress delegates the power to preempt to federal agencies. n225
Unfortunately, in the area of preemption, the view that political accountability exists as the last defense to
state sovereignty is more theory than actuality. By delegating the power of regulatory preemption,
Congress has subverted the constitutional scheme. n226 B. The Theory of Administrative Agency
Accountability Through Congress
This puts a cap on conflict

Bednar 6, Department of Political Science, University of Michigan 06 (Jenna:
Constitutional Political Economy: Volume 16, Issue 2 , pp 189-205 Cover
Date: 2005-06. http://proxy.lib.umich.edu/login?
url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/215937734?accountid=14667)KalM
1.2. Robustness As described above, a second difficulty in prior studies is the specification of the
dependent variable. Many studies focused on the variable stability. Stability is both difficult to measure3
and misplaces the focus. Stability emphasizes federalism as endsthe existence of federalismrather
Governments are tools to satisfy goals set by
than federalism as means its performance.
the constitutional designers, goals that may be updated according to
changing demands. How well do federations achieve these goals? What institutional systems enable
federal structures to perform well? To answer these questions, this study shifts the dependent variable
from existence to performance, to emphasize robustness. In the study of robustness, as opposed
we are interested in how a system maintains features and
to stability,
functionalities in the face of change and perturbations (Jen 2002). Our primary
concern is how federal systems perform in the real world, under varied, changing circumstances. A
federal system must be flexible and responsive, but not overreact to
economic, political, and social challenges . This contrasts with a federation in stasis, that
cannot respond, and whose citizens suffer. Persistent strong performance will therefore be evidence not of
stability but of robustness. And robustness, not stability, should be a better predictor of longevity for those
interested in regime duration. In the section that follows, I describe the functionalities that guarantee
robustness in detail. I identify opportunism as the chief perturbation that threatens the performance of
federations. A robust federation minimizes opportunism to maximize productivity.
For empirical verification, since opportunism is not observable, and not measurable, we define a robust
Federalism may provide a variety of
federation as one that performs well. 2. Objectives
benefits; it is populations that seek one or more of these benefits who choose federalism as their
governmental form. Federalisms performance at meeting these objectives
determines its robustness. The potential benefits from federating, and their logic, follow. 2.1.
Military Security A federal union is better able to defend itself than a
confederation or looser alliance of states. The strength that comes from an
expanded territory and resources, as well as the improved coordination of effort,
makes members of the federal union more secure against foreign invasion than they are
on their own (the Federalist; Riker 1964; Ostrom 1971). 2.2. Efficiency and Innovation This
category includes economic benefits. Some compare federalism to a unitary state, arguing
that decentralization brings benefits. In the fiscal federalism literature, the existence of two
levels of government mean that taxation and expenditure policy may be
efficiently distributed to maximize total utility (e.g. Musgrave 1997, Oates 1999). In the
market-preserving federalism literature, decentralization and fragmenting authority enables a state to
credibly commit not to expropriate all rents, when coupled with other conditions, such as a
decentralization of fiscal control and hard budget constraints (Weingast 1995, Rodden and Rose-Ackerman
1997, Qian and Weingast 1997, Rodden and Wibbels 2002). Also, there may be benefits from
lower government policy experimentation (Kollman et al. 2000); these may be
economic in nature welfare policy, taxation schemes but often are not, directly, as
with education or health care. At the same time, federalism is more centralized than a
confederacy, and centralized regulation of trade permits a polity to enjoy the
benefits of a common market (e.g. the Federalist). 2.3. Effective Representation
Madison praised federalism for its potential to improve the overall quality of
representation over what was present in the state legislatures prior to federation, bolstering the
feasibility of democracy (the Federalist, Elazar 1987, Ostrom 1991), Other benefits of federalism
cite the value of decentralization: it may more effectively manage heterogeneous populations;
distributing authority at lower levels may serve as a pressure valve, releasing
ethnic tensions (the Federalist, Horowitz 1985, Stepan 1999). In the fiscal federalism literature,
decentralization permits citizens to elect politicians who will tailor policy to
meet local preferences or to move to states that better match their interests
(Tiebout 1956, Inman and Rubinfeld 1992, Peterson 1995, Donahue 1997, Oates 1999). Most federations
the unions
are established for multiple reasons. In the Federalist, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay allude to
potential to make the states more secure against foreign invasion, to
improve the economy through establishment of a common market,
to minimize the incidence and consequences of skirmishes between
the states, and (particularly Madison), to improve the quality of representative
democracy . A third and fourth reason for federating should be mentioned. First, some federations
were established or encouraged by a colonial power with the aim of maintaining dependence, a sort of
divide-and-conquer strategy. A fifth objective comes from the political economy of fiscal federalism
literature (see especially Cremer and Palfrey 1999, 2002 and Hafer and Landa 2004). There are conditions
where a majority would prefer federation to either confederation (no federal tax rate) or centralization (no
regional tax). However, one must note that these results really concern the divide-the-dollar potential of
federalism: that is, how one might divide the federal spoils. Given that federalism is an institutional
arrangement, and that Finstitutions create winners and losers, some will prefer federalismeven a
majorityif it allows them to take advantage of the minority. This advantage of federalism over unitary or
completely decentralized governance does not emphasize federalisms potential to increase total utility; it
is a calculation based upon the utility of single agents. The redistributive aspects of federalism are very
real, but are largely a problem of federalism, not a virtue (Filippov et al. 2004). Neither of these reasons
are selections that a public would make behind the veil of ignorance; that is, in both cases, federalism is
adopted to advantage some over others.
Democracy DA
They wreck democracy
Shoenbrod 93 (David, attorney, professor, and author who is nationally
recognized for his contributions to environmental law and scholarship. A
professor of environmental and constitutional law at New York Law School for
over 25 years, he is the author or co-author of six books and numerous
articles for major newspapers and scholarly journals. Schoenbrod has also
been an adjunct scholar and senior fellow at the Cato Institute, an
independent public policy research organization, and is a visiting scholar at
the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy, Power without
responsibility: How congress Abuses the People through Delegation, page 14)
We can refuse to reelect legislators who make laws we dislike. Delegation shortcircuits
this democratic option by allowing our elected lawmakers to hide behind unelected
officials. When this concern was raised in the 1940s, the Supreme Court wrongly dismissed it with the argument that
Congress and the president still are responsible for the laws made under delegation because they specify the fundamental
policy choices in statutes and leave to the agencies only the more technical questions appropriate for resolution by
experts.' This argument assumes that Congress and the president make the hard choices, but in fact, as I have
argued, they often delegate precisely in order to avoid the hard choices. The Supreme Court also relies
upon the power of Congress to repeal agency laws, but that capacity does little to soften the blow
delegation inflicts against democratic accountability. Legislators usually hold no vote on
whether to let an agency law stand, so they need offend neither those constitu ents who
support nor those who oppose the law in question. Yet they can actively please both groups by doing
casework on their behalf; casework, unlike roll-call voting, is not of public record. Delegation thus allows
members of Congress to function as ministers rather than legislators; they express
popular aspirations and tend to their flocks rather than make hard choices . With
delegation mem bers can escape being ejected from office except upon grounds that
would oust a minister from the pulpitscandal. In those exceptional cases when incumbent
legislators do lose elections, their defeat is far more likely to be caused by some escapade or chicanery than by how
they shaped the law. 2
Agent Non-Delegation
2ac F/L
Perm do the cp its a clarification of the affs
mechanism we get to clarify the agent otherwise every
debate devolves into an unpredictable agent CP the
USFG is all three branches
Perm do both
The CP is a voting issue it steals the entire aff and

obviates jurisdiction which is our only solvency deficit
counter-interp case specific solvency advocate
Perm do the part of the CP that delegates authority to

the legislative branch, then do the plan. Its not
severance the first part of the perm is clarification of
normal means.
The plans actor circumvents the CP

Williams 2k, Associate Professor of Law, Saint Louis University School of Law
2K (DOUGLAS: SYMPOSIUM CONGRESS: DOES IT ABDICATE ITS POWER?:
CONGRESSIONAL ABDICATION, LEGAL THEORY, AND DELIBERATIVE
DEMOCRACY. published in 2000.)KalM
administrative
Critics of delegation are also strangely unattentive to other ways in which
discretion can have significant impacts on policy. We enjoy a common law system in
which nice adjustments to legal obligations are made by distinguishing factual predicates. In light of that
practice,it is unlikely that a reinvigorated nondelegation doctrine would
squeeze discretion out of the system. It is much more likely that the discretion would
be shifted from the (usually) highly visible and indirectly accountable (via presidential
accountability) agency proceedings to less visible prosecutorial processes and largely
unaccountable judicial processes. It is hardly clear that, given the enormous discretion enjoyed by
prosecutors n84 and the courts - particularly on matters of remedy n85 - that a vigorous
nondelegation doctrine would accomplish any of its recognized purposes. Once
the expansive powers of Congress were released from the shackles of limiting judicial interpretation, it is
not surprising that the delegation doctrine fell into desuetude. If the only effective limits on the matters to
which congressional authority extends were those imposed by electoral constraints, a "substantial effects"
linkage to interstate commerce, and a flimsy "rational basis" standard of review, n86 why should the
courts, on the basis of nothing more than a debatable constitutional inference, attempt to contain this
power by invoking delegation principles? How were courts to distinguish the question of whether Congress
had made sufficiently specific policy choices in [*93] delegating power to agencies from the question of
whether the subject matter of the legislation was appropriate for federal intervention? Benzene shows that
even if the delegation
the questions may be quite difficult to keep analytically separate. But
doctrine were capable of being confined to an inquiry concerning whether
Congress had made sufficiently clear policy choices, how are courts to discern
the range of possible policy options, much less whether the legislative choice
was "specific"? n87 Rather than viewing delegation as an evasion of
congressional responsibility, broad delegations of authority to administrative
institutions might be explained, at least in part, as a responsible congressional
choice to extend the reach of federal power to deal with pressing social and economic
problems. A charge of "abdication" on the part of Congress for such responses would seem misplaced.
Non-del is the squo

Lexis)//twemchen
The expansion of private screening is a threat to TSA bureaucracy. So it is not

surprising that TSA has a history of intimidating airport operators that express an
interest in participating in the SPP program.113 In 2011, TSA rejected applications from six
airports to join the SPP program, and it appeared that the agency wanted to wind down the program
In response, Congress
altogether. But that TSA stance flew in the face of congressional intent.
rebuked the agency and pushed through legislation in 2012 that
strengthened the rights of airports wanting to use private screeners.114
Other airports are now submitting applications to TSA for SPP status.
Delegation is inevitable
Lovell 2k, Assistant Professor of Government, College of William and Mary,
2k (George, That Sick Chicken Wont Hunt: The Limits of a Judicially Enforced
Non- Delegation Doctrine, Constitutional Commentary, 17 Constitutional,
Commentary 79)
Once again, however, it is not certain that the only consequences of enforcing a non-delegation doctrine
are going to be the ones applauded by the doctrine's proponents. The claim that a non-delegation doctrine
will force Congress to deliberate more carefully and inhibit excessive legislation is only believable if
members of Congress cannot find alternative means of reaching compromises in the absence of
delegation. As things now stand,delegation is not the only means used by members
of Congress to find compromises that break stalemates or to avoid
responsibility. If the courts made it impossible for Congress to delegate,
Congress would be likely to substitute one or more of those other means. For
example, legislators deprived of their power to delegate might instead try to reach
compromises by increasing pork barrel spending or by logrolling regulatory
programs into huge omnibus bills. Such practices are already notorious in those policy areas
in which Congress now passes detailed legislation (e.g., taxes and appropriations). Recognizing that the
consequences of pork barreling might be even worse than the consequences
of delegation, critics of delegation deny that these alternative methods of reaching compromise are a
significant concern. Aranson, Gellhorn, and Robinson, for example, reject the suggestion that Congress
would increase pork barrel spending, [*97] claiming: "This argument assumes that the legislature is not
already maximizing its return from pork-barrel (private-goods) production. We assume the contrary,
however, and conclude that an increase in the cost of delegation will reduce the total output of
inappropriate legislation." n32 Aranson, Gellhorn, and Robinson's contrary assumption is itself implausible,
as can be seen by using a market metaphor. Enforcing a non-delegation doctrine would presumably
Raising the cost of delegation
change legislators' calculations about the costs of pork barreling.
(or removing delegation from that market altogether) will presumably make
legislators eager to purchase more of a substitute good, in this case, pork-barrel
legislation. Thus, the level at which a legislature maximizes its return from pork-barrel production in a
world of rampant delegation may be much lower than the level at which returns will be maximized in a
Congress would also adjust
world with a judicially enforced non-delegation doctrine. Presumably,
to the world without delegation by making its internal structure more
conducive to alternative means of reaching compromises. n33 Even beyond the
problems posed by alternative means of forming compromises, there are compelling reasons to think that
the critics have offered a flawed analysis of Congress's incentives with regard to constitutional limitations
inhibiting excessive legislation. The critics' arguments suggest that delegation is a sign of a legislation-
mad Congress trying to subvert structural controls that inhibit legislative compromises. This assumption
seems quite odd when tested against the internal procedural rules that Congress has created for itself.
Many of those rules [*98] make it much harder for legislation to pass, not
easier. Members of Congress have created the filibuster in the Senate, rules
limiting amending activity in the House, and the decentralization
institutionalized through the committee system and weak institutional
sources of party cohesion. n34 These rules and practices often inhibit the
passage of legislation by increasing the veto points for opponents, and often
make it more difficult to form compromises. A Congress bent on finding easy
compromises and subverting the Constitution's structures for inhibiting
legislation would presumably have adopted a different way of proceeding .
AT Prez Powers
Theyre a meaningless limit on prez powers
Posner and Vermeule 2, Professors of Law University of Chicago. 02 (Eric
and Adrian Vermeule: University of Chicago Law Review: Interring the
Nondelegation Doctrine published Fall, 2002)KalM
(3) If it did happen, and it were bad, the nondelegation doctrine couldn't
prevent it anyway. If an Adolf Hitler came within striking distance of
attaining power in the modern United States, it would presumably be
unwise to rely on the nondelegation doctrine, or any other [*1743] esoteric
legal principle, as the final barrier. Far better to rely on a countervailing
power with real muscle, like an opposing political party or the army. Note
that the Schechter Poultry decision is not a plausible example of the Supreme Court invoking the
nondelegation doctrine to save the nation from a slide into executive tyranny. The National Industrial
Recovery Act had already lost political support by the time the Court heard the nondelegation challenge;
the Court's decision to invalidate the statute amounted to little more than piling on. There's little reason to
think that the Court would ever enforce the doctrine against a nationwide majority convinced that a broad
grant of statutory authority to the executive was necessary to national survival.
AT Democracy
No impact
Manan 15 [Munafrizal- Professor of IR @ University of Al Azhar Indonesia,
Hubungan International Journal, cites a bunch of profs and scholars of DPT,
The Democratic Peace Theory and Its Problems,
http://journal.unpar.ac.id/index.php/JurnalIlmiahHubunganInternasiona/article/view/1315 , mm]
In the literature of democracy, there has been a debate among social scientist,
especially political scientists, about what democracy really is as well
as which countries should be called democratic and which types of
democracies are more peaceful. Speaking generally, the experts agree that the
democratic theories can be grouped into two broad paradigms. The
first is elitist, structural, formal, and procedural. It tends to understand democracy in a
relatively minimalist way . A regime is a democracy when it passes some structural threshold of free and open
elections, autonomous branches of government, division of power, and checks and balances. This state of affairs precludes a tyrannical
The second
concentration of power in the hands of the elites. Once this structure is in place, a regime is a democracy.
paradigm, which is called 'normative', 'cultural', 'deliberative

democracy', and 'participatory democracy', tends to focus on other
issues and to demand much more of democracy. First, the emphasis is on the society and
the individual citizens, not the political system and the regime. Second, there is also a demand for the existence of democratic norms and
democratic culture. This implies, among other things, political rights, tolerance, openness, participation, and a sense of civic responsibility.
Nevertheless, there is no consensus among the democratic peace

theoreticians about the nature of democracy in relation to the
democratic peace theory. If the democratic peace theory is based on the first paradigm, then there are many
countries should be called democratic. Democracy in such a paradigm is relatively easy
to build, but also relatively easy to dismantle it. 167 It seems that the
democratic peace theory is not strongly supported by the structural
paradigm of democratic theory because interstate wars or at least
armed conflicts remain taking place in countries that committed to
this structural paradigm. The armed conflicts between Russia and
Georgia as well as Thailand and Cambodia in 2008, for example,
which were triggered by border disputes, strengthen such a view. Within
this context, Chan argues that although a large number of countries have recently
adopted democratic structures of governance (for instance, universal suffrage, multiparty

competition, contested elections, legislative oversight), it is not evident that their leaders and
people have internalized such democratic norms as those regarding

tolerance , compromise, and sharing power.168 Conversely, if it is
based on the second paradigm, then there are only a few countries
should be classified democratic. It is likely to focus merely on mature
democratic countries especially in the regions of North America and West Europe. As a consequence,
numerous cases of warring democracies will be excluded. 169 It means that the
democratic peace theory is only relevant to countries in this region and hence it cannot be applied to other countries. In other words, the
proponents of the democratic peace theory do not have a justifiable

reason to spread democracy around the world in order to enforce
international peace. Like democracy, the definition of war is also
contested by scholars. The proponents of the democratic peace theory who argue that democratic countries have not
involved in wars against each other have tended to rely on the definition most widely used in academic research on the causes of war in the
last two or three decades. 170War is defined as, according to that definition, no
hostilityqualified as an interstate war unless it led to a minimum of
1,000 battle fatalities among all the system members involved. 171
Such a definition excludes the wars that do not fulfil the 1,000
battle-death threshold and hence minimizes the number of cases
that can be categorized war. As Ray observes, in any case, there are not numerous incidents having just below
1,000 battle deaths that would otherwise qualify as wars between democratic states.172 Moreover, it allows
democratic peace proponents to exclude some troublesome

cases .173 The case of Finland is one of examples for this. The case
suggests that although democratic peace proponents code Finland
as a democracy, Finlands alliance with Germany in World War II is
summarily dismissed because fewer than 1,000 Finns were killed in
armed combat. 174 Another example is the 1967 Six Day War
between Israel and Lebanon in which Lebanon only sent a few
aircraft into Israel air space and sustained no casualties.
175Obviously, such an old definition is not adequate to explain the
changing character of war in the contemporary era. 176 In addition, by using historical
analysis Ravlo, Gleditsch and Dorussen show that the claim of the democratic peace theory
that democratic states never get involved in a war against each

other is undermined by historical ev idence. Their finding demonstrates that most of extrasystematic
wars have been fought by democracies 177 and only in the postcolonial period are democracies less involved in extrasystemic war.178 But
in the colonial and imperial periods, wars occurred among

democracies . Similar to democracy and war, the definition of peace is
also debated by scholars. Put it simply, according to the realists, peace can be defined as
the absence of war. As Waltz argues, the chances of peace rise if
states can achieve their most important ends without actively using
force.179However, the absence of war is something temporary and therefore peace is no more than a
transient lack of war.180 For realists, the absence of war does not simply mean that there will be no war in the future
and they ridicule people who are happy with such a peace. Realists believe that war is the common and unavoidable feature of international
relations and it means that peace as dangerous as war. 181 In the view of Waltz, in an anarchic realm, peace is fragile. 182 Thus, for realists,
peace is a period to prepare war. Other definitions of peace highlight different aspects. Brown defines international war as violence between
organized political entities claiming to be sovereign nation.183 Boulding who rebuts the realist definition of peace defines peace as a
situation in which the probability of war is so small that it does not really enter into the calculations of any of the people
involved.184According to Boulding, peace should be a real peace which means a stable peace. Boulding rejects the realist definition of
peace since it is an unstable peace.185
AT Federalism
No modeling
New York Times 8 (U.S. Court, a Longtime Beacon, Is Now Guiding
Fewer Nations)
American legal influence is waning. Even as a debate continues in the court over whether its
But now
a diminishing number of foreign courts seem to

decisions should ever cite foreign law,
pay attention to the writings of American justices. ''One of our great exports used to be
constitutional law,'' said Anne-Marie Slaughter, the dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton. ''We are
losing one of the greatest bully pulpits we have ever had.'' From 1990 through 2002, for instance, the Canadian Supreme Court cited
decisions of the United States Supreme Court about a dozen times a year, an analysis by The New York Times found. In the six years since, the
annual citation rate has fallen by half, to about six. Australian state supreme courts cited American decisions 208 times in 1995, according to
a recent study by Russell Smyth, an Australian economist. By 2005, the number had fallen to 72. The story is similar around the globe, legal
These days, foreign courts in developed

experts say, particularly in cases involving human rights.
democracies often cite the rulings of the European Court of Human

Rights in cases concerning equality, liberty and prohibitions against cruel treatment, said Harold Hongju Koh, the dean of the Yale Law
they tend not to look to the rulings of the U.S.

School. In those areas, Dean Koh said, ''
Supreme Court.'' The rise of new and sophisticated constitutional

courts elsewhere is one reason for the Supreme Court's fading
influence, legal experts said. The new courts are, moreover, generally more
liberal than the Rehnquist and Roberts courts and for that reason more inclined to cite one
another.
Agent State Courts
2ac F/L
The CP is a voting issue uniform state court fiat is
unpredictable and doesnt exist in the literature makes
offense impossible
Federal courts strike down the CP means it links more to

the net benefit
Gardner 3 --- professor of law @ State University of New York (James A,
STATE COURTS AS AGENTS OF FEDERALISM: POWER AND INTERPRETATION
IN STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, William & Mary Law Review, March 2003,
44 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1725)//Mnush
state judicial branch in
Missing from this picture, however, is any obvious role for the
efforts by the state to resist abuses of national power. In a way, this
gap is not surprising. Courts in the American tradition are
essentially passive institutions, and their ability to participate in the
resolution of political issues depends greatly on whether litigants
bring such disputes before them. n34 Yet unlike federal courts, state courts are
unlikely to adjudicate lawsuits attacking purported abuses of
national power by national officials, or to have any legitimate and binding authority to
resolve them. First, although state courts typically have jurisdiction to hear cases brought against organs
of the national government, national officials have an absolute right to
remove such cases to federal court , n35 a right which the United States Justice
Department exer-cises routinely as a matter of basic policy. n36 Second, state courts are [*1739] required
to obey national law, n37 and are in any event subject to direct appellate oversight by the United States
Supreme Court, n38 drastically limiting their ability to strike out at the national govern-ment. It is true, of
course, that state courts could join the fray by defying federal law, as state legislative and executive
branches have sometimes done, but this is a particularly unattractive option for courts, which are, after all,
anything a state court might
uniquely dedicated to upholding law, not defying it. n39 Thus,
gain in successfully resisting national power through illegal means
might in the long run work to that court's disadvantage by
undermining its claim to legitimacy as an impartial instrument of the
law.
Perm do both
Cant enforce anything

State courts obviously cannot serve as agents of federalism in the same way as federal courts because
they have no ability to control the content of national law or to enforce it against national actors.
Assuming, then, that a state court does have authority to act as an agent of federalism, how might it
assert that authority? What tools, in other words, might a state court employ to resist national power?
State courts, it must be conceded, possess far fewer resources to
deploy against national power than do the state executive and
legislative branches. State courts typically lack binding authority
over organs of the national government n91 and are subject to
direct national judicial oversight on questions of national law. n92
Further-more, although state courts are typically more active and involved in policy formation than federal
state
courts, they still are relatively passive institutions. Unlike the governor and state legislature,
courts cannot simply voluntarily insert themselves into pressing
disputes, but must ordinarily wait for problems to come to them
before acting. Nevertheless, state courts do have one fairly powerful tool at their disposal: their
control over state law, and, more particularly, over the state constitutions.
Perm do the CP
The CP destroys SOP

the self-consciously instrumental use of
Strict constructionists might first object that
the power to interpret a constitution is by definition an abuse of
judicial power. For a court to engage in result-oriented
interpretation for the purpose of resisting national power or for any
other purpose, it might be said, is deliberately to manipulate the
document's meaning rather than to discern it, an approach inconsistent with a
proper understanding of judicial power. Judicial power rightly understood, strict constructionists
might say, cannot be used instrumentally because it is not a tool to be
used self-consciously to achieve ends; rather, the judicial role is
merely to apply the law. n135 A court that used its powers
instrumentally would be making law rather than applying it, yet
courts should never take it upon themselves to make law because
doing so usurps power allocated to other organs of government. n136
Global nuclear war

Li 9 Zheyao, J.D. candidate, Georgetown University Law Center, 2009; B.A.,
political science and history, Yale University, 2006. This paper is the
culmination of work begun in the "Constitutional Interpretation in the
Legislative and Executive Branches" seminar, led by Judge Brett Kavanaugh,
War Powers for the Fourth Generation: Constitutional Interpretation in the
Age of Asymmetric Warfare, 7 Geo. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 373 2009 WAR POWERS
IN THE FOURTH GENERATION OF WARFARE
A. The Emergence of Non-State Actors Even as the quantity of nation-states in the world has increased dramatically since the end
of World War II, the institution of the nation-state has been in decline over the past few decades. Much of this decline is the direct result of the
waning of major interstate war, which primarily resulted from the introduction of nuclear weapons.122 The proliferation of nuclear
weapons , and their immense capacity for absolute destruction, has ensured that conventional wars
remain limited in scope and duration. Hence, "both the size of the armed forces and the quantity of weapons at their disposal
has declined quite sharply" since 1945.123 At the same time, concurrent with the decline of the nation-state in the second half of the
twentieth century, non-state actors have increasingly been willing and able to use force to advance their causes. In contrast to nation-states,
non-state
who adhere to the Clausewitzian distinction between the ends of policy and the means of war to achieve those ends,
actors do not necessarily fight as a mere means of advancing any coherent policy. Rather, they see their fight as a
life-and-death struggle, wherein the ordinary terminology of war as an instrument of policy breaks down because of
this blending of means and ends.124 It is the existential nature of this struggle and the disappearance of the Clausewitzian distinction
between war and policy that has given rise to a new generation of warfare. The concept of fourth-generational warfare was first articulated in
an influential article in the Marine Corps Gazette in 1989, which has proven highly prescient. In describing what they saw as the modem trend
toward a new phase of warfighting, the authors argued that: In broad terms, fourth generation warfare seems likely to be widely dispersed and
largely undefined; the distinction between war and peace will be blurred to the vanishing point. It will be nonlinear, possibly to the point of
having no definable battlefields or fronts. The distinction between "civilian" and "military" may disappear. Actions will occur concurrently
throughout all participants' depth, including their society as a cultural, not just a physical, entity. Major military facilities, such as airfields, fixed
communications sites, and large headquarters will become rarities because of their vulnerability; the same may be true of civilian equivalents,
such as seats of government, power plants, and industrial sites (including knowledge as well as manufacturing industries). 125 It is precisely
this blurring of peace and war and the demise of traditionally definable battlefields that provides the impetus for the formulation of a new.
theory of war powers. As evidenced by Part M, supra, the constitutional allocation of war powers, and the Framers'
commitment of the war power to two co-equal branches, was not designed to cope with the current
international system, one that is characterized by the persistent machinations of international terror ist organizations, the rise of
multilateral alliances, the emergence of rogue states, and the potentially wide prolif eration of easily deployable
weapons of mass destruction, nuclear and otherwise. B. The Framers' World vs. Today's World The Framers crafted the Constitution, and the
people ratified it, in a time when everyone understood that the state controlled both the raising of armies and their use. Today, however, the
threat of terrorism is bringing an end to the era of the nation-state's legal monopoly on violence, and the kind of war that existed before-based
on a clear division between government, armed forces, and the people-is on the decline. 126 As states are caught between their decreasing
ability to fight each other due to the existence of nuclear weapons and the increasing threat from non-state actors, it is clear that the
Westphalian system of nation-states that informed the Framers' allocation of war powers is no longer the order of the day. 127 As seen in Part
III, supra, the rise of the modem nation-state occurred as a result of its military effectiveness and ability to defend its citizens. If nation-states
such as the United States are unable to adapt to the changing circumstances of fourth-generational warfare-that is, if they are unable to
adequately defend against low-intensity conflict conducted by non-state actors-"then clearly [the modem state] does not have a future in front
of it.' 128 The challenge in formulating a new theory of war powers for fourthgenerational warfare that remains legally justifiable lies in the
difficulty of adapting to changed circumstances while remaining faithful to the constitutional text and the original meaning. 29 To that end, it is
crucial to remember that the Framers crafted the Constitution in the context of the Westphalian system of nation-states. The three centuries
following the Peace of Westphalia of 1648 witnessed an international system characterized by wars, which, "through the efforts of
governments, assumed a more regular, interconnected character."' 130 That period saw the rise of an independent military class and the
stabilization of military institutions. Consequently, "warfare became more regular, better organized, and more attuned to the purpose of war-
that is, to its political objective."' 1 3' That era is now over. Today, the stability of the long-existing Westphalian international order has been
greatly eroded in recent years with the advent of international terrorist organizations, which care nothing for the traditional norms of the laws
of war. This new global environment exposes the limitations inherent in the interpretational methods of originalism and textualism and
necessitates the adoption of a new method of constitutional interpretation. While one must always be aware of the text of the Constitution and
the original understanding of that text, that very awareness identifies the extent to which fourth-generational warfare epitomizes a
phenomenon unforeseen by the Framers, a problem the constitutional resolution of which must rely on the good judgment of the present
generation. 13 Now, to adapt the constitutional warmarking scheme to the new international order characterized by fourth-generational
warfare, one must understand the threat it is being adapted to confront. C. The Jihadist Threat The erosion of the Westphalian and
Clausewitzian model of warfare and the blurring of the distinction between the means of warfare and the ends of policy, which is one
characteristic of fourth-generational warfare, apply to al-Qaeda and other adherents of jihadist ideology who view the United States as an
enemy. An excellent analysis of jihadist ideology and its implications for the rest of the world are presented by Professor Mary Habeck. 133
Professor Habeck identifies the centrality of the Qur'an, specifically a particular reading of the Qur'an and hadith (traditions about the life of
Muhammad), to the jihadist terrorists. 134 The jihadis believe that the scope of the Qur'an is universal, and "that their interpretation of Islam is
also intended for the entire world, which must be brought to recognize this fact peacefully if possible and through violence if not."' 135 Along
these lines, the jihadis view the United States and her allies as among the greatest enemies of Islam: they believe "that every element of
modern Western liberalism is flawed, wrong, and evil" because the basis of liberalism is secularism. 136 The jihadis emphasize the superiority
of Islam to all other religions, and they believe that "God does not want differing belief systems to coexist."' 37 For this reason, jihadist groups
such as al-Qaeda "recognize that the West will not submit without a fight and believe in fact that the Christians, Jews, and liberals have united
against Islam in a war that will end in the complete destruction of the unbelievers.' 138 Thus, the adherents of this jihadist ideology, be it al-
Qaeda or other groups, will continue to target the United States until she is destroyed. Their ideology demands it. 139 To effectively combat
terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda, it is necessary to understand not only how they think, but also how they operate. Al-Qaeda is a
transnational organization capable of simultaneously managing multiple operations all over the world."14 It is both centralized and
decentralized: al-Qaeda is centralized in the sense that Osama bin Laden is the unquestioned leader, but it is decentralized in that its
operations are carried out locally, by distinct cells."4 AI-Qaeda benefits immensely from this arrangement because it can exercise direct
control over high-probability operations, while maintaining a distance from low-probability attacks, only taking the credit for those that
succeed. The local terrorist cells benefit by gaining access to al-Qaeda's "worldwide network of assets, people, and expertise."' 42 Post-
September 11 events have highlighted al-Qaeda's resilience. Even as the United States and her allies fought back, inflicting heavy casualties
on al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and destroying dozens of cells worldwide, "al-Qaeda's networked nature allowed it to absorb the damage and
remain a threat." 14 3 This is a far cry from earlier generations of warfare, where the decimation of the enemy's military forces would
generally bring an end to the conflict. D. The Need for Rapid Reaction and Expanded Presidential War Power By now it should be clear just how
different this conflict against the extremist terrorists is from the type of warfare that occupied the minds of the Framers at the time of the
Founding. Rather than maintaining the geographical and political isolation desired by the Framers for the new country, today's United States is
an international power targeted by individuals and groups that will not rest until seeing her demise. The Global War on Terrorism is not truly a
war within the Framers' eighteenth-century conception of the term, and the normal constitutional provisions regulating the division of war
powers between Congress and the President do not apply. Instead, this "war" is a struggle for survival and dominance against forces that
threaten to destroy the United States and her allies, and the fourth-generational nature of the conflict, highlighted by an indiscernible
distinction between wartime and peacetime, necessitates an evolution of America's traditional constitutional warmaking scheme. As first
illustrated by the military strategist Colonel John Boyd, constitutional decision-making in the realm of war powers in the fourth generation
In the era of fourth-generational
should consider the implications of the OODA Loop: Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act. 44
warfare, quick reactions , proceeding through the OODA Loop rapidly, and disrupting the
enemy's OODA loop are the keys to victory. "In order to win," Colonel Boyd suggested, "we should
operate at a faster tempo or rhythm than our adversaries." 145 In the words of Professor
Creveld, "[b]oth organizationally and in terms of the equipment at their disposal, the armed forces of the world will have to adjust themselves
to this situation by changing their doctrine, doing away with much of their heavy equipment and becoming more like police."1 46
Unfortunately, the existing constitutional understanding, which diffuses war power between two branches of government, necessarily (by the
Framers' design) slows down decision- making. In circumstances where war is undesirable (which is, admittedly, most of the time, especially
against other nation-states), the deliberativeness of the existing decision-making process is a positive attribute. In America's current situation,
however, in the midst of the conflict with al-Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations, the existing process of
constitutional decision-making in warfare may prove a fatal hindrance to

achieving the initiative necessary for victory. As a slow-acting, deliberative body, Congress does
not have the ability to adequately deal with fast-emerging situations in fourth-
generational warfare. Thus, in order to combat transnational threats such as al-Qaeda, the
executive branch must have the ability to operate by taking offensive military action even without
congressional authorization , because only the executive branch is capable of the swift
decision-making and action necessary to prevail in fourth-generational conflicts against fourthgenerational
opponents.
1ar EXT Links to NB
Links more to the net benefit
Nevertheless, these changes seem very far from having penetrated public
consciousness. If actual litigation decisions are any guide, state
courts today appear to be less trusted than federal courts when it
comes to the protection of individual rights. Although evidence is difficult to come
by, it appears that litigants, given a choice between suing in state and federal court, prefer to
bring civil rights claims in a federal forum. n216 Even when they proceed in a
litigants tend overwhelmingly to raise civil rights claims
state court,
under the United States Constitution rather than under their state
constitution, n217 suggesting that they have more faith in the body of
constitutional law developed by federal courts than in the similar
body of law developed by state courts construing state constitutions.
1ar EXT Perm
The permutation is preferable lockstep agreement on
constitutional questions solves best

State Constitutional Rights as Resistance to National Power: Toward a
Functional Theory of State Constitutions, Georgetown Law Journal, June
2003, 91 Geo. L.J. 1003)//Mnush
Lockstep analysis, one
In any event, there is a more benign way to understand lockstep analysis.
might say, does not necessarily reveal an abandonment by state courts
of their responsibilities to protect liberty and to reflect meaning-
fully upon the best ways to do so. On the contrary, it might well represent a discharge of
those responsibilities, but in circumstances where the state court feels that
the national government is already doing a reasonably good job. In
those circumstances, a state court might reasonably conclude that there is
no need, at least for the moment, to explore in any greater depth
the possibilities presented by the state constitution to protect
liberty any more or less vigorously than it is already protected by
the national judicial analysis. Lockstep analysis thus need not
represent an absence of independent constitutional judgment; it can
just as easily represent the outcome of a fully-informed exercise of
independent state judicial judgment .
Agent Supreme Court
2ac F/L
Perm do the CP the plan text said federal government
which means the CP is a potential mechanism for the
plan
Their ev says theyll rule on the fourth amendment that

doesnt solve
Lynch 7 --- J.D. (Matthew, CLOSING THE ORWELLIAN LOOPHOLE: THE
PRESENT CONSTITUTIONALITY OF BIG BROTHER AND THE POTENTIAL FOR A
FIRST AMENDMENT CURE, 5 First Amend. L. Rev. 234, Lexis)//trepka
even if the Court finds that the government interest pales in

Finally,
comparison to any privacy interests, and it rules against the Orwell Act,
Anti-Orwellians face another practical difficulty: the limitations of
the exclusionary rule . While a ruling that strikes down Orwell-Act
searches on Fourth Amendment grounds might bar the admission of
a defendant's own recorded conversations in a court proceeding, it
would not bar the admission of the evidence gained by listening to
the conversations of others , because defendants have no standing
to object to violations of the privacy of others . n46 For example, in the prosecution
of a drug dealer, the government could collect recorded communications of all of the drug dealer's
associates. Suppose an associate calls another associate and tells him that the dealer expects a new
shipment to arrive at a certain time and location. The government could send officers to that location to
arrest the dealer as he makes the purchase; it could convince the associates to testify against the dealer;
and it could even introduce the associates' conversations against the dealer at trial (subject, of course, to
Other exceptions to the
the limitations of the Confrontation Clause and rules of evidence).
exclusionary rule, such as attenuation n47 and the independent
source doctrine , n48 give the government opportunities to use [*250]
the fruits of unlawful searches of the defendant himself. In short, the
holes in the exclusionary rule give the government little incentive to
abandon such a powerful means of uncovering evidence of criminal
activity.
This is offense it straight turns the net benefit and

ensures the CP isnt enforced
Yoo 97 (John, Law Professor at Berkeley School of Law, Federal Courts as
Weapons of Foreign Policy: The Case of the Helms-Burton Act, Hastings
International & Comparative Law Review, V. 20:747)
certain types of cases
Structural remedies also indicate that certain roles and can place demands on the
integrity of the federal courts as well as on their capabilities. My colleague Paul Mishkin has argued that structural injunctions call upon the courts to
employ procedures that undermine the impartiality of the federal judiciary.71 In setting spending priorities for state governments, allocating state resources, and deciding on
policies , federal courts can lose their objectivity and become actors in the political process and in the case itself.72 As cases
move into the remedial stage, federal courts may lose their sense of detachment and become more interested in effective management of the defendant's conduct and of the overall remedy. An intrusive judiciary,
and the failure or shortcomings of its remedies, may breed a lack of confidence in, or even a lack of respect for, the legitimacy of the federal courts. To be sure, there are a great many
differences between structural injunction and foreign relations cases. Nonetheless, suits under Title III of Helms-Burton could invite similar problems. To adjudicate a Title III suit, a federal court will have to determine
facts and causation that occurred more than 30 years ago in another country. Information on the events producing an expropriation may be hard to discover and may be of doubtful reliability, due to the termination
of diplomatic and economic relations between the United States and Cuba. Courts may have to reconstruct complex financial transactions and chains of ownership among many different companies from many
different nations that stretch back to the early 1960s. Courts may need to make sensitive judgments about the political relationships and decisions not just of the present day, but of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
The Supreme Court long has recognized that adjudicating claims arising from events and policies abroad present unique problems for the federal courts. In its political question cases, the Court has described its
unwillingness to hear foreign relations cases both because the foreign affairs power is vested in the other branches, and because the judiciary is functionally ill-equipped for the task. As Justice Jackson wrote, "[s]uch
decisions are wholly confided by our Constitution to the political departments of the government, Executive and Legislative. They are delicate, complex and involve large amounts of prophecy... They are decisions of
a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility ... "n While the political question doctrine does not apply to Helms-Burton, these concerns about judicial competence ought to be taken
into account in evaluating how Title III will operate and whether it will succeed. Further, as with structural injunctions, Title III remedies may create significant institutional problems for the judiciary. Defendants are
likely to have most of their assets abroad, which would leave the court with little property to attach in order to enforce its judgments. Enforcing judgments abroad is not easy; as the Supreme Court recognized long
ago in Hilton v. Guyot, "[ajs an act of government, [a judgment's] effects are limited to the territory of the sovereign whose court rendered the judgment, unless some other state is bound by treaty to give the
judgment effect in its territory, or unless some other state is willing, for reasons of its own, to give the judgment effect."74 As the United States has not entered into any international agreements on the
enforceability of its judgments abroad, no other nations have a binding obligation to enforce a Title III judgment against their own nationals.75 These difficulties are only compounded when the foreign nations
disagree with the policy of the law that gave rise to the liability, to the extent that they even enact "clawback" legislation that allows their corporations to sue in their domestic courts to recover awards rendered
Such
under American laws.76 Current disagreement with Helms-Burton abroad may mean that few judgments rendered under Title III will be capable of enforcement.
ineffectiveness serves to dilute public respect for the courts federal , which, as
Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist No. 7S, "have neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment."77 If Title III leaves the judiciary in the position of issuing judgments that none expect to be enforced, it enhances
an image of powerlessness on the part of the courts. It may dilute the institutional capital of the courts
in more important areas such as constitutional rights in which ( ),
judges must depend on public respect to enforce counter-

majoritarian decrees considerations of political capital .73 Although should not prevent the courts
should inform policy decisions on whether

from exercising jurisdiction when the Constitution or federal law require it," they
to expand federal jurisdiction in the first place. Powerlessness is not the only threat to judicial authority. My colleague Martin Shapiro has written that
courts in several different cultures possess certain shared characteristics that enhance their social legitimacy, and hence the willingness of parties and the public to accept their judgments.85 Although courts
deviate in different ways from this ideal model, courts essentially find their legitimacy in the "logic of the triad," as Professor Shapiro describes itthe idea that two parties in conflict refer their dispute to a third,
neutral party for resolution. As the adjudicators become less neutral and more a part of the machinery of the state and of the political system, they lose their legitimacy. "When we move from courts as conflict
resolvers to courts as social controllers, their social logic and their independence is even further undercut. For in this realm, while proceeding in the guise of triadic conflict resolver, courts clearly operate to impose
outside interests on the parties."31 Ironically, granting the courts too much of a certain type of powerthat of enforcer of public policy-also has the effect of threatening judicial integrity. Title III of Helms-Burton
may prove to be a good example of this tension between a court's duty to resolve conflicts on the one hand, and to pursue public policy on the other. In the foreign relations area, a cause of action is more likely to
be seen as a tool for the advancement of a specific public goal, rather than as the correction of an injustice or inequity. In other words, courts will be acting as instruments of the national government, even of the
State Department, rather than as neutral decisionmakers engaged in conflict resolution. The U.S. House Committee on International Relations made this clear with regard to Title III when it declared that the
"purpose of this new civil remedy is, in part, to discourage persons and companies from engaging in commercial transactions involving confiscated property, and in so doing to deny the Cuban regime the capital
generated by such ventures and deter the exploitation of property confiscated from U.S. nationals."82 Usually, these international relations goals would be achieved by the imposition of economic sanctions by the
executive and legislative branches, rather than through a cause of action in federal court. Enlisting the judiciary to achieve these purposes encourages a perception of the federal courts as interested implementers
of American foreign policy, which will undermine the legitimacy of the federal courts and of their judgment in the eyes of the public and of our allies. Judicialization of Cuba policy raises yet another threat to judicial
independence. We have discussed the problems that arise both from the frustration of judicial remedies and from the perception of courts as merely arms of the state. Again as with structural injunctions, a third
difficulty may arise when a class of cases calls for a change in the role of the individual judge. In structural injunctions situations, it will be remembered, judges can lose their objectivity and impartiality as they
become interested players in the political give-and-take that occurs in remedial proceedings. Helms-Burton might produce a similar problem by placing judges in the difficult position either of executing American
foreign policy or of flouting national security concerns. In ruling on the merits of a Title III case, judges may not find it easy cither to put aside their patriotism or to ignore popular support for Cuba sanctions. The
price, however, of giving in to these temptations may be the further loss of neutrality and of legitimacy on the part of the courts. Judicialization of Cuba policy also will transfer the political bargaining and
confrontation that occurs over foreign policy from the Congress and the White House to the courtroom. In the structural injunction context, the expansion of the courts' remedial power over some of the basic
decisions of state government, such as budget, tax, and educational policy resulted in the transformation of the judicial process into a forum for the allocation of resources and the development of public
programs.'*3 A similar prospect may lie in store for the federal courts if the enforcement of foreign policyin this case Cuba policy-becomes the goal of litigation. For example, in Barclays Bank PLC v. Franchise Tax
Board of California?4 a case which challenged the constitutionality of California's tax on multinational corporations, amicus briefs were entered by the United Kingdom, the European Community, Banque Nationale
de Paris, the Confederation of British Industry, the Council of Netherlands Industrial Federations, the Federal of German Industries, the Japan Federation of Economic Organizations, the Japan Tax Association, Reuters,
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and dozens of American states." Instead of fighting in Congress and the executive branch for a different international economic policy, these parties transferred their disputes to a
judicial forum because of the Court's jurisdiction over dormant commerce clause cases. A similar result may occur when Cuba policy becomes a regular subject for federal lawsuits. Judicialization may breed
politicization, which in the long run would do great harm to the institution of the
judiciary .
Perm do both
Agent CPs are a voting issue they absorb the 1AC and
make offense impossible especially without a
prescriptive solvency advocate, which provides the only
lit base for substantive clash
The CP sets a precedent for surveillance litigation this

clogs courts and turns the net benefit
Correia 15 (Evan, J.D. Candidate, May 2015, Temple University Beasley
School of Law, NOTE & COMMENT: PULLING BACK THE VEIL OF SECRECY:
STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE GOVERNMENT'S ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
ACTIVITIES // AKONG)
Granting individuals standing to challenge governmental
surveillance would overwhelm the courts . n293 There are simply
not enough judicial resources to adjudicate the approximately three
hundred million suits this proposal could potentially generate. n294
Moreover, each of these suits would have the potential to be
renewed almost as soon as it is resolved based on nothing more
than suspicion of continued surveillance because their focus is on
the info rmation being gathered. n295 [*213] The possibility of a class action suit would
not stem the flow if individual lawsuits either because individual issues of harm concerning what particular
information is gathered would predominate. n296
Decks the economy

Post 11 (Ashely; InsideCounsel as managing editor ,"Frivolous lawsuits
clogging U.S. courts, stalling economic growth",
www.insidecounsel.com/2011/07/22/frivolous-lawsuits-clogging-us-courts-
stalling-eco?page=1-5, July 22, 2011)//ADS
But some
Americans litigiousness and thirst for massive damages has been a boon to the legal profession.
researchers and litigation experts warn that the abundance of
lawsuitsmany of them frivolousflooding U.S. courts is severely
weaken ing the economy . According to consulting firm Towers Watson, the direct cost of the U.S. tort
system in 2009 was approximately $250 billion, which was roughly 2 percent of the gross domestic product. The amount
is double the estimated tort expenses in other countries, including the U.K. and Japan. In May, the House Judiciary
Committee held a hearing that explored excessive litigations effect on the United States global competitiveness. During
his testimony, Skadden Partner John Beisner explained that plaintiffs counsel engage in five types of litigation abuse that
ultimately undermine economic growth: improperly recruiting plaintiffs, importing foreign claims, filing suits that
piggyback off government investigations and actions, pursuing aggregate litigation and seeking third-party litigation
The
financing. Americas litigious nature has caused serious damage to our countrys productivity and innovation.
root cause is that we have created incentives to sue and to invest in litigation
instead of establishing disincentives for invoking judicial process
unless absolutely necessary. Other countries discourage litigation; we nuture it, Beisner said at the
hearing. Many litigation experts resoundingly agree with Beisners stance on the necessity of tort reform to ameliorate the
countrys economy. The entrepreneurial system that weve developed for litigation in this country has always been an
impetus to bringing cases that are close to the line or even over the line, says Dechert Partner Sean Wajert. When you
have that kind of encouragement, you have a slippery slope, which sometimes people will slide down and get into
The result is clogged courts
questionable and even abusive and frivolous claims along the way.
and corporate funds that finance defense costs instead of

economic investment .
Kills rule of law

Oakley 96 (John B.; Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus US Davis School
of Law, 1996 The Myth of Cost-Free Jurisdictional Reallocation)//ADS
Personal effects: The hidden costs of greater workloads. The hallmark of federal justice traditionally has
been the searching analysis and thoughtful opinion of a highly competent judge, endowed with the time as
Swollen
well as the intelligence to grasp and resolve the most nuanced issues of fact and law.
dockets create assembly-line conditions , which threaten the ability of the
modern federal judge to meet this high standard of quality in federal adjudication. No one expects
a federal judge to function without an adequate level of available tangible resources: sufficient courtroom
and chambers space, competent administrative and research staff, a good library, and a comfortable
salary that relieves the judge from personal financial pressure. Although salary levels have lagged--
encouraging judges to engage in the limited teaching and publication activities that are their sole means of
meeting such newly pressing financial obligations as the historically high mortgage expenses and college
tuitions of the present decade-in the main, federal judges have received a generous allocation of tangible
resources. It is unlikely that there is any further significant gain to be realized in the productivity of
individual federal judges through increased levels of tangible resources,13 other than by redressing the
pressure to earn supplemental income.14 On a personal level, the most important resource available to
the federal judge is time."5Caseload pressures secondary to the indiscriminate federalization
of state law are steal ing time from federal judges, shrinking the increments available
for each case. Federal judges have been forced to compensate by operating more like executives and less
like judges. They cannot read their briefs as carefully as they would like, and they are driven to rely unduly
on law clerks for research and writing that they would prefer to do themselves.16 If federal judges need
more time to hear and decide each case, an obvious and easy solution is to spread the work by the
appointment of more and more federal judges. Congress has been generous in the recent creation of new
judgeships,17 and enlargement of the federal judiciary is likely to continue to be the default response,
albeit a more grudging one, to judicial concern over the caseload consequences of jurisdictional
reallocation. Systemic effects: The hidden costs of adding more judges. Increasing the size of the federal
judiciary creates institutional strains that reduce and must ultimately rule out its continued acceptability as
a countermeasure to caseload growth. While the dilution of workload through the addition of judges is
always incrementally attractive, in the long run it will cause the present system to
collapse . I am not persuaded by arguments that the problem lies in the declining quality of the pool
of lawyers willing to assume the federal bench18 or in the greater risk that, as the ranks of federal judges
expand, there will be more frequent lapses of judgment by the president and the Senate in seating the
mediocre on the federal bench.19 In my view, the diminished desirability of federal judicial office is more
than offset by the rampant dissatisfaction of modern lawyers with the excessive commercialization of the
practice of law. There is no shortage of sound judicial prospects willing and able to serve, and no sign that
the selection process-never the perfect meritocracy-is becoming less effective in screening out the unfit or
undistinguished. Far more serious are other institutional effects of continuously compounding the number
of federal judges. Collegiality among judges, consistency of decision, and coherence of doctrine across
courts are all imperiled by the growth of federal courts to cattle-car proportions. Yet the ability of the
system to tolerate proliferation of courts proportional to the proliferation of judges is limited, and while
collapse is not imminent, it cannot be postponed indefinitely. Congress could restructure the federal trial
and appellate courts without imperiling the core functions, but the limiting factor is the capacity of the
Supreme Court to maintain overall uniformity in the administration and application of federal law. That
Court is not only the crown but the crowning jewel of a 200-year-old system of the
rule of law within a constitutional democracy, and any tinkering with its size or jurisdiction would
raise the most serious questions of the future course of the nation.
Extinction and solves the net benefit

Rhyne 58 [(Former President of the American Bar Assosciation). Law Day
Speech for Voice of America; Text of the original radio broadcast by Charles S.
Rhyne Delivered on the first Law Day, May 1, 1958
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/lawday/rhyne58.html //wyo-jamie]
History teaches that the rule of law has enabled [hu]mankind to live together
peacefully within nations and it is clear that this same rule of law offers our best
hope as a mechanism to achieve and maintain peace between nations. The lawyer
There exists a worldwide challenge to
is the technician in mans relationship to man.
our profession to develop law to replace weapons before the dreadful holocaust of
nuclear war overtake our people.
Perm do the CP, then do the aff as the implementation of
the CPs ruling. Its not intrinsic both the plan and CP
use delay fiat for enforcement.
If they dont go for the CP, all of that stuff is unique

offense for the aff
a) Standing the aff wrecks it for surveillance cases

NCC 13 --- National Constitution Center Staff (Podcast: Kerr, Rotenberg on
NSA domestic surveillance, http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/10/audio-
kerr-rotenberg-on-warrantless-surveillance/)//trepka
Kerr also believes there are problems with Section 215, but the issues should
be dealt with by Congress or the FISA courtand not the U.S. Supreme Court.
In February 2013, the Supreme Court said, in a 5-4 decision, that government
warrantless surveillance laws cant be challenged in court, because

plaintiffs dont have standing to sue over secret procedures that
they are unaware of directly .
b) Multiplicity the plan generates judicial credibility by

unifying US foreign policy and revitalizing diplomacy
Wilkinson 4, Circuit Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit,
former Law Professor at the University of Virginia, & former Deputy Assistant
Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division ,
4 (The Honarable J. Harvie, DEBATE: THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN
JUDICIAL DECISIONS, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Spring, 27 Harv.
J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 423)
So judges must not wade, sua sponte, into international law's deep blue sea. Rather, we ought to ask: How
does American law make foreign or international standards relevant? Why should we ask this threshold
question? Because it is important that the United States speak with one, not
multiple , voices in foreign affairs. The Constitution is explicit on this: Article I, Section 10 says
that "no State shall enter into any Treaty [or] Alliance" with a foreign power. n9 The Constitution leaves the
conduct of foreign and military affairs largely to the political branches -- not the courts. The
diplomatic cred ibility of the United States would plummet if the actions and
pronouncements of the executive and legislative branches in foreign and military matters
were later repudiated and contradicted by judicial decree. Where courts go too far, in
my view, is where they rely upon international (and mostly European) precedents when resolving
important and contentious social issues. This "internationalization" of the Constitution on domestic social
issues raises three types of problems.
Independently, diplomacys an impact filter
Stanley 7 (Elizabeth Stanley, Ass Prof @ Georgetown, 7 International
Perceptions of US Nuclear Policy Sandia Report,
http://www.prod.sandia.gov/cgi-bin/techlib/access-
control.pl/2007/070903.pdf)
How important is soft power, anyway? Given its vast conventional military power, does the United States
even need soft power? Some analysts argue that US military predominance is both possible and desirable
over the long term, and thus soft power is not important. But a growing consensus
disagrees. These analysts argue that soft power is critical for four reasons. First, soft power is
invaluable for keeping potential adversaries from gaining international support, for winning the peace in
Afghanistan and Iraq, and for convincing moderates to refrain from supporting extremist terrorist groups.
Second, soft power helps influence neutral and developing states to support US global leadership. Third,
soft power is also important for convincing allies and partners to share the international security
burden.14 Finally, and perhaps most importantly, given the increasing interdependence and globalization
of the world system, soft power is critical for addressing most security threats the United
States faces today. Most global security threats are impossible to be countered by a single state
alone. Terror ism, weapons of mass destruction ( WMD ) proliferation, failed and failing states,
conflicts over access to resources , are not confined to any one state . In
addition, disease, demographic shifts, environmental degradation and global warming will have negative
security implications as well.15 All of these potential threats share four traits: (1) they are best addressed
proactively, rather than after they develop into full-blown crises; (2) they require multi-lateral approaches,
often under the umbrella of an international institution; (3) they are not candidates for a quick fix, but
rather require multi-year, or multi-decade solutions; and, (4) they are wicked problems. Given these
four traits, soft power is critical for helping to secure the international, multi-lateral cooperation that will
be necessary to address such threats effectively.
Finally democracys obviously high in the US nowhere

else matters since they havent read modeling ev means
theres only a risk they make it worse
2ac AT Modeling
No modeling
Law and Versteeg 12 - DAVID S., Professor of Law and Professor of
Political Science, Washington University in St. Louis Ph.D., Stanford University,
MILA, Associate Professor, University of Virginia School of Law, THE
DECLINING INFLUENCE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, New York
University Law Review, Vol. 87, No. 3, pp. 762-858, June 2012, SSRN//BR/)
Whatever the ongoing appeal of American constitutional
jurisprudence happens to be,36 the U.S. Constitution itself appears
to have lost at least some of its attraction as a model for constitution
writers in other countries. If the components of the rights index are
used as the yardstick, the worlds constitutions have on average
become less similar to the U.S. Constitution over the last sixty years.
As Figure 2 reveals, average similarity to the U.S. Constitution was
higher in 1946 than in 2006
Empirics
Liptak 8 (Adam, Supreme Court correspondent for NYT. U.S. Supreme
Court's global influence is waning, NYT. 9/17/2008.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/world/americas/17iht18legal.16249317.
html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)//CB
But now American legal influence is waning. Even as a debate continues in the court
over whether its decisions should ever cite foreign law, a diminishing number of foreign
courts seem to pay attention to the writings of American justices."One
of our great exports used to be constitutional law," said Anne-Marie Slaughter, the dean of the Woodrow
Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton. "We are losing one of the greatest bully
through 2002, for instance, the Canadian
pulpits we have ever had." From 1990
Supreme Court cited decisions of the United States Supreme Court
about a dozen times a year, an analysis by The New York Times found. In the six years since,
the annual citation rate has fallen by more than half, to about five. Australian
state supreme courts cited American decisions 208 times in 1995, according to a recent study by Russell
The story is similar
Smyth, an Australian economist. By 2005, the number had fallen to 72.
around the globe, legal experts say, particularly in cases involving human rights. These days,
foreign courts in developed democracies often cite the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in
cases concerning equality, liberty and prohibitions against cruel treatment, said Harold Hongju Koh, the
dean of the Yale Law School. In those areas, Dean Koh said, "they
tend not to look to the
rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court." The rise of new and sophisticated
constitutional courts elsewhere is one reason for the Supreme
Court's fading influence, legal experts said. The new courts are, moreover, generally
more liberal that the Rehnquist and Roberts courts and for that reason more inclined to
cite one another. Another reason is the diminished reputation of the
United States in some parts of the world, which experts here and abroad said is in part a
consequence of the Bush administration's unpopularity abroad.
Foreign courts are less apt to justify their decisions with citations to
cases from a nation unpopular with their domestic audience. "It's not
surprising, given our foreign policy in the last decade or so, that American influence should be declining,"
said Thomas Ginsburg, who teaches comparative and international law at the University of Chicago.The
adamant opposition of some Supreme Court justices to the citation of foreign law in their own opinions also
plays a role, some foreign judges say "Most justices of the United States Supreme Court do not cite foreign
case law in their judgments," Aharon Barak, then the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Israel, wrote in
the Harvard Law Review in 2002. "They fail to make use of an important source of inspiration, one that
enriches legal thinking, makes law more creative, and strengthens the democratic ties and foundations of
different legal systems." Partly as a consequence, Chief Justice Barak wrote, the United States Supreme
Court "is losing the central role it once had among courts in modern democracies." Justice Michael Kirby of
the High Court of Australia said that his court no longer confines itself to considering English, Canadian and
American law. "Now we will take information from the Supreme Court of India, or the Court of Appeal of
New Zealand, or the Constitutional Court of South Africa," he said in an interview published in 2001 in The
Green Bag, a legal journal. "America" he added, "is in danger of becoming
something of a legal backwater."
Alt Causes
Judicial independence is already destroyed- Guantanamo,
detention and torture, unlawful surveillance, targeted
killing, asset forfeiture
McCormack 14 (Wayne, E.W. Thode Professor of Law, University of Utah,
U.S. Judicial Independence: Victim in the War on Terror, Washington and
Lee Law Review, Volume 71, Issue 1, Winter 2014,
http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=4374&context=wlulr, silbs)
II. The Actions Challenged What follows is simply a list of the governmental
actions that have been challenged and a brief statement of how the courts
responded to government demands for deference. A. Guantanamo In
Boumediene v. Bush,5 the Supreme Court allowed the United States
to detain alleged terrorists under unstated standards to be
developed by the lower courts with deference to Executive
determinations.6 The intimidation exerted on the Court was reflected
in Justice Scalias injudicious comment that the Courts decision would
certainly cause more Americans to be killed.7 B. Detention and
Torture Khalid El-Masri8 claimed that he was detained in Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) black sites and tortured.9 His case was
dismissed under the doctrine of state secrets privilege (SSP).10
Maher Arar11 is a Canadian citizen who was detained at John F. Kennedy
(JFK) Airport by U.S. authorities, shipped off to Syria for imprisonment
and mistreatment, and finally released to Canadian authorities.12 His
case was dismissed under the special factors exception to tort
actions for violations of law by federal officials.13 Arar was awarded $10.5
million by Canadian authorities.14 Jose Padilla15 was arrested deplaning
at OHare Airport, imprisoned in the United States for three and a half
years without a hearing and allegedly mistreated in prison.16 His case
was dismissed on grounds of good faith immunity.17 Binyam
Mohamed18 was subjected to so-called enhanced interrogation
techniques at several CIA black site[s] before being repatriated to
England,19 which awarded him 1 million in damages.20 The U.S. suit was
dismissed under SSP.21 C. Unlawful Detentions Abdullah al-Kidd22
was arrested as a material witness, held in various jails for two weeks,
and then confined to house arrest for fifteen months. His suit was
dismissed on grounds of qualified immunity and apparent validity of
material witness warrant.23 Ali al-Marri was originally charged with
perjury, then detained as an enemy combatant, for a total detention of
four years before the Fourth Circuit finally held that he must be
released or tried.24 Javad Iqbal25 was detained on visa violations in
New York following 9/11 and claimed he was subjected to mistreatment
on the basis of ethnic profiling.26 His suit was dismissed on grounds
that he could not prove Attorney General authorization of illegal
practices and because the Court was unwilling to divert the attention
of officials away from national security.27 Osama Awadallah28 was
taken into custody in Los Angeles after his name and phone number
were found on a gum wrapper in the car of one of the 9/11 hijackers.29
He was charged with perjury before a grand jury and held as a material
witness.30 The Second Circuit reversed the district courts ruling that
the government had abused the material witness statute.31 D.
Unlawful Surveillance Amnesty International32 is one of numerous
organizations that brought suit believing that its communications,
especially with foreign clients or correspondents, had been monitored by
the National Security Agency (NSA).33 Its suit was dismissed because
the secrecy of the NSA spying program made it impossible to prove
that any particular person or group had been monitored.34 The validity of
the entire Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)35 rests on the
special needs exception to the Fourth Amendment,36 a conclusion
that was rejected by one district court37 although accepted by others.38 E.
Targeted Killing Anwar Al-Aulaqi (or Al-Aulaqi)39 was reported by press
accounts as having been placed on a kill list by President Obama.40 A
suit by his father was dismissed on grounds that Anwar himself
could come forward and seek access to U.S. courts.41 Not only Anwar
but also his son was then killed in separate drone strikes.42 F. Asset
Forfeiture The Justice Department has found both Al Haramain Islamic
Foundation and KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian
Development to be fronts for raising money for Hamas, and their
assets have been blocked.43 Despite findings of due process
violations by the lower courts, the blocking of assets has been upheld on
the basis that their support for terrorist activities is public knowledge.44 G.
Summary of Actions Challenged The Guantanamo cases are a good
starting point because they show the Supreme Court answering
government demands for extreme deference with a modicum of
deference but also a claim of judicial review authority.45 The version
of judicial review adopted by the Court for the Guantanamo detentions
ultimately resulted in a watered-down form of review that does not
eliminate judicial independence entirely, but does allow a high
degree of deference to Executive determinations. After looking at the
Guantanamo decisions, I want to illustrate the more extreme versions of
deference for domestic detentions by reference to several cases in which
individuals have been detained for years without any degree of judicial
oversight.46 And then there are the basic underpinnings of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act, which depends first on the special needs
exception to the Fourth Amendment,47 but then in individual cases
relies on virtually unreviewable statements by government agents.48
Partisan judicial appointments make judicial
independence impossible
King 7 Carolyn Dineen King, Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit, 2007 (CHALLENGES TO JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND
THE RULE OF LAW: A PERSPECTIVE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURTS, Marquette
Law Review, Summer, Vol. 90, No. 4,
http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1072&context=mulr)
Instead, the Supreme Court generally takes cases where the law is unclear or in need of further
the intermediate
development or where the circuits are in conflict. What this means is that
federal appellate courts are the courts of the last resort for all but
the handful of cases that the Supreme Court will agree to hear. It is
precisely that fact that has resulted in the politicization of the intermediate federal appellate court
Political and issue activists understand only too well
appointment process.
that ideologically committed judges on these benches can make an
enormous difference in the outcomes of hundreds of cases each
year . Too, it would be a mistake to think that ideologically committed judges affect the outcomes only in
cases that involve the so-called hot button issues: the civil rights of racial and ethnic minorities and
women; abortion; the rights of criminal defendants; the death penalty; and states' rights (or the proper
balance of power between federal and state governments). My own observations suggest that these
judges cast a much wider net. They have strong views on plaintiffs' jury verdicts, especially (but not only)
large ones; on class actions; on a wide range of federal statutes imposing burdens on corporate
If candidates for the
defendants; on religion in schools and in public areas; and on and on.
presidency of both parties continue, as they have now for decades, to energize
issue activists within or allied with their parties by promising the
appointment of judges who will pursue the respective political and
ideological agendas of those parties in their decisions, then judicial
independence will continue to be severely threatened , and with it
the rule of law in the United States. The Washington Post, in a 2005 editorial, captured
the imminence of the threat: The war [over Justice O'Connor's successor] is
about money and fundraising as much as it is about jurisprudence
and the judicial function. It elevates partisanship and political
rhetoric over any serious discussion of law. In the long run, the war over
the courtswhich teaches both judges and the public at large to view
the courts simply as political institutions threatens judicial
independence and the integrity of American justice ."8
Judiciary will never be legitimate as long as financing and

elections are common practice
Sarokin 14retired federal judge--( 08/07/2014, Judge H. Lee, For Sale --
Going Fast: An Independent Judiciary -- Buy a Judge Today, Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/judicial-
elections_b_5655959.html) . WM
According to the New York Times the retention election of three
Tennessee judges "has been preceded by an expensive and
acrimonious campaign bolstered by organizations like Americans for
Prosperity, which receives financial support from the billionaires Charles
G. and David Koch and other conservative groups". Those supporting
retention of the judges have been compelled to raise "more than $1
million" to combat the effort to defeat them. Could there be anything
more unseemly or contrary to the purposes for which the judiciary
was established? I do not doubt that there are persons out there (and even
corporations now) who contribute to judicial campaigns for the purpose of
electing or retaining judges who are fair, competent and impartial and who
will carry out the applicable laws and enforce the state and federal
constitutions. Then there are the other 99 percent who wish to influence
particular matters or judicial philosophy in general. Judges are not
and were never intended to be elected representatives. I cringe at
the constant contention that judges should be held "accountable".
They are accountable to the laws and the Constitution. They should
not be subject to the whim of those who find certain past rulings
objectionable or seek to influence future ones by buying elections. Nothing
could weaken the independence of the judiciary more than having
judges removed or not re-elected because of prior decisions that they
have made. The whole concept of judicial independence is that judges
should feel to rule as they deem correct without fear of retaliation.
Nor should judges undertake the position with some feeling that
they are indebted to those who have financed their election. Per the
Times: "The Republican State Leadership Committee, a national group,
plans to spend at least $5 million on judicial races this year." Why?
Because they want to influence future judicial decisions. Let's face it --
this movement is exclusively a conservative one. Conservatives own it.
Judges are to be ousted for "liberal" rulings like upholding same-sex marriage,
ordering new trials in death penalty cases or generally ruling in favor of
persons charged with crimes -- stuff like upholding the Constitution. Judicial
elections are degrading. Voters do not know whether or not the candidates
are qualified. And finally money has further corrupted the process. I have said
on prior occasions: Can you imagine a lawyer or a litigant walking up to
a judge in the middle of a trial and handing the judge a check for his
or her campaign? Would it make any difference if the check was
delivered a week before? And isn't it even worse now that the big boys are
coming in with even bigger checks? We should end judicial elections
entirely, but until we do, we must find a way to limit the corrupting
influence of money in the election process and stop putting the
judiciary up for sale.
Independent judiciaries continue to apply state corruption in rulings

judge selection.
Gibler and Randazzo 11. (Douglas, professor of political science at
University of Alabama. Kirk, assistant professor of political science at
University of South Carolina. Testing the Effects of Independent Judiciaries on
the Likelihood of Democratic Backsliding, American Journal of Political
Science. Vol. 55, No. 3. July 2011. JSTOR.)//CB
The difficulties of establishing judicial independence have led some to argue that courts only reflect elite
interests. Tsebelis (2002), for example, argues that courts almost never constitute a separate veto player
Judicial-selection procedures in most countries practically
within a polity.
guarantee that courts will fail to provide new constraints on the
policymaking process. Only when other political actors take extreme
positions or when a new issue, not related to judicial selection, comes before the court
can the judiciary pose an effective veto. This is why judicial
independence does not necessarily lead to higher rates of judicial
annulment (Burbank, Friedman, and Goldberg 2002). This is also why institutionalization of the courts
matters as newly independent courts will tend to reflect executive and/or
legislative policy preferences on most issues (Epstein, Knight, and Shvetsova
2001). Nevertheless, the attention other political actors devote to the courts suggests that judicial
institutions can matter. Yeltsin was concerned enough with the Russian constitutional court to dismiss it
entirely, as was Argentinas military regime in 1976 and its democratic regime in 1983. These rulers
understand that even courts lacking judicial independence can provide increased legitimacy for the
dominant position of other political actors (Larkins 1998.)
1ar AT Modeling
Specific decisions irrelevant
Klug 2k, Law Professor at the University of Wisconsin, 2K (Heinz, MODEL
AND ANTI-MODEL: THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE RISE OF
WORLD CONSTITUTIONALISM, Wisconsin Law Review, 2000 Wis. L. Rev. 597)
Before discussing the various ways in which the American experience has served as a constitutional model,
it is important to specify what serves as the model. The model is not merely
the constitutional document and its amendments; it is also, more importantly, the ideas and
institutions of American constitutionalism - popular sovereignty, federalism, the
separation of powers, and judicial review - as well as the over two hundred years of constitutional
jurisprudence that has flowed from the Constitution. It is this vision of the United States Constitution, as an
elaborated text with a history of structural, institutional, and jurisprudential changes, that allows us to
understand the place of the United States Constitution as the backdrop or wallpaper before which
subsequent constitutional stories, from constitution-making to constitutional adjudication, have evolved. I
must also clarify my use of the idea of a model. By model I mean a general source of ideas, concepts,
examples, and even specific constitutional arguments rather than a mere reproduction or copy of what has
occurred or is contained in the United States Constitution or constitutional jurisprudence. Caution at the
notion of a constitutional model is also important. The pure adoption of any particular model or example
does not guarantee any particular outcome. This problem is clearly evident in the experience of the United
States in the Philippines, despite the aim of the United States to establish a different form of colonial
relationship. After obtaining formal control from Spain through the Treaty of Paris in 1898 and after over
fifty years of "tutelage" designed to establish an American form of government, the efforts of the United
States seem to have achieved little more than a system of institutional charades, cast aside as soon as
they no longer served those in power. From the passage of the 1934 Philippine Commonwealth and
Independence Act, which provided that the Constitution should "include a [*600] bill of rights and
establish a "republican form of government'"; to the subsequent adoption of the 1935 Constitution by a
Philippine constitutional convention and the wholesale adoption of American case law, which seems to
have been used as binding precedent; the experience produced no more than a symbolic manifestation of
United States constitutionalism. As Andrzej Rapaczynski argues, "politically speaking, the cloning of
America did not effectively protect the Philippines from a dictatorship, and even the best commentators
could not see why the result was not what the Americans had intended." n5 Despite this failure to clone,
the United States constitutional experience has served as a model, in my
more general sense of the concept. As a general model it has served a number of distinct functions. On the
one hand, the American constitutional experience offers examples of a range of structural features, whose
evolution and impact may be observed over two centuries. These structural features include the
transformation of the political idea of the separation of powers into a working constitutional principle; the
creation of a federal system providing for the division of powers between a central government and its
constituent regions; and finally, the creation of a range of institutional mechanisms for checking and
balancing the exercise of governmental power, which provided political adversaries multiple sites for
raising and contesting issues. On the other hand, the American experiment has raised the banner of
individual rights and through a long and wavering jurisprudence demonstrated how vast areas of political
conflict may become judicialized. Although often criticized as a legalization of politics, the creation of a
popular rights consciousness among citizens of the United States has indeed inspired advocates of human
rights and is reflected most clearly in the adoption of international human rights instruments and the post-
1945 emergence of an international human rights culture. Although less common, the specific doctrines of
United States rights jurisprudence have at times served as a direct model abroad. A significant example of
this is the influence of free speech doctrines flowing from the First Amendment of the United States
Constitution on the common law based freedom of speech jurisprudence in Israel n6 and Australia. n7
instead of specific constitutional doctrines , particular institutional
However,
forms, or even specific constitutional rights, it has been the ideas
and broad structural innovations of American constitutionalism that
have found the greatest resonance among constitution-makers and
interpreters. [*601] From the development of a single fundamental law, incorporated within one
written document, to the distribution of public power among different geographic and institutional levels of
government, the experience of American constitutionalism has provided a vast experiment to which
constitution-builders abroad could turn. With subsequent waves of constitution-making these constitutional
forms have evolved - both in the United States and abroad - to provide further elucidations of the original
American model that could be relied upon by subsequent waves of constitution-makers.
Other sources are more cited

NYT 8 (U.S. Court, a Longtime Beacon, Is Now Guiding Fewer Nations)
American legal influence is waning. Even as a debate continues in the court over whether its
But now
a diminishing number of foreign courts seem to

decisions should ever cite foreign law,
pay attention to the writings of American justices. ''One of our great exports used to be
constitutional law,'' said Anne-Marie Slaughter, the dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton. ''We are
losing one of the greatest bully pulpits we have ever had.'' From 1990 through 2002, for instance, the Canadian Supreme Court cited
decisions of the United States Supreme Court about a dozen times a year, an analysis by The New York Times found. In the six years since, the
annual citation rate has fallen by half, to about six. Australian state supreme courts cited American decisions 208 times in 1995, according to
a recent study by Russell Smyth, an Australian economist. By 2005, the number had fallen to 72. The story is similar around the globe, legal
These days, foreign courts in developed

experts say, particularly in cases involving human rights.
democracies often cite the rulings of the European Court of Human

Rights in cases concerning equality, liberty and prohibitions against cruel treatment, said Harold Hongju Koh, the dean of the Yale Law
they tend not to look to the rulings of the U.S.

School. In those areas, Dean Koh said, ''
Supreme Court.'' The rise of new and sophisticated constitutional

courts elsewhere is one reason for the Supreme Court's fading
influence, legal experts said. The new courts are, moreover, generally more
liberal than the Rehnquist and Roberts courts and for that reason more inclined to cite one
another.
Process CLLP
2ac F/L
Perm do the CP the CP has PCLOB recommend the plan
and implements its recommendation which means it
essentially does the plan. The CP is a possible plan
mechanism. They dont get to claim delay arguments the
CP uses should if the plan is immediate, so is the CP.
The CP is a voting issue it steals the whole aff,

destroying offense reject the team for deterrence
Say no
a) Not binding
Glassman and Straus 15 (Matthew E. and Jacob R., Congressional
Research Service, Congressional Commissions: Overview, Structure, and
Legislative Considerations January 27 2015,
hhttp://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40076.pdf, MMV)
the primary functions of most congressional commissions is to
One of
produce a final report for Congress outlining their activities,
findings, and legislative recommendations.57 Most commissions are required to
produce an interim, annual, or final report for transmittal to Congress, and sometimes to the President or
A commission
executive department or agency heads, usually within a specified period of time.
may also be authorized to issue other recommendations it considers
appropriate. As seen in Table 5, the majority of commissions created in the past 20 years have
submitted their work product to both Congress and the President. About one-quarter of commissions have
submitted their work to Congress only. The remainder have submitted their work to both Congress and an
Since the recommendations contained in a
executive branch agency.
commission report are only advisory, no changes in public policy
occur on the authority of a congressional commission. The
implementation of such recommendations is dependent upon future
congressional or executive branch action.
b) Unpopular
Glassman and Straus 15 Analysts on the Congress (Congressional
Commissions: Overview, Structure, and Legislative Considerations, 01/27/15,
Congressional Research Service, https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40076.pdf
p.9)//GK
commissions is that they are not democratic. This criticism takes
A second concern about
commissions may be unrepresentative of the general
three forms. First,
population; the members of most commissions are not elected and may not
commissions lack popular
reflect the variety of popular opinion on an issue.44 Second,
accountability. Unlike Members of Congress, commission members are often
insulated from the electoral pressures of popular opinion . Finally,
commissions may not operate in public; unlike Congress, their meetings,
hearings, and investigations may be held in private.45 A third criticism of
commissions is that they have high costs and low returns. Congressional
commission costs vary widely, ranging from several hundred thousand dollars to over
$10 million. Coupled with this objection is the problem of congressional response to the work of a
commission; in most cases, Congress is under no obligation to act, or even
respond to the work of a commission. If legislators disagree with the
results or recommendations of a commissions work, they may simply ignore it. In
addition, there is no guarantee that any commission will produce a
balanced product; commission members may have their own agendas, biases,
and pressures. Or they may simply produce a mediocre work product.46
Finally, advisory boards create economic and legislative inefficiency if they
function as patronage devices, with Members of Congress using commission
positions to pay off political debts.47
Perm do both
Perm do the CP then the plan if the CP adds delay, the

perms not intrinsic because the CP already contains an
element of time.
F/L Short
Otherwise, perm do the CP then the plan if the CP adds

delay, the perms not intrinsic because the CP already
contains an element of time.

destroying offense reject the team for deterrence and
stupidity
Process Consult NATO
2ac F/L
No NATO collapse and, say no Europe is dependent on
the US to sustain military investment
Nurkin 14 Director of Research at HIS Aerospace, Defense and Security
(Tate Nurkin, 8/26/14, Options for the evolution of NATO,
http://www.janes.com/article/42392/options-for-the-evolution-of-
nato)//twemchen
Military capabilities and political will within member states to sustain large
deployments and endure armed conflict have suffered as a result of the 12-year
conflict in Afghanistan and chronic under-spending on defence, especially in
Europe. Only two NATO member states Poland and Estonia are among the
countries worldwide with the 20 fastest rising defence budgets from 2012 to 2014, while 12
NATO member states and two European partner states are among those with the 20
fastest shrinking defence budgets between 2012 and 2014. The result of this
persistent under-investment in Europe in particular is a sizeable capability gap
between the US and its NATO allies that will have to be addressed
through increased and co-ordinated European defence spending as the US reduces its military
presence in Europe in order to concentrate on Asian security and the Middle East.
Budget issues have also affected US defence spending and force
structure , as total defence spending has decreased by 16.9% in nominal terms since 2010, according to IHS Janes
Defence Budgets. However, a more prominent concern than the reduced budget is the
uncertainty of whether sequestration of the US budget in 2013 will take full effect in 2016 and
exactly what resources the US Department of Defense will have available to support which force structure. Resolution of
this political and budgetary uncertainty in the US is a critical first step in projecting the future forces NATO will have at its
disposal. Despite recurrent concerns about the mismatch between US and European defence
spending, NATO has proven itself an impressively resilient alliance over its 67-
year history, having endured several intra-European and transatlantic rifts, such as
the Suez Crisis of 1956, France leaving the integrated military structure in 1966, the
Iraq War in 2003, and the ongoing debate about mass communications
surveillance caused by the unauthorised disclosures of former National Security Agency contractor Edward
Snowden.
Perm do the counterplan its not textually competitive
TTIPs inevitable and solves NATO

Poe 15 Chairman of the Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade
Subcommittee (Chairman Poe, 3/17/15, House Foreign Affairs, Trade
Subcommittee Hearing on National Security Benefits of Trade Agreements
with Asia & Europe; Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Subcommittee
hearing on National Security Benefits of Trade Agreements with Asia and
Europe, Academic OneFile)//twemchen
there are questions of trust and commitment across the
And yet,
Atlantic these days. NATO is perceived in some quarters to be a bit wobbly . TTIP
would be the other side of the coin of our commitment to Europe
through our -- our military alliance. And I think, particularly, given the issues
facing European security these days, this is a vital reassurance of U.S.
commitment to Europe. It also would reassure Americans who wonder about the European
Union and whether it's inward or outward looking that the E.U. would be a very strong outward looking partner, because
TTIP would essentially make that case . The second area is how both of us together relate to rising
powers. And Dr. Green mentioned a few of those elements. But I think one has to think about this. Those rising powers are
each having debates of how they relate to the international system. Do they challenge it? Do they accommodate
themselves to it? And the message we have to those countries as they have those debates is actually quite important. In
recent years, we've had different messages, or muddled messages. European message, American message -- we don't
have a message. So, TTIP is a single strong message about a robust

revitalized West , not defensive, but also not aggressive. About upholding
standards, not eroding them. And it has an impact on each of the countries that we could discuss.
Consult CPs are a voting issue infinitely regressive,

multiple conditional outcomes make it impossible for the
2AC, moots the 1AC and leads to stale debate
No Russia war
Sokolsky and Stronski 6/18 senior associates at the Russia and Eurasia
Program at the Carnegie Mosco Center (Richard Sokolsky, Paul Stronski,
6/18/15, Dont Overreact to Russia and Its Forty New Intercontinental
Ballistic Missiles, http://carnegie.ru/eurasiaoutlook/?fa=60446)//twemchen
Russian President Vladimir Putins announcement that Moscow plans to add more
than 40 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) to its nuclear arsenal is troubling. It raises
perceptions of Russian threats in Europe at a time when post-Cold War East-West relations
are at a historic low. The announcement is just the latest example of nuclear saber-rattling from the Kremlin over the past
yeara trend that started during an uptick in fighting in Ukraine last August, when Putin warned that Russia is not to be
messed with. Let me remind you that Russia is one of the largest nuclear powers. In September, Russia tested a new
ICBM as the Kremlin talked about the need to maintain a nuclear deterrent. In March 2015, Putin reportedly claimed that
nuclear forces were put on standby during the Crimean annexation campaign a year earlier. Loose talk about nuclear
weapons heightens tensions, but the actual military threat these missiles pose should not be
exaggerated . Putins pronouncements have been primarily for
propaganda purposes and other Kremlin officials have tried to walk back some
of this rhetoric, likely aware that it does not play well in the West and even in
some corners of Russia itself. Extreme statements about nuclear weapons and conflict with the West
have caused concern among elements of the Russian political and intellectual elitesome of whom warn that continually
whipping up confrontation in Europe or the United States is a dead end for

Russia. Even people close to Putin seem to worry about the consequences of his rhetoric. Reportedly within 40
minutes of Putins statement, his foreign policy advisor Yuri Ushakov stated that Russia has no
intention of launching an arms race, underscoring that an arms race would

weaken its economic capabilities. This weeks rhetoric confirms to Western ears that Russia is
an unpredictable actor. But, the Kremlins nuclear saber-rattling could easily be a sign
of the Russian leaderships lack of confidence in the countrys own conventional
Russian
capabilities, particularly as the United States expands its high technology and precision strike capabilities.
military strategists have long feared that their conventional capabilities pale in comparison to
NATOs. Some are starting to worry about Chinas too. These ICBMs likely do not add any new nuclear capabilities to
what Russia has right now. The country is already in the middle of an ICBM modernization program, as Septembers ICBM
test shows. It is unclear whether the announcement actually includes 40 new ICBMs or whether they are just part of the
more than 50 ICBM deployments that Putin already announced for 2015 back in December. Furthermore, Russia already
has a large force of tactical nuclear weapons that can reach most targets in the Baltic states and possibly elsewhere in
Central Europe. The added military value of 40 ICBM warheads is marginal and it is unlikely they will give Moscow a
capability it does not already have. Putin claimed the missiles will be added to the arsenal this year, so it is conceivable
that some, if not all of them, were probably already in production or pre-deployment before the announcement as part of
Russias ongoing strategic force modernization program. Concern in the Western media about these Russian plans
provoking an arms race is misplaced. The United States is already in the middle of a robust and expensive program to
Washington
modernize its strategic nuclear forces and its tactical nuclear weapons posture in Europe.
should therefore feel no compelling need to match these newly announced

ICBMs because it is already upgrading its capabilities to meet current and future threats. There is also some
doubt about Russias capacity to produce and pay for these new ICBMs. Russia
previously co-produced ICBMs and many of their components with Ukraine. The Ukraine war is forcing
the Russian military-industrial complex to become fully self-reliant . Many Russian

officials tout this as a positive development. But even before the war, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry
Rogozin, who is responsible for military production, claimed that Russias defense factories and
design bureaus were already " overworked " and " did not have time to do
what the Defense Ministry orders." A prominent example of the problems the Russian defense
industry faces is its next-generation Armata T-14 battle tank. In February, Russian Deputy Minister of Defense Yuri Borisov
publicly stated that the government miscalculated on the Armata by failing to budget enough money to build the
amount of tanks it required. They also seemed to skimp on quality . One of the new tanks
reportedly broke down during a dress rehearsal for this years May 9 Victory Day celebrations. Russias budget is severely
stretched and it is unclear where it will get the money to build additional ICBMs, as the Armata example shows. The rise in
defense spending is forcing the government to rein in spending elsewhere. The Russian government now struggles to
balance military spendingkey to the war in Ukraine and to projecting military powerwith the need to keep up social
spending on pensions, education, and other aspects of the social safety net that underwrite domestic stability as the
economy contracts. A recent poll suggested that the Russian public prioritized social spending over the military by a wide
majority; 67 percent wanted the governments first spending priority to be raising living standards, while only 12 percent
thought the first priority should be military modernization and rearmament. So, if these ICBMs might not actually be new
and if Russia might not have the money to build them anyway, what was the purpose of the announcement? The Kremlin
was likely speaking to both international and domestic audiences. Russian officials earlier this week lashed out against
U.S. plans to station battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and other heavy weapons in Baltic and Central European
countries that border Russia. That planstill reportedly under developmentis meant to assure NATOs easternmost allies
announcement was likely in response to this U.S.
of the alliances commitment to their defense. Putins
proposal. Its goal was to unnerve those very same allies . The announcement also could have been
an attempt to stoke discord within NATO between allies (mainly in the east) who believe
that improving NATOs ability to defend the Baltic states is the best
way to deter Russian aggression and those (mainly in the south and west) who fear provoking
Russia even further by being too aggressive either with sanctions or military preparations. The announcement was also
likely to be an attempt to achieve the Russian goal of breaking Western consensus on how to respond to Russian
aggression in Ukraine and threats elsewhere. Domestically, Russia faces growing economic and social problems due to a
combination of low oil prices, sanctions, and the Ukraine war. This announcement highlights alleged foreign threats to
Russiaa tactic frequently used to divert attention from domestic problems. Furthermore, at least parts of the Kremlin see
the military sector as a means to grow the economy, while defense workers have long been an important Putin
constituency. Making pledges to the defense industry at an arms show outside of Moscow was possibly an attempt to
shore up the countrys image as a producer of modern armamentsimportant both to maintain its market share in the
global arms market and to reinforce perceptions of Russian strength to domestic audiences. It would be an easy political
Putins announcement is
win, particularly if these weapons were already in development.
troubling mainly because of its political and psychological impact on NATO allies.
But it is no cause for alarm and the United States and NATO should avoid
an overreaction that will just play into Putins hands .
Perm do the CP and then the plan justified because the
CP includes the time frame fiat by fiating the outcome of
the consultation
Perm do both solves the net benefit

1ar EXT Say No
Say no theyre opposed to defense spending decreases
Cohen 6/25 (Ariel, a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council's
Global Energy Center and the Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center, He is also Director
of the Center for Energy, Natural Resources and Geopolitics at the Institute
for the Analysis of Global Security and Principal of International Market
Analysis Ltd, 2015, Hey, Remember Me? Its Europe. The Transatlantic
Alliance is in Trouble http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-
atlanticist/hey-remember-me-it-s-europe)//cc
large majorities of Europeans are unwilling to
Pew's recent opinion poll confirms that
defend NATO allies, while 85 percent expect the United States to
come to their rescue if attacked. NATO, the European Union, and
national governments need to convince young people that their
world and values are worth defending. It's true that Europe needs
economic growth to pay for its defense. Not all members are willing to spend two
percent of GDP on defense as recommended by the Wales NATO
summit . In fact, only five countries do: Estonia, Greece, Poland, the U nited S tates, and the
United Kingdom.
1ar EXT NATO Resil
NATO has empirically endured constant political
fragmentation
Chandler 78 Major, planning and programming officer at HQ USAF,
Assistant Director for Strategy Development and Analysis, Directorate of
Plans, Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Operations, Political science
instructor with the University of Maryland and the University of Nebraska,
(Robert W. Chandler, May-June 1978, NATOs Cohesion Europes Future, Air
University Review,
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1978/may-
jun/chandler.html)//twemchen
Internal erosive factors also have taken their toll on alliance

cohesiveness . France, after a decade of absence, still remains outside the military
organs of NATO. Greece, too, continues an outsider despite American urgings since the
1974 Cyprus crisis. Turkey similarly has maintained its pique with the United States
and NATO in the wake of the Cyprus crisis and remains part in, part out of the military side of the alliance (the
chances of Greek-Turkish conflict over the exploration and exploitation of possible oil reserves in disputed areas of the
Aegean Sea remain, but mediation by other NATO countries so far has helped prevent military clashes). Portugal, after a
two-year respite while it wrestled some tough domestic issues, is now on a road leading toward full reintegration with
the Italian government is an
NATO. The question of Communist participation at the highest levels of
abiding source of great concern and consternation among the NATO allies. Spain, in spite
of its obvious strategic importance, still lies on the periphery of the alliance. The
British-Icelandic "cod war" that has been going on and off for more than five years is in temporary recess with some hope
the dispute may have been resolved (British trawlers repeatedly violated unilateral Icelandic fishing restrictions within two
hundred miles of its coast; when the latter tried to enforce its declaration with gunboats, London responded by
the
dispatching Royal Navy frigates, and shots, rammings, and a variety of ugly incidents soon followed). Finally,
U.S. Congress periodically has considered substantial troop reductions
in Europe, and both Republican and Democratic Party platforms in 1976 called for a reappraisal of the American
military footing in NATO, heightening European anxieties of Washington's long-
term commitment .5 The irony of these variegated influences is that while

they give the impression of disarray and fragmentation they are actually
indications of political vitality and solidarity. Recent events have shown that the Atlantic
partnership, without impairing its fundamental sense of direction
and purpose , can tolerate a certain degree of diversity and conflicting
national interests among its members. Some observers may bemoan NATO's seemingly tepid response to
lack of direct action in the affairs of its

the many conflicts and crises involving alliance partners, but its
members reveals an important political strength . Whether by chance or design, its

overt hands-off policy in dealing with events in Portugal, Greece, Turkey, Italy, Britain, Iceland, and
indeed, the United States during the Vietnam War demonstrates a high degree of political
sophistication and flexibility . In sum, NATO appears fragmented only in

comparison to the strong bonds that welded a collage of weak European and powerful North American states
together in the early 1950s . The looser NATO of the mid- 1970s reflects today's
political realities between the NATO allies and their place in the international milieu. A few persons might
judge the Atlantic partnership an anachronism--a vestige of the Cold War--but the fact is that the very common menace
that brought them together in 1949 continues to provide much of its raison d'tre.
Process Consult AUE
2ac F/L
Squo solves counter-prolif cooperation
Katzman 6/24 CRS Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs (Kenneth Katzman,
6/24/15, The United Arab Emirates (UAE): Issues for U.S. Policy,
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS21852.pdf)//twemchen
The UAE cooperates extensively with U.S. counter-terrorism and
counter-proliferation activities that go well beyond military operations
against the Islamic State. U.S. programs, involving small amounts of U.S. financial
assistance, have helped the UAE increase its enforcement of border and
financial controls that have in the past sometimes failed to prevent Western technology from
reaching Iran and terrorists transiting the UAE and using its financial system. No U.S. aid to UAE for these
programs has been provided since FY2011.
Perm do both
Broader relations are resilient

Katzman 6/24 CRS Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs (Kenneth Katzman,
6/24/15, The United Arab Emirates (UAE): Issues for U.S. Policy,
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS21852.pdf)//twemchen
In late 1981, after the start of the Iran-Iraq war in 1980 and ten years after its own formation, the UAE
entered into an alliance with five other Gulf monarchy states - Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and
the UAE
Oman - to form the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). After the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait,
and other GCC states determined that they needed a close security
relationship with the U nited S tates to protect not only from Iraq but from the
potential threat from Iran. The U.S.-UAE relationship has since
remained central to UAE foreign and security policy, even as it pursues an assertive
stance against regional Muslim Brotherhood organizations that diverges somewhat from the Obama
Administration. Key Alliance: the GCC Beyond securing the UAE itself, the UAEs core foreign policy interest
is to secure the GCC as a whole. The GCC leaders have increasing military and political coordination among
them as Iran and the international community negotiate an agreement to limit Irans nuclear program.
Most, if not all, the GCC leaders appear to believe that a final deal could cause the United States to
deemphasize its commitments to Gulf security. The GCC summit in Doha in early December 2014 agreed
to a plan to establish a joint military command and joint naval force to be based in Bahrain. A Gulf
Academy for Strategic and Security Studies, to be located in Abu Dhabi, is to support the new naval force.
Earlier GCC plans to establish joint forces and command structures repeatedly faltered over disagreements
within the GCC on details and limitations in manpower. All of the GCC states still apparently prefer to deal
with the United States bilaterally rather than adopting the U.S. preference to coordinate with the GCC as a
bloc.
Perm do the CP its not textually competitive

Consult CPs are a voting issue infinitely regressive,
multiple conditional outcomes make it impossible for the
2AC, moots the 1AC and leads to stale debate
The CP dooms solvency --- the UAE is terrible at airport

security
AP 12 (10/16/12, Airline executives urge airport security overhaul,
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/airline-executives-urge-airport-security-
overhaul)//twemchen
ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates (AP) Airport security needs to undergo
a radical overhaul or else passengers will become further
disgruntled , lines will grow and terminals will be overwhelmed, airline executives said Tuesday at a
global aviation conference. "We simply can't cope with the expected volume of
passengers with the way things are today," said Tony Tyler, director general and CEO of the
International Air Transport Association, the airlines' trade group. Tyler spoke at an airlines conference held
in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates. He predicted that by 2020, governments will be
using a "checkpoint of the future" where passengers can race though without stopping, removing clothing,
or taking liquids and laptops out of bags. While a lot of work has to be done to get numerous countries and
regulators on board, Tyler is optimistic that today's " one-size-fits all approach to
screening " can be replaced with a system based on individual passenger risk. The industry hopes to
test the concept at a handful of airports starting late 2014. The example cited by Tyler and airline
executives of what is working: the U.S. Transportation and Security Administration's relatively new
PreCheck program. Frequent fliers who voluntarily share more information with the government get to keep
their shoes, belts and light jackets on at security. The program will be expanded to 35 airports by the end
of the year. "If you are willing to share a little more information, then you can have a much better
experience," John S. Pistole, head of the TSA, told the conference. "We can then spend more time on those
we know the least about." The additional personal information would most likely be handed over
voluntarily to the government by passengers who see the benefit of the time savings. Pistole said the TSA
would ideally like to analyze passengers' travel history and patterns but currently lacks Congressional
authority to do so. Any such changes would occur after the election, at the earliest, he said. "I applaud the
TSA. I never thought I would say it because they are the worst part of travel ," said Montie
Brewer, former CEO of Air Canada. James E. Bennett, who used to head the Washington Airport Authority
and is now CEO of the Abu Dhabi Airports Co., said that if the current immigration and
security procedures remain in place as more and more passengers take to the skies,
airports will run out of terminal space to hold all the lines . Many airports
have already undergone multi-million dollar retrofits to house additional security and there isn't additional
The ultimate challenge may not be developing the technology
room left.
but having multiple nations agree on uniform procedures. "We cannot
continue to build and build and build to provide space for the existing systems and queues." Tyler said.
" The whole inconsistency destroys the credibility ."
Delay ensures the CP cant solve

Process Offsets
2ac F/L
Perm do the CP CPs must be both textually and
functionally competitive its the only objective standard
and, plan focus is good the alternative steals aff
ground and moots the 1AC counter-interp defend the
plan solves their severance claims.
Curtail doesnt mean a net reduction it just means the

cancellation of a program
Dembling 78 General Counsel, General Accounting Office; (Paul,
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT OF 1974
HEARING BEFORE THE TASK FORCE ON BUDGET PROCESS OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-FIFTH
CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JUNE 29, 1978, Hein Online)
"Curtail" means to discontinue, in whole or in part, the execution
(3)
of a program, resulting in the application of less budget authority in

furtherance of the program than provided by law.
Domestic surveillance is not a program, its a category

of programs curtailing border surveillance and funding
other miscellaneous stuff thus makes the CP plan plus
which isnt competitive otherwise justifies do the plan
and fund Africa food aid which is unbeatable
Even non-topical pics that include the whole plan are

illegitimate because they leave the aff with no offense.
Perm do both. The perm includes the plan twice and the
offset once meaning the perm is a net reduction.
Doesnt solve wages a net reduction in surveillance

spending is critical because it frees resources for labor
standards enforcement thats Johnson
Process PCLOB

destroying offense reject the team for deterrence
Say no
a) Circumvention
Stanley 13 - Senior Policy Analyst, ACLU Speech, Privacy & Technology
Project (Jay, What Powers Does the Civil Liberties Oversight Board Have?,
11/3/13, American Civil Liberties Union, https://www.aclu.org/blog/what-
powers-does-civil-liberties-oversight-board-have)//GK
What Congress did not give the PCLOB the power to do, unfortunately, is
challenge agencies secrecy powers when it finds those powers have been
abused to cover up wrongdoing or incompetence or to prevent legitimate
public debate. At a time when such abuses of secrecy powers are widespread,
it is not clear how the PCLOB would or could proceed if, for example, it uncovers brazen
violations of the law that are classified (as they most likely would be). The PCLOB also has no
enforcement power. Other than by going to court like anyone else, it cannot order any
government agency to change its practices or otherwise enforce the
law. Other countries give their privacy commissioners such powers; in 2008, for example, the Italian government
decided to publish the income tax returns of all Italian citizens on the Internet. The Italian data protection authority did not
just condemn the action, or hold hearings, or file a court caseit ordered the information taken down, and it was. In some
countries, such as Slovenia, the data protection commissioner also has the power to unilaterally declassify information.
b) No congressional interest
Schlanger 15 * Henry M. Butzel Professor of Law, University of Michigan
(Margo, Intelligence Legalism and the National Security Agencys Civil
Liberties Gap, The Harvard National Security Journal,
http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Schlanger.pdf)//GK
Of the oversight institutions thus far described, only NSAs brandnew Civil Liberties and Privacy Office
engages in policy-type weighing of civil liberties interests against the security benefits offered by particular
surveillance methods. The one office that remains to be discussed is the Privacy and Civil Liberties
Oversight Board (PCLOB), an independent bipartisan agency nominally within the
executive branch. 240 As will be seen, and as one would expect from what is essentially a blue-
ribbon-commission type organization with no enforcement or other
executive function, the PCLOB seems so far to be functioning at least partially free of the role
constraints of an executive agency. In its first incarnation, as part of the Executive Office of the
PCLOB was an unimportant player in NSAs operations. In
President,241 the
it started operations only recently. President
its second, independent, incarnation,242
Obama was slow to name the Boards members, and the Senate was
even slower to confirm them243 Its budget is tiny; it has only a handful of full-
time staff members (one on a detail from the Department of Justice), in addition to its full-time chair and
part-time members.244 But after David Medines long-awaited confirmation as chair in May 2013,245 the
Snowden disclosures, one week later, prompted the Board to undertake a review of FISA, the first part of
which it completed in January 2014.246
Perm do both
Perm do the CP then the plan if the CP adds delay, the

perms not intrinsic because the CP already contains an
element of time.
Doesnt solve the aff or the net benefit its too

illegitimate and, delay means they cant solve in time
Medine and former Judge Patricia Wald, opined in a separate
Two members, Chair David
statement that the recommendations were needed not merely to avoid a potential
legal problem, but to solve both constitutional and statutory infirmities already
extant: [W]e feel strongly that the present internal agency procedures for reviewing communications and
purging those portions that are of no foreign intelligence value prior to use of the information are wholly
inadequate to protect Americans acknowledged constitutional rights to protection for private information
or to give effect to the statutory definition of foreign intelligence information, which, as discussed below,
however, they
provides a more stringent test for information relating to Americans. 264 Evidently,
were unable to persuade their colleagues, and their legal conclusions
were portrayed in media coverage as a dissent-type minority
position. Indeed, the Board was widely perceived as having blessed the program. The Washington
Post, for example, summarized the report as conclud[ing] that a major National Security Agency
that certain
surveillance program targeting foreigners overseas is lawful and effective but
elements push close to the line of being unconstitutional .265 The
fairer reading of the previously-quoted language of the report that it
avoided any determination on the legal question by an incompletely theorized agreement as to
recommendationsreceived no play in the media. The PCLOBs ten
recommendations relating to the 702 program have not received nearly as
much attention as its 215 recommendations lacking the strong legitimating
language of rights and compliance, its policy ideas seem not to be
gaining much traction.
Not Credible
Recommendation wont be credible conflicting messages
The PCLOBs second report, about targeted surveillance of foreigners abroad,
under FISA 702, similarly looked at both law and policy. But on this one , a
divide among PCLOB members and inconsistent language made the
message much less clear. Much of Section 702 surveillance was
appropriate, the report said. But: Outside of this fundamental core, certain aspects of the
Section 702 program raise questions about whether its impact on U.S. persons pushes the
program over the edge into constitutional unreasonableness. Such aspects include the scope of the
incidental collection of U.S. persons communications, the use of about collection to acquire Internet
communications that are neither to nor from the target of surveillance, the collection of MCTs that
predictably will include U.S. persons Internet communications unrelated to the purpose of the surveillance,
the use of database queries to search the information collected under the program for the communications
of specific U.S. persons, and the possible use of communications acquired under the program for criminal
assessments, investigations, or proceedings that have no relationship to foreign intelligence.258 The
Board declined to decide whether the 702 program was
constitutional, statutorily authorized, or not . [R]ather than render a judgment
about the constitutionality of the program as a whole, the Board instead has addressed the areas of
concern it has identified by formulating recommendations for changes to those aspects of the
program.259 It elaborated: Because the same factors that bear on Fourth
Amendment reasonableness under a totality of the circumstances
test are equally relevant to an assessment based purely on policy, t he Board opts to present
its proposals for changes to the Section 702 program as policy
recommendations, without rendering a judgment about which , if any, of
those proposals might be necessary from a constitutional
perspective.260 The Board emphasized the room this approach opened to it.
Constitutional avoidance, it stated: permits us to offer the
recommendations that we believe are merited on privacy grounds
without making finetuned determinations about whether any aspect of the status
quo is constitutionally fatal, and without limiting our recommendations to changes that we may deem
constitutionally required.261 But other language the report used sounded rather more accepting. Rather
the Board was worried not
than ducking the legal issues, on other pages it seemed that
whether the 702 program crossed the constitutional line, but
whether it skirted a bit too close for comfort, while still remaining on
the lawful side. For example: [C]ertain aspects of the Section 702 program push the entire
program close to the line of constitutional reasonableness. . .. With these concerns in mind, this Report
offers a set of policy proposals designed to push the program more comfortably into the sphere of
reasonableness, ensuring that the program remains tied to its constitutionally legitimate core. This reading
of the report as ratifying the legality (rather than declining to address the legality) of the 702 program was
pushed by the Boards two Republicans, Rachel Brand and Elisebeth Collins Cook, each of them a former
Bush Administration head of the Justice Departments Office of Legal Policy.262 They emphasized in a
separate statement that: The Board makes a few targeted recommendations to address concerns raised by
. . . two aspects of the program. We stress that these are policy-based recommendations designed to
tighten the programs operation and ameliorate the extent to which these aspects of the program could
affect the privacy and civil liberties of U.S. persons. We do not view them to be essential to the programs
statutory or constitutional validity.263
Links To PTX
Recent divided party line votes undermine past PCLOB
bipartisanship
Rosenzweig 14 - founder of Red Branch Consulting PLLC, a homeland
security consulting company and a Senior Advisor to The Chertoff Group,
formerly served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy in the Department of
Homeland Security, Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Homeland Security
Studies and Analysis Institute, serves as a Professorial Lecturer in Law at
George Washington University, a Senior Editor of the Journal of National
Security Law & Policy, and as a Visiting Fellow at The Heritage
Foundation(Paul, Did the PCLOB Overstep?, Lawfare, 01/23/14,
http://www.lawfareblog.com/did-pclob-overstep)//GK
the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
As The New York Times and Washington Post reported,
(PCLOB) is going to issue a report on section 215 of FISA and the telephone
metadata program. The highlight, of course, is that the board has voted 3-2 , on
a party-line basis , to opine that the meta-data program is illegal.

This is unfortunate on a number of levels. First, of course, the partisan
split makes it seem as though the question of legality is a
Democrat/Republican issue -- when, given the Obama Administration's defense of the
program, it surely is not. Second, and it pains me a bit to say this, as several members of the PCLOB are
my colleagues and friends, but I'm not sure that opining on the legality of the
program is within the ambit of the PCLOB's duties. Here's the language defining
the mission of the PCLOB as reconstituted by Congress: (1) analyze and review
actions the executive branch takes to protect the Nation from
terrorism, ensuring that the need for such actions is balanced with the need to
protect privacy and civil liberties; and (2) ensure that liberty
concerns are appropriately considered in the development and
implementation of laws, regulations, and policies related to efforts to protect the Nation against
terrorism. Both of those call (appropriately) for the Board to make normative
recommendations about the policy balance struck. It seems to me a bit of a stretch
to say that the mission also includes reaching judgments on the
legality of a program (or, as in this case, second-guessing the judgments of legality (and
illegality) already rendered by Courts). I fear that the controversial nature of this
conclusion will obscure the fact that (reportedly) the Board was
unanimous in making 10 other policy-oriented recommendations that
will be a significant addition to the debate as Congress considers reform.
Say No
Say no
Empirics
Mishkin 13 - Law Clerk at U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York(Benjamin, FILLING THE OVERSIGHT GAP: THE CASE FOR LOCAL
INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT, NYU Law Review,
http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-88-4-
Mishkin.pdf)//GK
In practice, however, the PCLOB has not yet lived up to its potential. This claim is
not surprising considering that, until recently, the Board consisted of exactly
zero members.139 Finally, in December 2011, President Obama nominated the last of a full slate of
five members to the Board.140 The Senate confirmed four members in August 2012, but
neglected to confirm David Medine, the Presidents nominee for
PCLOB Chairman.141 In accordance with the enabling statute, the Chairman
represents the only full-time position142 and is the one who appoints staff as may
be necessary to enable the Board to carry out its functions.143 Fortunately, the Senate confirmed Medine
a comprehensive assessment of the PCLOBs
in May 2013.144 Nevertheless,
track record as an intelligence overseer remains out of reach .
a) Not binding
Glassman and Straus 15 (Matthew E. and Jacob R., Congressional
Research Service, Congressional Commissions: Overview, Structure, and
Legislative Considerations January 27 2015,
hhttp://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40076.pdf, MMV)
the primary functions of most congressional commissions is to
One of
produce a final report for Congress outlining their activities,
findings, and legislative recommendations.57 Most commissions are required to
produce an interim, annual, or final report for transmittal to Congress, and sometimes to the President or
A commission
executive department or agency heads, usually within a specified period of time.
may also be authorized to issue other recommendations it considers
appropriate. As seen in Table 5, the majority of commissions created in the past 20 years have
submitted their work product to both Congress and the President. About one-quarter of commissions have
submitted their work to Congress only. The remainder have submitted their work to both Congress and an
Since the recommendations contained in a
executive branch agency.
commission report are only advisory, no changes in public policy
occur on the authority of a congressional commission. The
implementation of such recommendations is dependent upon future
congressional or executive branch action.
b) Unpopular
Glassman and Straus 15 Analysts on the Congress (Congressional
Commissions: Overview, Structure, and Legislative Considerations, 01/27/15,
Congressional Research Service, https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40076.pdf
p.9)//GK
A second concern about commissions is that they are not democratic. This criticism takes
three forms. First, commissions may be unrepresentative of the general
population; the members of most commissions are not elected and may not
reflect the variety of popular opinion on an issue.44 Second, commissions lack popular
accountability. Unlike Members of Congress, commission members are often
insulated from the electoral pressures of popular opinion . Finally,
commissions may not operate in public; unlike Congress, their meetings,
hearings, and investigations may be held in private.45 A third criticism of
commissions is that they have high costs and low returns. Congressional
commission costs vary widely, ranging from several hundred thousand dollars to over
$10 million. Coupled with this objection is the problem of congressional response to the work of a
commission; in most cases, Congress is under no obligation to act, or even
respond to the work of a commission. If legislators disagree with the
results or recommendations of a commissions work, they may simply ignore it. In
addition, there is no guarantee that any commission will produce a
balanced product; commission members may have their own agendas, biases,
and pressures. Or they may simply produce a mediocre work product.46
Finally, advisory boards create economic and legislative inefficiency if they
function as patronage devices, with Members of Congress using commission
positions to pay off political debts.47
1ar EXT Say No AT Binding
Not binding
PCLOBs perspective on the law was quite
It should be evident, then, that the
different from that of any federal agency staff. In its first report, its
members, among them a retired federal court of appeals judge, assumed much more the
stance of court of appeals judges. Holdings by courts that are not the Supreme
Court were treated as potentially persuasive, but not binding. And even
Supreme Court holdings were deemed potentially undermined by subsequent changes of circumstances or
surrounding doctrine. The PCLOB members obviously felt far freer than agency
counsel do with respect to legal analysis and interpretation; the analysis is not
only of precedent but also, in more typically judicial mode, of the policy pros and cons. The result
was that the board took advantage of the authority of the
law/compliance frame, without many of the constraints that frame
usually imposes on executive branch officials. Its pronouncement that the
telephony metadata program is illegal, beyond the statutory authority of the administration, is what got by
far the most attention.254 The PCLOBs two Republican appointees disagreed
with the three Democrats on the merits and on the Boards role.
both
this Board, which does not
One wrote: This legal question will be resolved by the courts, not by
have the benefit of traditional adversarial legal briefing and is not
particularly well-suited to conducting de novo review of long-
standing statutory interpretations. We are much better equipped to assess whether this
program is sound as a policy matter and whether changes could be made to better protect Americans
privacy and civil liberties while also protecting national security.255
Process PIA
2ac F/L
The counterplan doesnt solve our perception internal
links
Wright and De Hert 12 (Paul De Hert holds the chair of 'Criminal Law',
'International and European Criminal Law' and 'Historical introduction to eight
major constitutional systems, he specializes in e area of privacy &
technology, human rights and criminal law, David Wright is a founder at
Trilateral Research & Consulting, Privacy Impact Assessment, Law
Governance and Tech Series, 6, Springer)//GK
Oversight of the PIA program is further weakened by the lack of public
involvement in the PIA implementation process. A multi-country
review of PIAs prepared for the UK Information Commissioners Office echoed earlier findings of scholars in the
context of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, concluding that external
consultation with key stakeholders and the public enhances the
effectiveness of PIAs. Noting divergence around consultation and publication requirements, the authors
concluded that openness and transparency of process and publication of reports enhances trust in the initiative being
despite the US E-Government Acts explicit commitment to
propose. Yet
the production of PIAs before developing or purchasing technology systems, and to the
publication of PIAs, it fails to provide for public consultation at any
point in the PIA production. The development or procurement of information systems is often treated
as a management issue and accomplished through means that do not require notice and comment. In those contexts, if
the PIA is not made available to the public prior to development or procurement of the system, there is no vehicle for
public participation before the technology has been purchased and implemented. Any participation after this point is,
arguably, too late to be greatly effective. Additionally, a federal court has rejected the single Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) request by a privacy advocacy group for draft PIAs developed in advance of a proposed rulemaking on the very
ground that those documents were predecisional, and therefore fell within one of the established FOIA exemptions.35
Further,the lack of explicit mechanisms for public participation in the
PIA process limits the opportunities for outside experts to assist the
agency in identifying the privacy implications of often complex technological systems.
Absent external direction or internal efforts to engage the public through a comment process or other means , public
input is limited to the stage in which proposals and programs are
already well developed. Relegated to this late stage, the comments whether by experts or the general
public are more likely to result in revisions on the margins rather than fundamental switches in technology or
architectural design. Obscuring these decisions from public participation also makes it
more difficult for the public to raise the alarm required for
congressional activism. Not surprisingly, while the GAO Congress oversight arm has issued a
number of reports criticising privacy decisions ex post, Congress itself has not engaged, on
the whole, in active monitoring of privacy decision-making.36
PIAs fail because of information asymmetries

Transparency concerns also arise from the technical nature of the
information systems whose adoption the PIA process was designed
to influence. In general, the problem of bureaucratic discretion increases
along with information asymmetries between expert agencies and
their overseers, including the general public.37 These asymmetries can be particularly
pronounced in this area because the debates that raise privacy concerns
frequently involve technical standards that can be both procedurally and
linguistically inaccessible.38 These asymmetries are especially concerning because technology is often
positioned as neutral with respect to values when, in fact, it can create and implement value decisions at least as
effectively as more traditional forms of regulation.39 Decisions about the design and deployment of technical systems can
permit bureaucrats to cloak policy decisions and mask the exercise of discretion behind claims of technical neutrality and
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the privacy
complex jargon.40
concerns created by information systems are frequently analysed in the
abstract and may depend upon testing an agencys specific and often idiosyncratic technological implementation.
CP fails lack of political will and privacy experts within

the NSA
PIA requires championing across organisations and culture
If they are not to disappoint,
change. David Parker in Chapter 3 notes that the introduction of impact assessment
procedures may be treated by politicians and officials as an
unwelcome or even pointless extra burden on their time and
resources. He is convinced that the proper adoption of impact assessment is
undoubtedly reliant upon unequivocal and continuing high-level political
support within government. Kenneth Bamberger and Deirdre Mulligan (Chapter
10) attach importance to the role of internal agency structure, culture, personnel and professional expertise in whether
the PIA process can be meaningfully integrated as an element of bureaucratic decision-making. Specifically, they
point to the importance of substantive experts combined with
internal processes for insinuating privacy into daily practice , and the need
for status and structures that respect the different roles privacy 22 Findings and Recommendations 447 professionals play
one of the
in protecting privacy during policy-making and integrating privacy into the bureaucracy. They say that
factors that led to the relatively successful implementation of PIA
policy and practice within the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was the
existence of a high-status privacy expert within DHS, a CPO [chief privacy
officer], specifically charged with advancing privacy among competing
agency interests, located in a central position within the agency decision-making structure, able to draw on
internal relationships and external sources of power, and operate with relative independence. Privacy professionals in the
private sector interviewed by Bamberger and Mulligan also stressed the importance of embedding expertise within
business
Perm do both
AT PTX NB
Links to politics so hard and, as a consequence, doesnt
solve
Expending political capital on privacy can be risky. While polls consistently reveal
deep concern about information abuse and support for privacy protections in general,30 individual
decisions frequently counterpose privacy against two other powerful
values: efficiency and security. The ideological and political pressures
supporting each run deep. Technology is adopted, in large part, as a seemingly valueneutral means for
promoting efficient and effective pursuit of already-legitimised public goals. Because of the presumption in favour of
it is politically risky to oppose new developments on grounds
technology,
of privacy concerns. Placing privacy in conflict with security raises
even greater political hazard because of the immense risk of even a
low-probability security event. The experience of former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick,
blamed for the set of directives creating a wall prohibiting FBI and CIA co-ordination in light of civil liberties concerns
an act former Attorney General John Ashcroft called the single greatest structural cause for September 1131 stands as
a salient cautionary tale. As one news network reminds, no
one wants to be the one who
dropped the ball when, as predicted, terrorists strike again.32 The
conflicts between privacy concerns and national security were heightened during the Bush administration. After taking
Bush did not preserve the chief privacy counsel position in
office, President
OMB despite calls for a renewal of the position by advocacy groups.33 The relegation of privacy to
lower level policy analysts may help explain early inefficacies of the
PIA program.
Process PIN
Takes too long kills solvency
Froomkin 14 -Laurie Silvers and Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished
Professor of Law, teaches International Law, Civil Procedure I and seminars in
Intellectual Property in the Digital Era, Internet Governance, Law & Games
and Electronic Commerce at University of Miami School of Law (Michael ,
Regulating Mass Surveillance as Privacy Pollution: Learning from
Environmental Impact Statements, SSRN, 11/4/15)
Speed is an issue, especially in the context of high-tech products involving either
sensors or data processing, areas in which the technology is changing
rapidly. Any PIN system that routinely took years to produce a result would
risk making many data-collection projects irrelevant and
uneconomic by the time they emerged from the regulatory pipeline. The speed issue
arises in the environmental context also, and the Obama administration has responded
with a series of regulations designed to stimulate the creation of fast-track procedures.294 Among them
are five pilot programs that the Council on Environmental Quality is currently evaluating for efficiency and
much
effectiveness,295 some of which are possible models for a streamlined PIN system. In any event,
will depend on the proposed PPCs ability to define Categorical
Exclusions (CEs) and recommended mitigation strategies that will allow the full PIN process to be
reserved for the most significant privacy-destroying projects.
Doesnt solve our perception internal links nobody cares

about PINs
Froomkin 14 -Laurie Silvers and Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished
Professor of Law, teaches International Law, Civil Procedure I and seminars in
Intellectual Property in the Digital Era, Internet Governance, Law & Games
and Electronic Commerce at University of Miami School of Law (Michael ,
Regulating Mass Surveillance as Privacy Pollution: Learning from
Environmental Impact Statements, SSRN, 11/4/15)
Arguments that notice is worthless or at any rate that its value is vastly overrated
take many forms. A sociology-based set of critiques suggests that most people ignore
most notices most of the time; the cognitive critique suggests that even if people
look at many types of notices, they are not likely to be able to
understand them.296 A bonus version of the cognitive critique argues that as notices
proliferate, people become desensitized to them and tune them
out.297 And, to round out the picture, the political critique suggests that even if
people read notices, they are not empowered to act on them in
meaningful ways. It thus may not be surprising to find that a results-based set of critiques point to existing
notice regimes such as FCRA or the Privacy Act, and observe that the activity that the notices should have
there is an economic critique in suggesting
alleviated continue to flourish. Here too
that notices can be worse than nothing, and that some notices actually
make people worse off ignorance may not be bliss, but certain partial knowledge
may be harmful.
Process UN UPR
2ac F/L
Perm do the CP it must be textually competitive key to
objectively determine competition their interp justifies
CPs that steal the whole aff voting issue for deterrence.
Counter-interp must compete both functionally and
textually.
The UN solves nothing

Young et al 13 (Kevin Young, Assistant Professor in the University of
Massachusetts Amhersts Department of Political Science, Thomas Hale,
Postdoctoral research fellow at the Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford
University, David Held, Professor of politics and international relations at
Durham University, Global Cooperation Buckling Under Past Successes, The
Globalist, Global Cooperation Buckling Under Past Successes, *fc)
A Systemic Crisis While the need for global cooperation continues to grow,
the ability of multilateral institutions to deliver the policy
coordination we need has not kept pace. The provision of effective
global governance isnt just lacking in one area like, say, climate
change. It is systematically underperforming across a range of
issues. These include the management of the global economy to
human security and environmental problems. While many have pondered the many
pressing global dilemmas facing the world today, there is a paradox accompanying the
global situation as a whole. We are failing under the weight of our
own success. Decades of multilateral agreements, new institutions
and an increasingly robust system of international law have enabled
a radical increase in economic globalization, with substantial benefits for a wide range of
countries. But our ability to manage all this complexity of progress has
not kept pace. Our more integrated global economy demands more,
and more effective, collective management. The problems that confront us now are
The
challenges we never would have encountered without the progress made by the existing network of institutions.
various committees based in Basel, the IMF, the G20, and beyond
facilitated a sharp deepening of financial interdependence. When
the crisis arrived, they proved adequate albeit just adequate to
coordinate a minimally sufficient series of policy responses to avoid
another Great Depression. Instead of an unmitigated disaster we got a mitigated one. They
were of course unable to prevent the crisis from occurring in the
first place and have not been able to take the measures needed to
prevent the next one. Moreover, just as existing international
institutions are useful vehicles for cooperation, they can also come
to hinder it. International institutions like the IMF, for example, contain a vast
array of resources and expertise for addressing global problems. Yet because of their past behavior
and the lock-in of US dominance that was secured over six decades
ago, many countries do not trust the IMF as a global governor. Newer
institutions like the G20 are a testament to successful development of countries like Brazil, India and China, who have
been able to strategically engage with economic globalization in recent years. Yet, with a greater
plurality of voices at the negotiation table, cooperation becomes
more difficult. Fragmentation From Cooperation When institutions proliferate, the
overall system may slide toward dysfunctional fragmentation. Our
current set of institutions arose from ad hoc crisis management over the postwar period. Each crisis saw the addition of a
new committee, a new joint task force or some other institutional addition. But the sum is not greater than the parts.
the lack of coherence in global economic governance is directly
Indeed,
responsible for a number of the challenges we now face. For example, the
reform efforts surrounding complex financial instruments like
derivatives are as complex as the instruments themselves. There is not one
international institution handling the reform process. Rather, there are five different organizations all handling different
pieces, separate initiatives at the EU level and a panoply of different countries all acting simultaneously. Some claim that
global economic governance has utterly failed, pointing to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and a
sluggish recovery. Others regard global economic governance as good enough. They point out that we averted an even
global
worse disaster and despite a global recession didnt collapse. In fact, both views are correct:
economic cooperation is failing under the weight of its own success.
Across a range of issue areas, the remarkable success of global
cooperation in the last several decades has made human
interconnectedness weigh much more heavily on politics and the
economy than it did in the past. But that process of growing
cooperation has now stalled, unable to manage the deep
interdependence it has created.
Conditional consult CPs are a voter infinitely regressive,

the ability to kick the CP is compounded by every possible
consultation outcome, making it impossible for the 2AC,
eliminating aff offense, and causing late breaking debates
which destroy clash and education c/i <one condo/dispo
with a case specific solvency advocate>
Doesnt solve any of the aff the next UPRs in four years
St. Vincent 5/7/15 CDTs Human Rights and Surveillance Fellow, J.D. at
the University of Michigan Law School (Sarah, US to Answer for Surveillance
Practices on Global Stage, CDT, https://cdt.org/blog/us-to-answer-for-
surveillance-practices-on-global-stage/)//JJ
It only happens once every four and a half years, but its about to happen [last
may] this month: the United States will appear before the assembled
United Nations Member States to listen and respond to critiques of
its human rights record. CDT has been working hard to ensure that the US surveillance
practices are at the top of the agenda for this process , which is
known as the Universal Periodic Review (UPR).
Case solves the net benefit it boosts international HR
cred by decreasing border abuses
UPR not key to cred

Pollak 5/11/15 lost to my cousin in the 2010 Illinoiss 9th congressional
district election, editor-in-chief for Breitbart, AB from Harvard, JD from
Harvard, MA from Cape Town (Joel, Obama Complains to UN About Americas
Human Rights Violations, Breitbart, http://www.breitbart.com/national-
security/2015/05/11/obama-complains-to-un-about-us-human-rights-
violations/)//JJ
The State Department report, released Monday as part of the Universal Periodic
Review (UPR) at the UN Human Rights Council, reads less like an
accounting of human rights issues and more like the platform of the
Democratic Party [chirp chirp] and invites the world to judge
America harshly. The so-called human rights problems cited in the report include: Police
brutality, including the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri Discrimination against Muslims who want to build or expand mosques Voter identification laws in Texas
and elsewhere Predatory lending in home mortgages Suspension of black children in schools Women earning 78 cents on the dollar (a false statistic) In addition, the
report boasts of progress in the following areas: Promoting same-sex marriage Fighting discrimination against transgender children in school Executive action on illegal
immigration Helping illegal alien children who cross the border Protecting privacy rights against government surveillance Trying to close the Guantnamo Bay prison for
terror detainees Revoking torture memos for interrogating terrorists Passing Obamacare Expanding food stamps Regulating carbon pollution to fight climate change
The apologetic, left-liberal report echoes one filed by the Obama administration five years ago, during which the State Department proudly told the Human Rights Council
Critics of the UN note

that the administration opposed Arizonas new immigration law, among other alleged American misdeeds.
that the UPR has become a place where abusers are applauded and
democracies are heavily criticized , and Iran, Libya, China, Cuba,
and Saudi Arabia are treated lightly. Al-Jazeera America reported that the U.S. was
subjected to scathing criticism from a variety of dictatorships after
filing its report, including Chad, Pakistan, Russia, and China . Iran, for example,
complained about racial discrimination in the United States, among other criticisms, calling on the U.S. to protect the rights of African-Americans against police brutality.
The Iranian regime brutally represses its own population, and used
(
police and paramilitaries to crush a pro-democracy protest in 2009.)

The Qatar-owned network piled on with a misleading headline : US
cited for police violence, racism in scathing UN review on human
rights. The story implied that it was the UN that had targeted the
United States, rather than the Obama administration targeting
Americaa rather telling conflation of Americas enemies with the
Obama administration itself. A representative of the Obama administration offered meekly: The tragic deaths of Freddie Gray in
Baltimore, Michael Brown in Missouri, Eric Garner in New York, Tamir Rice in Ohio and Walter Scott in South Carolina have renewed a long-standing and critical national
debate about the even-handed administration of justice. These events challenge us to do better and to work harder for progressthrough both dialogue and action.
The Obama administration also boasted to the UN about challenging

racially discriminatory voting laws in North Carolina and Texas,
though many UN member states have laws requiring voter photo
identification, and similar laws have been upheld in the recent past
by the U.S. Supreme Court as constitutional and non-discriminatory.
Perm do the CP and then the plan justified because the
CP includes the time frame fiat by fiating the outcome of
the consultation
The CP causes North Korea war

Oakford 14 UN correspondent at VICE News (Samuel, North Korea
Threatens 'Nuclear War' Over Human Rights Reprimand, VICE News,
11/24/14, https://news.vice.com/article/north-korea-threatens-nuclear-war-
over-human-rights-reprimand)//JJ
A week after the passage of a UN resolution condemning North Korea's human

rights record, the reclusive regime has ratcheted up threats against
the US and Japan, warning its Pacific neighbor "will disappear from
the world map for good." The bluster came in a statement issued Sunday by North Korea's National Defense Commission (NDC). In it,
the country known officially as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea predicted "t ime will prove what high price
those who unreasonably violated the dignity of the DPRK despite its
repeated warnings will have to pay." The NDC also referred to the
specter of " nuclear war " on the Korean peninsula , and intimated
that the country may be considering a further nuclear test. The statement was a
direct response to the passage of a resolution last Tuesday in the General Assembly's Third Committee that urged the
Security Council to consider referring North Korea's human rights
abuses to the International Criminal Court. Though both China and
Russia are expected to veto such a move, the resolution
overwhelmingly approved by member states was highly symbolic,
and upped pressure on the isolated nation. North Korea warns of
'serious consequences' after UN human rights reprimand. Read more here. For months
prior to the vote, North Korea had engaged in a diplomatic charm offensive aimed at averting attention from the results of a UN Commission of Inquiry that investigated
human rights abuses in the country. In an April report, the Commission found the government in Pyongyang has systematically murdered, starved, and raped its own
"The UN as a body has never come out in

citizens, imprisoning tens of thousands of people in political prisons.
this way to criticize North Korea," Charles Armstrong, professor of Korean Studies at Columbia University, told VICE News.
"This will be hanging over them for some time to come."
Goes nuclear
Yenko 6/30/15 reporter for the Morning News (Athena, North Korea
Threatens US To Extinction, Morning News USA,
http://www.morningnewsusa.com/north-korea-threatens-us-to-extinction-
2325630.html)//JJ
North Korea vowed to launch a nuclear counter-attack that will extinguish the
United States into flames the moment it ignites a nuclear war on the peninsula . A
statement from the National Defense Commission of the DPRK brandished a warning that it is ready for conventional,
nuclear or cyber wars against U.S. The statement comes after U.S. deployed USS Chancellorship and Global Hawk at a
U.S. military base in Yokosuka, Japan. U.S. will perish in the flames North Korea has called for the U.S. to pay heed to the
DPRKs warning that it is ready for conventional or nuclear or cyber war. The U.S. would be well advised to bear in mind that the DPRK has already put
in place powerful strike group equipped with strategic and tactical
rockets to cope with its missile threat, the statement from its defense department reads as reported by KCNA. It
is as clear as a pikestaff that if the U.S. nuclear maniacs ignite a nuclear war on the peninsula at any cost, they will perish in the flames kindled by themselves, the
statement declared. The heavy-worded statement comes as U.S. deploys the USS Chancellorship and Global Hawk at a U.S. military base in Yokosuka, Japan. North Koreas
defense department said if the U.S. pushes through its plan to deploy USS Ronald Reagan at the end of this year, there will already be 14 warships in the U.S. Navy base in
Yokosuka, Japan. The number will be the largest-ever warship fleet in Japan by U.S. since World War II. Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki North Korea said the U.S. is
daydreaming if it thinks that it can launch a nuclear attack tantamount to dropping atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. North Koreas fear over the same attack
was sparked as U.S. said that the deployment of warships in Japan is part of military strategy to contain North Korea and China. All these military moves under the pretext
of containing the DPRK and China are aimed to kick up an overall nuclear
war racket against the DPRK in the ground, air and seas, KCNA said in its report. This fully revealed once again the aggressive nature of the U.S. imperialists who
are making no scruple of periodically disturbing peace and stability in the region to attain their strategic and avaricious purposes, the report stated. Morning News USA
ongoing
has recently reported that Pentagon has called for the advancement of its nuclear deterrent capability. Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work said that
nuclear upgrades by Russia , China and North Korea should compel

U.S. to maintain a strong nuclear deterrent force at present or in the
immediate future.
Perm do both leadership solves the net benefit if the

UN says yes to the aff,
Tons of alt causes

Just Security 5/20/15 based at the Center for Human Rights and Global
Justice at New York University School of Law (The UNs Universal Periodic
Review of US Human Rights PracticesNational Security Highlights, Just
Security, http://justsecurity.org/23115/us-upr-natsec-highlights/)//JJ
the Universal Periodic Review released a draft of

Last week, the UN Human Rights Councils Working Group on
its report on the United States UPR . The UPR is a process during which each UN member state has the opportunity to explain what measures it has
UPR covers all

taken to meet international human rights standards and receives feedback and recommendations from other member states in a sort of peer review process. While the
human rights contains information on a wide range of topics

(including economic and social) and ,a
number of recommendations may be of special interest to Just Security readers. We have collected and organized some key recommendations below that relate to national security law and policy.
Lethal Force, Extrajudicial Killings, and Drones A number of states (5.20713)
submitted recommendations related to lethal force, extrajudicial executions,

killings, and drone strikes, largely focused on ending unlawful extrajudicial
killings, compensating victims, and protecting innocent civilians . The specific recommendations were:
Put an end to unlawful

Use armed drones in line with existing international legal regimes and pay compensation to all innocent victims without discrimination (Pakistan)
practices which violate human rights including extrajudicial executions and

arbitrary detention, and close any arbitrary detention centres legal and (Egypt) Take
administrative measures to address civilian killings by the US military troops

during and after its invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq by bringing perpetrators to justice and remedying the victims (North Korea) Desist from extrajudicial killings such as drone strikes and ensure accountability for
Stop extrajudicial killings of citizens

civilian loss of life resulting from extraterritorial counter terrorism operations (Malaysia) of the United States of
being committed with the use of remotely piloted aircraft

America and foreigners, including those (Russia)
Investigate and prosecute in courts the perpetrators of selective killings
through the use of drones, which has costed the lives of innocent civilians [sic]
outside the United States responsible for torture, drone killings, use
(Ecuador) Punish those
of lethal force against African Americans Torture and compensate the victims (Venezuela) (5.21417, 221, 28791, 293) A
strengthening safeguards against torture to

handful of countries made recommendations related to torture, ranging from
paying compensation and prosecuting CIA officials including for acts

committed outside the United States . The specific recommendations were: Strengthen safeguards against torture in all detention facilities in any
territory under its jurisdiction, ensure proper and transparent investigation and prosecution of individuals responsible for all allegations of torture and ill-treatment, including those documented in the unclassified
Senate summary on CIA activities published in 2014 and provide redress to victims (Czech Republic) Enact comprehensive legislation prohibiting all forms of torture and take measures to prevent all acts of torture
Stops acts of torture by US Government officials,
in areas outside the national territory under its effective control (Austria)
not only in its sovereign territory, but also in foreign soil Prevent torture (Maldives)
and ill-treatment in places of detention (Azerbaijan) Respect the absolute prohibition on torture and take measures to guarantee punishment of
all perpetrators (Costa Rica) Prosecute all CIA operatives that have been held responsible for torture by the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (Pakistan) Allow an independent body to investigate
Investigate the CIA torture

allegations of torture and to end the impunity of perpetrators (Switzerland) Prosecute and punish those responsible for torture (Cuba)
crimes, which stirred up indignation and denunciation among people, to disclose all information and to allow investigation by international community in this regard (North Korea) Further
ensure that all victims of torture and ill-treatment obtain whether still in US custody or not
redress and have an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation

and as full rehabilitation as possible, including medical and psychological
assistance (Denmark) Investigate torture allegations, extrajudicial executions and other violations of human rights committed in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, NAMA and BALAD camps and
Guantnamo
to subsequently close them (Iran) Also Lebanon, Switzerland, and Denmark recommended the US ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (5.4345)
Ten countries
(5.24455) recommended the closure of
including four NATO members (France, Germany, Iceland, and Spain)
Guantnamo recommendations that the US agree to an unrestricted

. Two other states put forth
visit to the site by the Special Rapporteur on Torture . The specific recommendations were: Close, as soon as possible, the
put an end to the indefinite detention of persons considered

detention centre at Guantanamo Bay and
as enemy combatants (France) Close the Guantanamo prison and release all detainees still held in Guantanamo, unless they are to be charged and tried without further
Improve living conditions in prisons

delay (Iceland) in particular in Guantanamo (Sudan) Work and do all its best in order to close down the
cease the illegal detention of terrorism suspects

Guantanamo facility (Libya) Immediately close the prison in Guantanamo and
at its military bases abroad (Russia) Immediately close the Guantanamo facility (Maldives) Close Guantanamo and secret detention centres (Venezuela) Make
abide by the ban on torture and inhumane

further progress in fulfilling its commitment to close the Guantanamo detention facility and
treatment of all individuals in detention Fully disclose the abuse of (Malaysia)
torture by its Intelligence Agency, ensure the accountability of the persons

responsible , and agree to unrestricted visit by the Special Rapporteur on Torture to Guantanamo facilities (China) Engage further in the common fight for the prohibition of torture,
ensuring accountability and victims compensation and enable the Special Rapporteur on torture to visit every part of the
detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and to conduct unmonitored interviews (Germany) Take adequate measures to ensure the definite de-commissioning of the Guantanamo Military Prison (Spain) End illegal
detentions in Guantanamo Bay or bring the detainees to trial immediately (Pakistan)
Future non-compliance inevitable

HRW 5/7/15 Human Rights Watch, citing Antonio Ginatta, U.S. Advocacy
Director at HRW (US: UN Rights Review to Expose Failings, HRW,
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/05/07/us-un-rights-review-expose-failings)//JJ
The United States should make concrete commitments to address serious human rights problems during a United Nations review of its human rights record, Human Rights Watch said today. On May 11, 2015, the US
is scheduled to undergo its second Universal Periodic Review (UPR) before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, in which UN member countries will raise past US human rights pledges and new concerns. The UN
At the UN
Human Rights Council periodically reviews the human rights progress of each member every four-and-a-half years during this process. The first review of the US was in 2010.
rights review, the US has been strong on process and short on substance , said
Antonio Ginatta, US advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. The US has little progress to show for the many commitments it made during its first Universal Periodic Review. During the current UN review,
Human Rights Watch has flagged concerns over the newly revealed mass surveillance programs, longstanding concerns over indefinite detention without trial at Guantanamo Bay, and the lack of accountability for
torture under the previous administration. The UN established the UPR process in 2006. Countries under review submit written reports on their human rights situation and respond to the questions and
The United States engaged

recommendations put forward by UN member countries at the Human Rights Council. All 193 UN member countries undergo these reviews.
in extensive consultation with nongovernmental organizations in the lead-up

to its UPR. In its first review in 2010, the US accepted 171 recommendations
out of 240 from other member countries. the US has largely failed to However,
follow through on these recommendations. For example, the US agreed to: Take measures to improve living conditions through its
prison system, increase its efforts to eliminate alleged brutality and use of excessive force by law enforcement officials against Latinos, African Americans, and undocumented migrants, and study racial
disparities in the application of the death penalty. Five years later, the US has done little on these
recommendations While
; [I]nvestigate carefully each case involving the detention of migrants and ensure immigration detention conditions meet international standards.
UN bodies oppose all detention of immigrant children, the US has in the past
year embraced the detention of immigrant children and their mothers ; and
Seek the ratification of core international human rights treaties, [IHRL]

including the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,
and the Convention on the Rights of the Child The Obama administration .
submitted only the Disability Rights Convention to the Senate for its
consent, and was unable to muster the two-thirds majority necessary for
ratification . UN member countries should hold the US to its past human rights commitments by making sure that new recommendations are concrete, specific, and measurable, Human Rights
Watch said. Governments at the Human Rights Council should press the US on mass surveillance, police violence, and detention of migrant families, Ginatta said. The US should take the opportunity to make a
serious commitment to roll back these abusive practices.
Or, squo solves

DS 2/6/15 U.S. Department of State (UPR Report of the United States of
America, Department of State Diplomacy in Action,
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/upr/2015/237250.htm)//JJ
83. The United States strives to protect privacy and civil liberties while also protecting
national security. We have an extensive and effective framework of protections that
applies to privacy and intelligence issues, including electronic surveillance . The

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act governs, among other matters, electronic surveillance conducted within the United States for the purpose of gathering foreign
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court , FISA sets

intelligence or counterintelligence information. In establishing
forth a system of rigorous, independent judicial oversight of the

activities it regulates to ensure that they are lawful and effectively address
privacy and civil liberties concerns. Such activities are also subject to oversight by the U.S. Congress and entities in our Executive
Branch. 84. Signals intelligence collection outside the FISA context is also regulated, and must have a valid foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purpose. In January
2014, the President issued Presidential Policy Directive-28 , which enunciates standards for
the collection and use of foreign signals intelligence . It emphasizes that we do
not collect foreign intelligence for the purpose of suppressing criticism or
dissent, or for disadvantaging any individual on the basis of ethnicity , race ,
gender , sexual orientation , or religion , and that agencies within our intelligence community are required to adopt
and make public to the greatest extent feasible procedures for the protection of personal information of non-U.S. persons. It also requires that
privacy and civil liberties protections be integral in the planning of those

activities, and that personal information be protected at appropriate stages of collection,
retention, and dissemination. 85. PPD-28 recognizes that all persons should be treated with dignity and respect, regardless of nationality
or place of residence, and that all persons have legitimate privacy interests in the handling of their personal information collected through signals intelligence. It therefore
requires U.S. signals intelligence activities to include appropriate

safeguards for the personal information of all individuals. 86. Further, our intelligence community is
required to report on such programs and activities to Congress, where these issues are vigorously debated. Agencies within our intelligence
community have privacy and civil liberties officers . The National Security Agency, for example, has
recently established a Civil Liberties and Privacy Officer who advises on issues including
signals intelligence programs that entail the collection of personal information.
Lying
U.S. will lie about the plan durable fiat doesnt answer
this
Norrel 5/12/15 staff reporter at numerous American Indian newspapers
and a stringer for AP and USA Today (Brenda, US lies to UN Human Rights
Council about spying, torture, imprisonment of migrant children, The
Narcosphere, http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/brenda-
norrell/2015/05/us-lies-un-human-rights-council-about-spying-torture-
imprisonment-mi)//JJ
The United States lied about spying , torture and the imprisonment of
migrant children , before the UN Human Rights Council during a review of the US human rights
record on Monday in Geneva. The US delegation said that US spying has not been used
to suppress dissent or for unfair business advantage . However, the US government

has used spying to stalk and entrap activists, spy on the media, and imprison
whistleblowers. Further, the US government has used the NSA spying for insider
knowledge for business and trade. During the Universal Periodic Review ,
the US delegation concealed the facts of the imprisonment of migrant
children, the murder of women and children during drone assassinations ,
and the truth about US torture and renditions . Chad's representative Awada Angui told the UN Human
Rights Council, "Chad considers the United States of America to be a country of freedom, but recent events targeting black sectors of society have tarnished its image.
The US concealed its prisons for profit empire , which has resulted in the imprisonment of migrants, blacks, American
Indians and Chicanos for corporate profit. The US did not mention its political prisoners. The US did not
provide the facts of the murder of migrants by US Border Patrol agents, or of the
rape and abuse carried out by US Border Patrol agents. The US delegation did not
reveal that hundreds of US Border Patrol and ICE agents have been convicted for
drug smuggling and serving as spotters for the drug cartels to bring their load across the
Mexican border. Tohono O'odham and other Indigenous Peoples living along the border are the victims of violence carried out by the US Border Patrol agents and drug
the US attempted to cover up the widespread rape within the

cartels. During its responses,
US military and the extensive homelessness and failed medical

services for veterans in the US. The majority of the predominantly docile
UN Human Rights Council representatives seemed to believe the US public
relations spin asserting that all problems in Indian country have been solved. The US did not reveal that coal mining, power plants and uranium mining are
poisoning Native American communities. The US did not reveal that Navajos and Pueblos in the Southwest live in a cancer alley created by uranium mines, and dirty coal-
fired power plants.
AT Terrorism
No impact
Iqbal 14 [Khalid Iqbal TI(M), consultant to IPRI on Policy and Strategic
Response, Nuclear Terrorism: Myth and Reality, November 13, 2014,
http://www.criterion-quarterly.com/nuclear-terrorism-myth-and-reality/]//JIH
there is no credible evidence that any terrorist
Despite a number of claims,
group has yet succeeded in obtaining a nuclear bomb or the
materials needed to make one. The nuclear intent and capability of
terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda has been fundamentally
exaggerated. Almost all of the stolen HEU and plutonium that has been
seized over the years had not been missed before it was seized . The
likelihood that a terrorist group will come up with an atomic bomb
seems to be vanishingly small; and Policymakers are guilty of an
atomic obsession that has led to substantively
counterproductive policies premised on worst case fantasies.
Anxieties about terrorists obtaining nuclear weapons are essentially
baseless: a host of practical and organizational difficulties make their
likelihood of success almost vanishingly small [xxxi]. John Mueller, a scholar of
international relations at the Ohio State University, is a prominent nuclear skeptic. He makes three claims: (1) the nuclear
intent and capability of terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda has been fundamentally exaggerated; (2) the likelihood a
terrorist group will come up with an atomic bomb seems to be vanishingly small; and (3) policymakers are guilty of an
atomic obsession that has led to substantively counterproductive policies premised on worst case fantasies.[xxxii] In
his book, Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism from Hiroshima to Al-Qaeda he argues that, anxieties about terrorists
how many
obtaining nuclear weapons are essentially baseless.[xxxiii] Decades after Cheneys forecast,
nuclear weapons from the former Soviet arsenal have proliferated to
rogue states or terrorists? Not the 250 Cheney predicted. Not 25.
Miracle of miracles, not a single nuclear weapon has been discovered outside
the control of Russias nuclear custodians[xxxiv]. After 9/11, it would seem prudent for
nuclear power plants to be prepared for an attack by a large, well-armed terrorist group. But the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, in revising its security rules, decided not to require that plants be able to defend themselves against groups
carrying sophisticated weapons. According to a study by the Government Accountability Office, the NRC appeared to have
based its revised rules on what the industry considered reasonable and feasible to defend against rather than on an
if nuclear
assessment of the terrorist threat itself. The Federation of American Scientists have said that
power use is to expand significantly, nuclear facilities will have to be
made extremely safe from attacks that could release massive
quantities of radioactivity into the community. New reactor designs have features of
passive safety, which may help. In the United States, the NRC carries out Force on Force (FOF) exercises at all Nuclear
domestic
Power Plant (NPP) sites at least once every three year[xxxv]. Conventional wisdom suggests that
regulations, UN Security Council resolutions, G-8, NSS initiatives ,
IAEA look out and other voluntary efforts will prevent nuclear
terrorism.
AT Mid East
Impact empirically denied Iran prolif, Iraq and
Afghanistan wars, Israel-Palestine conflict, Arab spring,
etc.
Saudi alt cause

Axworthy 15 (Michael, Is it time to make Iran our friend and Saudi
Arabia our enemy?, The guardian, 28 January 2015,
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/28/iran-saudi-arabia-
middle-east-stability-peace). WM
Many years ago, a Foreign Office grandee of an older generation, Sir Julian Bullard, used to tell aspiring new diplomats
that the best reason for learning German was to read Nietzsches epigrams. Im not sure many of them took his advice to
heart, but I did at least read the one that says Wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich
hinein, which translates as: if you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you. Another word for abyss is, of
course, Gulf. Things are changing in the Persian Gulf region. An elderly, ailing Saudi
king dies and is replaced by his elderly, ailing half-brother just as Houthi rebels appear to achieve a major success in
Yemen. Meanwhile, representatives of more than 20 countries including
Britain, the US and Iraq agonise over how to tackle Islamic State (Isis), with
Baghdad seeking more support from its western allies for the fight. Faced with so much change in
the Middle East, western governments seem to be at a crossroads . Not so long ago,
we were intent upon a bombing campaign to remove the Assad regime in Syria. Now, only 18 months or so later, the
continuation of that regime appears to be a necessity if a rather distasteful one for western policy in the region, if the
much more dangerous threat from Isis is to be contained or removed. At the same time our attitudes to
Iran have also shifted, as the process of negotiation over the Iranian nuclear question has ground slowly
forward. I was surprised last week to hear a colleague suggest that the idea that Iran was a force for stability in the
Persian Gulf region was now conventional wisdom. But our attitudes have not shifted enough for us fully to embrace the
Iranians as allies in Iraq and Syria. Thats a perverse situation. And there are still influential voices in the US and
elsewhere who, like the Saudis, warn of Iranian expansionism. Those same voices have tended to laud the alleged
reforming zeal of King Abdullah (nothing I have heard leads me to think his successor will be any more zealous), ignoring
most of the worst Islamic extremism and terrorism of
the uncomfortable fact that
the past two decades has tracked back, through funding and
religious influence, ultimately, to Saudi Arabia . In this situation, the
state we have been accustomed to seeing as our enemy (Iran) is starting to look more like a potential friend, and the
state we treat as an ally looks more and more, if not like an enemy, like the
sort of friend that renders it unnecessary to have enemies. It would almost certainly be unwise to expect too much of a
possible alliance with the Iranians in fighting Isis. We should be fully alive to the range of opportunities opened up by the
developing rapprochement with Iran; it is one of the few bright spots in an otherwise dark picture. But the Iranian armed
forces are not powerful as others in the region in terms of big battalions; their Revolutionary Guard Corps is experienced
and highly competent, but they could probably not do much more than they are doing already in Iraq and Syria. Even if
they could help, it would probably not be in the interests of long-term stability, because heavy intervention by Shia Iran in
Iraq and Syria would probably only incite further resistance from Sunni Arab groups. The key to success against Isis has to
involve encouraging Sunni Arabs themselves to reject Isis, as they rejected and fought al-Qaida in Iraq in coordination
with the so-called US surge from 2007 onwards. Unfortunately, western support for, and relationships with, those Sunni
Arab elements dwindled after the success of that policy, and that is partly why we have Isis. Rebuilding those relationships
now is going to be difficult because the Sunnis feel the west betrayed them. In articulating our policy in the region, in
circumstances of sharpening sectarian divisions, it is all the more important that our commitment to stability is clear and
unequivocal particularly our commitment to the extirpation not just of Isis and al-Qaida but also, as far as possible, of
the causes that brought them about. This is where I come back to Bullard, and to Nietzsche: the Persian Gulf looks also
into you in other words, the tensions of the region require us to re-examine our own policies. Stability in the Persian Gulf
region is what we say we want, and much analysis and commentary takes that as a given. But do we really? How much do
we want it? Do we want it enough, for example, to risk alienating our ostensible allies along the Gulfs southern shore, and
changing their disposition toward lucrative weapons purchases? Because that is what would happen if we were to tackle
head on the role some of the countries play in funding the most radically destabilising Sunni extremist groups, such as Isis
the extremist Sunni ideology of Isis is merely a
and al-Qaida. Many would agree that
step on from, or the application of, the Wahhabi Islam that is the
basis of Saudi Arabia. It is this extremism that is driving the
burgeoning sectarian conflict between Sunni and Shia, potentially disastrous on
a hitherto undreamed-of scale. Or do we instead, whatever the window dressing, calculate that our national interests, in
the narrowest sense, are entirely about arms sales to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states? Do we turn a blind eye to the
extremist sympathies and funding that flows from them, and in effect allow these states to buy our foreign policy along
with our weapons? Buy one, get one free. Julian Bullard would not, I think, have recommended the latter course. It should
be plain enough that to throw in our lot on one side of a sectarian conflict in the Middle East could have catastrophic
consequences both for regional stability and for our own interests. But it seems as though that is the drift of the policy
thinking of at least some elements of the present government. If the UK, in particular, is to have any credibility in the
future in this region, they must be restrained.
EXT Textual Competition
The counterplan isnt textually competitive. Counterplans
should compete both textually and functionally otherwise
the negative could win a host of unpredictable
counterplans compete based on normal means. The
counter-interpretation solves all their reasons why textual
competition is bad because it needs to functionally
compete as well.
And Textual Competition is

Key to CP ground tests specific claims of the affirmative
- clarification isn't enough
Key to DA links - Budget tradeoff and politics link
evidence are contingent on lac advocacy
Most objective way to determine competition
And they Justify Vague plan texts - their interpretation
allows for aff ambiguity throughout the 1AC - this
destroys debate and education
CX can't check - their interpretation has skewed the 1nc
strategy and CP ground - clarification justifies affirmative
conditionality
Alt Causes
Massive alt cause to HR cred no ratification
GICJ 5/18/15 Geneva International Center for Justice (US Human Rights
Violations: Geneva Centre for Justice, Global Research,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-human-rights-violations-geneva-centre-for-
justice/5450204)//JJ
The United States continued lack of ratification for several key

international human rights treaties drew criticism from many states.
Most countries including Luxembourg, Lebanon, and Iran called for the ratification of key documents such as: the Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women

( CEDAW ), the Convention on the Rights of the Child ( CRC ), the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ( CRPD ) and
the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). Also
mentioned by Egypt, India, and Togo was the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights ( ICESCR ) which is still not ratified by the United
States since it signed onto the treaty in 1977. The Indian delegation pointed out that the
United States considers itself to be a global leader on human rights, but still does not have a guarantee
for all the economic, social and cultural rights outlined in the
ICESCR. To truly be a leader on human rights , India urged the U.S. to
ratify the ICESCR. While the United States delegation did not specifically discuss all the outstanding treaties, the delegation
did discuss the process of ratification in the United States. Pointing out that the United States constitution requires the nations legislative
bodies to sign onto ratification of the treaties, the delegation appeared to shift the responsibility for ensuring the United States engagement
Not mentioned is the lack of political willingness from

with the outstanding treaties.
administrations to push treaties such as the ICESCR which has not

been ratified in the over 30 years since it was signed.
Alt causes to HR cred laundry list

Sherrif 5/11/15 visiting scholar at the Arthur L. Carter Journalism
Institute, journalist for NYU, Luce Research Fellow in Religion and Digital
Media at NYUs Center for Religion and Media( (Natasja, US cited for police
violence, racism in scathing UN review on human rights, Aljazeera America,
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/5/11/us-faces-scathing-un-review-
on-human-rights-record.html)//JJ
The United States was slammed over its rights record Monday at the
United Nations Human Rights Council, with member nations criticizing
the country for police violence and racial discrimination , the
Guantnamo Bay Detention Facility and the continued use of the
death penalty . The issue of racism and police brutality dominated the
discussion on Monday during the countrys second universal periodic
review (UPR). Country after country recommended that the U.S.
strengthen legislation and expand training to eliminate racism and
excessive use of force by law enforcement. "I'm not surprised that
the world's eyes are focused on police issues in the U. S.," said Alba
Morales, who investigates the U.S. criminal justice system at Human Rights
Watch. "There is an international spotlight that's been shone [on the
issues], in large part due to the events in Ferguson and the disproportionate
police response to even peaceful protesters," she said. Anticipating the
comments to come, James Cadogan, a senior counselor to the U.S. assistant
attorney general, told delegates gathered in Geneva, "The tragic deaths of
Freddie Gray in Baltimore, Michael Brown in Missouri, Eric Garner in New
York, Tamir Rice in Ohio and Walter Scott in South Carolina have renewed
a long-standing and critical national debate about the even-handed
administration of justice. These events challenge us to do better and to
work harder for progress through both dialogue and action." All of the
names he mentioned are black men or boys who were killed by police officers
or died shortly after being arrested. The events have sparked
widespread anger and unrest over the past year. Cadogan added that
the Department of Justice has opened more than 20 investigations in the last
six years including an investigation into the Baltimore Police Department
as well as the release of a report of the Presidential Task Force on 21st
Century Policing in March, which included more than 60 recommendations.
But advocates like Morales say the U.S. could do much more . "Use of
excessive force by police was a major part of this year's UPR, and
the fact that we still don't have a reliable national figure to know
how many people are killed by police or what the racial breakdown is
of those people is a travesty," she said. "A nation as advanced as the
U.S. should be able to gather that number." The Justice Department did
not respond to requests for comment. Although the problems are not new,
the death of young men like Gray and Brown and the unrest that followed
their killings in U.S. cities over the past year has attracted the
attention and criticism of the international community. "Chad
considers the United States of America to be a country of freedom,
but recent events targeting black sectors of society have tarnished
its image ," said Awada Angui of the U.N. delegation to Chad. The U.S.
responded to questions and recommendations from 117 countries during a
three-and-a-half-hour session in Geneva on Monday morning, with the high
level of participation leaving each country just 65 seconds to speak. Among
the various concerns raised by U.N. member states was the failure to
close the Guantnamo Bay detention facility, the continued use of
the death penalty, the need for adequate protections for migrant
workers and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples. Member
states also called on the U.S. to end child labor, human trafficking
and sexual violence against Native American and Alaska Native
women and to lift restrictions on the use of foreign aid to provide
safe abortion services for rape victims in conflict areas.
More laundry hope you brought your OxiClean
Pakistan, Russia, China and Turkey were among the most vociferous
of the member states, with Russia informing the U.S. that "the human rights situation in
the country has seriously deteriorated recently" before presenting seven recommendations
to the U.S. delegation. Pakistan Ambassador to the U.N. Zamir Akram told the delegation that Pakistan has " serious concerns
about the human rights situation in the U.S." Akrams eight recommendations included
calls for the U.S. to use armed drones in line with international
norms and to compensate innocent victims of drone strikes with
cash. He also said the U.S. should end police brutality against
African-Americans, cease illegal detentions at Guantnamo Bay and
prosecute CIA operatives responsible for torture . The March findings of the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence on torture were not overlooked by international delegates. Many echoed the concerns of the Danish delegate,
further ensures that all victims of torture

Carsten Staur, who recommended that the U.S. "
and ill treatment, whether still in U.S. custody or not, obtain redress
and have an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation
and as full rehabilitation as possible, including medical and
psychological assistance."
EXT Lying
Theyll lie Mays review proves
Norrel 5/12/15 staff reporter at numerous American Indian newspapers
and a stringer for AP and USA Today (Brenda, US lies to UN Human Rights
Council about spying, torture, imprisonment of migrant children, The
Narcosphere, http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/brenda-
norrell/2015/05/us-lies-un-human-rights-council-about-spying-torture-
imprisonment-mi)//JJ
The US delegation concealed the fact that the imprisonment of

whistleblowers and assassinations by drones have accelerated during
the Obama administration. During the review on Monday, the United States
was not held accountable for arming the drug war in Mexico by providing
drug cartels with assault weapons. The ATFs Project Gunrunner, Operation Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious have armed the drug cartels in Mexico
the US delegation concealed

since 2005, beginning on the Texas border and continuing on the Arizona border, according to US Dept. of Justice documents. Further,
the fact US Homeland Security gave the US border surveillance contract to

Israels Apartheid security contractor Elbit Systems, responsible for the
security surrounding Palestine. Currently Elbit holds the contract to construct US spy towers on the Arizona border, including those on the sovereign Tohono
The most egregious cover-ups by the US delegation were the

Oodham Nation.
fantasy claims by the US delegation regarding the fairy tale array of services
for migrant children. The US fantasy claims
Migrant children have been imprisoned in large numbers, in violation of international law.
included the denial of torture, and assurances that all inmates in

Guantanamo had access to fair trials. While one member of the US delegation
asserted that the US had gone too far in its torture program , and steps had been taken to halt it,
another member of the US delegation from the Joint Chiefs of Staff

assured the Human Rights Council that inmates at Guantanamo were
treated in accordance with domestic and international law.
EXT UPR not Key
UPR wont solve hypocritical process
Under the UPR, every U.N. member state is subject to the same peer-review of its human rights record on a four-year cycle. The UPR was created as part of the mandate of
the Human Rights Council, established by the U.N. General Assembly in 2006 to replace the widely discredited Human Rights Commission, which included among its
members some of the world's most egregious human rights abusers. The council consists of elected members which, when electing new members, according to the
resolution that created it, should "take into account the candidates' contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights and their voluntary pledges and
repressive
commitments made thereto." Still, according to Freedom House an organization advocating for democracy and human rights
regimes nonetheless gain council membership and can weaken the

effectiveness of the council and the UPR. And the process is not
without hypocrisy , as countries that frequently abuse the rights of
their citizens line up to offer their critiques of and recommendations
for other member states. "Obviously, everybody has improvements they can make to their human rights record. We do believe that
everybody from the most powerful country on down should be called to task on their rights records, and we value the opportunity to do so," said Morales. "We like to focus
on the substance of the comments rather than the source of them," she added.
More the UPR is terminally flawed

Schaefer and Groves 10 --- fellow in international regulatory affairs at
Heritages Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom and senior research fellow
(Brett D, and Steven, The U.S. Universal Periodic Review: Flawed from the
Start, The Heritage Foundation,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/08/the-us-universal-periodic-
review-flawed-from-the-start)//Mnush
Established in Human Rights Council Resolution 5/1 of June 18, 2007, the UPR process reviews countries on
several bases, including, but not limited to: (a) the charter of the United Nations; (b) the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights; (c) human rights instruments to which the state is a party; and (d) voluntary
pledges and commitments made by states, including those undertaken when presenting their candidatures
for election to the Human Rights Council. While the UPR offers an unprecedented opportunity to hold the
human rights practices of every country open for public examination and criticism, it has proven
to be a flawed process hijacked by countries seeking to shield
themselves from criticisma flaw that the HRC shares with the
broader human rights efforts in the U.N. system. There are two key problems
with the UPR: (1)contributions to the process by nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) are strictly curtailed; and (2) countries use
points of order and other procedures to intimidate NGOs from
making statements or to strike their comments from the record.[5]
These two issues have tainted the UPR and resulted in numerous
farcical human rights reviews. For instance: China laughably claimed in its UPR
report that it adheres to the principle that all ethnic groups are equal
and implements a system of regional ethnic autonomy in areas with
high concentrations of ethnic minorities, that elections are
democratic and competitive, that citizens enjoy freedom of
speech and of the press, and that China respects the right to religious freedom.[6] Cubas
UPR report claimed that its democratic system is based on the principle of government of the people, by
the people and for the people and that the right to freedom of opinion, expression and the press is
guaranteed and protected, as are the rights of assembly and peaceful demonstration.[7] North Korea
asserted that it comprehensively provides for fundamental rights and freedoms, including the right to
elect and to be elected, the freedoms of speech, the press, assembly, demonstration and association, the
rights to complaints and petitions, work and relaxation, free medical care, education and social security,
freedoms to engage in scientific, literary and artistic pursuits, and freedoms of residence and travel.[8]
These patently false reports were accepted at face value and approved by the majority of member states
in the council. A U.S. Grilling in the Offing The U.S. review is unlikely to go as smoothly as those for China
or Cuba. Countries deeply resentful of the U.S. and its practice of criticizing their human rights records in
its annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices will seize with great glee the opportunity to accuse
the U.S. of violating the rights of its citizens (and non-citizens). Human rights NGOs (including
organizations based in the U.S.) will eagerly join them to make sure that their complaints, which are often
unsupported if not specious, are highlighted. Aside from the Administrations obvious self-aggrandizement
(President Obama is referred to over 20 times in the 25-page report, and his health care reform is credited
with vast achievements that have yet to be realized, if they ever will), the U.S. UPR report generally
defends Americas strong record in the preservation of human rights. To its credit, the report provides a
robust defense of the U.S. Constitution as the basis for and protection of human rights in the U.S. The
report properly emphasizes the primacy of civil and political rights (dedicating over 12 pages to those
rights) as opposed to so-called economic and social rights (of which the report discussed only three and
asserted that they were pursued as a matter of public policy rather than as human rights obligations).
That emphasis will likely displease the HRC, which tends to give equal if not greater weight to economic
and social rights when analyzing a nations human rights record. Yet some of what the Obama
Administration wrote in the official U.S. report will be cannon fodder to the HRC during the U.S. review. For
instance, one particular paragraph in the U.S. report demonstrates the type of self-flagellation that the HRC
expects of the U.S.: We are not satisfied with a situation where the unemployment rate for African
Americans is 15.8%, for Hispanics 12.4%, and for whites 8.8%, as it was in February 2010. We are not
satisfied that a person with disabilities is only one-fourth as likely to be employed as a person without
disabilities. We are not satisfied when fewer than half of African-American and Hispanic families own
homes while three-quarters of white families do. We are not satisfied that whites are twice as likely as
Native Americans to have a college degree.[9] This paragraphs emphasis on group rights and achieving
equality of results rather than only equality of opportunity is consistent with the HRCs often
wrongheaded perspective on the nature of human rights. It remains to be seen how the HRC will react to
the UPR process thus far has been
the U.S. report this November in Geneva. But
closer to farce than fact . Those countries bent on attacking the U.S.
will no doubt come armed with plenty of criticisms regarding the
U.S. record. The UPR report will provide them with some additional,
unnecessary ammunition. However, U.S. participation in the UPR
process itself already provides undue legitimacy to their complaints .
PIC Domestic
2ac F/L
Perm do the cp the plan decreases surveillance in the
US, and the CP decreases surveillance globally which
makes it plan plus textual competitions bad
a) Ground it incentivizes vague plans that detract from
in depth debate
b) Education it needlessly turns debate into a Scrabble
game to establish competition risking substantive crowd-
out
c) Unlimits there are an infinite number of potential
discourse impacts to our text focusing on the function of
the plans critical to a stable, in-depth discussion
Perm do both
Conditional word piks are a voting issue uniquely force a

time tradeoff because they absorb offense we read in the
1AC this forces disproportionate coverage which causes
strat skew it also delays argument development which
kills clash and education especially since they can spend
ten minutes finding offense against words instead of
engaging the aff
CP collapses politics, precludes alternative discourses,

only the perm solves star this card.
Schram 95 (Sanford F. Schram, professor of social theory and policy at
Bryn Mawr College, words of welfare: The Poverty of Social Science and the
Social Science of Poverty, pg. 20-26 The sounds of silencewhat isolated
instances of renaming can accomplish)
policy analysts are constrained by economistic-
The sounds of silence are several in poverty research. Whereas many welfare
herapeutic-manage- na1 discourse, others find themselves silenced by a politics of

euphemisms. The latter suggests that if only the right words can be found, then political change will quickly follow. This is what
happens when a good idea goes bad, when the interrogation of discourse collapses into
the valorization of terminological distinctions .' Recently, I attended a conference of social

workers who were part of a network of agencies seeking to assist homeless youths. A state legislator addressed the group and at one point in
the question-and-answer period commiserated with one professional about how the by then well- accepted phrase children at risk ought to
be dropped, for it is pejorative. The legislator preferred children under stress as a more "politically correct" euphemism. Much discussion
the
ensued regarding how to categorize clients so as to neither patronize nor marginalize them. No one, however, mentioned
reifying effects of all categorization, or how antiseptic language only

exacerbates the problem by projecting young people in need onto one or another dehumanizing dimension of
therapeutic discourse.' No one suggested that although isolated name changes may be a
necessary part of political action, they are insufficient by
themselves. No one emphasized the need for renamings that destabilize prevailing institutional practices.' In- stead, a
science of renaming seemed to displace a politics of interrogation . A
fascination with correcting the terms of interpersonal communication had replaced an
interest in the critique of structure. A comfort in dealing with discourse in
the most narrow and literal sense had replaced an interest in the
broader discursive structures that set the terms for reproducing organized daily life. I was left to question how
discourse and structure need to be seen as connected before reflection about poverty can inform political action.' The deconstruction of
prevailing discursive structures helps politicize the institutionalized practices that inhibit alternative ways of constructing social relations.5
Isolated acts of renaming, however, are unlikely to help promote political change if
they are not tied to interrogations of the structures that serve as the interpretive context for making sense of new terms.' This is
especially the case when renamings take the form of euphemisms

designed to make what is described appear to be consonant with the
existing order. In other words, the problems of a politics of renaming are not confined to the left, but are endemic to what
amounts to a classic American practice utilized across the political spectrum.' Homeless, welfare, and family planning provide three examples
of how isolated instances of renaming fail in their efforts to make a politics out of sanitizing language. Reconsidering the Politics of Renaming
Renaming can do much to indicate respect and sympathy. It may strategically recast concerns so that they can be articulated in ways that
are more appealing and less dismissive. Renaming the objects of political contestation may help promote the basis for articulating latent
affinities among disparate political constituencies. The relentless march of renamings can help denaturalize and delegitimate ascendant
categories and the constraints they place on political possibility. At the moment of fissure, destabilizing renamings have the potential to
isolated acts of renam-

encourage reconsideration of how biases embedded in names are tied to power relations." Yet
ing do not guarantee that audiences will be any more predisposed to

treat things differently than they were before. The problem is not limited to the political
reality that dominant groups possess greater resources for influencing discourse. Ascendant political
economies, such as liberal postindustrial capitalism, whether understood structurally or discursively, operate as
institutionalized systems of interpretation that can subvert the
most earnest of renamings." It is just as dangerous to suggest that paid employment exhausts possibilities for
achieving self-sufficiency as to suggest that political action can be meaningfully confined to isolated renamings.' Neither the workplace nor a
name is the definitive venue for effectuating self-worth or political intervention." Strategies that accept the prevailing work ethos will con-
tinue to marginalize those who cannot work, and increasingly so in a postindustrial economy that does not require nearly as large a
workforce as its industrial predecessor. Exclusive preoccupation with sanitizing names overlooks the fact that names often do not matter to
those who live out their lives according to the institutionalized narratives of the broader political economy, whether it is understood
structurally or discursively, whether it is monolithically hegemonic or reproduced through allied, if disparate, practices. What is named is
Getting the names right will not

always encoded in some publicly accessible and ascendent discourse."
matter if the names are interpreted according to the

institutionalized insistences of organized society." Only when those insistences are
relaxed does there emerge the possibility for new names to restructure daily practices. Texts, as it now has become notoriously apparent, can
be read in many ways, and they are most often read according to how prevailing discursive structures provide an interpretive context for
reading diem. 14 The meanings implied by new names of necessity overflow their categorizations, often to be reinterpreted in terms of
available systems of intelligibility (most often tied to existing institutions). Whereas renaming can maneuver change within the interstices of
Strategies of containment that seek

pervasive discursive structures, renaming is limited in reciprocal fashion.
to confine practice to sanitized categories appreciate the discursive character
of social life, but insufficiently and wrongheadedly . I do not mean to suggest that discourse is
dependent on structure as much as that structures are hegemonic discourses. The operative structures reproduced through a multitude of
daily practices and reinforced by the efforts of aligned groups may be nothing more than stabilized ascendent discourses." Structure is the
We need to destabilize this prevailing interpretive context and

alibi for discourse.
the power plays that reinforce it, rather than hope that isolated acts
of linguistic sanitization will lead to political change. Interrogating structures as
discourses can politicize the terms used to fix meaning, produce value, and establish identity. Denaturalizing value as the product of nothing
more than fixed interpretations can create new possibilities for creating value in other less insistent and injurious ways. The
discursively/structurally reproduced reality of liberal capitalism as deployed by power blocs of aligned groups serves to inform the existentially
lived experiences of citizens in the contemporary postindustrial order." The powerful get to reproduce a broader context that works to reduce
the dissonance between new names and established practices. As long as the prevailing discursive structures of liberal capitalism create value
from some practices, experiences, and identities over others, no matter how often new names are insisted upon, some people will continue to
be seen as inferior simply because they do not engage in the same practices as those who are currently dominant in positions of influence and
prestige. Therefore, as much as there is a need to reconsider the terms of

debate, to interrogate the embedded biases of discursive practices, and to resist living out the invid- ious distinctions that hegemonic
categories impose, there are real limits to what isolated instances of renaming
can accomplish. Renaming points to the profoundly political character of labels. Labels operate as sources of power that
serve to frame identities and interests. They predispose actors to treat the subjects in question in certain ways, whether they are street people
or social policies. This increasingly common strategy, however, overlooks at least three major pitfalls to the politics of renaming." Each reflects
renamings are
a failure to appreciate language's inability to say all that is meant by any act of signification. First, many
part of a politics of euphemisms that conspires to legitimate things

in ways consonant with hegemonic discourse. This is done by stressing
what is consistent and de-emphasizing what is inconsistent with
prevailing discourse. When welfare advocates urge the nation to invest in its most important economic resource, its
children, they are seeking to recharacterize efforts on behalf of poor families as critical for the country's international economic success in a
way that is entirely consonant with the economistic biases of the dominant order. They are also distracting the economic-minded from the
This is a slippery politics best pursued with attention

social democratic politics that such policy changes represent."
to how such renamings may reinforce entrenched institutional practices ."

Yet Walter Truett Anderson's characterization of what happened to the "cultural revolution" of the 1960s has relevance here: One reason it is
so hard to tell when true cultural revolutions have occurred is that societies are terribly good at co-opting their opponents; something that
starts out to destroy the prevailing social construction of reality ends up being a part of it. Culture and counterculture overlap and merge in
countless ways. And the hostility, toward established social constructions of reality that produced strikingly new movements and behaviors in
the early decades of this century, and peaked in the 1960s, is now a familiar part of the cultural scene. Destruction itself becomes
institutionalized." According to Jeffrey Goldfarb, cynicism has lost its critical edge and has become the common denominator of the very
society that cynical criticism sought to debunk .21 If this is the case, politically crafted characterizations can easily get co-opted by a cynical
society that already anticipates the political character of such selective renamings. The politics of renaming itself gets interpreted as a form
Renaming not only loses

of cynicism that uses renamings in a disingenuous ashion in order to achieve political ends.
credibility but also corrupts the terms used. This danger is ever present, given the limits of
language. Because all terms are partial and incomplete characterizations, every new term can be
invalidated as not capturing all that needs to be said about any

topic? With time, the odds increase that a new term will lose its potency as it fails to
emphasize ne-glected dimensions of a problem. As newer concerns
replace the ones that helped inspire the terminological shift, newer
terms will be introduced to address what has been neglected .
Where disabled was once an improvement over handicapped, other
terms are now deployed to make society inclusive of all people,
however differentially situated. The "disabled" are now "physically
challenged" or "mentally challenged?' The politics of renaming pro-
motes higher and higher levels of neutralizing language." Yet a neutralized
language is itself already a partial reading even if it is only implicitly biased in favor of some attributes over others. Neutrality is always
relative to the prevailing context As the context changes, what was once neutral becomes seen as biased. Implicit moves of emphasis and de-
emphasis become more visible in a new light. "Physically" and "mentally challenged" already begin to look insufficiently affirmative as efforts
intensify to include people with such attributes in all avenues of contemporary life.24 Not just terms risk being corrupted by a politics of
renaming. Proponents of a politics of renaming risk their personal credibility as well. Proponents of a politics of renaming often pose a double
bind for their audiences. The politics of renaming often seeks to highlight sameness and difference simultaneously.25 It calls for stressing the
special needs of the group while at the same time denying that the group has needs different from those of anyone else. Whether it is women,
people of color, gays and lesbians, the disabled, or even "the homeless:' renaming seeks to both affirm and deny difference. This can be
legitimate, but it is surely almost always bound to be difficult. Women can have special needs, such as during pregnancy, that make it unfair to
hold them to male standards; however, once those different circumstances are taken into account, it becomes inappropriate to assume that
men and women are fundamentally different in socially significant ways .21 Yet emphasizing special work arrangements for women, such as
paid maternity leave, may reinforce sexist stereotyping that dooms women to inferior positions in the labor force. Under these circumstances,
advocates of particular renamings can easily be accused of paralyzing their audience and
immobilizing potential supporters. Insisting that people use terms that imply sameness and difference simultaneously is a good
way to ensure such terms do not get used. This encourages the complaint that proponents of new terms are
less interested in meeting people's needs than in demonstrating

who is more sophisticated and sensitive. Others turn away, asking why they cannot still be involved in trying to
right wrongs even if they cannot correct their use of terminology," Right-minded, if wrong-worded, people fear
being labeled as the enemy; important allies are lost on the high ground of
linguistic purity. Euphemisms also encourage self-censorship. The politics of renaming discourages its proponents from being
able to respond to inconvenient information inconsistent with the operative euphemism. Yet those who oppose it are free to dominate
Rather than suppressing stories about the

interpretations of the inconvenient facts. This is bad politics.
poor, for instance, it would be much better to promote actively as many
intelligent interpretations as possible. The politics of renaming

overlooks that life may be more complicated than attempts to
regulate the categories of analysis. Take, for instance, the curious negative example of "culture?'
Somescholars have been quite insistent that it is almost always incorrect to speak about culture as a factor in explaining poverty, especially
among African Americans .211 Whereas some might suggest that attempts to discourage examining cultural differences, say in family
structure, are a form of self-censorship, others might want to argue that it is just clearheaded, informed analysis that de- mphasizes culture's
relationship to poverty.29 Still others suggest that the question of what should or should not be discussed cannot be divorced from the fact
that when blacks talk publicly in this country it is always in a racist society that uses their words to reinforcetheir subordination. Open
disagreement among African Americans will be exploited by whites to delegitimate any challengesto racism and to affirm the idea that black
marginalization is self-generated.3 Emphasizing cultural differences between blacks and whites and exposing internal "problems" in the black
community minimize how "problems" across races and structural political-economic factors, including especially the racist and sexist practices
of institutionalized society, are the primary causes of poverty. Yet it is distinctly possible that although theories proclaiming a "culture of
poverty" are incorrect, cultural variation itself may be an important issue in need of examination." For instance, there is much to be gained
from contrasting the extended-family tradition among African Americans with the welfare system of white society, which is dedicated to
reinforcing the nuclear two-parent family.32 A result of self-censorship, however, is that animportant subject is left to be studied by the wrong
leaving
people. Although analyzing cultural differences may not tell us much about poverty and may be dangerous in a racist society,
it to others to study culture and poverty can be a real mistake as well. Culture in their hands almost always becomes "culture of
poverty."" A politics of renaming risks reducing the discussants to only those who help
reinforce existing prejudices
Use of the terms inevitable its used continuously and is

codified in legal literature the counterplan cant set a
precedent because its just one abnormal usage of the
term
They destroy coalitions

Churchill 96Ward, former professor of ethnic studies at Colorado
University at Boulder, From A Native Son, Semantic Masturbation on the Left,
p. 460
There can be little doubt that matters of linguistic appropriateness and precision are of
serious and legitimate concern. By the same token, however, it must be conceded that such preoccupations arrive at a point
of diminishing return. After that, they degenerate rapidly into liabilities

rather than benefits to comprehension. By now, it should be evident that much of what is mentioned
in this article falls under the latter category; it is, by and large, inept, esoteric, and
semantically silly, bearing no more relevance in the real world than the question of
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Ultimately, it is a means to stultify and
divide people rather than stimulate, and unite them. Nonetheless,

such "issues" of word choice have come to dominate dialogue in a
significant and apparently growing segment of the Left. Speakers,
writers, and organizers of all persuasions are drawn, with increasing vociferousness and persistence,
into heated confrontations, not about what they've said, but about
how they've said it. Decisions on whether to enter into alliances, or even
to work with other parties, seem more and more contingent not upon the prospect
of a common agenda, but upon mutual adherence to certain

elements of a prescribed vernacular. Mounting quantities of progressive time, energy, and attention are
squandered in perversions of Mao's principle of criticism/self-criticism-- now variously called "process,"
"line sharpening," or even "struggle"-in which there occurs a

virtually endless stream of talk about how to talk about "the issues."
All of this happens at the direct expense of actually understanding
the issues themselves, much less doing something about them. It is
impossible to escape the conclusion that the dynamic at hand adds up to a pronounced
avoidance syndrome, a masturbatory ritual through which an

opposition nearly paralyzed by its own deeply felt sense of
impotence pretends to be engaged in something "meaningful." In the end,
it reduces to tragic delusion at best, cynical game playing or
intentional disruption at worst. With this said, it is only fair to observe that
it's high time to get of this nonsense, and on with the real work of
effecting positive social change.
1ar F/L
Focus on reps destroys agency
Randall 91 (University of Birmingham, 1991 Review: Descent into
Discourse, The Society for the Social History of Medicine)
discourse, has swept through a
In the last decade critical theory, 'a.k.a' structuralism, post-structuralism and
number of academic disciplines. In America in particular, the ideas and theories of Foucault and Derrida,
Saussure and Levi-Strauss have been gleefully and, in some cases, messianically snatched up by many social historians as providing a new
and fruitful framework for revolutionizing their discipline.The claims of discourse are seductive . While
no historian would deny the importance of careful scrutiny of literary texts, critical theory proffers, it asserts, a means of retrieving a new
depth of quality and meaning from these sources, thereby providing new insights into the structuring of both language and hence of
Claiming to displace all other theoretical approaches,

consciousness.
discourse, with its focus upon language as a determinative force,

has become 'a fashionable interpretative panacea' (p. xv), intruding into all areas of
social history writing. Bryan D. Palmer is not alone in fearing this plague of idealism which is discourse. But his Descent into Discourse
represents by far the most powerful and most scholarly counterblast to date against the insidious march of critical theory. Drawing upon an
impressive array of texts, both theoretical and historical, Palmer conducts his reader upon a searching, systematic, illuminating and
entertaining study of critical theory in social history in a volume which constitutes a formidable intellectual tour de force. Unlike many of its
social history components, Palmer commences his case from a critical reading of the theoretical texts which underpin the concept of discourse.
Palmer is no iconoclast. He shows that much may be gained by application of some of the approaches followed by the discourse model.
But he firmly rejects the 'privileging of language' (p. xiv) to the point
where, as in critical theory, it subverts the need to address historical

context or historical experience. Discourse, Palmer believes, concedes to
language a tyrannizing stature, obliterating 'the relations of power,
exploitation and inequality that order ... human history' (p. 17), indeed
obliterating the human agency itself.
Kritiks
Top Shelf
2ar impact rant
At around 6 AM on the morning of September 11th,
nineteen young men can be seen on security tapes across
the country going through airport security. As the metal
detectors go off, catching the utility knives that would
result in the deaths of nearly 3,000 human beings, you
can see the screening officers looking away, too
engrossed in their morning coffee to pay close attention.
This isnt to say theyre bad people, of course none of
them necessarily are just cogs in a convoluted system
which penalizes initiative and incentivizes mediocrity. In
the decade that followed, the death of three thousand in
the ashes of New York spurred the nation, united in
mourning, into a bloody conflict which would kill millions
more innocents.
***Framework***
Top Level
2ac at: fiat k
Public advocacies for anti-surveillance are necessary
create the motivation for congressional action our aff
actually happens
Rice 15 (Rebecca, University of Montana, Resisting NSA Surveillance: Glenn
Greenwald and the public sphere debate about privacy, pg online @
http://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=5439&context=etd //um-ef)
Public Sphere Resistance Based on these critiques, Greenwald identifies

several actors who can change US surveillance policies: the public,
the government, and journalists. As discussed above, the first group Greenwald
calls on is the public, which he encourages to deliberate to resist surveillance.
Greenwald reminds his audience that it is human beings collectively, not a small number of elites working
in secret, who can decide what kind of world we want to live in (2014, p. 253). However, aside from
average citizens, who can come together to discuss surveillance, Greenwald also names special actors
Snowden's leaks
within the public sphere. In the epilogue of NPTH, Greenwald says that
triggered the first global debate about the value of individual
privacy in the digital age and prompted challenges to America's
hegemonic control over the Internet. It changed the way people around the world
viewed the reliability of any statements made by US officials and transformed relations between countries.
It radically altered views about the proper role of journalism in relation to government power. And
within the United States, it gave rise to an ideologically diverse,
trans-partisan coalition pushing for meaningful reform of the
surveillance state (p. 248). These changes stem from the public sphere,
and occurred through public discussion. Greenwald's trans-partisan coalition can be
conceived of as a public, which he calls into being as he addresses this group in NPTH. Greenwald's
created public. Warner (2002) encourages scholars to frame publics discursively, saying they exist by
Greenwald calls a concerned public into
virtue of being addressed (p. 413).
being throughout NPTH, often by discussing his readers as a collective we. Greenwald's
created audience is concerned about surveillance, and willing to
take public action to advocate for reform . Greenwald emphasizes the choice
readers can make with Snowden's leaked NSA documents. He says that Snowden's leaks can
create a new discussion about surveillance, or they can fade due to
public apathy . In the introduction to NPTH, he writes That's what makes
Snowden's revelations so stunning and so vitally important. By daring to
expose the NSA's astonishing surveillance capabilities and its even more astounding ambitions, he has
made it clear, with these disclosures, that we stand at a historic
crossroads. Will the digital age usher in the individual liberation and
political freedoms that the Internet is uniquely capable of
unleashing? Or will it bring about a system of omnipresent
monitoring and control, beyond the dreams of even the greatest tyrants of the past? Right
now, either path is possible. Our actions will determine where we end up. (2014, p. 6). Greenwald gives the
begins the
audience two choices and links their actions to the two potential paths. In this way, he
process of public deliberation, which Goodnight (2012a) describes as a momentary
pause in which we examine political paths, both taken and untaken. As
deliberation raises expectations that are feared or hoped for, public argument is a way to
share in the construction of the future , he says (Goodnight, 2012a, p. 198).
He
Greenwald shares his interpretation of the choice the public must make with this information.
projects two alternative futures based on the public's deliberation
about privacy. This shared future is emphasized through his use of the words our, everyone,
and we, which link readers together as the American public. Greenwald's projected paths put the
decision into the readers' hand,emphasizing the public's ability to act and
intervene in technical surveillance. Through invitations to deliberate, Greenwald
addresses his readers as part of a public sphere. Greenwald also argues that deliberation is an
effective way to resist surveillance and curb surveillance abuses.
Greenwald offers an example from his own life. He says he first learned of the power of deliberation when
he heard from Laura Poitras, another journalist who accompanied him on the trip to Hong Kong. She said
that she had been detained in airports dozens of times as a result of her writing and filmmaking.
Greenwald covered the interrogations of Poitras in a Salon article, which received substantial attention. In
the months afterward, Poitras was not detained again. In NPTH, Greenwald writes The lesson for me was
national security officials do not like the light. They act abusively
clear:
and thuggishly only when they believe they are safe, in the dark .
Secrecy is the linchpin of abuse of power , we discovered, its enabling force.
Transparency is the only real antidote (2014, p. 12). Greenwald generalizes this
example to other abuses of power. He says that power without deliberation is the
ultimate imbalance, permitting the most dangerous of all human
conditions: the exercise of limitless power with no transparency or
accountability (2014, p. 169). Greenwald presents public deliberation as the
solution and antithesis to surveillance, which he calls for the public
to undertake. After addressing readers as members of this public, Greenwald names special actors
within the public sphere who can also help to effect change. Government reform . First,
Greenwald says the government must make changes in order to curb
abuses from the NSA, and that readers should pressure the government
to do so . Greenwald says that public branches of the government do not
have enough control over the NSA. Giving examples of reform that occurred after his
reporting, Greenwald says that he and Snowden were pleased by a bipartisan bill introduced to US
Congress. This bill proposed defunding the NSA, which was by far the most aggressive challenge to the
national security state to emerge from Congress since the 9/11 attacks (2014, p. 249). The bill did not
pass, but only by a small margin, which Greenwald portrays as a hopeful sign of reform. Additionally,
Greenwald suggests converting the FISA court into a real judicial system, rather than the onesided current
setup in which only the government gets to state its case, would be a positive reform (2014, p. 251).
Greenwald's suggestions for change go beyond individual acts to put
pressure on government policy reform. By reforming the FISA court, the secrets of the
NSA would be public knowledge. Though Greenwald writes about power from a
Foucauldian perspective, he proposes large acts of resistance to the
public problems created by surveillance in addition to small acts to
resist the discipline of individual bodies. These ideas are compatible
with Foucault's (1997) idea of critique, however, which he defines as the
art of not being governed quite so much (p. 45). Greenwald asks the
audience to resist through public sphere discussion in order to
negotiate the way they are governed. He argues that discussion through
the public sphere can alter power relations between citizens and the
US surveillance state . Though the government is considered completely separate from the
public sphere by many scholars (Habermas, 1974), others push back on this idea (e.g. Asen & Brouwer,
2001). In the case of the NSA, other government branches are considered members of the public by
Greenwald notes that many congressional members were
Greenwald.
unaware of the tactics used by the NSA, including spying on
Congress itself (2014). For these reasons, Greenwald specifically calls
on Congress to be part of the solution. This should occur through
legislative reform spurred by public pressure . Greenwald's summoned public
addresses politicians as well as average citizens.
2ac debate good
Link turn policy illusion is a tool not a trap
Shove and Walker 7 - *Sociology @ Lancaster, **Geography @ Lancaster
(Elizabeth CAUTION! Transitions ahead: politics, practice, and sustainable
transition management Environment and Planning C 39 (4))//BB
For academic readers, our commentary argues for loosening the intellectual grip of innovation studies, for backing off
from the nested, hierarchical multi-level model as the only model in town, and for exploring other social scientific, but also
The more we think about the politics and
systemic theories of change.
practicalities of reflexive transition management, the more complex the process appears: for a policy
audience, our words of caution could be read as an invitation to abandon the whole endeavour. If agency, predictability
we are with Rip
and legitimacy are as limited as weve suggested, this might be the only sensible conclusion.However,
recognising the value, productivity and everyday necessity of an
(2006) in
illusion of agency , and of the working expectation that a difference

can be made even in the face of so much evidence to the contrary.
The outcomes of actions are unknowable, the system unsteerable
and the effects of deliberate intervention inherently unpredictable
and, ironically, it is this that sustains concepts of agency and
management. As Rip argues illusions are productive because they
motivate action and repair work, and thus something (whatever) is
achieved (Rip 2006: 94). Situated inside the systems they seek to
influence, governance actors and actors of other kinds as well - are
part of the dynamics of change : even if they cannot steer from the
outside they are necessary to processes within . This is, of course, also true
of academic life. Here we are, busy critiquing and analysing transition management in the
expectation that somebody somewhere is listening and maybe even
taking notice. If we removed that illusion would we bother writing
anything at all? Maybe we need such fictions to keep us going , and
maybe fiction or no - somewhere along the line something really does
happen , but not in ways that we can anticipate or know.
Simulation good
Eijkman 12 [Henk, visiting fellow at the University of New South Wales at the
Australian Defence Force Academy and is Visiting Professor of Academic
Development, Annasaheb Dange College of Engineering and Technology in
India, has taught at various institutions in the social sciences and his work as
an adult learning specialist has taken him to South Africa, Malaysia, Palestine,
and India, The role of simulations in the authentic learning for national
security policy development: Implications for Practice,
http://nsc.anu.edu.au/test/documents/Sims_in_authentic_learning_report.pdf]
policy simulations
However, whether as an approach to learning, innovation, persuasion or culture shift,
derive their power from two central features: their combination of simulation and
gaming (Geurts et al. 2007). 1. The simulation element: the unique combination of
simulation with role-playing . The unique simulation/role-play mix enables
participants to create possible futures relevant to the topic being studied.
This is diametrically opposed to the more traditional , teacher-centric approaches in
which a future is produced for them. In policy simulations, possible futures are
much more than an object of tabletop discussion and verbal speculation. No other
technique allows a group of participants to engage in collective action in a
safe environment to create and analyse the futures they want to explore (Geurts et al.
2007: 536). 2. The game element: the interactive and tailor-made modelling and design of the policy
game. The actual run of the policy simulation is only one step, though a most important and visible one, in a collective
process of investigation, communication, and evaluation of performance. In the context of a post-graduate course in
a policy simulation is a dedicated game constructed
public policy development, for example,
in collaboration with practitioners to achieve a high level of proficiency in

relevant aspects of the policy development process. To drill down to a level of finer detail, policy
development simulations as forms of interactive or participatory modelling are particularly
effective in developing participant knowledge and skills in the five key areas of the policy
development process (and success criteria), namely: Complexity, Communication, Creativity,
Consensus, and Commitment to action (the five Cs). The capacity to provide effective learning
support in these five categories has proved to be particularly helpful in strategic
decision-making (Geurts et al. 2007). Annexure 2.5 contains a detailed description, in table format, of the
synopsis below.
2ac reform good general
State-based reform is good

Delgado 9 [Richard, self-appointed Minority scholar, Chair of Law at the
University of Alabama Law School, J.D. from the University of California,
Berkeley, his books have won eight national book prizes, including six
Gustavus Myers awards for outstanding book on human rights in North
America, the American Library Associations Outstanding Academic Book, and
a Pulitzer Prize nomination. Professor Delgados teaching and writing focus
on race, the legal profession, and social change, 2009, Does Critical Legal
Studies Have What Minorities Want, Arguing about Law, p. 588-590 ]
CLS critique of piecemeal reform Critical scholars reject the idea
2. The
of piecemeal reform. Incremental change, they argue, merely

postpones the wholesale reformation that must occur to create a
decent society. Even worse, an unfair social system survives by using
piecemeal reform to disguise and legitimize oppression. Those who
control the system weaken resistance by pointing to the occasional
concession to, or periodic court victory of, a black plaintiff or worker as
evidence that the system is fair and just. In fact, Crits believe that teaching the common law or using the case method in
law school is a disguised means of preaching incrementalism and thereby maintaining the current power structure. To avoid this, CLS scholars urge law professors to
abandon the case method, give up the effort to find rationality and order in the case law, and teach in an unabashedly political fashion. The CLS critique
of piecemeal reform is familiar, imperialistic and wrong . Minorities know from bitter
experience that occasional court victories do not mean the Promised Land is at hand . The critique is imperialistic in that it tells
minorities and other oppressed peoples how they should interpret

events affecting them. A court order directing a housing authority to
disburse funds for heating in subsidized housing may postpone the
revolution, or it may not . In the meantime, the order keeps a
number of poor families warm. This may mean more to them than it
does to a comfortable academic working in a warm office. It smacks
of paternalism to assert that the possibility of revolution later
outweighs the certainty of heat now, unless there is evidence for that possibility. The Crits do not
offer such evidence. Indeed, some incremental changes may bring
revolutionary changes closer , not push them further away. Not all
small reforms induce complacency; some may whet the appetite for
further combat. The welfare family may hold a tenants union
meeting in their heated living room. CLS scholars critique of piecemeal
reform often misses these possibilities, and neglects the question of
whether total change, when it comes, will be what we want.
2ac state good general
The state is good engaging it is essential

Critchley 7 (Simon [Prof of Philosophy @ New School]; Infinitely Demanding:
Ethics of Commitment, Politics of Resistance; Verso, p.111-114, kdf)
Keeping these examples of the political function of rights in mind, I would like to move on to the question of the state. We
inhabit states. The state whether national like Britain or France, a supranational quasi-state like the EU, or imperial
like the USA is the framework within which conventional politics takes place. Now, it
is arguable that the state is a limitation on human existence and we would be better off without it. It is arguable that
without state systems of government, bureaucracy, the police and the military, human beings would be able to cooperate
with each other on the basis of free agreement and not merely through obedience to law. It is arguable that interwoven
networks of such cooperative associations might begin to cover all fields of human activity so as to substitute themselves
for the state. It is arguable that the vertical hierarchy of the state structure could be replaced with horizontally allied
associations of free, self-determining human beings. Such is, of course, the eternal temptation of the anarchist tradition,
particularly for someone like Kropotkin, and I will come back to anarchism in more detail below. However to put it at its
it seems to me that we cannot hope, at this point in history, to
most understated
attain a complete withering away of the state, either through concerted
anarchosyndicalist or anarcho-communist action or through revolutionary
proletarian praxis with the agency of the party. Within classical Marxism, state, revolution and
class form a coherent set: there is a revolutionary class, the universal or classless class of the proletariat whose communist
politics entails the overthrow of the bourgeois state. The locus classicus for this position is Lenin's State and Revolution, a
text that is, in my view, fatally sundered by conflicting authoritarian and anarchist tendencies. On the one hand, in the
name of the 'authentic' Marx, Lenin claims that the bourgeois state must be smashed and replaced by a democratically
centralist workers' state the dictatorship of the proletariat but, on the other hand, he claims that this is only a pre-
condition for the eventual withering away of the state in communism or what he calls the 'fullest democracy'. 29
The condition of possibility for the Leninist withering away of the state is the emergence of a revolutionary class, the
proletariat, whom Hardt and Negri seek to update into the multitude. 30 Now,
if class positions are not
simplifying, but on the contrary becoming more complex through the
processes of social dislocation described in this chapter, if the revolution is no
longer conceivable in a Marxist-Leninist manner, then that means that, for
good or ill let's say for ill we are stuck with the state. The question then
becomes: what should our political strategy be with regard to the state, to
the state and states that we're in? In a period when the revolutionary proletarian subject has
decidedly broken down, and along with it the political project of a withering away of the state, I think that
politics should be conceived at a distance from the state . Or, better, politics is 31
the praxis of taking up distance with regard to the state, working

independently of the state, working in a situation. Politics is praxis in a
situation and the labour of politics is the construction of new political
subjectivities, new political aggregations in specific local ities, a new
dissensual habitus rooted in common sense and the consent of those who
dissent. In addition to the examples of the politics of indigenous rights discussed above, this is arguably a description
of the sort of direct democratic action that has pro vided the cutting edge and momentum to radical politics since the
days of action against the meeting of the WTO in Seattle in 1999 and subsequently at Prague, Nice, Genoa, Quito, Cancun
and elsewhere.the face of the massive re-territorialization of state power in the
32
In
West after 9/11, this movement has continued in the huge mobilizations
against US and UK intervention in Iraq , and in numerous other protests, such as the
opposition to the Republican National Convention in New York in late summer
2004. Despite obvious electoral failures, it is the experience of such
mobilizations that provides, in my view, the ethical energy for a remotivation
of politics and future democratic organization. However, to forestall a possible
misunderstanding, this distance from the state is within the state, that is,
within and upon the state's territory. It is , we might say, an interstitial distance,
an internal distance that has to be opened from the inside. What I mean,
seemingly paradoxically, is that there is no distance within the state. In the
time of the purported 'war on terror', and in the name of 'security', state sovereignty is attempting to saturate the
entirety of social life. The constant ideological mobilization of the threat of external attack has permitted the curtailments
of traditional civil liberties in the name of internal political order, so-called 'homeland security', where order and
security have become identified. Such is the politics of fear, where the political might be defined with Carl Schmitt as
that activity which assures the internal order of a political unit like a state through the more or less fantastic threat of
the enemy. Against this, the task of radical political articulations is the creation of
33
interstitial distance within the state territory. The Mexican example of

indigenous identity discussed above is a powerful instance of the creation of
such a distance, an act of political leverage where the invocation of an
international legal convention created the space for the emergence of a new
political subject. Similarly, political activism around the so-called illegal immigrants in Paris, the sans-papiers, is
the attempt to create an interstitial distance whose political demand 'if one works in France, one is
French' invokes the principle of equality at the basis of the French republic.
One works within the state against the state in a political articulation that
attempts to open a space of opposition. Perhaps it is at this intensely situational,
indeed local level that the atomizing, expropriating force of neo-liberal
globalization is to be met, contested and resisted. That is, resistance begins
by occupying and controlling the terrain upon which one stands, where one
lives, works, acts and thinks. This needn't involve millions of people. It
needn't even involve thousands. It could involve just a few at first. Resistance
can be intimate and can begin in small affinity groups. The art of politics
consists in weaving such cells of resistance together into a common front, a
shared political subjectivity. What is going to allow for the formation of such a
political subjectivity the hegemonic glue, if you will is an appeal to
universality, whether the demand for political representation, equality of
treatment or whatever. It is the hope, indeed the wager, of this book that the ethical
demand described above the infinite responsibility that both constitutes and
divides my subjectivity might allow that hegemonic glue to set into the
compact, self-aware, fighting force that motivates the subject into the
political action spoken of in the epigraph to this chapter.
2ac world improving
World improving Drezner cites a compilation of statistics

on child mortality, violence, disease, and economic well-
being every metric is looking up
World improving most recent ev

Wyne 3/16 [Ali, researcher at Harvard Universitys Belfer Center for
Science and International Affairs http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-wyne/the-
world-is-becoming-saf_b_6878664.html]
There are plenty of reasons to despair about the state of the world: ISIL's depredations in the Middle East, Boko Haram's
atrocities in Nigeria, and Russia's slow-drip incursion into Ukraine are just a few. These phenomena are more distressing
when one considers that they're occurring against the backdrop of an eroding postwar order. Contrary to the oft-heard
the world is becoming more dangerous -- or, according to some observers, has never been more
refrain, though, that
has actually never been safer. Steven Pinker and Andrew Mack recently
dangerous -- it
documented the declines in global rates of homicide, violence against
women, genocide, and war, among other categories. We're also becoming
more prosperous. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, real global GDP more than
tripled between 1970 and 2010, and real global GDP per capita nearly doubled. Last
month the Economist reported that the percent of the world's population living in "abject
poverty" fell from 36 in 1990 to 18 in 2010 (translating to about 900 million

people who escaped that condition ). Finally, we're living longer, better lives.
The University of Washington's Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation
found that "global life expectancy increased by 5.8 years for men and
6.6 years for women" between 1990 and 2013. According to the United Nations,
moreover, the mortality rate for children under five fell from 90 per thousand births to
46 during that same period, while the percent of the world's population that is "clinically
malnourished" fell more than seven points. It's no accident the world is becoming safer, wealthier
and healthier: there are extraordinary people around the world who're trying to make it better. Too often, though, their
names remain unknown; their contributions, unacknowledged. "What's Working" is a crucial platform for spotlighting
the ingenuity of our
them. When the news of the day feels overwhelming, I take comfort in three facts. First,
minds has always scaled with the magnitude of our calling . There's no
reason to believe it won't continue doing so. Second, we're pushing forward the frontiers
of possibility every second, far more rapidly than we can comprehend. Before coming to MIT, I believed
certain problems were simply too hard for human beings to address. In
retrospect, though, my skepticism simply reflected my failure of imagination . I now
assume that once a problem has been identified, folks will eventually solve it or
find a way to manage it. The tipping point for me came six years ago, when MIT News ran an article
discussing a new project Professor Angela Belcher and a few of her colleagues had undertaken. "For the first time," it
explained, "MIT researchers have shown they can genetically engineer viruses to build both the positively and negatively
charged ends of a lithium-ion battery." If we can figure out how to make batteries from
viruses -- I never imagined I'd see those two words in the same sentence, and I still can't get my head around the idea
-- what can't we do ? Third, no matter what problem keeps you up at night, there
are brilliant, passionate people around the world who're working on it . You
may not hear about them amid the daily barrage of depressing
headlines, but they're easy to find if you want to find them. Among the extraordinary individuals I've met, spoken
to over e-mail, or reconnected with in recent months: Ruzwana Bashir, the cofounder and CEO of Peek, who's using her
own experience of sexual abuse to help other victims find their voices; Pardis Sabeti, a professor of organismic and
evolutionary biology at Harvard, who's developing treatments to fight Ebola; Donald Sadoway, a professor of materials
chemistry at MIT, whose work on liquid-metal batteries could revolutionize electricity storage; Shiza Shahid, the cofounder
of the Malala Fund, who's working to give young women around the world a chance at an education; and Wes Moore,
author of The Other Wes Moore and The Work, who cofounded BridgeEdU to help at-risk youth in Baltimore graduate from
There's an enormous amount of work to be done -- slowing the course of climate
college.
but
change, feeding a growing population and resettling tens of millions of refugees, to name but a few challenges --
dwelling on everything that's wrong and fretting about everything that
could go wrong won't help. Let's spend less time lamenting the state
of the world and more time supporting those who're making it
better.
2ac world improving wars
More ev wars and violence are declining

McKenna 15 (Michael, How many people have died in wars throughout
history?, Guru Magazine, March 4, 2015,
http://gurumagazine.org/askaguru/culture/many-people-died-wars-
throughout-history/)
Calculating the total number of people who have died in wars
throughout history is difficult. As Winston Churchill apparently said,
history is written by the winners; and this becomes truer the further back
we go. The victorious side of any war may exaggerate the number of enemies
killed, while glossing over their own losses so as to brag of their military
superiority. Equally, if the victor is aware of their public image, they may want
to downplay the carnage of war and the atrocities they committed. What
this unfortunately means is that any estimate of the number of
deaths caused by war will be very rough indeed. This is further
complicated by the lack of consensus amongst historians as to what
actually constitutes a war and how to measure the number of deaths due to
the effects of war (e.g. famine). That being said, we can arrive at a
ballpark figure by looking at some of the major conflicts in history. The
20th century is described as the bloodiest , with an estimated 187
million deaths due to the various wars combined. Almost
unbelievably, this number is nearly as high as the total number of
deaths due to the entirety of war throughout all history before that
point*. An increased world population, combined with huge armies
and modern killing machines (explosives, machine guns, chemical
weapons, etc.) have made us frighteningly efficient at killing one
another. Taking the median estimates of death tolls for various conflicts
throughout history, the best estimates put the total death toll due to all wars
at 341.7 million people **. To add a note of optimism, experimental
psychologist Steven Pinker argues that violence (including acts of
war) is declining . He argues that if you adjust wartime casualties to
reflect the population of the time, modern (20th century and after)
wars have nothing on more historical conflicts . World War II, for
example, tops all lists as the biggest killer (up to 85 million). However,
when the numbers are adjusted for the world population at the time, World
War II comes out at only number 9, with the rest of the top 10 being before
the 20th century. At the top of the list is the An Lushan Rebellion in the Tang
Dynasty of China, which may have killed up to one sixth of the entire world
population in 755.
2ac world improving violence
Violence decreasing globally

Mack and Pinker 14 - director of the Human Security Report Project at
Simon Fraser University AND ** Johnstone Family professor of psychology at
Harvard and the author of The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has
Declined. (Andrew and Steven, J The World Is Not Falling Apart Slate, 12/22,
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/12/the_world
_is_not_falling_apart_the_trend_lines_reveal_an_increasingly_peaceful.html)//
CB
The only sound way to appraise the state of the world is to count. How
many violent acts has the world seen compared with the number of opportunities? And is that number
going up or down? As Bill Clinton likes to say, Follow the trend lines, not the headlines. We will see that
the trend lines are more encouraging than a news junkie would guess. To be sure, adding up
corpses and comparing the tallies across different times and places can seem callous, as if it minimized
the tragedy of the victims in less violent decades and regions. But a quantitative mindset is in fact the
morally enlightened one. It treats every human life as having equal value, rather than privileging the
people who are closest to us or most photogenic. And it holds out the hope that we might identify the
causes of violence and thereby implement the measures that are most likely to reduce it. Lets examine
the major categories in turn. Homicide. Worldwide, about five to 10 times as many people die in police-
blotter homicides as die in wars. And in most of the world, the rate of homicide has been sinking. The
Great American Crime Decline of the 1990s, which flattened out at the start of the new century, resumed
in 2006, and, defying the conventional wisdom that hard times lead to violence, proceeded right through
most other industrialized
the recession of 2008 and up to the present. England, Canada, and
countries have also seen their homicide rates fall in the past decade.
Among the 88 countries with reliable data, 67 have seen a decline in the past 15 years. Though numbers
for the entire world exist only for this millennium and include heroic guesstimates for countries that are
data deserts, the trend appears to be downward, from 7.1 homicides per 100,000 people in 2003 to 6.2 in
2012. The global average, to be sure, conceals many regions with horrific rates of killing, particularly in
Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa. But even in those hot zones, its easy for the
headlines to mislead. The gory drug-fueled killings in parts of Mexico, for example, can create
an impression that the country has spiraled into Hobbesian lawlessness. But the trend line belies the
impression in two ways. One is that the 21st-century spike has not undone a massive reduction in
homicide that Mexico has enjoyed since 1940, comparable to the reductions that Europe and the United
States underwent in earlier centuries. The other is that what goes up often comes down. The rate of
Mexican homicide has declined in each of the past two years (including an almost 90 percent drop in
Jurez from 2010 to 2012), and many other notoriously dangerous regions have experienced significant
turnarounds, including Bogot, Colombia (a fivefold decline in two decades), Medelln, Colombia (down 85
percent in two decades), So Paolo (down 70 percent in a decade), the favelas of Rio de Janeiro (an almost
two-thirds reduction in four years), Russia (down 46 percent in six years), and South Africa (a halving from
criminologists believe that a reduction of global
1995 to 2011). Many
violence by 50 percent in the next three decades is a feasible target
for the next round of Millennium Development Goals. Violence Against Women. The intense media
coverage of famous athletes who have assaulted their wives or girlfriends, and of episodes of rape on
college campuses, have suggested to many pundits that we are undergoing a surge of violence against
women. But the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics victimization surveys
(which circumvent the problem of underreporting to the police)show the opposite: Rates of rape
or sexual assault and of violence against intimate partners have been sinking
for decades, and are now a quarter or less of their peaks in the past. Far too many of these
horrendous crimes still take place, but we should be encouraged by the fact that a heightened
concern about violence against women is not futile moralizing but
has brought about measurable progressand that continuing this
concern can lead to greater progress still. Few other countries have comparable
data, but there is reason to believe that similar trends would be found elsewhere.
Most measures of personal violence are correlated over time, so the global decline of homicide suggests
nonlethal violence against women may be falling on a parallel
that
trajectory, though highly unevenly across regions. In 1993 the U.N. General Assembly adopted a
Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women, and polling data show widespread support for
Many countries have
womens rights, even in countries with the most benighted practices.
implemented laws and public awareness campaigns to reduce rape,
forced marriage, genital mutilation, honor killings, domestic violence, and wartime
atrocities. Though some of these measures are toothless, and the effectiveness of others has yet to
be established, there are grounds for optimism over the long term. Global shaming campaigns, even when
they start out as purely aspirational, have led in the past to dramatic reductions of practices such as
slavery, dueling, whaling, foot binding, piracy, privateering, chemical warfare, apartheid, and atmospheric
nuclear testing. Violence Against Children. A similar story can be told about children. The incessant media
reports of school shootings, abductions, bullying, cyberbullying, sexting, date rape, and sexual and
physical abuse make it seem as if children are living in increasingly perilous times. But the data say
otherwise: Kids are undoubtedly safer than they were in the past. In a review of the literature on violence
against children in the United States published earlier this year, the sociologist David Finkelhor and his
colleagues reported, Of 50 trends in exposure examined, there were 27 significant declines and no
significant increases between 2003 and 2011. Declines were particularly large for assault victimization,
bullying, and sexual victimization. Similar trends are seen in other industrialized countries, and
international declarations have made the reduction of violence against children a global concern.
Democratization. In 1975, Daniel Patrick Moynihan lamented that liberal democracy on the American
model increasingly tends to the condition of monarchy in the 19th century: a holdover form of government,
one which persists in isolated or peculiar places here and there but which has simply no relevance to the
future. Moynihan was a social scientist, and his pessimism was backed by the numbers of his day: A
growing majority of countries were led by communist, fascist, military, or strongman dictators. But the
pessimism turned out to be premature, belied by a wave of democratization that began not long after the
ink had dried on his eulogy. The pessimists of today who insist that the future belongs to the authoritarian
capitalism of Russia and China show no such numeracy. Data from the Polity IV Project on the degree of
democracy and autocracy among the worlds countries show that the democracy craze has decelerated of
late but shows no signs of going into reverse. Democracy has proved to be more robust than its eulogizers
realize. A majority of the worlds countries today are democratic, and not just the wealthy monocultures of
Europe, North America, and East Asia. Governments that are more democratic than not (scoring 6 or
higher on the Polity IV Projects scale from minus 10 to 10) are entrenched (albeit with nerve-wracking ups
and downs) in most of Latin America, in floridly multiethnic India, in Islamic Turkey, Malaysia, and
Indonesia, and in 14 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Even the autocracies of Russia and China, which show
few signs of liberalizing anytime soon, are incomparably less repressive than the regimes of Stalin,
Brezhnev, and Mao. Genocide and Other Mass Killings of Civilians. The recent atrocities against non-Islamic
minorities at the hands of ISIS, together with the ongoing killing of civilians in Syria, Iraq, and central
Africa, have fed a narrative in which the world has learned nothing from the Holocaust and genocides
continue unabated. But even the most horrific events of the present must be put into historical
perspective, if only to identify and eliminate the forces that lead to mass killing. Though the meaning of
the word genocide is too fuzzy to support objective analysis, all genocides fall into the more inclusive
category of one-sided violence or mass killing of noncombatant civilians, and several historians and
social scientists have estimated their trajectory over time. The numbers are imprecise and often contested,
but the overall trends are clear and consistent across datasets. By any standard, the world is nowhere near
as genocidal as it was during its peak in the 1940s, when Nazi, Soviet, and Japanese mass murders,
together with the targeting of civilians by all sides in World War II, resulted in a civilian death rate in the
vicinity of 350 per 100,000 per year. Stalin and Mao kept the global rate between 75 and 150 through the
early 1960s, and it has been falling ever since, though punctuated by spikes of dying in Biafra (19661970,
200,000 deaths), Sudan (19832002, 1 million), Afghanistan (19782002, 1 million), Indonesia (19651966,
500,000), Angola (19752002, 1 million), Rwanda (1994, 500,000), and Bosnia (19921995, 200,000). (All
of these estimates are from the Center for Systemic Peace.) These numbers must be kept in mind when we
read of the current horrors in Iraq (20032014, 150,000 deaths) and Syria (20112014, 150,000) and
interpret them as signs of a dark new era. Nor, tragically, are the beheadings and crucifixions of the
Islamic State historically unusual. Many postwar genocides were accompanied by splurges of ghastly
The
torture and mutilation. The main difference is that they were not broadcasted on social media.
trend lines for genocide and other civilian killings, fortunately, point
sharply downward. After a steady rise during the Cold War until 1992, the proportion
of states perpetrating or enabling mass killings of civilians has
plummeted, though with a small recent bounce we will examine shortly. The number of civilians
killed in these massacres has also dropped. Reliable data, collected by the Uppsala Conflict Data Program,
or UCDP, exist only for the past 25 years, and this period is so dominated by the Rwandan genocide that
an ordinary graph looks like a tall spike poking through a wrinkled carpet. But when we squish the graph
by using a logarithmic scale, we see that by 2013 the rate of civilian killing had fallen by an order of
magnitude since the mid-1990s, and by two orders of magnitude since Rwanda. Though comparisons to
the cruder data of previous decades are iffy, the numbers we have suggest that the rate of killing civilians
has dropped by about three orders of magnitude since the decade after World War II, and by four orders of
magnitude since the war itself. In other words, the worlds civilians are several thousand times less likely to
be targeted today than they were 70 years ago. War. Researchers who track war and peace distinguish
armed conflicts, which kill as few as 25 soldiers and civilians caught in the line of fire in a year, from
wars, which kill more than a thousand. They also distinguish interstate conflicts, which pit the armed
forces of two or more states against each other, from intrastate or civil conflicts, which pit a state
against an insurgency or separatist force, sometimes with the armed intervention of an external state.
(Conflicts in which the armed forces of a state are not directly involved, such as the one-sided violence
perpetrated by a militia against noncombatants, and intercommunal violence between militias, are
counted separately.) In a historically unprecedented development,the number of interstate
wars has plummeted since 1945, and the most destructive kind of
war, in which great powers or developed states fight each other, has vanished altogether. (The
last one was the Korean War). Today the world rarely sees a major naval battle, or masses of tanks and
heavy artillery shelling each other across a battlefield. The green curve in the graph below (from the
The end of the Cold
UCDP) shows how major wars have sputtered out in the postwar period.
War also saw a steep reduction in the number of armed conflicts of
all kinds, including civil wars . The blue curve in the graph shows that recent events have
not reversed this trend. In 2013 there were 33 state-based armed conflicts in the world, a number that falls
right within the range of fluctuations of the last dozen years (between 31 and 38) and well below the high
of 52 shortly after the end of the Cold War. The UCDP has also noted that 2013 saw the signing of six
peace agreements, two more than in the previous year.
Structural violence decreasing now

Goklany 9 Worked with federal and state governments, think tanks, and
the private sector for over 35 years. Worked with IPCC before its inception as
an author, delegate and reviewer. Negotiated UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change. Managed the emissions trading program for the EPA. Julian
Simon Fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center, visiting
fellow at AEI, winner of the Julian Simon Prize and Award. PhD, MS, electrical
engineering, MSU. B.Tech in electrical engineering, Indian Institute of Tech.
(Indur, Have increases in population, affluence and technology worsened
human and environmental well-being? 2009,
http://www.ejsd.org/docs/HAVE_INCREASES_IN_POPULATION_AFFLUENCE_AND
_TECHNOLOGY_WORSENED_HUMAN_AND_ENVIRONMENTAL_WELL-BEING.pdf)
Although global population is no longer growing exponentially, it has quadrupled since 1900. Concurrently, affluence
(or GDP per capita) has sextupled, global economic product (a measure of aggregate consumption) has increased 23-
fold and carbon dioxide has increased over 15-fold (Maddison 2003; GGDC 2008; World Bank 2008a; Marland et al.
2007).4 But contrary to Neo- Malthusian fears, average human well-being, measured by any objective
has never been higher
indicator, . Food supplies, Malthus original concern, are up worldwide. Global
food supplies per capita increased from 2,254 Cals/day in 1961 to 2,810 in 2003 (FAOSTAT 2008). This helped reduce
the population in the developing world,
hunger and malnutrition worldwide. The proportion of
suffering from hunger declined from 37 percent to 17 percent between

chronic
196971 and 20012003 despite an 87 percent population increase (Goklany 2007a; FAO 2006).
The reduction in hunger and malnutrition, along with improvements in basic hygiene, improved
access to safer water and sanitation, broad adoption of vaccinations, antibiotics,
pasteurization and other public health measures, helped reduce mortality and increase
life expectancies . These improvements first became evident in todays developed countries in the mid-
to late-1800s and started to spread in earnest to developing countries from the 1950s. The infant mortality rate in
life
developing countries was 180 per 1,000 live births in the early 1950s; today it is 57. Consequently, global
expectancy, perhaps the single most important measure of human well-being, increased from
31 years in 1900 to 47 years in the early 1950s to 67 years today (Goklany 2007a). Globally, average
annual per capita incomes tripled since 1950. The proportion of the
worlds population outside of high-income OECD countries living in absolute povertyaverage consumption
of less than $1 per day in 1985 International dollars adjusted for purchasing power parity), fell from 84
percent in 1820 to 40 percent in 1981 to 20 percent in 2007 (Goklany 2007a; WRI 2008; World Bank
2007). Equally important, the world is more literate and better educated. Child labor
in low income countries declined from 30 to 18 percent between 1960 and 2003. In most countries, people are
freer politically, economically and socially to pursue their goals as they see fit. More
people choose their own rulers, and have freedom of expression. They are more likely to live under rule of law, and
less likely to be arbitrarily deprived of life, limb and property. Social and professional mobility has never been greater.
It is easier to transcend the bonds of caste, place, gender, and other accidents of birth in the lottery of life. People
work fewer hours, and have more money and better health to enjoy their leisure time (Goklany 2007a). Figure 3
summarizes the U.S. experience over the 20th century with respect to growth of population, affluence, material, fossil
fuel energy and chemical consumption, and life expectancy. It indicates that population has multiplied 3.7-fold;
income, 6.9-fold; carbon dioxide emissions, 8.5-fold; material use, 26.5-fold; and organic chemical use, 101-fold. Yet
its life expectancy increased from 47 years to 77 years and infant mortality (not shown) declined from over 100 per
1,000 live births to 7 per 1,000. It is also important to note that not only are people living longer, they are healthier.
The disability rate for seniors declined 28 percent between 1982 and 2004/2005 and, despite better diagnostic tools,
major diseases (e.g., cancer, and heart and respiratory diseases) occur 811 years later now than a century ago
(Fogel 2003; Manton et al. 2006). If similar figures could be constructed for other countries, most would indicate
qualitatively similar trends, especially after 1950, except Sub-Saharan Africa and the erstwhile members of the Soviet
Union. In the latter two cases, life expectancy, which had increased following World War II, declined after the late
1980s to the early 2000s, possibly due poor economic performance compounded, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, by
AIDS, resurgence of malaria, and tuberculosis due mainly to poor governance (breakdown of public health services)
and other manmade causes (Goklany 2007a, pp.6669, pp.178181, and references therein). However, there are signs
of a turnaround, perhaps related to increased economic growth since the early 2000s, although this could, of course,
be a temporary blip (Goklany 2007a; World Bank 2008a). Notably, in most areas of the world, the healthadjusted life
expectancy (HALE), that is, life expectancy adjusted downward for the severity and length of time spent by the
average individual in a less-than-healthy condition, is greater now than the unadjusted life expectancy was 30 years
ago. HALE for the China and India in 2002, for instance, were 64.1 and 53.5 years, which exceeded their unadjusted
life expectancy of 63.2 and 50.7 years in 19701975 (WRI 2008). Figure 4, based on cross country data, indicates that
contrary to Neo-Malthusian fears, both life expectancy and infant mortality improve with the level of affluence
(economic development) and time, a surrogate for technological change (Goklany 2007a). Other indicators of human
well-being that improve over time and as affluence rises are: access to safe water and sanitation (see below), literacy,
level of education, food supplies per capita, and the prevalence of malnutrition (Goklany 2007a, 2007b).
2ac world improving poverty
Povertys down
Tupy 15. (Marian, senior policy analyst at the Cato Institute's Center for
Global Liberty and Prosperity. Internally quoting the World Banks Branko
Milanovic and Geoffrey Gertz of the Brookings Institution. Stop obsessing
about inequality. Its actually decreasing around the world, The Washington
Post. 1/8/2015.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/01/08/stop-
obsessing-about-inequality-its-actually-decreasing-around-the-world/)//CB
In America, the income gap between the top 1 percent and the rest has grown. But if we look not at
inequality is shrinking. We are witnessing, in the words of
America, but the world,
the World Banks Branko Milanovic, the
first decline in global inequality between
world citizens since the Industrial Revolution. For most of human history,
incomes were more equal, but terribly low. Two thousand years ago, GDP per person in the most advanced
parts of the world hovered around $3.50 per day. That was the global average 1,800 years later. But by the
early 19th century, a pronounced income gap emerged between the West and the rest. Take the United
States. In 1820, the U.S. was 1.9 times richer than the global average. The income gap grew to 4.1 in 1960
and reached its maximum level of 4.8 in 1999. By 2010, it had shrunk by 19 percent to 3.9. That narrowing
is not a function of declining Western incomes. During the Great Recession, for example, U.S. GDP per
capita decreased by 4.8 percent between 2007 and 2009. It rebounded by 5.7 percent over the next 4
narrowing of the income gap is a
years and stands at an all-time high today. Rather, the
result of growing incomes in the rest of the world. Consider the spectacular
rise of Asia. In 1960, the U.S. was 11 times richer than Asia. Today, America is only 4.8 times richer than
Asia. To understand why, lets look at China. Between 1958 and 1961, Mao Zedong attempted to transform
Chinas largely agricultural economy into an industrial one through the Great Leap Forward. His stated
goal was to overtake UKs industrial production in 15 years. Industrialization, which included building of
factories at home as well as large-scale purchases of machinery abroad, was to be paid for by food
produced on collective farms. But the collectivization of agriculture resulted in famine that killed between
18 and 45 million people. Industrial initiatives, such as Maos attempt to massively increase production of
steel, were equally disastrous. People burned their houses to stoke the fires of the steel mills and melted
cooking wares to fulfil the steel production quotas. The result was destruction, rather than creation of
wealth. Deng Xiaoping, Maos successor, partially privatized the farmland and allowed farmers to sell their
produce. Trade liberalization ensured that Chinese industrial output would no longer be dictated by
production quotas, but by the demands of the international economy. But Following liberalization in 1978,
Chinas GDP per capita has increased 12.5 fold, rising from $545 in 1980 to
$6,807 in 2013. Over the same time period, the Chinese poverty rate fell from 84
percent to 10 percent. What is true of China is also true in much of
the developing world. As Laurence Chandy and Geoffrey Gertz of the Brookings Institution
wrote in 2011, poverty reduction of this magnitude is unparalleled in
history: never before have so many people been lifted out of poverty
over such a brief period of time. Developing countries have made strides in other areas
too. Take life expectancy. Between 1960 and 2010, global life expectancy increased
from 53 years to 70. In the U.S. over the same period it rose from 70 to 78. Similar
stories can be told about child and maternal mortality, treatment of
communicable diseases, and the spread of technology. Many Americans
point to globalization as a bogeyman, robbing our country of good jobs and resources. But really,
the phenomenon has ushered a period of unprecedented prosperity in
many poor countries. Even as we struggle with economic problems at home let us remember
the global and largely positive perspective on the state of the world.
2ac world improving warming
Warmings improving
a) Emissions
Magill 15. (Bobby, Senior Science Writer at Climate Central, focusing on
energy and climate change. Internally quotes IEA Chief Economist and
incoming IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol. Energy Bombshell: CO2
Emissions Stabilized in 2014, Climate Central. March 13th, 2015.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/co2-emissions-stabilized-in-2014-
18777)//CB
Solar, wind and other renewables are making such a big difference in
greenhouse gas emissions worldwide that global emissions from the
energy sector flatlined during a time of economic growth for the first time in
40 years. The International Energy Agency announced Friday that energy-
related CO2 emissions last year were unchanged from the year before,
totaling 32.3 billion metric tons of CO2 in both 2013 and 2014. It shows that
efforts to reduce emissions to combat climate change may be more
effective than previously thought. Energy-related CO2 emissions from
coal-fired power plants and other sources have gone flat worldwide,
according to the International Energy Agency. Credit: Ian Britton/flickr This is
both a very welcome surprise and a significant one, IEA Chief Economist and
incoming IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said in a statement. It provides
much-needed momentum to negotiators preparing to forge a global
climate deal in Paris in December. For the first time, greenhouse gas
emissions are decoupling from economic growth. Following an
announcement earlier this week that Chinas CO2 emissions fell 2 percent
in 2014, the IEA is crediting 2014s progress to China using more solar, wind
and hydropower while burning less coal. Western Europes focus on
sustainable growth, energy efficiency and renewables has shown
that emissions from energy consumption can fall even as economies
grow globally, according to the IEA. Global CO2 emissions stalled or fell in the
early 1980s, 1992 and 2009, each time correlating with a faltering global
economy. In 2014, the economy grew 3 percent worldwide. In the U.S.,
energy-related CO2 emissions fell during seven of the past 23 years,
most notably during the recession of 2009, U.S. Energy Information
Administration data show. Emissions in 2013 the most recent year for
which U.S. data is available were higher than they were in the previous
year, but 10 percent lower than they were in 2005.
b) Political will
Davenport 14. (Coral, energy and environment reporter for NYT. Internally
quoting Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance and
Sustainable Development. U.S. Moves to Reduce Global Warming
Emissions, NYT. SEPT. 16, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/17/us/hfc-
emissions-cut-under-agreement.html)//CB
Obama administration on Tuesday announced a series of moves
WASHINGTON The
aimed at cutting emissions of hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, powerful greenhouse gases
that contribute to climate change. The White House has secured voluntary agreements
from some of the nations largest companies to scale down or phase out their use of HFCs, which are
factory-made gases used in air conditioning and refrigeration. Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Red Bull, Kroger,
Honeywell and DuPont, the company that invented fluorinated refrigerants, have agreed to cut their use
and replace them with climate-friendly alternatives. Over all, the administration estimated that the
agreements announced on Tuesday would reduce cumulative global consumption of HFCs by the
equivalent of 700 million metric tons of carbon dioxide through 2025. That is about 1.5 percent of the
worlds 2010 greenhouse gas emissions, or the same as taking 15 million cars off the road for 10 years. A
repair technician in New Jersey removed an air-conditioning unit that uses HCFC-22, which is banned for
The
use in new units, to install a new one that uses a different coolant, R-410A.Chilling
announcement came a week before President Obama is expected to join
over 100 other world leaders at a United Nations climate change
summit in New York, which will begin 15 months of negotiations as
leaders work toward a global climate change agreement in Paris next year.
The primary focus of that deal will be to push for enactment of new
laws around the world aimed at cutting emissions of carbon dioxide, the
abundant planet-warming gas caused by burning fossil fuels such as oil and coal. Negotiators anticipate it
will take a grueling battle to achieve such an agreement, which would require the worlds largest
economies including the United States, China and India to greatly cut their use of burning coal and
small steps aimed at reducing other
oil. But climate policy advocates say
greenhouse gases will also help. While HFCs are less abundant in the atmosphere than
carbon dioxide, they have 10,000 times the planet-warming potency. But carbon dioxide lingers in the
atmosphere for centuries, while HFCs disintegrate after about 15 years. Every
drumbeat in
this symphony helps. It drives it along. This is part of that
drumbeat, said Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable
Development, a research organization. The benefits from cutting non-CO2 come much faster, he added.
CO2 is like a supertanker you can stop it, but it keeps drifting for a long time. Cutting HFCs are like
stopping a steamboat. You stop it and thats that.
c) Renewables and consumption

Cohen 15. (Steven, executive director of Columbia Universitys Earth
Institute and a professor in the Practice of Public Affairs at Columbia
Universitys School of International and Public Affairs. Renewable Energy
Growth Mitigates Climate Change While Boosting Economy, IEA Reports,
EcoWatch. March 23, 2015. http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/23/renewables-
mitigate-climate-change/)//CB
carbon dioxide
The International Energy Agency (IEA) announced this month that 2014
emissions from the energy sector leveled offthe first time in 40 years this has
happened without being linked to an economic downturn. According to the IEA: Global emissions of
carbon dioxide stood at 32.3 billion tonnes in 2014, unchanged from the preceding year. The preliminary
efforts to mitigate climate change may be having a
IEA data suggest that
more pronounced effect on emissions than had previously been
thought. The IEA attributes the halt in emissions growth to changing
patterns of energy consumption in China and OECD countries. In
China, 2014 saw greater generation of electricity from renewable
sources, such as hydropower, solar and wind, and less burning of coal. In OECD economies,
recent efforts to promote more sustainable growthincluding
greater energy efficiency and more renewable energyare
producing the desired effect of decoupling economic growth from
greenhouse gas emissions. In OECD economies, recent efforts to promote
more sustainable growthincluding greater energy efficiency and
more renewable energyare producing the desired effect of
decoupling economic growth from greenhouse gas emissions. While this
halt in global emissions may not survive this years cut in oil prices, its still a promising sign
that the increased adoption of renewable energy technology,
increased use of energy efficiency measures and the transition to a
renewable economy, is well underway. In Europe, three countries have already met
their renewable energy targets five years ahead of schedule. According to United Press International,
Bulgaria, Estonia, and Sweden have all surpassed the required goal of 20 percent renewable energy by
2020, mandated by the EU for each member country, with several other European countries, such as Italy,
Chinas commitment to reducing air
Romania and Lithuania, not far behind.
pollution has likely had a huge effect on the leveling off of global
carbon emissions, as its dependence on coal dropped for the first time in a decade and its clean
energy consumption increased. Bloomberg Business reported that: China led in renewables last year with
investments of $89.5 billion, accounting for almost one out of every three dollars spent on clean energy in
The U.S also reached new
the world, according to BNEF figures released in January.
renewable energy milestones, with solar accounting for one-third of
new generating capacity last year, more than any other energy source besides natural gas.
The Washington Post also reported that electricity generated from renewable energy in 2014 outgrew that
of fossil fuels, with wind power growing faster than all other sources and solar power more than doubling.
2ac world improving biod
Biods improving
UN 14. (United Nations. UN convention agrees to double biodiversity
funding, accelerate preservation measures, UN News Centre. 17 October
2014. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?
NewsID=49104#.VZ15UEvrsds)//CB
A United Nations conference in Republic of Korea wrapped up today
17 October 2014
with governments agreeing to double biodiversity-related
international financial aid to developing countries, including small islands and
transition economics, by 2015 and through the next five years. The decision was made at the 12th
meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP-12) in
Pyeongchang. Delegations attending the meeting, which opened 6 October in Republic of Koreas
key mountain and forest region, agreed on the so-called Pyeongchang Road Map, and Gangwon
Declaration, both of which outline conservation initiatives and global
sustainable development goals and initiatives. Parties have listened
to the evidence, and have responded by committing , said UN Assistant-
Secretary-General and Executive Secretary of the CBD, Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias. The funding
decision was originally made at the last CBD meeting in Hyderabad, India, in 2012, but there had been
disagreement on how to implement it. This time, the participants decided to use average annual
biodiversity funding for the years 2006-2010 as a baseline. The targets, in particular, are the least
developed countries and the small island developing States, as well as countries with economies in
transition. Key decisions taken in Pyongchang, including those on resource mobilization, capacity building,
scientific and technical cooperation linking biodiversity and poverty eradication, and on monitoring of the
Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, form the Roadmap and will, according to the CBD,
strengthen capacity and increase support for countries and
stakeholders to implement their national biodiversity strategies and
action plans. The decisions were bolstered by the call in the Gangwon Declaration, the result of two
days of ministerial-level talks, to link the implementation of the post-2015 development agenda to other
relevant processes such as the UN Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) process and the national
Governments also agreed to increase
biodiversity strategies and action plans.
domestic financing for biodiversity and boost funding from other
resources. Their commitments show the world that biodiversity is a
solution to the challenges of sustainable development and will be a central
part of any discussions for the post-2015 development agenda and its sustainable development goals, Mr.
Dias noted in reference to the agenda succeeding the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
Defo down
Howard 14. (Brian Clark, writer, editor and producer for National
Geographics award-winning website. Internally quotes Toby McGrath, a
senior scientist at Earth Innovation Institute. Brazil Leads World in Reducing
Carbon Emissions by Slashing Deforestation, National Geographic. JUNE 05,
2014. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140605-brazil-
deforestation-carbon-emissions-environment/)//CB
Brazil's success in slowing rain forest destruction has resulted in
enormous reductions in carbon emissions and shows that it's
possible to zealously promote sustainability while still growing the
economy, suggests a new study out Thursday. A second study out this week also underscores Brazil's
success and shows that deforestation has also slowed in several other tropical countries. Since 2004,
farmers and ranchers in Brazil have saved over 33,000 square miles (86,000 square kilometers) of rain
forest from clear-cutting, the rough equivalent of 14.3 million soccer fields, a team of scientists and
economists from the U.S. and South America report in Science. At the same time, production of beef and
The country has reduced deforestation by
soy from Brazil's Amazon region rose.
70 percent and kept 3.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, because forests use
carbon as they grow and release it when they are removed, often through burning. That makes Brazil's the
biggest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of any country in the world; the cut is more than three
times bigger than the effect of taking all the cars in the U.S. off the road for a year. "Brazil is known as a
leading favorite to win the World Cup, but they also lead the world in mitigating climate change," the
Science study's lead author, Daniel Nepstad of the Earth Innovation Institute in San Francisco, said in a
statement. Brazil's success in saving about 80 percent of the original Amazon serves as a
model for other countries around the world and represents a
"completely different trajectory for forest areas over the last few
centuries," says Toby McGrath, a senior scientist at the institute and another of the study's co-
authors. (See "Photos: The Last of the Amazon.") "For the first time in history, we are
stopping the process of forest loss on a frontier before it gets
seriously depleted, while continuing to develop economies that still
have substantial forest cover," says McGrath. Globally, deforestation is
responsible for about 10 percent of all climate emissions , says a study
released Wednesday by the Union of Concerned Scientists. That's down from 17 percent of
emissions in the 1990s, thanks to falling rates of deforestation. "Brazil
is most notably lauded for their deforestation reductions, but the report found numerous
example of successfully saving forests in unexpected locations," study
author Doug Boucher, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Tropical Forest and Climate Initiative,
said in a statement. Mexico, El Salvador, and six countries in Central Africa, in particular, have shown
decreased rates of deforestation. Measure of Success For the Science study, scientists and economists
analyzed how Brazil was able to reverse decades of high rates of deforestation in the Amazon, starting in
2005, when then-president Luiz Incio Lula da Silva announced the ambitious goal of slashing the rate by
80 percent over the previous year. After that, things turned around due to a number of factors coming
One important element was the advancement of
together, says McGrath.
remote sensing technology. Although Brazil first passed a forest code requiring landowners
in the Amazon to protect at least 50 percent of native forest in 1965, enforcement was spotty. "Officials
didn't have good information on where deforestation was occurring and who was on the ground," says
satellites have given officials a more precise
McGrath. Over the past few years,
picture of the forest, often in real time. Another boost to
deforestation efforts: The forest code was updated in 2012 and now
requires landowners to preserve 80 percent of the Amazon's virgin forest,
as well as protect watersheds. Those that have violated the rules have increasingly received fines and
Nonprofit groups, meanwhile, have helped publicize
even jail time in extreme cases.
data on rule breakers and have built support for enforcing the law.
Campaigns by Greenpeace, Conservation International, and others put pressure on companies that buy
products from the Amazon, especially beef and soy, shaming those that have been found to contribute to
deforestation. Market agreements signed by companies took that a step further, prohibiting practices that
there was rising awareness of the value of
lead to deforestation. "In Brazil,
nature and how essential it is to our society," says Fabio Rubio Scarano, the vice
president of Conservation International's Americas Division, who is based in Rio de Janeiro.
2ac world improving at: cowen
Cowen says that violence is increasing in absolute termsour

argument is about the proportion of violenceall humans are less
likely to die a violent death than they were in the past
Pinker 11 (Steven [Professor of Psychology @ Harvard; two time Pulitzer
finalist]; The Better angels of our nature: why violence has declined; pp.47-8;
kdf)
Though descriptions of violence in nonstate societies demolish the stereotype that foraging peoples are inherently
peaceful, they don't tell us whether the level of violence is higher or lower than in so-called civilized societies. The annals
of modern states have no shortage of gruesome massacres and atrocities, not least against native peoples of every
Only by looking at numbers can
continent and their wars have death tolls that reach eight digits.
we get a sense as to whether civilization has increased violence or
decreased it. In absolute numbers, of course, civilized societies are
matchless in the destruction they have wreaked. But should we look
at absolute numbers, or at relative numbers, calculated as a
proportion of the populations? The choice confronts us with the moral imponderable of whether it is worse for 50
percent of a population of one hundred to be killed or 1 percent of a population of one billion. In one frame of mind, one
could say that a person who is tortured or killed suffers to the same degree regardless of how many other people meet
such a fate, so it is the sum of these sufferings that should engage our sympathy and our analytic attention. But in
another frame of mind, one could reason that part of the bargain of being alive is that one takes a chance at dying a
premature or painful death, be it from violence, accident, or disease. So the number of people in a given time and place
who enjoy full lives has to be counted as a moral good, against which we calibrate the moral bad of the number who are
victims of violence. Another way of expressing this frame of mind is to ask ,
"If I were one of the
people who were alive in a particular era, what would be the chances
that I would be a victim of violence?" The reasoning in this second frame of mind, whether it
appeals to the proportion of a population or the risk to an individual, ends in the conclusion that in comparing the
we should focus on the rate, rather than the
harmfulness of violence across societies,
number, of violent acts. What happens, then, when we use the emergence of states as the dividing line
and put hunter-gatherers, hunter-horticulturalists, and other tribal peoples (from any era) on one side, and settled states
(also from any era) on the other? Several scholars have recently scoured the anthropological and historical literature for
every good body count from nonstate societies that they could find. Two kinds of estimates are available. One comes from
ethnographers who record demographic data, including deaths, in the people they study over long stretches of time.' The
other comes from forensic archaeologists, who sift through burial sites or museum collections with an eye for signs of foul
play.''
And- Cowen concludes aff we need to focus on policy making
Cowen 14 (Tyler Cowen, Holbert C. Harris Chair of economics as a

professor at George Mason University, November 2014, The Primacy of
Foreign Policy, http://www.cato.org/publications/cato-online-forum/primacy-
foreign-policy
Steven Pinker suggests that the world is becoming ever more peaceful, but in reality we have had the worlds two worst
wars in the last one hundred years. The data are also consistent with the hypothesis that the number and frequency of
wars are indeed going down, but the wars we do get are increasing in destructiveness. That would suggest the next major
war to come along will be quite a doozy, hardly a comforting thought. In any case, the recent uptick in global conflict
suggests that Pinkers take is too optimistic. One can even agree with Pinker, and think he is describing the scenario most
likely to be true, but again in expected value terms we still should see war as our number one worry for a long time to
come. HARVARDS CARD ENDS When electing a President or a Congress, foreign policy should be by far
our number one concern. That said, I dont think there is any simple formula for getting foreign policy right. Unlike many
libertarians, I do not adhere to a strictly non-interventionist stance on foreign policy. I believe in alliances among the
worlds relatively free and (one hopes) peaceful nations. I believe that American intervention has at some critical times led
to much greater freedom and prosperity. Without the current and past American security umbrella, for instance, I believe
much of Asia would be a far less free place than it is today, starting but not ending with Taiwan and South Korea. I am,
however, also skeptical of conservative or hawkish claims that we simply need to get tough with the bad guys in the
A market-oriented economist, as I view myself, should be well aware of
world.
the general arguments about the difficulty of government planning
and the importance of unforeseen, unintended consequences from
government action. Furthermore government policies, once they get underway, are often hijacked by
special interest groups or by voters who are uninformed, misinformed, or who react emotionally rather than analytically.
We should not be especially optimistic about the ability of our government to pull off successful foreign interventions. You
can take the Vietnam War as Exhibit A here but of course there are many more examples, stretching into our Iraq policies
in more recent times. To make matters more difficult, the American public is often pretty squeamish about violence and
conflict abroad. Thats overall a good thing, but it means a get tough foreign policy isnt very easy to implement in a
credible fashion. (For instance the American public approved when President Obama neglected his line in the sane
commitment regarding Syria and chemical weapons use.) For better or worse, the electorate stands in the way of what
might otherwise be a strategically optimal foreign policy . It can be said that a nation has to
run a foreign policy with the citizens it has, and that is another
reason why this complex area is so difficult to manage. Im not going to try to
solve these conundrums in an essay of this length. Ill simply put it this way: the single most
important thing we can do to boost long-run American growth is to
get foreign policy right. Very literally our lives, and the lives of many others, depend on it. And that
means the economists arent nearly as important as they like to think they are.
Concludes income inequalitys down

Cowen 14. (Tyler, professor of Economics at George Mason University.
Income Inequality Is Not Rising Globally. It's Falling, NYT. JULY 19, 2014.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/upshot/income-inequality-is-not-rising-
globally-its-falling-.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1)//CB
Income inequality has surged as a political and economic issue, but the numbers dont show that
inequality is rising from a global perspective. Yes, the problem has become more acute within most
yet income inequality for the world as a whole has been
individual nations,
falling for most of the last 20 years. Its a fact that hasnt been noted often enough. The
finding comes from a recent investigation by Christoph Lakner, a consultant at the World Bank, and Branko
Milanovic, senior scholar at the Luxembourg Income Study Center. And while such a framing may sound
economic surges of China,
startling at first, it should be intuitive upon reflection. The
India and some other nations have been among the most egalitarian
developments in history. Of course, no one should use this observation as an excuse to stop
helping the less fortunate. But it can help us see that higher income inequality is not always the most
relevant problem, even for strict egalitarians. Policies on immigration and free trade, for example,
sometimes increase inequality within a nation, yet can make the world a better place and often decrease
International trade has drastically reduced
inequality on the planet as a whole.
poverty within developing nations, as evidenced by the export-led growth of China and
other countries. Yet contrary to what many economists had promised, there is now good evidence that
the rise of Chinese exports has held down the wages of some parts
of the American middle class. This was demonstrated in a recent paper by the economists
David H. Autor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, David Dorn of the Center for Monetary and
Financial Studies in Madrid, and Gordon H. Hanson of the University of California, San Diego. At the same
time, Chinese economic growth has probably raised incomes of the top 1 percent in the United States,
through exports that have increased the value of companies whose shares are often held by wealthy
Americans. So while Chinese growth has added to income inequality in the United States, it has also
increased prosperity and income equality globally. The evidence also suggests that immigration of low-
skilled workers to the United States has a modestly negative effect on the wages of American workers
without a high school diploma, as shown, for instance, in research by George Borjas, a Harvard economics
professor. Yet that same immigration greatly benefits those who move to wealthy countries like the United
States. (It probably also helps top American earners, who can hire household and child-care workers at
cheaper prices.) Again, income inequality within the nation may rise but global inequality probably
declines, especially if the new arrivals send money back home. From a narrowly nationalist point of view,
these developments may not be auspicious for the United States. But that narrow viewpoint is the main
problem. We have evolved a political debate where essentially nationalistic concerns have been hiding
behind the gentler cloak of egalitarianism. To clear up this confusion, one recommendation would be to
preface all discussions of inequality with a reminder that global inequality has been falling and that, in this
regard, the world is headed in a fundamentally better direction. The message from groups like Occupy Wall
Street has been that inequality is up and that capitalism is failing us. A more correct and nuanced message
Although significant economic problems remain, we have been
is this:
living in equalizing times for the world a change that has been
largely for the good. That may not make for convincing sloganeering, but its the truth. A
common view is that high and rising inequality within nations brings political trouble, maybe through
violence or even revolution. So one might argue that a nationalistic perspective is important. But its hardly
obvious that such predictions of political turmoil are true, especially for aging societies like the United
States that are showing falling rates of crime. Furthermore, public policy can adjust to accommodate some
egalitarian concerns. We can improve our educational system, for example. Still, to the extent that political
worry about rising domestic inequality is justified, it suggests yet another reframing. If our domestic
politics cant handle changes in income distribution, maybe the problem isnt that capitalism is
Our politics need
fundamentally flawed but rather that our political institutions are inflexible.
not collapse under the pressure of a world that, over all, is becoming
wealthier and fairer.
2ac world improving at: gray
Gray is oblivious to math and relies on bad logic
Piker 15 (Steven; Guess what? More people are living in peace now. Just
look at the numbers;
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/20/wars-john-gray-conflict-
peace?CMP=share_btn_tw; kdf)
Has the world seen moral progress? The answer should not depend on whether one has a sunny or a morose
life is better than death, health better than sickness, prosperity
temperament. Everyone agrees that
freedom better than tyranny, peace better than war. All of
better than privation,
these can be measured, and the results plotted over time. If they go
up, thats progress. For John Gray, this is a big problem. As a part of his campaign
against reason, science and Enlightenment humanism, he insists that the strivings of humanity over the centuries have
left us no better off.
This dyspepsia was hard enough to sustain when Gray
first expressed it in the teeth of obvious counterexamples such as
the abolition of human sacrifice, chattel slavery and public torture-
executions. But as scholars have increasingly measured human
flourishing, they have found that Gray is not just wrong but
howlingly, flat-earth, couldnt-be-more-wrong wrong . The numbers show that
after millennia of near-universal poverty and despotism, a steadily
growing proportion of humankind is surviving infancy and childbirth,
going to school, voting in democracies, living free of disease , enjoying the
necessities of modern life and surviving to old age. And more people are living in
peace. In the 1980s several military scholars noticed to their astonishment that the most destructive form of armed
conflict wars among great powers and developed states had effectively ceased to exist. At the time this long
peace could have been dismissed as a random lull, but it has held
firm for an additional three decades. Then came another pleasant surprise. Starting in the
1990s, political scientists such as Joshua Goldstein, who kept track of ongoing
wars of all kinds , including civil wars and wars among smaller and poorer countries, noticed that
the list kept getting shorter. Research institutes in Oslo and Uppsala compiled datasets of global
battle deaths since 1946, and their plots showed an unmistakable downward trend. The per-capita death
rate fell more than tenfold between the peak of the second world
war and the Korean war, and then plunged an additional hundredfold
by the mid-2000s. Even the recent uptick from the wars in Iraq and Syria has not brought the world
anywhere near the death rates of the preceding decades. Other datasets show steep declines in genocides and other
mass killings. The declines are precipitous enough that they dont depend on precise body counts: the estimates could be
Gray tries to
off by 25%, 100%, or 250% and the decline would still be there. In a recent Guardian article,
shoo away these pesky facts, which he disingenuously calls a new
orthodoxy. Far from being orthodox, the discoveries are typically greeted with
incredulity and sometimes furious denial, because most people fall
prey to a cognitive illusion and assess the world from headlines
rather than data. As long as violence has not vanished altogether,
there will always be enough explosions and gunfire to fill the news ,
while the vastly greater portion of the planet in which people live
boringly peaceful lives is reporter-free and invisible . Only by systematically
tallying wars and war deaths and plotting them over time can one reach a defensible conclusion about global trends.
Gray indiscriminately enumerates every violent
Oblivious to this logical point,
episode of the past century he can think of, including recent ones that killed a handful of
people or none at all. But his laundry list shows only that rates of violence have
not fallen to zero, not that they have remained unchanged. And it
certainly doesnt support the preposterously melodramatic claim that the advanced
societies of western Europe the safest places in the history of our species are terrains of
violent conflict in which peace and war [are] fatally blurred. Equally innumerate is his observation that
while the cold war superpowers never met on the battlefield, they supported proxies in civil wars. Civil wars are far less
destructive than wars between great powers, and even civil wars went into decline with the end of the cold war a quarter-
century ago. The numbers matter: the difference between a war with 8,500,000 battle deaths (like the first world war) and
a war with 5,000 deaths (like eastern Ukraine) is 8,495,000 human beings who get to work, play, and love rather than rot
in their graves. Gray tries to wave off the battle death numbers by repeating the legend that during the 20th century the
ratio of military to civilian deaths flipped from 9:1 to 1:9. In my book The Better Angels of Our Nature I noted that this
meme originated in a counting error and has been debunked many times. Throughout history wars have displaced, and
frequently have targeted, civilians. No one knows how the ratio has changed, butwhen battle deaths
decline a thousandfold it hardly matters. A great-power war kills
massive numbers of soldiers and civilians, a small war kills vastly
fewer of each, and in the many parts of the world that see no wars at all, the number of civilian war deaths
must be zero. More attention to the maths would also have disabused
Gray of the gamblers fallacy, which leads him to believe that major
war is cyclical and due for a return. The data shows that wars are patterned at random, though
with a probability that can change over time. In a last diversionary tactic, Gray serves up a prolix
disquisition on Aztec obsidian mirrors, which is somehow meant to
show that quantification is like sorcery, auguries, amulets,
and prayer wheels. But the inescapable fact is that whenever you
use the words more, less, rise, or fall you are making a
claim about numbers. If you then refuse to look at them, no one
should take your claims seriously.
2ac world improving at: peace bubble
No peace bubble
Pinker and Fifelski 15 (Steve [Johnstone family professor of psych at
Harvard] and Kurt; Correspondence with Steven Pinker; Jan 15
http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php/topic,6249.0.html)
I emailed Steven Pinker, here is our correspondence. Dr. Pinker, I do not know if you're aware of this, but you are one of the more cited authors in the policy debate community. Your arguments about the decline of
violence are compelling to many as reasons why we should focus on policy making instead of, say, psychoanalysis. A handful of debaters, including two from your school, argue this characterization is wrong
because it incentives, to quote Monica Toft, a peace bubble. I am wondering if you have any responses to these arguments. Thank you for your time and your prolific writing style, you're truly the best. Kurt Fifelski --
Thanks, Kurt. Monica Toft, with whom Im friendly, is no longer at Harvard; she moved to Oxford a couple of years ago. Its certainly possible that the prevalence of war will increase; Goldstein and I certainly dont
believe that the decline of war is a law of nature. (Indeed, there has been a small uptick in the past three years see my recent article in Slate with Andrew Mack called The World has Not Falling Apart.) Its also
possible that it will decrease. But no, theres no bubble in the sense of an unsustainable
trend caused solely by a widespread expectation that such a trend
will continue. Peace doesnt work that way. There is no natural rate
of peace to which deviations inevitably return; pairs of states, or
entire regions, can go from recurring war to stable peace without
any counteracting tendency to a reversal its not just (e.g., Britain & the US; Germany & France).Also,
raw rates of war that have changed; so have many of the underlying
fundamental drivers . Military spending per GDP, rates of
conscription, romantic militarism, are down; international
institutions and global trade per GDP is up As for forms of human .
harm other than deaths: Monica presents no data that they have
increased, rates of death and other
and Andrew and I summarize a number of ways in which they decrease. In general, of course,
forms of harm correlate over time, since if you do a lot of shooting

and bombing, then among the people who dont get killed, many end
up injured and traumatized if fewer people are getting shot to . Conversely,
death, fewer people are getting injured by gunshots, and fewer are
traumatized by seeing their buddies injured or killed. Best, Steve
2ac world improving at: toft
Toft dismisses their alt and concludes that wars are decreasing
because of democracy
Johnson and Tuft 14 (Dominic DP [Alistair Buchan Professor of

International Relations at the University of Oxford] and Monica duffy
[Professor of Government and Public Policy at the Blavatnik School of
Government at the University of Oxford]; Grounds for War;
belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IS3803_pp007-038.pdf; kdf)
The postWorld War II anomaly is that states no longer appear to extract territorial
concessions after war. This suggests a challenge for our theory. In the contemporary era,
states have ceased seizing territory, meaning that territorial
conquest is not only conspicuously absent (at least in interstate conict), but also
that it has changed over time (seizing territory in the past but not doing so today). In fact, an
evolutionary account of human territoriality is perfectly consistent
with both of these phenomena. Territoriality, like most human traits, is not a blind strategy that
works irrespective of circumstances. Chimpanzees withdraw if they are outnumbered, and birds abandon territory if it
becomes too costly to defend. It should therefore be no surprise that humans are less likely to claim territory if the
political, military, or economic costs are (or seem) too high. The shift after World War II reflects a change in this strategic
Human decisionmaking mechanisms need not have changed, but they are
calculus.
being fed new informational inputs on a changing cost-benefit ratio .
The world before 1939 had all the ingredients for territorial war described above, at least among great powers: offensive
After 1945 the world has
advantages, unclaimed territory, and valuable resources to be seized.
featured defensive advantages (especially with nuclear weapons), the gradual
partitioning of the globe into self-determined territories , and

resources that can no longer be easily seized, held, or exploited. The postWorld War II
anomaly is no more a challenge to the idea of evolved human territoriality than the changing distribution of powers is for
Hawaiian honeycreepers: just as honeycreepers engage contingent strategies, so too do humans.115 There is no shortage
of examples from any era of history to show how easily periods of peace can succumb to the more vicious features of
human behavior. As Robert Ardrey argued in The Territorial Imperative, Civilization lacks nothing in its imitation of nature;
what it lacks, and lacks only, is its recognition of man as an animal.116 What has changed since Ardreys time is our
Natural
appreciation of signicant behavioral variation as an integral aspect of animal, and human, nature.
selection favors behavior that is flexible and can adjust to the local
ecology, leading to lax territorial concerns in some contexts but violent territorial
aggression in others. The optimistic insight this offers is that human nature does not
ineluctably lead to war, and if we can change the environment in the
right ways, territorial aggression should decline. The sooner we
begin to understand when and where humans are more likely to seek
control over territory, the better we may be able to prevent people
killing to achieve it.
2ac world improving at: civil wars
Civil war down and itll burn out

CB
The number of
But the red curve in the graph shows a recent development that is less benign:
wars jumped from four in 2010the lowest total since the end of World War IIto
seven in 2013. These wars were fought in Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq,
Nigeria, Pakistan, South Sudan, and Syria. Conflict data for 2014 will not be available until next year, but
we already know that four new wars broke out in the past 12 months, for a total of 11. The jump from 2010
to 2014, the steepest since the end of the Cold War, has brought us to the highest number of wars since
2000. The worldwide rate of battle deaths (available through 2013) has also risen since its low point in
the recent increase in civil wars
2005, mostly because of the deaths in the Syrian civil war. Though
must be kept in perspective. It has undone the
and battle deaths is real and worrisome, it
progress of the last dozen years, but the rates of violence are still well below
those of the 1990s, and nowhere near the levels of the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s,
1970s, or 1980s. The 20102014 upsurge is circumscribed in a second way. In seven of the 11 wars
that flared during this period, radical Islamist groups were one of the warring parties: Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Israel/Gaza, Iraq, Nigeria, Syria, and Yemen. (Indeed, absent the Islamist conflicts, there would
have been no increase in wars in the last few years, with just two in 2013 and three in 2014.) This reflects
a broader trend. In January 2014 the Pew Research Center reported that the number of countries
experiencing high or very high levels of religious hostilities increased by more than 40 percent (from 14
to 20) between 2011 and 2012. In all but two of these countries (those listed above
together with Bangladesh, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, Russia,
Somalia, Sudan, and Thailand) the
hostilities were associated with extremist
Islamist groups. These groups tend to gain the most traction in countries with exclusionary, inept,
or repressive governments or in zones with no effective government at all, including long-anarchic frontier
regions and the parts of Syria and Iraq that have been rendered anarchic in the aftermath of the invasion
of Iraq and the Arab Spring. Because the radical Islamist groups have maximalist goals and reject
the major mechanisms that drove the decline in the number
compromise,
of wars in the preceding decadesnegotiated settlements and
peacekeeping and peacebuilding programsare unlikely to succeed in ending these
conflicts. Also intensifying the violence is their international scope. External fighters and weapons drive up
death tolls and prolong fighting. For these reasons we do not expect the recent upsurge to be quickly
At the same time, there are reasons to believe that it will not
reversed.
extend into the indefinite future, let alone escalate into global
warfare. Lets examine the three most prominent trouble spots. Iraq/Syria. The Islamic State
will not expand into a pan-Islamic caliphate, and it is unlikely to persist over the long term. For one thing,
ideology and politics are loathed throughout most of the Islamic
its
world; even al-Qaida has excommunicated the movement for being too extreme. The extremists thus
lack the mass popular support that is necessary for fighting the kind of peoples war that proved
The Islamic State, moreover, lacks the
successful in places like China and Vietnam.
conventional military capabilities needed to overthrow a heavily defended
Baghdad. It has minimal armor, long-range artillery, sophisticated rocketry, and air power, and only a
rudimentary air defense system. The Islamists remarkable sweep through northern Iraq in the summer of
2014 occurred mainly because hapless Iraqi soldiers, abandoned by officers with no loyalty to the Shiite
The Islamic State is now overextended and will
regime, chose not to fight.
become more vulnerable as it seeks to become a normal state. Although wealthy by terror
group standards, its incomeestimated at $2 million a dayis grossly inadequate to the task of governing
as a state. It is already under the same U.N. sanction regime as al-Qaida, and it is isolated from the
regions main centers of trade, manufacture, and commerce. As ISIS is decreasingly able to extract, refine,
and sell oil, its major source of revenue is shrinking . It has no access to the sea, it
has no major-power supporters, and its neighbors are mostly enemies. Last but not least, the United States
and its allies, together with the Iraqi army, are planning a spring counteroffensive against ISIS that will be
far more punishing than anything attempted thus far. Ukraine. Vladimir Putins reabsorption of Crimea into
Russia, and his thinly disguised support for Ukrainian secessionist movements, are deeply troubling
developments, not just because the resulting fighting has claimed more than 4,000 lives, but also because
they challenge the grandfathering of national borders and the near-taboo on conquest that have helped
keep the peace since 1945. Yet comparisons to the world of a century agowhen romantic militarism was
widespread, international institutions virtually nonexistent, and leaders naive about the costs of escalating
great-power warare almost certainly overdrawn. So far Russia has sent little green men rather than
tank divisions across the border, and even the most hawkish of American hawks has not proposed pushing
it back with military force. Meanwhile Putins adventurism has been hugely costly for Russia. The tough EU
sanctions, along with plunging oil prices, will push Russia into a recession in 2015. The ruble is plummeting
in value, food prices have risen sharply, and Russian banks are finding it increasingly difficult to borrow
tensions in Ukraine are far more likely to
foreign capital. All this suggests that the
end in an uneasy stalemate like those in Georgia and Moldova, which have endured the loss
of pro-Russian breakaway statelets, than a repeat of World War I.
1ar world improving prodict pinker
Their ev is baseless ad homs

Pinker 15 Harvard, Kurt Fifelskis soulmate (Steven, Response to the
Book Review Symposium: Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature,
Sociology 16, dml)
But I will take my chances. The arguments in The Better Angels of Our Nature are in fact not
ideological. They are empirical , though the facts on which those arguments are
based are bound to gore some oxen of the hard left, critical theory, and
various forms of post-X-ism (together with certain livestock of the hard right, libertarianism, and
anarchism). As I note in the preface, and as the paper and internet trails of my writing confirm, Better Angels
was inspired by my coming across diverse datasets showing historical
declines in violence. The existence of these declines (such as homicide since the
Middle Ages, corporal and capital punishment since the 18th century, great-power wars since 1945, and autocracies since
the 1980s) are well accepted by the scholarly communities who study
them, but they surprised me at the time, continue to surprise most readers, and are adamantly denied by those who
are unfamiliar with the relevant literatures. Also, the ideology that has been pinned on me
in the past (not least by one of the reviewers) is hardly one that people associate with a
progressive view of the human condition. As an advocate of
evolutionary psychology, I am supposed to believe in evolutionary
selfishness, genes for aggression, demonic males, the territorial imperative, adaptations for
rape, and other original sins that allegedly rule out hopes for reform
and justify a reactionary fatalism. It is true, as the reviewers note, that I point
out some good things about modern liberal democracies, particularly
that they have relatively low rates of several categories of violence
such as war, homicide, and aggression against women, children, and gay people. But I
will go out on a limb and submit that this is not an ideological dogma
but a defensible factual claim . That is, I believe the evidence suggests that
countries like Canada, Denmark, and New Zealand are less violent ,
and more conducive to several other measures of human
flourishing , than various alternatives such as Maoist China, Fascist
Europe, the Soviet Union, Islamic theocracies, Iron-age empires,
African strongman states, medieval knightly fiefdoms, and tribal
societies that valorize manly honor and blood revenge. If that banal
observation is ideological, the term has lost all meaning . I am prepared to
risk a second defensive assertion. Whatever Better Angels may be, it is not simplistic or
reductionist. This 800-page book uses one hundred graphs and twelve
hundred references to document six historical trends, five
psychological sources of violence, four psychological sources of
nonviolence, and five historical forces in which social, cultural, and
institutional changes interact with the psychology. Any scholar who
wishes to engage with it is going to have to work harder than
slinging around these knee-jerk epithets.
1ar world improving prodict data
Prefer data
CB
The world is not falling apart. The kinds of violence to which most
people are vulnerablehomicide, rape, battering, child abusehave been in steady
decline in most of the world. Autocracy is giving way to democracy.
Wars between statesby far the most destructive of all conflictsare all but
obsolete. The increase in the number and deadliness of civil wars
since 2010 is circumscribed, puny in comparison with the decline
that preceded it, and unlikely to escalate. We have been told of impending doom
before: a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, a line of dominoes in Southeast Asia, revanchism in a
reunified Germany, a rising sun in Japan, cities overrun by teenage superpredators, a coming anarchy that
would fracture the major nation-states, and weekly 9/11-scale attacks that would pose an existential threat
to civilization. Why is the world always more dangerous than it has ever beeneven as a greater and
greater majority of humanity lives in peace and dies of old age? Too much of our impression of the world
comes from a misleading formula of journalistic narration. Reporters give lavish coverage to gun bursts,
explosions, and viral videos, oblivious to how representative they are and apparently innocent of the fact
that many were contrived as journalist bait. Then come sound bites from experts with vested interests in
maximizing the impression of mayhem: generals, politicians, security officials, moral activists. The talking
heads on cable news filibuster about the event, desperately hoping to avoid dead air. Newspaper
columnists instruct their readers on what emotions to feel. There is a better way to
understand the world. Commentators can brush up their historynot by rummaging through
Bartletts for a quote from Clausewitz, but by recounting the events of the recent past that put the events
they could consult the analyses of
of the present in an intelligible context. And
quantitative datasets on violence that are now just a few clicks away. An
evidence-based mindset on the state of the world would bring many
benefits. It would calibrate our national and international responses to the magnitude of the dangers
that face us. It would limit the influence of terrorists, school shooters, decapitation cinematographers, and
It might even dispel foreboding and embody,
other violence impresarios.
again, the hope of the world.
1ar world improving prodict stats
Body counts most moral

CB
adding up corpses and comparing the tallies across different times and places can
To be sure,
seem callous, as if it minimized the tragedy of the victims in less violent decades and regions. But
a quantitative mindset is in fact the morally enlightened one. It treats
every human life as having equal value, rather than privileging the
people who are closest to us or most photogenic. And it holds out the hope
that we might identify the causes of violence and thereby implement
the measures that are most likely to reduce it. Lets examine the major
categories in turn.
1ar world improving prodict at: taleb
Talebs a dummy
Pinker 12. (Steven, Steven, Johnstone Family professor of psychology at
Declined. Fooled by Belligerence: Comments on Nassim Talebs The Long
Peace is a Statistical Illusion. Nov 11 2012.
http://stevenpinker.com/files/comments_on_taleb_by_s_pinker.pdf)//CB
Taleb shows no signs of having read Better Angels with the slightest attention
to its content. Instead he has merged it in his mind with claims by various
fools and knaves whom he believes he has bettered in the past. The
confusion begins with his remarkable claim that the thesis in Better Angels is identical to Ben Bernankes
theory of a moderation in the stock market. Identical! This alone should warn readers that for all of Talebs
prescience about the financial crisis, accurate attribution and careful analysis of other peoples ideas are
not his strong suits. Talebs article implies that Better Angels consists of 700 pages of fancy statistical
extrapolations which lead to the conclusion that violent catastrophes have become impossible. He
mistakenly refers to this as The Long Peace. In fact The Long Peace (the term is John Gaddiss) refers
specifically to the well- documented post-1945 decline of wars among great powers and developed states.
And the chapter with that title is one of six that describe historical reductions in rates of violence. Another
chapter discusses the more tentative but still appreciable declines in civil war and terrorism since the end
other kinds of violence: tribal raiding
of the Cold War. The remaining four pertain to
and feuding, violent personal crime, barbaric practices such as
slavery and torture-executions, and violence on smaller scales such
as lynching, rape, spousal abuse, spanking, hate crimes, and cruelty
to animals. The book makes it clear that these developments obey very different
statistical processes than those governing wars and terrorist
attacks; not even Taleb, presumably, would expect a sudden,
massive, unpredictable jump in human sacrifice, slave auctions,
sodomy laws, or debtors prisons. So even if, as Taleb seems to believe, the danger from
major war has not declined, we would have plenty of other declines of violence to explain. Its an open
question whether there are any common denominators behind these various declines. Better Angels
considers some possibilities, while making it clear that these declines do not constitute a single
The books structure was lost on Taleb, who blends the
phenomenon.
different chapters and then criticizes his own confusion. He claims that the
book conflates nonscalable Mediocristan (death from encounters with simple weapons) with scalable
Extremistan (death from heavy shells and nuclear weapons), that it uses statistics of one to make
inferences about the other, that it does not realize the core difference between scalable/nonscalable,
that it implies that a drop in crime has implications for casualties from violent conflict, that it fails to
deal with the notion of temporal homogeneity, and that it assumes that the statistics of the 14th century
can apply to the 21st. Every one of these attributions is wrong. The book spends many pages arguing the
exact opposite.
Lenses
2ac extinction first
Extinction first
Bostrum 12 (Nick, Professor of Philosophy at Oxford, directs Oxford's
Future of Humanity Institute and winner of the Gannon Award, Interview with
Ross Andersen, correspondent at The Atlantic, 3/6, We're Underestimating
the Risk of Human Extinction,
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/were-
underestimating-the-risk-of-human-extinction/253821/)
Bostrom, who directs Oxford's Future of Humanity Institute, has argued over the course of several papers that human
extinction risks are poorly understood and, worse still, severely underestimated by
society . Some of these existential risks are fairly well known, especially the natural ones. But others are obscure or
even exotic. Most worrying to Bostrom is the subset of existential risks that arise from human technology, a subset that he
expects to grow in number and potency over the next century. Despite his concerns about the risks posed to humans by
technological progress, Bostrom is no luddite. In fact, he is a longtime advocate of transhumanism---the effort to improve
the human condition, and even human nature itself, through technological means. In the long run he sees technology as a
bridge, a bridge we humans must cross with great care, in order to reach new and better modes of being. In his work,
Bostrom uses the tools of philosophy and mathematics, in particular probability theory, to try and determine how we as a
species might achieve this safe passage. What follows is my conversation with Bostrom about some of the most
interesting and worrying existential risks that humanity might encounter in the decades and centuries to come, and about
what we can do to make sure we outlast them. Some have argued that we ought to be directing our resources toward
humanity's existing problems, rather than future existential risks, because many of the latter are highly improbable. You
have responded by suggesting that existential risk mitigation may in fact be a

dominant moral priority over the alleviation of present suffering . Can you
explain why? Bostrom: Well suppose you have a moral view that counts future people as being worth as much as
present people. You might say that fundamentally it doesn't matter whether someone exists at the current time or at
some future time, just as many people think that from a fundamental moral point of view, it doesn't matter where
somebody is spatially---somebody isn't automatically worth less because you move them to the moon or to Africa or
A human life is a human life. If you have that moral point of view
something.
that future generations matter in proportion to their population numbers,
then you get this very stark implication that existential risk mitigation has a much
higher utility than pretty much anything else that you could do. There are so many people that
we might live for

could come into existence in the future if humanity survives this critical period of time ---
billions of years, our descendants might colonize billions of solar
systems, and there could be a billion and billions times more people than exist
currently. Therefore, even a very small reduction in the probability of
realizing this enormous good will tend to outweigh even immense

benefits like eliminating poverty or curing malaria , which would be tremendous
und
2ac no root cause
No root cause particulars of each case must be accounted for
Gat 9, Chair of the Department of Political Science at Tel Aviv University, So

Why Do People Fight? So Why Do People Fight? Evolutionary Theory and the
Causes of War, European Journal of International Relations 2009 15: 571-599
This articles contribution is two-pronged: it argues that IR theory regarding the causes of conflict and
war is deeply flawed, locked for decades in ultimately futile debates over narrow,
misconstrued concepts; this conceptual confusion is untangled and the debate is transcended once a
broader, comprehensive, and evolutionarily informed perspective is adopted. Thus attempts to find the root
cause of war in the nature of either the individual, the state, or the international system are
fundamentally misplaced. In all these levels there are necessary but not sufficient
causes for war, and the whole cannot be broken into pieces.13 Peoples
needs and desires which may be pursued violently as well as the resulting quest for
power and the state of mutual apprehension which fuel the security dilemma
are all molded in human nature (some of them existing only as options, potentials, and skills in a
behavioral tool kit); they are so molded because of strong evolutionary pressures
that have shaped humans in their struggle for survival over geological times ,
when all the above literally constituted matters of life and death. The violent option of human
competition has been largely curbed within states , yet is occasionally taken
up on a large scale between states because of the anarchic nature of the
inter-state system. However, returning to step one, international anarchy in and of itself would not be
an explanation for war were it not for the potential for violence in a
fundamental state of competition over scarce resources that is imbedded in
reality and, consequently, in human nature. The necessary and sufficient causes of
war that obviously have to be filled with the particulars of the case in any
specific war are thus as follows: politically organized actors that operate in an
environment where no superior authority effectively monopolizes power
resort to violence when they assess it to be their most cost-effective option
for winning and/or defending evolution-shaped objects of desire, and/or their power in the system that can help
them win and/or defend those desired goods.
2ac kratochwil
Vote aff despite prior questionsimpact timeframe means you gotta

act on the best info available
Kratochwil 8, professor of international relations European University
Institute, 2008 (Friedrich, The Puzzles of Politics, pg. 200-213)
Even at the danger of fuzzy boundaries, when we deal
The lesson seems clear.
with practice ( just as with the pragmatic turn), we would be well advised to rely on
the use of the term rather than on its reference (pointing to some property of the object
under study), in order to draw the bounds of sense and understand the meaning
of the concept. My argument for the fruitful character of a pragmatic
approach in IR, therefore, does not depend on a comprehensive mapping of the
varieties of research in this area, nor on an arbitrary appropriation or
exegesis of any specific and self-absorbed theoretical orientation . For this reason,
in what follows, I will not provide a rigidly specified definition, nor will I refer exclusively to some
I will sketch out the reasons for which a
prepackaged theoretical approach. Instead,
pragmatic orientation in social analysis seems to hold particular promise . These
reasons pertain both to the more general area of knowledge appropriate for praxis and to the more specific
types of investigation in the field. The following ten points are without a claim to completeness
intended to engender some critical reflection on both areas. Firstly, a pragmatic approach does
not begin with objects or things (ontology), or with reason and method
( epistemology), but with acting (prattein), thereby preventing some false
starts. Since, as historical beings placed in a specific situations , we do not have
the luxury of deferring decisions until we have found the truth, we have to
act and must do so always under time pressures and in the face of
incomplete information. Pre- cisely because the social world is characterised by
strategic interactions, what a situation is, is hardly ever clear ex ante,
because it is being produced by the actors and their interactions , and the
multiple possibilities are rife with incentives for (dis)information. This puts a premium on
quick diagnostic and cognitive shortcuts informing actors about the relevant features of the
situation, and on leaving an alternative open (plan B) in case of unexpected difficulties. Instead of
relying on certainty and universal validity gained through abstraction and controlled
experiments, we know that completeness and attentiveness to detail , rather than to
generality, matter. To that extent, likening practical choices to simple discoveries of an already
independently existing reality which discloses itself to an observer or relying on optimal strategies
is somewhat heroic. These points have been made vividly by realists such as Clausewitz in his
controversy with von Bulow, in which he criticised the latters obsession with a strategic science (Paret et
al. 1986). While Clausewitz has become an icon for realists, only a few of them (usually dubbed old
realists) have taken seriously his warnings against the misplaced belief in the reliability and usefulness of
a scientific study of strategy. Instead, most of them, especially neorealists of various stripes, have
embraced the theory-building based on the epistemological project as the via regia to the creation of
since
knowledge. A pragmatist orientation would most certainly not endorse such a position. Secondly,
acting in the social world often involves acting for someone, special
responsibilities arise that aggravate both the incompleteness of knowledge as
well as its generality problem. Since we owe special care to those entrusted to us, for example,
as teachers, doctors or lawyers, we cannot just rely on what is generally true, but
have to pay special attention to the particular case . Aside from avoiding the
foreclosure of options, we cannot refuse to act on the basis of incomplete
information or insufficient knowledge, and the necessary diagnostic will involve typification
and comparison, reasoning by analogy rather than generalization or deduction. Leaving out the
particularities of a case, be it a legal or medical one, in a mistaken effort to become scientific would be a
there still remains the crucial element of timing of knowing
fatal flaw. Moreover,
when to act. Students of crises have always pointed out the importance of
this factor but, in attempts at building a general theory of international
politics analogously to the natural sciences, such elements are neglected on
the basis of the continuity of nature and the large number assumptions .
Besides, timing seems to be quite recalcitrant to analytical treatment.
2ac tuathail
Reps dont affect reality material structure are more important

Tuathail 96 (Gearoid, Department of Georgraphy at Virginia Polytechnic
Institute, Political Geography, 15(6-7), p. 664, science direct)
While theoretical debates at academic conferences are important to
academics, the discourse and concerns of foreign-policy decisionmakers are
quite different, so different that they constitute a distinctive problem- solving, theory-
averse, policy-making subculture. There is a danger that academics assume
that the discourses they engage are more significant in the practice of foreign
policy and the exercise of power than they really are . This is not, however, to minimize the
obvious importance of academia as a general institutional structure among many that sustain certain epistemic
Dalbys fourth point about politics and discourse
communities in particular states. In general, I do not disagree with
statement-Precisely because reality could be represented in
except to note that his
particular ways political decisions could be taken, troops and material moved and war fought- evades the
important question of agency that I noted in my review essay. The assumption that it is
representations that make action possible is inadequate by itself. Political,
military and economic structures, institutions, discursive networks and
leadership are all crucial in explaining social action and should be theorized
together with representational practices . Both here and earlier, Dalbys reasoning inclines
towards a form of idealism. In response to Dalbys fifth point (with its three subpoints), it is worth noting, first, that his
book is about the CPD, not the Reagan administration. He analyzes certain CPD discourses, root the geographical
reasoning practices of the Reagan administration nor its public-policy reasoning on national security. Dalbys book is
narrowly textual; the general contextuality of the Reagan administration is not dealt with. Second, let me simply note
that I find that the distinction between critical theorists and post- structuralists is a little too rigidly and heroically drawn
by Dalby and others. Third, Dalbys interpretation of the reconceptualization of national security in Moscow as heavily
influenced by dissident peace researchers in Europe is highly idealist, an interpretation that ignores the structural and
ideological crises facing the Soviet elite at that time. Gorbachevs reforms and his new security discourse were also
strongly self- interested, an ultimately futile attempt to save the Communist Party and a discredited regime of power
from disintegration. The issues raised by Simon Dalby in his comment are important ones for all those interested in the
practice of critical geopolitics. While I agree with Dalby that questions of discourse are extremely important ones for
there is a danger of fetishizing this concern with
political geographers to engage,
discourse so that we neglect the institutional and the sociological, the
materialist and the cultural, the political and the geographical contexts
within which particular discursive strategies become significant. Critical geopolitics,
in other words, should not be a prisoner of the sweeping ahistorical cant that sometimes accompanies poststructuralism
nor convenient reading strategies like the identity politics narrative; it needs to always be open to the patterned mess
that is human history.
2ac owen
Alt fails
Owen 2 (David, Reader of Political Theory at the University of

Southampton, Re-orienting International Relations: On Pragmatism, Pluralism
and Practical Reasoning," Millennium, Volume 31, Number 3, pg. 655-657)
that [a] frenzy for words like

Commenting on the philosophical turn in IR, Wver remarks
epistemology and ontology often signals this philosophical turn ,

although he goes on to comment that these terms are often used loosely.4 However, loosely deployed or not, it is clear that debates
concerning ontology and epistemology play a central role in the contemporary IR theory wars. In one respect, this is unsurprising since it is a
characteristic feature of the social sciences that periods of disciplinary disorientation involve recourse to reflection on the philosophical
commitments of different theoretical approaches, and there is no doubt that such reflection can play a valuable role in making explicit the
commitments that characterise (and help individuate) diverse theoretical positions. Yet, such a philosophical turn is not
without its dangers and I will briefly mention three before turning to consider a confusion that has, I will suggest, helped
to promote the IR theory wars by motivating this philosophical turn. The first danger with the
philosophical turn is that it has an inbuilt tendency to prioritise
issues of ontology and epistemology over explanatory and/or
interpretive power as if the latter two were merely a simple function
of the former. But while the explanatory and/or interpretive power of
a theoretical account is not wholly independent of its ontological and/or epistemological commitments
(otherwise criticism of these features would not be a criticism that had any value), it is by no means clear that it is, in contrast, wholly
dependent on these philosophical commitments. Thus, for example,

one need not be sympathetic to rational choice theory to recognise
that it can provide powerful accounts of certain kinds of problems,
such as the tragedy of the commons in which dilemmas of collective
action are foregrounded. It may, of course, be the case that the
advocates of rational choice theory cannot give a good account of
why this type of theory is powerful in accounting for this class of problems (i.e., how it is that the
relevant actors come to exhibit features in these circumstances that approximate the assumptions of rational choice theory) and, i f this
is the case, it is a philosophical weaknessbut this does not

undermine the point that, for a certain class of problems, rational
choice theory may provide the best account available to us. In other words,
while the critical judgement of theoretical accounts in terms of their
ontological and/or epistemological sophistication is one kind of
critical judgement, it is not the only or even necessarily the most
important kind. The second danger run by the philosophical turn is that because prioritisation of
ontology and epistemology promotes theory-construction from
philosophical first principles, it cultivates a theory-driven rather
than problem-driven approach to IR. Paraphrasing Ian Shapiro, the point can be put like this:
since it is the case that there is always a plurality of possible true descriptions
of a given action, event or phenomenon, the challenge is to decide which is the most apt
in terms of getting a perspicuous grip on the action , event or phenomenon in question
given the purposes of the inquiry; yet, from this standpoint, theory-driven work is part of a
reductionist program in that it dictates always opting for the

description that calls for the explanation that flows from the
preferred model or theory.5 The justification offered for this strategy rests on
the mistaken belief that it is necessary for social science because
general explanations are required to characterise the classes of
phenomena studied in similar terms. However, as Shapiro points out, this is to
misunderstand the enterprise of science since whether there are
general explanations for classes of phenomena is a question for
social-scientific inquiry, not to be prejudged before conducting that
inquiry.6 Moreover, this strategy easily slips into the promotion of the
pursuit of generality over that of empirical validity . The third danger is that the
preceding two combine to encourage the formation of a particular image of disciplinary
debate in IRwhat might be called (only slightly tongue in cheek) the Highlander viewnamely, an image of
warring theoretical approaches with each, despite occasional temporary tactical alliances, dedicated to the
strategic achievement of sovereignty over the disciplinary field. It encourages this view because the turn to, and
prioritisation of, ontology and epistemology stimulates the idea that

there can only be one theoretical approach which gets things right,
namely, the theoretical approach that gets its ontology and epistemology right . This image
feeds back into IR exacerbating the first and second dangers, and so
a potentially vicious circle arises.
2ac epistemology
A focus on epistemology is useless and precludes the ability to solve

real world problems
Cochran 2k (Molly, Associate Professor in the Sam Nunn School of
International Affairs at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Normative Theory
in International Relations: A Pragmatic Approach Cambridge University Press,
pg. 177-178)
Dewey's work contains a strong attack on the will to fixity or absolutes; that is, ahistorical, universal
knowledge as the end-goal of philosophy. He does so by tracing through the history of philosophy to
examine what, if any, benefit has yielded from its epistemological orientation, In Reconstruction in
Philosophy, Dewey tells a story of the origins of philosophy resting not in 'intellectual material', but in
'social and emotional material'. Philosophy emerges not from judgements about a suggestions congruence
with fact, but from its emotional congeniality'; how it plays with the 'dramatic tale' of one's life. From this
kind of representation the signs and symbols of hopes and fears, of poetry and drama, not science
philosophy proceeds to pass through two more stages: first, the consolidation of stories and legends to
constitute a social tradition; and second, the process of confirming that tradition with authority through
appeals to reason and logic- Because that tradition was once accepted on the basis of feeling and
sentiment, it relies all the more upon making much of reason and proof. Dewey writes that to see the
origins of philosophy in this light radically changes the way we understand traditional philosophy. Its
quest for certainty via epistemological appeals is not actually about getting
reality right. It is about offering up an intellectual attachment to a social purpose or tradition. The
clash of opinions about the real is really a dispute about social purposes. Thus, epistemological
inquiry into the mind/body problem or the relation of subject and object can tell us nothing .
Epistemology is, as Dewey writes, a species of confirmed intellectual lockjaw' {1931; Sin]. Dewey
sees that- and the formalism it encourages, are evidence of philosophy's
withdrawal from engagement with the social problems of his day, especially the pace of
change, the wider scope of change, and the deeper penetration of its effects. The desire of past
philosophical systems to 'find something so fixed and certain as to provide a secure refuge', is their
defect' (Dewey 1948: vi-vii}. The question then arises; what is left for philosophy if not
securing truth or knowledge? Dewey is aware that the controversies over h and realism and
idealism are so deeply embedded that to cast them off leaves philosophical thinking at a loss. None the
less, he employs what he calls the pragmatic rule: 'in
order to discover the meaning of an
idea ask for its consequences { Dewey 1948: 163}, and argues that there are indeed
beneficial consequences to dropping these questions. He writes that to be free
of epistemological controversies would encourage philosophy to face
the great social and moral defects and troubles from which humanity suffers, to
concentrate its attention upon clearing up the causes and exact - of these evils and upon developing a
clear idea of better social possibilities; in short upon projecting an idea or an ideal which, instead of
expressing the notion of some other world or some faraway unrealizable goal, would be used as a method
of understanding and rectifying specific social ills. (Dewey 1948: 124) Dewey had a clear idea of the task
that remained for philosophy and the role it can play. Reconstruction in philosophy means that we
accept that inquiry does not have Archimedean starting points, nor universal
categories from which to theorize, and tum to the task 'of developing, of forming, of producing
the intellectual instrumentalities which will progressively direct inquiry into the deeply and inclusively
human - that is to say, moral facts of the situation' (Dewey 1948: xxvii). Thus, the function of philosophy
is to inquire into inquiry. Its role is to provide a general method of inquiry and critically evaluate its
application and the judgements that result.
2ac ontology
Dont prioritize ontology---irresolvable and not relevant

Gerring 4 John Gerring 4, Associate Professor in Department of Political
Science at BU, "What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?", May,
American Political Science Review, Vol. 98, No. 2
To be sure, there is no profit in dwelling on ontological differences between
case study and non-case study researchers. Ontological debates are, by definition,
irresolvable . Once one has defended ones position as a matter of ontology,
further discussion is superfluous except as it might bear upon matters of logic and coherence.
If social science is understood as an evidence- based form of inquiry then
matters of ontology are simply not relevant or are only tangentially relevant.
Nonetheless, insofar as our ontological presuppositions influence our construction of cases, we had best be
cognizant of this fact. Indeed, the middle-range position of case study research on this crucial question
may help to account for its ambiguous position in the social sciences. It is neither fish nor fowl,
ontologically speaking.
2ac discourse/reps defense
One speech doesnt spill over
Ghughunishvili 10, Securitization of Migration in the United States

after 9/11: Constructing Muslims and Arabs as Enemies, Submitted to
Central European University Department of International Relations European
Studies In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of
Arts Supervisor: Professor Paul Roe
http://www.etd.ceu.hu/2010/ghughunishvili_irina.pdf
As provided by the Copenhagen School securitization theory is comprised by
speech act, acceptance of the audience and facilitating conditions or other non-securitizing actors contribute to a
successful securitization. The causality or a one-way relationship between the speech
act, the audience and securitizing actor, where politicians use the speech act
first to justify exceptional measures, has been criticized by scholars, such as Balzacq.
According to him, the one-directional relationship between the three factors, or some of them, is not the best approach.
To fully grasp the dynamics, it will be more beneficial to rather than looking
for a one-directional relationship between some or all of the three factors
highlighted, it could be profitable to focus on the degree of congruence
between them. 26 Among other aspects of the Copenhagen Schools theoretical framework, which he criticizes,
the thesis will rely on the criticism of the lack of context and the rejection of a one-way causal relationship between the
audience and the actor. The process of threat construction, according to him, can be
clearer if external context, which stands independently from use of language,
can be considered. 27 Balzacq opts for more context-oriented approach when it comes down to securitization
through the speech act, where a single speech does not create the discourse, but it is
created through a long process, where context is vital. 28 He indicates: In reality,
the speech act itself, i.e. literally a single security articulation at a particular
point in time, will at best only very rarely explain the entire social process
that follows from it. In most cases a security scholar will rather be confronted
with a process of articulations creating sequentially a threat text which turns
sequentially into a securitization. 29 This type of approach seems more plausible in an empirical study,
as it is more likely that a single speech will not be able to securitize an issue,
but it is a lengthy process, where a the audience speaks the same language
as the securitizing actors and can relate to their speeches .
Reps don't shape reality

Balzacq 5Thierry, Professor of Political Science and International Relations
at Namur University [The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency,
Audience and Context European Journal of International Relations, London:
Jun 2005, Volume 11, Issue 2] Jeong
However, despite important insights, this position remains highly disputable. The reason behind this
one of the main
qualification is not hard to understand. With great trepidation my contention is that
distinctions we need to take into account while examining securitization is
that between 'institutional' and 'brute' threats. In its attempts to follow a more
radical approach to security problems where in threats are institutional, that is, mere
products of communicative relations between agents, the CS has neglected the
importance of 'external or brute threats', that is, threats that do not depend on
language mediation to be what they are - hazards for human life. In
methodological terms, however, any framework over-emphasizing either
institutional or brute threat risks losing sight of important aspects of a
multifaceted phenomenon. Indeed, securitization, as suggested earlier, is successful when
the securitizing agent and the audience reach a common structured perception of an ominous
development. In this scheme, there is no security problem except through the language game. Therefore,
how problems are 'out there' is exclusively contingent upon how we
linguistically depict them. This is not always true. For one, language does not
construct reality; at best, it shapes our perception of it. Moreover, it is not
theoretically useful nor is it empirically credible to hold that what we say
about a problem would determine its essence. For instance, what I say about a
typhoon would not change its essence. The consequence of this position, which would
require a deeper articulation, is that some security problems are the attribute of the
development itself. In short, threats are not only institutional; some of them can
actually wreck entire political communities regardless of the use of
language. Analyzing security problems then becomes a matter of
understanding how external contexts, including external objective
developments, affect securitization. Thus, far from being a departure from constructivist
approaches to security, external developments are central to it.
2ac discourse/reps offense
Focus on reps destroys agency
Randall 91 (University of Birmingham, 1991 Review: Descent into

Discourse, The Society for the Social History of Medicine)
discourse, has swept through a
In the last decade critical theory, 'a.k.a' structuralism, post-structuralism and
number of academic disciplines. In America in particular, the ideas and theories of Foucault and Derrida,
Saussure and Levi-Strauss have been gleefully and, in some cases, messianically snatched up by many social historians as providing a new
and fruitful framework for revolutionizing their discipline.The claims of discourse are seductive . While
no historian would deny the importance of careful scrutiny of literary texts, critical theory proffers, it asserts, a means of retrieving a new
depth of quality and meaning from these sources, thereby providing new insights into the structuring of both language and hence of
Claiming to displace all other theoretical approaches,

consciousness.
discourse, with its focus upon language as a determinative force,

has become 'a fashionable interpretative panacea' (p. xv), intruding into all areas of
social history writing. Bryan D. Palmer is not alone in fearing this plague of idealism which is discourse. But his Descent into Discourse
represents by far the most powerful and most scholarly counterblast to date against the insidious march of critical theory. Drawing upon an
impressive array of texts, both theoretical and historical, Palmer conducts his reader upon a searching, systematic, illuminating and
entertaining study of critical theory in social history in a volume which constitutes a formidable intellectual tour de force. Unlike many of its
social history components, Palmer commences his case from a critical reading of the theoretical texts which underpin the concept of discourse.
Palmer is no iconoclast. He shows that much may be gained by application of some of the approaches followed by the discourse model.
But he firmly rejects the 'privileging of language' (p. xiv) to the point
where, as in critical theory, it subverts the need to address historical

context or historical experience. Discourse, Palmer believes, concedes to
language a tyrannizing stature, obliterating 'the relations of power,
exploitation and inequality that order ... human history' (p. 17), indeed
obliterating the human agency itself.
A focus on representations destroys social change by ignoring

political and material constraints
Taft-Kaufman 95 (Jill, professor, Department of Speech Communication And
Dramatic Arts, at Central Michigan University, Southern Communication
Journal, Spring, proquest)
The postmodern passwords of "polyvocality," "Otherness," and "difference," unsupported by substantial analysis of the concrete contexts of
subjects, creates a solipsistic quagmire. The political sympathies of the new cultural critics, with their ostensible concern for the lack of power
despite their adversarial posture

experienced by marginalized people, aligns them with the political left. Yet,
and talk of opposition, their discourses on intertextuality and inter-

referentiality isolate them from and ignore the conditions that have produced
leftist politics--conflict, racism, poverty, and injustice. In short, as Clarke (1991) asserts, postmodern emphasis on new subjects
conceals the old subjects, those who have limited access to good jobs, food, housing, health care, and transportation, as well as to the media
that depict them. Merod (1987) decries this situation as one which leaves no vision, will, or commitment to activism. He notes that academic
lip service to the oppositional is underscored by the absence of focused collective or politically active intellectual communities. Provoked by
the academic manifestations of this problem Di Leonardo (1990) echoes Merod and laments: Has there ever been a historical era
characterized by as little radical analysis or activism and as much radical-chic writing as ours? Maundering on about Otherness: phallocentrism
or Eurocentric tropes has become a lazy academic substitute for actual engagement with the detailed histories and contemporary realities of
Western racial minorities, white women, or any Third World population. (p. 530) Clarke's assessment of the postmodern elevation of language
to the "sine qua non" of critical discussion is an even stronger indictment against the trend. Clarke examines Lyotard's (1984) The Postmodern
Condition in which Lyotard maintains that virtually all social relations are linguistic, and, therefore, it is through the coercion that threatens
I can think of few more

speech that we enter the "realm of terror" and society falls apart. To this assertion, Clarke replies:
striking indicators of the political and intellectual impoverishment of a view of

society that can only recognize the discursive . If the worst terror we can envisage is the threat not to be
allowed to speak, we are appallingly ignorant of terror in its elaborate contemporary forms. It may be the intellectual's conception of terror
(what else do we do but speak?), but its projection onto the rest of the world would be calamitous....(pp. 2-27) The realm of the discursive is
derived from the requisites for human life, which are in the physical world, rather than in a world of ideas or symbols.(4) Nutrition, shelter, and
Postmodern emphasis on the

protection are basic human needs that require collective activity for their fulfillment.
discursive without an accompanying analysis of how the discursive emerges

from material circumstances hides the complex task of envisioning and
working towards concrete social goals (Merod, 1987). Although the material conditions that create the
situation of marginality escape the purview of the postmodernist, the situation and its consequences are not overlooked by scholars from
marginalized groups. Robinson (1990) for example, argues that "the justice that working people deserve is economic, not just textual" (p. 571).
Lopez (1992) states that "the starting point for organizing the program content of education or political action must be the present existential,
concrete situation" (p. 299). West (1988) asserts that borrowing French post-structuralist discourses about "Otherness" blinds us to realities of
postmodern "textual radicals" who Rabinow (1986)

American difference going on in front of us (p. 170). Unlike
acknowledges are "fuzzy about power and the realities of socioeconomic

constraints" (p. 255), most writers from marginalized groups are clear about how discourse interweaves with the concrete
circumstances that create lived experience. People whose lives form the material for postmodern
counter-hegemonic discourse do not share the optimism over the new

recognition of their discursive subjectivities, because such an
acknowledgment does not address sufficiently their collective historical and
current struggles against racism, sexism, homophobia, and economic
injustice. They do not appreciate being told they are living in a world in which there are no more real subjects. Ideas have
consequences. Emphasizing the discursive self when a person is hungry and
homeless represents both a cultural and humane failure. The need to

look beyond texts to the perception and attainment of concrete social goals
keeps writers from marginalized groups ever-mindful of the specifics of how
power works through political agendas, institutions, agencies, and the
budgets that fuel them.
Reformism
2ac fem
State influence is inevitable but depth of oppression matters---

reform is effective and only way to solve---they exaggerate states
internal coherence
Connell 90 (R. W. Connell 90, The State, Gender, and Sexual Politics:
Theory and Appraisal, Theory and Society, Vol. 19, No. 5, (Oct., 1990), pp.
507-544, http://www.jstor.org/stable/657562)
AppraisalsIs the state patriarchal? Yes, beyond any argument, on the evidence dis-
cussed above. It is not "essentially patriarchal " or "male"; even if one could speak
of the "essence" of a social institution, this would exaggerate the

internal coherence of the state . Rather the state is historically
patriarchal, patriarchal as a matter of concrete social practices . State structures in
recent history institutionalize the European equation between authority and a dominating masculinity; they are effectively controlled by
At the same time the

men; and they operate with a massive bias towards heterosexual men's interests.
pattern of state patriarchy changes. In terms of the depth of

oppression and the historical possibilities of resistance and
transformation, a fascist regime is crucially different from a liberal
one, and a liberal one from a revolutionary one. The most favorable
historical circumstance for progressive sexual politics seems to be
the early days of social-revolutionary regimes; but the later bureaucratization of these
regimes is devastating. Next best is a liberal state with a reformist government;
though reforms introduced under its aegis are vulnerable in periods of reaction.
Though the state is patriarchal, progressive gender politics cannot
avoid it . The character of the state as the central institutionalization
of power , and its historical trajectory in the regulation and
constitution of gender relations, make it unavoidably a major arena
for challenges to patriarchy . Here liberal feminism is on strong
ground . Becoming engaged in practical struggles for a share of state
power requires tactical judgments about what developments within
the state provide opportunities. In the 1980s certain strategies of reform
have had a higher relative pay-off than they did before. In Australia, for instance,
the creation of a network of "women's services" was a feature of the 1970s, and the momentum of this kind of action has died away. Reforms
that have few budgetary implications but fit in with other state strategies, such as modernizing the bureaucracy, become more prominent.
Equal employment opportunity and anti-discrimination legislation

have been highlighted; decriminalizing homosexuality is consistent
with this.
State Good
1ar queer
Even if the law isnt perfect, sexual activists have been able to
strategically use traditional political areas in queer ways to
challenge heteronormativity.
Lind 10 (Amy Lind 10, Mary Ellen Heintz Endowed Chair and Professor of
Womens, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at the University of Cincinatti,
Development, Sexual Rights and Global Governance, p 17-18)
In Chapter 8, Sangeeta Budhiraja, Susana T. Fried and Alexandra Teixeira address tensions among
activists around the
identity-based organizing and sexual rights advocacy. On one hand,
world have addressed "lesbian and gay," and later, "lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB)," then
"lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT)" or "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning
the "alphabet soup" approach, as a way to make
and or queer" (LGBTQ)" rights,
sexual and gender minorities visible in national and international
political and development arenas. Yet, more recently, scholars and activists
have turned toward a sexual rights framework as a way to
overcome essentialisms in positing individuals as singular identities
that are often homogenized and universalized in development
discourse and practice. Drawing upon their former advocacy work at
the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, the
authors demonstrate the difficulties of naming and finding a
common ground on a global level as well as the usefulness of utilizing a broad-based
sexual rights framework for thinking about sexual identity, gender identity, human rights, and
They argue that a sexual rights framework allows for
development.
greater cross-movement organizing, gives deference to local
activists' preferred ways of thinking of and expressing any gender
which falls outside of social and cultural norms, and encourages
modes of organizing that do not reify gender and sexual binaries.
Yet activists must necessarily use, perhaps strategically, normative
categories of gender and sexuality in order to achieve their concrete
goals for legal and policy reform, a dilemma that they highlight throughout their
chapter. In Chapter 9, Petra Doan discusses how increasing the visibility of gender-
variant individuals in the Middle East, a region often characterized
in development discourse in orientalist terms as patriarchal and
oppressive to women, might actually "queer" the development
process and stimulate change on a broader scale. For Doan,
genderqueerness does not begin or end in the West; rather, it has always
been part of Middle Eastern societies, but it has been through powerful modern dis-
courses such as that of development which have problematized
these identities as abnormal or deviant. Despite colonialist legacies,

it has been through the strategic utilization of these modern
discourses that gender-variant individuals in the region have found
creative ways to organize collectively and fight for their rights .
The alt cedes politics to the right and reinscribes gender roles
McCluskey 8 (Professor of Law and William J. Magavern Faculty Scholar @

SUNY Buffalo Law (Martha, How Queer Theory Makes Neoliberalism Sexy,
Buffalo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2008-15)
Queer theory's anti-moralism works together with its anti-statism to
advance not simply "politics," but a specific vision of good "politics" seemingly
defined in opposition to progressive law and morality . This anti-statist focus
distinguishes queer theory from other critical legal theories that bring questions of power to bear on moral ideals of justice. Kendall Thomas
that sees justice as a problem of "power,

(2002), for example, articulates a critical political model
antagonism, and interest," (p. 86) involving questions of how to constitute and support individuals as citizens with
interests and actions that count as alternative visions of the public. Thomas contrasts this political model of justice with a moral justice aimed
at discovering principles of fairness or institutional processes based in rational consensus and on personal feelings of respect and dignity.
Rather than evaluating the moral costs and benefits of a particular policy by analyzing its impact in terms of harm or pleasure, Thomas
suggests that a political vision of justice would focus on analyzing how policies produce and enhance the collective power of particular
"publics" and "counterpublics" (pp. 915). From this political perspective of justice,
neoliberal economic ideology is distinctly moral, even though it appears to be anti-moralist
and to reduce moral principles to competition between self-interested power. Free-market economics rejects
a political vision of justice, in this sense, in part because of its expressed anti-
statism: it turns contested normative questions of public power into
objective rational calculations of private individual sensibilities.
Queer theory's similar tendency to romanticize power as the pursuit of
individualistic pleasure free from public control risks disengaging
from and disdaining the collective efforts to build and advance
normative visions of the state that arguably define effective
politics. Brown and Halley (2002), for instance, cite the Montgomery bus boycott as a
classic example of the left's problematic march into legalistic and moralistic
identity politics. In contrast, Thomas (2002) analyzes the Montgomery bus boycott as a positive example of a political effort
to constitute a black civic public, even though the boycott campaign relied on moral language to advance its cause, because it also
By glorifying rather than

emphasized and challenged normative ideas of citizenship (p. 100, note 14).
deconstructing the neoliberal dichotomy between public and private ,

between individual interest and group identity, and between
demands for power and demands for protection, queer theory's anti-
statism and anti-moralism plays into a right-wing double bind . In the
current conservative political context, the left appears weak both
because its efforts to use state power get constructed as excessively
moralistic (the feminist thought police, or the naively paternalistic welfare state) and also because its efforts to
resist state power get constructed as excessively relativist
(promoting elitism and materialism instead of family values and
community well-being). The right, on the other hand, has it both ways, asserting
its moralism as inherent private authority transcending human
subjectivity (as efficient market forces, the sacred family, or divine
will) and defending its cultivation of self-interested power as the
ideally virtuous state and market (bringing freedom, democracy, equality to the world
by exercising economic and military authoritarianism). From Egalitarian Politics to Renewed
Conservative Identity Queer theory's anti-statism and anti-moralism risks not
only reinforcing right-wing ideology, but also infusing that ideology
with energy from renewed identity politics . Susan Fraiman (2003) analyzes how queer
theory (along with other prominent developments in left academics and culture) tends to construct left
resistance as a radical individualism modeled on the male "teen
rebel, defined above all by his strenuous alienation from the maternal" (p. xii). Fraiman observes that this left vision
relies on "a posture of flamboyant unconventionality [that] coexists with
highly conventional views of gender [and] is , indeed, articulated through
them " (p. xiii). Fraiman links recent left contempt for feminism to a
romantic vision of "coolness ... epitomized by the modem adolescent boy in his anxious, self-
conscious and theatricalized will to separate from the mother" who is by
definition uncoolcontrolling, moralistic, sentimental and not sexy . (p.

xii). Even though queer theory distinguishes itself from feminism by
repudiating dualistic ideas of gender, its anti-foundationalism

covertly promotes an essentialist "binary that puts femininity ,
reproduction, and normativity on the one hand, and masculinity,
sexuality, and queer resistance on the other" (p. 147). This binary
permeates queer theory's condemnation of "governance feminism."
(Brown and Halley, 2002; Wiegman, 2004) a vague category mobilizing images of the frumpy,
overbearing, unexciting, unfunny, and not-so-smart "schoolmarm" (Halley, 2002) whose
authority will naturally be undermined when real "men" appear on

the scene. Suggesting the importance of gender conventions to the term's power, similar phrases do not seem to have gained
comparable academic currency as a way to deride the complex regulatory impact of other specific uses of state authority -for instance
postmodernists do not seem to widely denounce "governance anti-racism," "governance socialism," "governance populism," "governance
environmentalism" or "governance masculinism" (though Brown and Halley do criticize progressive law reform more generally with the term
Queer attraction to an adolescent masculinist idea of

"governance legalism" (p. 11)).
the "cool' dovetails smoothly with the identity politics of the right .
Right-wing politics and culture similarly condemn progressive and
feminist policies with the term "nanny state" (McCluskey, 2000; 2005a). The "nanny state"
epithet enlists femaleness or femininity as shorthand to make some government authority feel bad to those comfortable
with or excited by a masculinist moral order, it adds to this sentimental power by coding the maternal authority to be resisted as a "nanny"
(rather than simply a "mommy"), enlisting identities of class, ageand perhaps race and nationalityto enhance uncritical suspicions of
e "nanny state" slur tells us that a rougher and tougher

disorder and illegitimacy. Th
neoliberal state, market, and family will bring the grown-up

pleasures, freedom, and power that are the mark and privilege of
ideal manhood. The "nanny state" is not an isolated example of the use of gender
identity to disparage progressive or even centrist policies that are
not explicitly identified as feminist or gender-related . For example, "girlie-man"
gained currency in the 2004 presidential election to disparage opposition to George W. Bush's right-wing economic and national security
policies (Grossman and McClain, 2004), and and in 2008 critics of presidential candidate Barack Obama similarly linked him to disparaging
These terms open a window into the

images of femininity (Campanile 2008; Faludi 2008).
connections between economic libertarianism and moral

fundamentalism. Libertarianism's anti-statism and anti-moralism requires sharp distinctions between public and private,
morality and power, individual freedom and social coercion. The problem, if we assume these distinctions are not self-evident facts, is that
Identity conventions have

libertarianism must refer covertly to some external value system to draw its lines.
long helped to do this work, albeit in complex and sometimes contradictory ways. Power appears weak,
deceptive, illegitimate, manipulative, controlling, undisciplined, oppressive, exceptional, or naive if it is feminized; but strong, self-satisfying,
Conventional
public-serving, protective, orderly, rational, and a normal exercise of individual freedom if it is masculinized.
political theory and culture identifies legitimate authority with an

idea of a masculine power aimed at policing supposedly weaker or subordinate
others. A state that publicly depends on and promotes such power enhances rather than
usurps private freedom and security in citizenship, market, and family,
according to the traditional theory of the patriarchal household as

model for the state (see Dubber, 2005). Queer theory updates this pre-modern
political ideology into smart postmodernism and transgressive
politics by re-casting its idealized masculine power in the image of a
youthful and sexy disdain for feminized concerns about social,
bodily, or material limits and support . In her challenge to this queer romanticization of "coolness,"
Fraiman (2003) instead urges a feminism that will "question a masculinity overinvested in youth, fearful of the mutable flesh, and on the run
from intimacy ... [to] claim, in its place, the jouissance of a body that is aging, pulpy, no longer intact... a subject who is tender-hearted ... who
is neither too hard nor too fluid for attachment; who does the banal, scarcely narratable, but helpful things that moms' do" (p. 158). Feminist
legal theory concerned with economic politics adds to this alternative vision an ideal that advances and rewards the pleasure, power, and
public value of the things done by some of those moms' nannies (McCluskey, 2005a)or by the many others engaged in the work (both paid
and unpaid) that sustains and enhances others' pleasure and power in and out of the home (McCluskey, 2003a; Young, 2001). One means
toward that end would be to make the domestic work (and its play and pleasure) conventionally treated as both banal or spiritual (see Roberts,
1997b) deserving of a greater share of state and market material rewards and resources on a more egalitarian basis, as Fineman's (2004)
vision would do.
1ar fem
Abdication of legal reformism makes concrete challenges to material

barriers to feminism impossible
Crawford 7 (1-1-2007 Toward a Third-Wave Feminist Legal Theory: Young

Women, Pornography and the Praxis of Pleasure Bridget J. Crawford Pace
University School of Law, bcrawford@law.pace.edu)
third-wave feminism lacks an
CONCLUSION In spite of third-wave feminisms appeal, at this point in its development,
overall theoretical view of how the law functions. Third-wave

feminism is largely a reactive critique that fails to advance its own
positivistic view of how certain goals should be accomplished . Third-wave feminists
respond to incomplete and distorted images of second-wave feminism. Their indictment of second-wave feminism has led to a significant tension between older and
younger feminists. Gloria Steinem, for one, has said that when reading third-wave feminist writings, she feels "like a sitting dog being told to sit."384 Women on the
younger cusp of second-wave feminism, who demographically are not part of the third wave, report that they feel adrift between the competing "waves."385 And even
some younger women, perhaps articulating the most decidedly third-wave stance of all, state that they do not want selfidentity as part of a "third-wave" of feminism,
because that identification implies a group affiliation or branding that should be rejected in favor of a third-wave embrace of individualism. So one is left with the sense
third-wave feminism is a helpful elaboration of some of the issues

that
first raised by earlier feminists, but that it is not so decidedly different from what has come before. Third-wave feminism's
emphasis on personal pleasure, the fluidity of gender roles, the internet and coalition-building contribute to the feminist conversation, but third-wave
feminists have not yet altered the terms and conditions of that
conversation . It remains for lawyers and legal theorists to take up the
challenge from this generation of young women to develop laws
that enhance womens autonomy and well-being.
Feminist critiques of the state get coopted to justify neoliberal

deregulation---engagement is key
Gupta 12 (Rahila, freelance journalist and writer, Has neoliberalism

knocked feminism sideways?, https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/rahila-
gupta/has-neoliberalism-knocked-feminism-sideways)
Feminism needs to recapture the state from the neoliberal project to
which it is in hock in order to make it deliver for women. It must guard against atomisation and
recover its transformative aspirations to shape the new social order

that is hovering on the horizon, says Rahila Gupta How should feminists read our current times? A major economic crisis rocks the developed
world. While austerity measures dont appear to be working across Europe, the mildly Keynesian efforts of Obama to kick-start the US
economy have had only a marginal effect. The Occupy movement has gone global and the public disorder in the summer, with more disorder
being predicted by the police, are an indication of deep discontent with the system. Yet we have seen an enthusiastic and vibrant third wave of
youthful feminism emerge in the past decade. At the rate at which these waves arise, it will be some time before the rock of patriarchy will be
worn smooth. The current phase of capitalism neo-liberalism which began with Thatcher and Reagan in the 1970s, promotes privatisation
and deregulation in order to safeguard the freedom of the individual to compete and consume without interference from a bloated state.
According to David Harvey, a Marxist academic, the world stumbled towards neo-liberalism in response to the last major recession in the 70s
when the uneasy compact between capital and labour brokered by an interventionist state broke down. The UK government, for example,
was obliged by the International Monetary Fund to cut expenditure on the welfare state in order to balance the books. The post-war settlement
had given labour more than its due, and it was time for the upper classes to claw these gains back. The fact that second wave feminism and
feminism served to
neoliberalism flourished from the 1970s onwards has led some to argue, notably Nancy Fraser, that
legitimate a structural transformation of capitalist society . I am with Nancy

Fraser in so far as she says that there is a convergence, a coinciding of second wave feminism and neo-liberalism, even that feminism thrived
in an attempt to renew and survive, capitalism

in these conditions. It is well known that
co-opts the opposition to its own ends. If part of the project of

neoliberalism is to shrink the size of the state, it serves its purpose
to co-opt the feminist critique that the state is both paternalistic
and patriarchal. Critiques of the nanny state from the right may chime with feminist concerns. However, the right has little to
say about patriarchy. What is left out of the co-option process is equally significant. The critique of the state
mounted by feminists such as Elizabeth Wilson when state capitalism was at the
height of its powers suited neoliberal capitalists seeking
deregulation and a reduced role for the state. Frasers analysis does not explain the current
resurgence of feminism at a time when the shine of neoliberalism has faded. It is not so much that feminism legitimised neoliberalism, but that
neoliberal values created a space for a bright, brassy and ultimately fake feminism - the I really, really want girl-power ushered in by the
Spice Girls. This transitional period between second wave and the current wave of feminism (which some commentators characterised as post-
feminist) represented the archetypal appropriation of the feminist agenda, shorn of its political context, by neoliberalism. Incidentally, many of
us rejected the label post-feminist because it felt like an attempt to chuck feminism into the dustbin of history and to deny the continuing need
for it. In hindsight, there was something different going on in that lull between the two waves in the 70s and 80s and today; the voice of
If the culture of neoliberalism had something

feminism was being drowned out by its loud, brassy sisters.
to offer women, it was the idea of agency, of choice freely exercised ,

free even of patriarchal restraints. It emphasised self-sufficiency of the individual while
at the same time undermining those collective struggles or

institutions which make self-sufficiency possible. The world was your oyster all you
needed to do was compete successfully in the marketplace. The flexible worker, in order to make herself acceptable to the world of work, may
even go so far as to remodel herself through cosmetic surgery, all the while under the illusion that she was in control of her life. In her essay
liberal capitalism
on Feminism in a forthcoming book, Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies, Clare Chambers argues that
is committed to what she calls the fetishism of choice . If women choose

things that disadvantage them and entrench differences, it
legitimates inequality because the inequality arises from the choices
they make. The few women who do well out of the sex industry do
not believe that their work entrenches inequality because it is freely
chosen, because prostitution is seen as a liberation from the
drudgery of cleaning jobs. Choice is their weapon against feminist objections. In their so-called free
expression of their sexuality, they are challenging nothing in the
neoliberal schema because the work reduces women to the status of
meat and commodity.
1ar krause and williams
State bad isnt offense we can reshape the state through

constructive engagement
Krause and Williams 97 (Keith and Michael, Critical Security Studies, p. xvi)
to stand too far outside prevailing discourses is almost certain to result in
First,
continued disciplinary exclusion . Second, to move toward alternative conceptions of security and security studies,
one must necessarily reopen the question subsumed under the modern conception of sovereignty and the scope of the political. To do this,
one must take seriously the prevailing claims about the nature of security. Many of the chapters in this volume thus retain a concern with the
states also
centrality of the state as a locus not only of obligation but of effective political action. In the realm of organized violence
remain the preeminent actors. The task of a critical approach is not to deny
the centrality of the state in this realm but, rather, to understand more fully
its structures, dynamics, and possibilities for reorientation. From a critical
perspective, state action is flexible and capable of reorientation, and
analyzing state policy need not therefore be tantamount to embracing the
statist assumptions of orthodox conceptions. To exclude a focus on state
action from a critical perspective on the grounds that it plays inevitably
within the rules of existing conceptions simply reverses the error of
essentializing the state. Moreover, it loses the possibility of influencing what
remains the most structurally capable actor in contemporary world politics.
1ar passavant
The states inevitable using it to reduce violence is contingently

productive
Passavant 7 [The Contradictory State of Giorgio Agamben, Paul, Associate
Professor of Political Science Ph.D., Wisconsin at Madison M.A., Wisconsin at
Madison B.A., Michigan, p. Sage Publications] Tina
State actions that mitigate chaos, economic inequality, and violence, then,
potentially contribute to the improved justice of outcomes and
democracy. Political theorists must temper celebrating contingency with a simultaneous
consideration of the complicated relation that determination has to democratic purposes.50 Fourth,
the states institutions are among the few with the capacity to
respond to the exigency of human needs identified by political
theorists . These actions will necessarily be finite and less than
wholly adequate, but responsibility may lie on the side of
acknowledging these limitations and seeking to redress what is
lacking in state action rather than calling for pure potentiality and
an end to the state. We may conclude that claims to justice or
democracy based on the wish to rid ourselves of the state once and
for 170 Political Theory Downloaded from ptx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on July 4, 2013 all
are like George W. Bush claiming to be an environmentalist because he
has proposed converting all of our cars so that they will run on
hydrogen.51 Meanwhile, in the here and now, there are urgent claims
that demand finite acts that by definition will be both divisive and
less than what a situation demands.52 In the end, the state remains.
Let us defend this state of due process and equal protection against
its ruinous other.
Reps Defense
2ac apoc
Debate about apocalyptic impacts is crucial to activism and effective

policy education
Blain 91 professor of Sociology 91 Michael Blain, RHETORICAL PRACTICE
IN AN ANTI-NUCLEAR WEAPONS CAMPAIGN, Peace & Change
Peace activism can be understood as a sociopolitical performance . It enacts a pattern of
discourse that can be rhetorically analyzed in terms of its strategy of incitement. As peace activists
mobilized their forces in the 1980s, they built up a discourse -- a repertoire of possible
political statements for use against nuclear weapons policies. Such statements as
nuclear annihilation, radiation pollution, and strategic madness have been the
primary incitements to peace activism. Activists use language pragmatically. As political
actors addressing a public audience, they know they must speak a language familiar to that
audience. Nineteenth-century activists were educated, middle-class women, clergymen, educators,
and businessmen with a reform Christian conscience. Twentieth-century activists have included political
leftists and cultural dissidents as well as traditional pacifists and religious liberals.(n1) Middle-class
professionals have played prominent roles in the peace movement. For example, medical activists like
Helen Caldicott and Robert Lifton have elaborated a discourse on the madness of "nuclearism"(n2) In
fact, some analysts interpret the peace movement as a power struggle of middle-class radicals and
countercultural rebels against the power elite.(n3) This article presents the results of a rhetorical
analysis of activists' discursive practices in a victorious campaign to defeat a U.S. government plan to
construct the first new nuclear weapons plant in twenty years in the state of Idaho, the Special Isotope
Separator (SIS). It shows how activists in the Snake River Alliance (SRA), a Boise, Idaho, antinuclear
organization,mobilized hundreds of "Idahoans" to act as "concerned citizens" and "Life Guards," to
lobby, testify, demonstrate, and finally, to kill this plan. The article introduces a perspective
on how discourse functions in political movements. An effective movement discourse must
accomplish two things: (1) knowledge, or the constitution of the subjects and objects of
struggle, and (2) ethics, or the moral incitement of people to political action. I will show
how this perspective can illuminate how anti-SIS activists developed an effective discourse to kill this
crucial nuclear weapons program. A critical evaluation of this campaign can contribute to peace in at
least three ways: it can celebrate the artful practices these activists engaged in to achieve their
political objectives; it can add a case study of a victorious campaign to the emerging literature on the
tactics of nonviolent action; and finally, it can contribute to the current debate about the future of the
peace movement in a post-cold war world. The anti-SIS campaign involved an alliance of environmental
and peace groups, which suggests one possible political strategy for future peace actions. POLITICAL
MOVEMENTS AS VICTIMAGE RITUALS Political activists must engage in discourse to fight and
win power struggles with their adversaries. In political battles, such as the anti-SIS campaign,
words are weapons with tactical functions. Michel Foucault clearly articulates this perspective:
Indeed, it is in discourse that power and knowledge are joined together. And for this reason, we must
conceive discourse as a series of discontinuous segments whose tactical function is neither uniform nor
stable ... as a multiplicity of discursive elements that can come into play in various strategies. It is this
distribution that we must reconstruct ... according to who is speaking, his position of power, the
institutional context in which he happens to be situated ... with the shifts and reutilizations of identical
formulas for contrary objectives.(n4) A power strategy refers to all means, including discursive
practices, put into play by an actor in a particular power relationship to influence the actions of others.
The language of political movements, including peace activism, is militaristic; activists talk strategy,
tactics, and objectives. And it is important to see that discourse is itself a part of any power strategy.
Kenneth Burke's concepts of victimage rhetoric and rituals can be used to illuminate this process.(n5)
Political activists use victimage rhetoric to mobilize people to fight and defeat their
adversaries. Victimage rhetoric is melodramatic in form. It functions to incite those who identify with
it to engage in political acts of ritual scapegoating. Activists mobilize people to engage in activism by
getting them to identify with an actual or impending violation of some communal "ideal"--a problem,
concern, or danger. Activists mount "education" campaigns to get the public to identify
with the imminent danger. A critical knowledge of the nature of this danger is
constructed, taking the form of villainous powers inflicting or threatening to inflict
some terrible wrong on the world. This rhetorical practice is tactical in the sense that it is
designed to generate intense anger and moral outrage at what has, is, or could be happening to the
values of those who identify with it. These people can then be mobilized in a campaign to fight the
villain. This effect is intensified by emphasizing the negative features of the actions of the agents and
agencies responsible for the violation. Once implanted, this knowledge exerts an ethical incitement to
activism. Activists, this model suggests, must develop a discourse that does two things: vilify and
activate. These two functions correspond to two moments in a melodramatic victimage ritual. These
two moments of identification are (1) acts of violation or vilification and (2) acts of redemptive or heroic
action.Movement leaders must construct images of both villains and activists fighting
villains. They must convince us that acts of violation have occurred or will happen,
and then they must goad us into doing something about it. This analysis suggests that a
movement discourse is a rhetorical system composed of two elements working in tandem. One of the
main features of motive in victimage ritual is the aim to destroy the destroyer. In the anti- SIS
campaign, as we shall see, the objective was to kill a Department of Energy (DOE) program to build a
nuclear weapons plant. One means of accomplishing that objective was to vilify its proponents. The
second element in a movement discourse is redemptive or ethical. Once leaders succeed in convincing
To
their followers that there is a real threat, they must then incite those convinced to act.
accomplish these objectives, peace activists have assembled a discourse charged with
peril and power--a knowledge of the scene they confront and an ethic of political
activism. They have constituted a "knowledge" of the dangers posed by the nuclear arms race and
nuclear war that is infused with a redemptive ethic of political activism. Activists use this knowledge
and ethic to goad people into campaigns to achieve antinuclear objectives. For example, activists have
invoked the term power in two distinct ethical senses. There is the "bad" power of the agents of the
nuclear arms race (politicians such as Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher; agencies such as the U.S.
there is the "good" power that activists
government, NATO, or the Department of Energy). And
produce by their concerted political actions, including a subjective effect called
"empowerment." Activists empower themselves by "taking personal responsibility for
the fate of the earth," sacrificing time, energy, and money to the cause. By engaging in
political activism, peace activists say they transcend psychological despair and obtain a
sense of personal power.(n6)
Apoc rhetoric is good
Recuber 11 [Timothy Recuber is a doctoral candidate in sociology at the

Graduate Center of the City. University of New York. He has taught at Hunter
College in Manhattan "CONSUMING CATASTROPHE: AUTHENTICITY AND
EMOTION IN MASS-MEDIATED DISASTER" gradworks.umi.com/3477831.pd]
what distant consumers express when they sit glued to the television
Perhaps, then,
watching a disaster replayed over and over, when they buy t-shirts or snow globes, when they mail teddy
bears to a memorial, or when they tour a disaster site, is a deep, maybe subconscious, longing for
those age-old forms of community and real human compassion that
emerge in a place when disaster has struck. It is a longing in some
ways so alien to the world we currently live in that it requires
catastrophe to call it forth , even in our imaginations. Nevertheless, the actions of
unadulterated goodwill that become commonplace in harrowing conditions
represent the truly authentic form of humanity that all of us , to one
chase after in contemporary consumer culture every day. And while it is
degree or another,
certainly a bit foolhardy to seek authentic humanity through

disaster-related media and culture, the sheer strength of that desire
has been evident in the publics response to all the disasters, crises and
catastrophes to hit the United States in the past decade. The millions of television viewers
who cried on September 11, or during Hurricane Katrina and the
Virginia Tech shootings, and the thousands upon thousands who
volunteered their time, labor, money, and even their blood, as well
as the countless others who created art, contributed to memorials,
or adorned their cars or bodies with disaster-related paraphernalia
despite the fact that many knew no one who had been personally affected by any of these disasters all attest to
a desire for real human community and compassion that is woefully

unfulfilled by American life under normal conditions today . In the end,
the consumption of disaster doesnt make us unable or unwilling to
engage with disasters on a communal level, or towards progressive
political ends it makes us feel as if we already have, simply by consuming. It is ultimately less
a form of political anesthesia than a simulation of politics , a Potemkin village
of communal sentiment, that fills our longing for a more just and humane world with disparate acts of cathartic
consumption. Still, the positive political potential underlying such
consumptionthe desire for real forms of connection and community
remains the most redeeming feature of disaster consumerism. Though
that desire is frequently warped when various media lenses refract it, diffuse it, or reframe it to fit a political agenda, its
overwhelming strength should nonetheless serve notice that people
want a different world than the one in which we currently live, with a
different way of understanding and responding to disasters. They want a
world where risk is not leveraged for profit or political gain, but sensibly planned for with the needs of all socio-economic
groups in mind. They want a world where preemptive strategies are used
to anticipate the real threats posed by global climate change and
global inequality, rather than to invent fears of ethnic others and
justify unnecessary wars . They want a world where people can come
together not simply as a market, but as a public , to exert real
agency over the policies made in the name of their safety and security. And, when
disaster does strike, they want a world where the goodwill and
compassion shown by their neighbors, by strangers in their communities, and even
by distant spectators and consumers, will be matched by their own
government . Though this vision of the world is utopian, it is not
unreasonable , and if contemporary American culture is ever to give us more than just an illusion of safety, or
empathy, or authenticity, then it is this vision that we must advocate on a daily
basis, not only when disaster strikes.
2ac trade
Our reps of trade overcome public apathy their authors use

misleading data and are based only on emotional appeal
Griswold 9 (Daniel, director of the Cato Institutes Center for Trade Policy
Studies, Mad About Trade: Why Main Street America should Embrace
Globalization, pgs. 3-10, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/mad-about-trade-
why-main-street-america-should-embrace-globalization) //GY
One reason why skepticism remains is the difference between what
is seen and what is unseen. The transition costs of moving to free
trade are visible and lend themselves to images and anecdotes: a
factory closing in North Carolina, the anxiety on the face of a laid-off steel worker, the sweatshop
Yet the benefits
conditions in factories making shirts in Honduras and soccer balls in Bangladesh.
that flow from free trade and globalization, while real and
substantial, are diffused and often hidden from view: a dozen jobs created at
a small business serving an American exporter or foreign-owned plant, lower interest rates on a loan, and
related
$20 saved on a Saturday-afternoon shopping trip because of import competition. Another,
reason for the skepticism is the emotional appeal of arguments
against trade. In a November 2007 essay, Why Lou Dobbs Is Winning, the generally pro-trade
Third Way Foundation tried to explain why the skeptics have been winning the rhetorical debate.
Advocates for open trade have lost the debate on values, the
authors concluded. While neopopulists and fair traders speak
compellingly of justice and fairness, we speak of dollars per
household in economic gains, job growth and economic efficiency.
Fair traders fight with values; free traders fight with data.[9] That is
not quite right. Fair traders also fight with data, much of it wrong or
misleading, as we shall see. But it is certainly true that those of us who advocate the
embrace of free trade and globalization as the best policy for America too often confine ourselves to data.
We fail to close the deal by drawing a connection from the facts to
our deepest American values of fairness, compassion, competition,
freedom, progress, peace, and the rule of law. The mission of this
book is to make that connection. As we build that connection, this book will challenge
much of what we hear and read about trade in the American media. Here are some facts and themes from
Free
Mad about Trade that you will not hear on cable TV, talk radio or the most popular blog sites:
trade is the working familys best friend. Import competition delivers
lower prices and more variety, empowering consumers to get the
most from their paychecks. Greater product variety from imports boosts our incomes
by $400 billion a year. Those Americans who benefit the most from being able to buy imports from China
Trade has delivered better jobs for
through big-box retailers are the poor (Chapter 2).
American workers. Most of the net new jobs created in the past
decade pay more than the average manufacturing job. The American
middle class today is built on millions of well-paying service-sector
jobs. Despite the most recent recession, Americans today enjoy significantly higher real hourly
compensation, household incomes and family net worth than 15 years go (Chapter 3). Most
American manufacturers have managed to thrive in a global
economy. Trade has helped American factories move up the value
chain. Were producing more planes, pills, appliances, chemicals, semiconductors and sophisticated
equipment than in decades past. The volume of U.S. manufacturing output was two-thirds higher in 2008
than when Congress passed the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993 (Chapter 4).
Americas big trade deficit is not a scorecard for U.S. trade policy. If
reflects a steady inflow of foreign investment and continued
domestic demand for goods and services, whether made at home or
abroad. Since 1982, Americas unemployment rate invariably rises when the trade deficit shrinks, and
falls when the trade deficit grows. Despite what Warren Buffett says, raising trade barriers cannot fix the
American companies that invest abroad are not
trade deficit (Chapter 5).
shipping jobs overseas; they are reaching new customers for U.S.-
branded goods and services. For every $1 billion in goods that U.S. companies export, they
sell $6.2 billion through their foreign affiliatesand 90 percent of those sales go to foreign buyers.
Foreign capital flowing into the United States cuts almost a full point
off long-term interest rates, saving a typical homeowner $1,000 a
year and federal taxpayers $40 billion (Chapter 6). High U.S. trade
barriers in the 19th century were a drag on growth and bred anti-
competitive domestic monopolies. The Great Depression occurred on
the protectionists watch. Americas economic performance has been superior during the
era of lower tariffs since World War II, including the past 15 years since NAFTA was enacted. Nearly a
quarter of a million small and medium-sized U.S. companies are now
exporting to global markets, including China (Chapter 7). Membership in the
World Trade Organization has not compromised U.S. sovereignty. It
has served our national interest by opening markets abroad to U.S.
exports and restraining the U.S. governments abuses of our
economic liberty. A global rule of law in place today has prevented a repeat of the disastrous
trade wars of the 1930s (Chapter 7). The spread of trade and globalization has
helped to cut world poverty in half since 1981. Fewer children are dying, fewer
are heading for work on the farm and in factories, and more are in school, especially girls, than in decades
past. Once the world shakes off the current recession, a growing middle class in developing countries will
be hungry to buy U.S.-provided goods and services (Chapter 8). Thanks in part to expanding trade, our
world is more democratized and peaceful. More people enjoy full
political and civil rights under democratic governments around the
world than in any previous era. Trade has promoted peace among
nations, making it less likely that Americas sons and daughters will fight in future wars (Chapter 8).
2ac nuclear
Interrogation of psychological causes of nuclear war is useless

policy approaches are key
Blight, 86 PhD in cognitive psychology, served as director of the Avoiding
Nuclear War project at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, Chair of
Foreign Policy Development at the Centre for International Governance
Innovation and Professor at the Balsillie School of International Affairs (James
G., How Might Psychology Contribute to Reducing the Risk of Nuclear War?,
Political Psychology, Vol. 7, No. 4 (Dec., 1986), pp. 617-660, JSTOR)//BI
avoiding nuclear war is the most important
I believe, with many others, that
public policy problem of our time. As a psychologist, I do not believe my colleagues and I
have contributed significantly to its solution, which must, in my view, consist of piecemeal attempts to
I do
understand the dimensions of the risk of nuclear war and then to suggest ways of reducing that risk.
not believe that reducing the risk of nuclear war is primarily a
psychologists' problem although, as a psychologist, I do tend to frame the issue so as to make
certain psychological aspects of the problem appear to be basic. Failure on the part of
psychologists and psychiatrists to enter more fully into the policy
makers' construction of the central aspects of nuclear risk lay, it seems to me,
behind our tendency, especially at the level of intermediate causes, toward solutions
we pluck off our own shelves but which are not easily integrated into
the policy makers' modus operandi. It has also led, I think, to utopian schemes put
forward as solutions to the deep psychological causes, solutions
which fail to take adequately into account either the historical
record or political reality. The great concern of nuclear policy makers is with a crisis between
the superpowers. But nuclear crises are not well understood; in fact, the sort that everyone fears is without
precedent, for it is imagined to precipitate a major nuclear war and unprecedented devastation. Because
crisis management,
crises are poorly understood - psychologically, as evolving belief-states -
which may at some future point represent the last shred of hope for
avoiding a nuclear war, seems to me to lack almost completely a
relevantly useful, psychological knowledge-base.
Fear of nukes is productiveespecially when theres a distinction

option to avoid nuclear warthe alternative is apathy
Krieger 12 David, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, "Fear of

Nuclear Weapons", June 19, www.wagingpeace.org/articles/db_article.php?
article_id=371
I was recently asked during an interview whether people fear nuclear weapons too
much, causing them unnecessary anxiety. The implication was that it is not necessary to live in fear of nuclear
weapons. My response was that fear is a healthy mechanism when one is confronted by
something fearful. It gives rise to a fight or flight response, both of

which are means of surviving real danger. In the case of nuclear
weapons, these are devices to be feared since they are capable of
causing terrifying harm to all humanity, including ones family, city and country. If one is fearful of
nuclear weapons, there will be an impetus to do something about
the dangers these weapons pose to humanity. But, one might ask, what can be done? In
reality, there is a limited amount that can be done by a single individual,
but when individuals band together in groups, their power to bring about
change increases. Individual power is magnified even more when
groups join together in coalitions and networks to bring about change. Large numbers
of individuals banded together to bring about the fall of the Berlin Wall, the breakup of the Soviet Union and the end of apartheid in South Africa. The basic
building block of all these important changes was the individual

willing to stand up, speak out and join with others to achieve a better
world. The forces of change have been set loose again by the Arab Spring and the Occupy Movement across the globe. When dangers
are viewed rationally, there may be good cause for fear, and fear
may trigger a response to bring about change. On the other hand, complacency
can never lead to change. Thus, while fear may be a motivator of change, complacency is an
inhibitor of change. In a dangerous world, widespread complacency
should be of great concern. If a person is complacent about the dangers of
nuclear weapons, there is little possibility that he will engage in
trying to alleviate the danger. Complacency is the result of a failure
of hope to bring about change . It is a submission to despair . After so
many years of being confronted by nuclear dangers, there is a tendency
to believe that nothing can be done to change the situation. This may be viewed as concern fatigue. We should
remember, though, that any goal worth achieving is worth striving for with hope in our hearts. A good policy for facing real-
world dangers is to never give up hope and never stop trying .
Engaging nuclear scenarios is good

Shaw 9, associate dean for planning, research, and external relations &
assistant professor of international affairs at George Washington University's
Elliott School of International Affairs & formerly worked for the Arms Control
and Disarmament Agency and Energy Department, Reintroducing arms
control to higher education, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 5-26-09,
http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/reintroducing-arms-control-to-
higher-education
The first set of tensions involves the transformation of nonproliferation regime institutions. This comes, in part, from
the temptation to look backward in nuclear negotiations . The U.N. General Assembly
has failed to control nuclear weapons. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and other commitments
embedded in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) are years overdue. The "thirteen steps" on a
practical path toward nuclear disarmament identified at the 2000 NPT Review Conference are a good start, but there
Higher
have been few new ideas to realize the potential of technological, political, and social developments.
education must educate a next generation to look forward in
examining these institutions. Prudent and verifiable progress may
include new fora for negotiations, new governmental structures, new issue linkages,
and new technologies and procedures for enhancing global confidence. The
second set of tensions involves universality. In reality, the exclusive superpower prerogative over the nuclear future
Every human being is threatened by nuclear weapons and has a
ended long ago.
legitimate stake in nuclear negotiations . But vastly more people need to
understand these topics in order to create a global order that can control
nuclear weapons permanently. Moving forward, useful negotiations will involve an increasing number
of parties--and this must extend beyond inviting the British, French, and Chinese to participate directly in U.S.-Russian
strategic arms reduction negotiations or the pursuit of a global nuclear weapons convention. More far-reaching and
innovative solutions must be put forward. For example, we might consider how follow-on
generations of nuclear safeguard enhancements might expand the use of transparency. In addition, we might consider
confidence-building measures that enhance global verification in the arms reduction process or reinforce nuclear
weapon states' negative security assurances. Peaceful uses of nuclear energy encompass a third group of tensions.
The prospect of "power too cheap to meter" has tantalized leaders into compromises about proliferation risk since the
dawn of the nuclear age. President Dwight D. Eisenhower's vision of "Atoms for Peace" led to these compromises
being written into the NPT and the mandate of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Internationalization of the
nuclear fuel supply, the dilution of international safeguards to suit any one state, the spread of nuclear power to
additional countries, and the widening understanding of plutonium as an energy resource may each have a purpose,
Going forward, experts must be trained to
but they also imply identifiable risks for the future.
assess these current challenges to nuclear energy. They must also look
further afield and learn to examine the effects climate change and oil
dependence will have on future proliferation compromises since such new
risks will undoubtedly accompany any "nuclear renaissance." Most importantly, a
fourth group of tensions involves deterrence stability on the way to zero. Deterrence isn't a reliable piece of hardware,
so we must be increasingly clear about why we have nuclear weapons, what we imagine destroying, how many we
need available on short notice, and how others will react to our choices. Currently, Al Qaeda aims to provoke the
United States to overreact, and at the same time, is attempting to convince the world the United States must be
resisted. But in a key moment we may find that the fear nuclear weapons are built to instill doesn't necessarily serve
The perceptions of allies and billions of innocent bystanders too often are
our interests.
assumed irrelevant or even requiring a larger nuclear arsenal for "extended deterrence." Looking forward ,
it is incumbent that the soundness and costs of each of these assumptions
are continuously tested and improved. The trade-offs between
uncertain paths forward should be explicitly debated both by today's experts
and tomorrow's nascent explorers. These tensions of zero--institutional
transformation, universality, peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and
deterrence--will never be cleanly resolved . But if we're lucky, we will be managing
them long after the legal abolition of nuclear weapons. Learning to do so
effectively is the work of a generation, and we are a generation behind
in preparing our best and brightest for this work. This suggests an
intimidating, but attainable, goal for higher education institutions .
nuclear at: chaloupka
Chaloupkas theory lacks definition and has no practical application

Brians 92 (Paul, Prof Department of ENglish WSU,
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/ntc/NTC8.pdf, AD: 7/1/10) jl
The confusion underlying this apparent tangle has two closely related sources: Chaloupka plunges in,
dismisses careful initial conceptualization, and defines by accretion. Of course this
books audience is scholarly, but I do not believe anyone can say what
Chaloupka means by modernism, without which postmodernism
becomes a slippery term. In their anthology, Bradbury and McFarlane define modernism as a
literary movement between 1890 and 1930. In the Preface to his anthology, Peter Brook describes
postmodern as the capitalist world (television, mass production, and consumption) and its opponents.
What is modernism to Chaloupka? We are provided a key summary of features near the end: liberal and
Marxist commitment to scientific certainty (134). And he is still defining
I do not
postmodern/postructural/deconstructive and liberal humanist discourse in the last chapter.
have space to describe all the reasons why this book makes difficult
reading. (Is nukespeak criticism a simple critique of euphemism, when Hilgartner, et al.s
Nukespeak is a major analysis of secrecy and censorship in the United States?) But let me end mainly
positively. By insisting upon the failure of the traditional Enlightenment liberal humanistic, scientific,
opposition to nuclear war preparations (Chap. 4 on Star Wars and the Freeze), and by urging an alternative
strategy of postmodern irony, he nudges all of us in the peace movement to rethink our assumptions and
methods. Liberal humanist antinuclearist politics has offered (referring to Helen Caldicott) a sober, anti-
ironic terrorism of images (13334), but has it generally degenerated into finalities that resolve questions,
He too sweepingly dismisses the
reify value choices, and avoid realistic politics (137)?
flexibility and the achievements of the liberal humanist
antinuclearists. But of great value, postmodern politics seeks to
delegitimize the subtle, contemporary forms of authority in both
nuclearists and antinuclearists (128), and discards programs but offers ironic possibilities
in the face of the paradoxes of power. However, the discourse that would raise
those discomforts in a critical manner has hardly begun to be
identified (138).
Chaloupkas critique is politically suicidal its prevents anti-nuclear

groups from effectively coalescing
Krishna 93 professor at the University of Hawaii, PhD from in political

science from the Maxwell School at Syracuse University (Sankaran, The
Importance of Being Ironic: A Postcolonial View on Critical International
Relations Theory, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol. 18 No. 3, Summer
1993, pp. 385-417)//BI
a move made by Chaloupka in
In offering this dichotomous choice, Der Derian replicates
his equally dismissive critique of the more mainstream nuclear opposition,
the Nuclear Freeze movement of the early 1980s, that, according to him, was
operating along obsolete lines, emphasizing "facts" and "realities" while a "postmodern"
President Reagan easily outflanked them through an illusory Star Wars program. (See KN: chapter 4)
Chaloupka centers this difference between his own supposedly total
critique of all sovereign truths (which he describes as nuclear criticism in an echo of
literary criticism) and the more partial (and issue-based) criticism of what he calls
"nuclear opposition" or "antinuclearists" at the very outset of his book. (KN: xvi) Once again,
the unhappy choice forced upon the reader is to join Chaloupka in
his total critique of all sovereign truths or be trapped in obsolete
essentialisms. This leads to a disastrous politics, pitting groups that
have the most in common (and need to unite on some basis to be effective )
against each other. Both Chaloupka and Der Derian thus reserve their most trenchant critique
for political groups that should, in any analysis, be regarded as the closest to them in terms of an
Instead of finding ways to live with these
oppositional politics and their desired futures.
differences and to (if fleetingly) coalesce against the New Right, this fratricidal
critique is politically suicidal. It obliterates the space for a political
activism based on provisional and contingent coalitions, for uniting behind a
common cause even as one recognizes that the coalition is comprised of groups that have very differing
(and possibly unresolvable) views of reality. Moreover,it fails to consider the possibility
that there may have been other, more compelling reasons for the
"failure" of the Nuclear Freeze movement or anti-Gulf War movement like many a
worthwhile cause in our times, they failed to garner sufficient support to influence state policy. The
response to that need not be a totalizing critique that delegitimizes all
narratives. The blackmail inherent in the choice offered by Der Derian and
Chaloupka, between total critique and "ineffective" partial critique, ought to be
transparent. Among other things, it effectively militates against the construction of provisional or
strategic essentialisms in our attempts to create space for an activist politics. In the next section, I focus
more widely on the genre of critical international theory and its impact on such an activist politics
nuclear at: chernus
Permutation solves best both literal and symbolic language are

necessary
Chernus 86 journalist, author, and Professor of Religious Studies at the
University of Colorado, Boulder (Ira, Dr. Strangegod: On the Symbolic
Meaning of Nuclear Weapons, pg. 156, 1986)//BI
Symbolism has its dangers too. If our goal is to confront the full reality
of nuclear war, every symbol and every mythic image may tend to
lead us further away by masking that reality. Surely those who attempt
to imagine the real must be aware of the pitfalls on both sides of
their path. They must assimilate empirical information with full awareness of the
tendency to mythicize it and to dehumanize it, while they must absorb symbolic images
of nuclear war with full awareness of the temptation to avoid the truth and its horror. The
fourth level demands a sensitive use of both literal and symbolic
language. Ideally, a new language may be needed, which synthesizes both approaches and teaches
us how to weave them together most effectively in the pursuit of wholeness. Only with such a
new language could we confront the phenomenon on both conscious
and unconscious levels and unite the two into a single perception. This new mode of thought
and speech is probably a distant reality. But its raw materials can be created today. While the disarmament
movement is pressing ahead with increasingly precise facts on the empirical side, there is still much to be
done in creative exploration of the symbolic side.
Chernus ignores empirics and his theories are non-falsifiable

Summers 91 PhD, Department of Psychology, Mount Allison University
(Craig, Book Review: Chernus, Ira. Nuclear Madness: Religion and the
Psychology of the Nuclear Age, Nuclear Texts and Contexts, No. 6, pg. 2-3
Spring 1991, http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/ntc/NTC6.pdf)//BI
As a central theme, Nuclear Madness: Religion and the Psychology of the Nuclear Age states that: The
question to be asked about nuclear weapons . . . is: What fantasy images are embedded in our attitudes
and behaviors? (p. 83). But Psychology as a discipline and profession is based
on empirical research, not fantasy images. Author Ira Chernus does
acknowledge that his approach is not easily interwoven with formal
psychological research (discussing theologian Paul Tillich, p. 48; also pp. 105- 106). But he
nevertheless uses arguments, such as those from Mircea Eliade, that can be neither
verified nor falsified by empirical research (p. 193), an ominous note for social
scientists reading the book. Chernus overlooks vast areas of empirical
research in political science, economics, political psychology, and
even the scientific evidence on nuclear winter, stating that the empirical reality
of a large-scale use of nuclear weapons eludes scientific understanding (p. 64). As one example to the
contrary, in psychology there have been innumerable experimental
studies of imagery, both in terms of imaginal thinking, and a narrower literature specifically
focusing on nuclear imagery (e.g., Journal of Social Issues, v. 39[1]). Skirting these seems to
be a gross omission in a book purporting to use imagery as a basis for a psychological
understanding of the nuclear age.
Chernus fundamental premise of psychic numbing is poorly

established and doesnt account for other factors
This book attempts to explain political psychology in the nuclear age through nuclear imagery and
psychiatrist R. J. Liftons (1967) construct of psychic numbing. To start with an image of my own, the
nuclear threat could be characterized by two men (gender intended), each holding a gun to the others
head as a means of security. The inherent danger and illogic in this is of course mad; a madness defined by
Mutual Assured Destruction (M.A.D.). The book draws heavily on metaphors of madness in attempting to
explain this situation, and in attempting to point to new political possibilities that will lead beyond the
The logic followed in the book is that psychic
nuclear trap and void (p. 70).
numbing causes us to shut off any thoughts about a fundamental
threat to our existence. We therefore develop no images of nuclear
doomsday, and this is essentially why we do not act to prevent it. It is
not completely clear, however, why numbing makes us inactive
regarding the nuclear threat, but not about other threats. Certainly death
is a more immediate threat to blacks in South Africa or to those in bread lines in Eastern Europe and the
U.S.S.R. Yet rather than being numbed into paralysis, these victims defy government threats of bloodshed
Numbing may not be the cause of general inactivity
to hold public rallies.
regarding the nuclear threat; unlike demonstrations against foodlines and racism, we
may just find it too longterm, large and improbable to deal with in our day-to-
day lives. Psychology as a discipline and profession is based on
empirical research, not fantasy images. Author Ira Chernus does
acknowledge that his approach is not easily interwoven with formal
psychological research (discussing theologian Paul Tillich, p. 48; also pp. 105- 106). But he
nevertheless uses arguments, such as those from Mircea Eliade, that can be neither
verified nor falsified by empirical research (p. 193), an ominous note for social
scientists reading the book. Chernus overlooks vast areas of empirical
research in political science, economics, political psychology, and
even the scientific evidence on nuclear winter, stating that the empirical reality
of a large-scale use of nuclear weapons eludes scientific understanding (p. 64). As one example to the
contrary, in psychology there have been innumerable experimental
studies of imagery, both in terms of imaginal thinking, and a narrower literature specifically
focusing on nuclear imagery (e.g., Journal of Social Issues, v. 39[1]). Skirting these seems to
be a gross omission in a book purporting to use imagery as a basis for a psychological
understanding of the nuclear age. Similarly, although the subtitle Religion and the Psychology of the
Nuclear Age appears to describe a study of religion, this book uses a religious approach, based on
infinitude (p. 51) and immortality. It supports Lifton, who allegedly recognizes that the nuclear dilemma
has religious roots (p. 187). However, religious roots are much more directly dealt with in books such as
those by Mojtabai (1986) and Del Tredici (1989), who discuss Amarillo, Texas and the Pantex nuclear-
weapons plant there. This is a book that relies heavily on lofty language and philosophical jargon (e.g.,
Relating mythological terms like the underworld (p. 254) to
radical finitude, p. 53).
nuclear deterrence is about as useful to a real understanding of the
nuclear threat as former U.S. President Reagans references to the evil
empire. These grandiose descriptions fail to recognize simple
economic realities. The scientific-military-industrial complex and the nuclear industry are often
supported simply because they provide companies and shareholders with profits, and employees with jobs.
it may not be that numbing occurs because of the magnitude
Therefore,
of the threat, but that rationalization occurs because of vested interests in the
threat. It would therefore be worth considering whether there is any difference between numbing in the
hibakusha that survived Hiroshima, and rationalization (or numbing) for questionable work that pays well.
there are also empirical
This distinction may perhaps be studied empirically. As with imagery,
studies that could have been considered in any book dealing with
these types of psychological mechanisms (e.g., Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959 and all
of the subsequent studies validating cognitive dissonance). The only evidence for
numbing in the book is Liftons observations of victims in Hiroshima,
which are then linked to potential victims of the contemporary nuclear threat. Lifton himself recently
associated the thought processes in perpetrating Nazi mass killing, and in contemporary perpetrators of
the nuclear threat, which would have been very relevant to reference here (Lifton and Markusen, 1990).
The tendency throughout Nuclear Madness is to increasingly leave
the initial evidence and begin describing events as schizophrenic, neurotic or mad.
Chernus misapplies Liftons observations and lacks a coherent

alternative
Nuclear Madness
Infantile omnipotence desires? All will attest to the existence of social fantasy?
does, but it is surely a step backwards for any reader attempting to
learn something of explanations in contemporary political
psychology. In relying on clinical metaphors from over forty years
ago, Chernus has tied his philosophy to a clinical approach with little
actual evidence, and which is generally no longer accepted. Psychic
numbing and mental illness could be used successfully if not treated as just a metaphorical explanation for
This is a difference between Liftons (1967) actual
nuclear irrationality.
psychiatric observations and Chernuss numbing metaphor. But
Nuclear Madness dwells on descriptive images and similes, not
actually pursuing responses to the nuclear threat using either side of
psychology: (a) the experimental and observational bases, which have been extensively documented, or
One could propose
(b) clinical psychopathology, which would be worth seriously pursuing.
very real psychiatric grounds for the suicidal nature of being a
passive bystander or having vested interests in the nuclear arms race
(see Charny, 1986). Masking, numbing, rationalizing, or however ignoring the potential for
nuclear omnicide is a psychological process that poses a very real threat to human life,
and may thus fit the criteria for inclusion as a pathological disorder in
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders III (American Psychiatric Association, 1987).
People with different political agendas could make completely
different conclusions using the material in Nuclear Madness. It is also the case that
completely different premises and images could be used to arrive at
the same conclusions. A discussion of sexual and pornographic images of the nuclear threat in
Rosenbaum (1978) is equally metaphorical. It is descriptive, but not explanatory. Perhaps no real
explanation is necessary in Nuclear Madness, though, or even any conclusions on religious thinking or
psychological processes. Chernuss description of the bomb as a symbol of neurotic ambivalence (p.
67; also 56, 61) is almost just an abstract, artistic image. This would be okay if presented this way in the
we are misled from the title on into thinking that this
introduction. As it is, though,
book will provide an understanding of psychological perceptions and
responses to the nuclear threat.
nuclear at: masco
Relegating the bomb to the unthinkable delegitimizes nuclear

strategies this stigmatization is key to elimination
Ritchie 13 (Nick, Lecturer at University of York, Ph.D. from University of
Bradford, former member of Oxford Research Group specializing in nuclear
disarmament, proliferation, and arms control, "Valuing and Devaluing Nuclear
Weapons," www.contemporarysecuritypolicy.org/assets/CSP-34-1%20Ritchie
%20article.pdf, 2013, slim_)
Most recently,the 2009 report of the International Commission on Nuclear
Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (ICNND) stated: If we want to minimize and
ultimately eliminate nuclear weapons, the critical need is to change
perceptions of their role and utility: in effect, to achieve their
progressive delegitimation, from a position in which they occupied a
central strategic place to one in which their role is seen as quite marginal,
and eventually wholly unnecessary as well as undesirable.17 It argued that there exists a
strong base upon which to devalue nuclear weapons, notably the ICJs 1996
Advisory Opinion on the threat or use of nuclear weapons, arguments that nuclear weapons have little or
there is a strong taboo on the actual use, if
no utility as instruments of war-fighting, that
nuclear weapons, and arguments that the currency of nuclear
not possession, of
weapons has diminished with the end of the Cold War such that they no
longer represent a route to political prestige and global influence (if they ever did).18 The NPT process and
succession of international commissions in the 1990s and 2000s cemented two key concepts in the
disarmament narrative aimed at qualitative change in nuclear policy and practice: reducing the role of
nuclear weapons and delegitimizing nuclear weapons. The 2007 Carnegie study gave force to the concept
of devaluing nuclear weapons and together these ideas were a central strand of the 2009 ICNND report. In
strength and range of the recognition that devaluing nuclear
fact, the
weapons in the security policies of the NWSs is an essential process along the
road to nuclear disarmament is impressive.19 The concepts of reducing the role and
delegitimizing nuclear weapons have specific connotations but are subsumed, I argue, within a broader
concept of devaluing. The concept of delegitimizing, for example, means to render
illegitimate or, as Gill puts it, to diminish or destroy the legitimacy, prestige or
authority of an entrenched idea or object.20 This has been routinely
associated with two dynamics: a process of formally rendering illegal the possession and/or use
of nuclear weapons in international law; and the informal stigmatization of nuclear
use captured by the notion of a nuclear taboo.21 Devaluing and delegitimizing
are not synonymous. Nuclear weapons could be stripped of much of their value
but still be considered legitimate weapons to possess and use in extremis. Likewise,
delegitimizing nuclear weapons does not mean stripping nuclear weapons
of all value if possessor states still imbue considerable value irrespective of widely accepted and
codified illegitimacy. Nevertheless, a process of normative and potentially legal
delegitimation will diminish the values assigned to nuclear weapons
through explicit and widespread political and social stigmatization .22
Legitimating and delegitimating nuclear weapons will be explored in a subsequent article.23
Conceptualizing value of nuclear deterrence is a prerequisite to their
delegitimization
Ritchie 13 (Nick, Lecturer at University of York, Ph.D. from University of
Bradford, former member of Oxford Research Group specializing in nuclear
disarmament, proliferation, and arms control, "Valuing and Devaluing Nuclear
Weapons," www.contemporarysecuritypolicy.org/assets/CSP-34-1%20Ritchie
%20article.pdf, 2013, slim_)
concept of devaluing nuclear weapons has become a
Knowing Nuclear Value The
goes beyond related notions
fixture of NPT politics and discourse. It encompasses but also
of marginalizing and delegitimizing nuclear weapons. Yet the concept of devaluing has
received little analytical treatment in terms of what devaluing might actually constitute in sociopolitical
terms for the nuclear weapon states (NWS) and the political challenges involved. Conceptualizing
the value of nuclear weapons as a precursor to their devaluation in
security policies as part of a step-by-step process towards a nuclear
weapons-free world is under-studied and begs the question how do
we know nuclear value? The value of nuclear weaponry is not objective or pre-
determined. Instead, values are assigned in a particular socio-historical
context. More specifically, it is the perceived beneficial effects of possession and deployment that are
valued. Multiple effects mean that nuclear weapons are valued in multiple ways by possessor states.
Perceptions of beneficial effects are part of a societys nuclear weapons discourse that tells us what
nuclear weapons are and what they can do across a range of social and political domains. Nuclear
discourse itself is nested in a broader strategic culture . Kartchner defines
strategic culture as a set of shared beliefs, assumptions, and modes of
behaviour, derived from common experiences and accepted
narratives (both oral and written), that shape collective identity and
relationships to other groups, and which determine appropriate ends and means for
achieving security objectives.33 Discourse, here, is a socially constructed and historically
contingent system of signification, or code of intelligibility, that reflects, enacts, and reifies relations
of power by reproducing accepted ways of being and acting in the world and silencing others.34 It is
discourses that shape our understandings of appropriate nuclear policy practice and processes of
Foucaults conception of
valuing/devaluing nuclear weapons.35 This brings us closer to
discourse not simply as synonymous with language but as a form of discipline
whereby formal and informal discursive practices define the
boundaries of a discourse and determine what can be done and said, and how. Discourses
and discursive practices draw authority by reference to a set of truths that shape how external actors,
events, and desired outcomes are defined and interpreted, and what information or knowledge is
considered real, legitimate, and therefore relevant.36 Power and knowledge directly imply one another, in
our case the power to define, legitimize, and institutionalize what constitute normal understandings about
strategic culture
nuclear weapons and nuclear practice. As Edward Lock argues: ...
represents a political web of interpretation in which strategic
practices gain meaning. This web shapes the military practices of
states by rendering certain strategic practices as possible and
legitimate while others remain either impossible or illegitimate.37 Foucault labelled this a hegemonic
regime of truth and from a contingent and situated regime of nuclear truth emanates what we can label a
we can know
regime of value in which nuclear weapons are discursively embedded. In sum,
the value of nuclear weapons through analysis of nuclear discourse
embedded in a broader strategic culture that assigns beneficial effects to nuclear
weapons that constitute a socially and historically situated regime of nuclear truth.38
2ac disease
Disease rhetoric is a vital vector for the creation of hopeful futures

Gomel 2k (Elana Gomel, English department head at Tel Aviv University,
Winter 2000, published in Twentieth Century Literature Volume 46,
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0403/is_4_46/ai_75141042)//roetli
n
Instead of delivering the climactic moment of the Last Judgment, pestilence
lingers on, generating a limbo of common suffering in which a tenuous and
moribund but all-embracing body politic springs into being. The end is indefinitely
postponed and the disease becomes a metaphor for the process of living.
finality of mortality clashes with the duration of morbidity. Pestilence
The
unlike
is poised on the cusp between divine punishment and manmade disaster. On the one hand,
nuclear war or ecological catastrophe, pandemic has a venerable
historical pedigree that leads back from current bestsellers such as Pierre Quellette's The Third
Pandemic (1996) to the medieval horrors of the Black Death and indeed to the Book of Revelation itself. On
the other hand, disease is one of the central tropes of biopolitics, shaping much of the twentieth-century
discourse of power, domination, and the body.
2ac terrorism reps
The alts language to describe terror causes more terrorism

Murdock 5 [Deroy, nationally syndicated columnist for Scipps-Howard
News, Terrorism and the English Language, 3-9,
http://www.heritage.org/research/homelanddefense/hl867.cfm]
within a week, some incredibly detached language emerged to describe what
Yet
happened on 9/11. Consider this message that Verizon left in my voice mail box on September 19:
"During this time of crisis, we are asking all customers to review and delete all current and saved
messages that are not essential," a nameless female announcer stated. "This request is necessary due to
extensive damage that was recently sustained in the World Trade Center district." Time of crisis? Did a
tidal wave cause the "recently sustained" wreckage in Manhattan? Similarly, a company called Tullet &
The use of the
Tokyo Liberty referred to "the disaster that has hit New York and Washington."
passive voice in these and similar instances suggested that the World Trade
Center and Pentagon were smashed by unguided, perhaps natural, forces. Kinko's
was even more elliptical. Shortly after the massacre, the photocopying company placed in its stores some
very colorful posters with the Stars and Stripes superimposed upon an outline of the lower 48 states. The
graphic also included this regrettable caption: "The Kinko's family extends our condolences and
sympathies to all Americans who have been affected by the circumstances in New York City, Washington,
D.C., and Pennsylvania." Circumstances? That word describes an electrical blackout, not terrorist
bloodshed. Likewise, I kept hearing that people "died" in the Twin Towers or at the Pentagon. No, people
"die" in hospitals, often surrounded by their loved ones while doctors and nurses offer aid and comfort. The
innocent people at the World Trade Center, the Defense Department, and that field in Shanksville,
Pennsylvania, were killed in a carefully choreographed act of mass murder. A Terrorist By Any Other Name
The more this passive, weak, euphemistic language appeared as the war on terrorism
began, the more I thought it was vital to pay close attention to the words, symbols,
and images that govern this new and urgent conflict. The civilized world
today faces the most anti-Semitic enemy since Adolf Hitler and Josef Goebbels
committed suicide in Berlin nearly 60 years ago. Militant Islam is the most bloodthirsty
ideology since the Khmer Rouge eliminated one-third of Cambodia's people.
The big difference, of course, is that Pol Pot had the good manners to keep his killing fields within his own
borders, as awful as that was. Islamo-fascism is a worldwide phenomenon that already has touched this
country and many of our allies. Yet Muslim extremists rarely have armies we can see, fighter jets we can
knock from the sky, or an easily identifiable headquarters, such as the Reichs Chancellery of the 1940s or
the Kremlin of the Cold War. While basketball players and their fans battle each other on TV, actresses
suffer wardrobe malfunctions, and rap singers scream sweet nothings in our ears, it is very easy to
forget that Islamic extremists plot daily to end all of that and more by killing as many of us
as possible. Language can lull Americans to sleep in this new war , or it can
keep us on the offensive and our enemies off balance . Here are a few suggestions to
keep Americans alert to the dangers Islamic terrorism poses to this country: September 11 was an
attack--not just a series of coincidental strokes and heart failures that wiped out so many victims at
once. Victims of terrorism do not "die," nor are they "lost." They are killed, murdered, or
slaughtered. We should be specific about the number of people terrorists kill .
"Three thousand" killed on 9/11 sounds like an amorphous blob. The actual number--2,977--
forces us to look at these people as individuals with faces, stories, and loved
ones who miss them very much. The precise figures are: 2,749 killed at the World Trade
Center, 184 at the Pentagon, and 44 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Likewise, the Bali disco bombings killed
202 people, mainly Australians. The Madrid train bombings killed 191 men, women, and children.
Somehow, a total of 191 people killed by al-Qaeda's pals seems more ominous and concrete than a
smoothly rounded 200. Terrorists do not simply "threaten" us, nor is homeland security supposed to shield
Americans from "future attacks." All of this is true, but it is more persuasive if we acknowledge what these
people have done and hope to do once more--wipe us out. Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-WI),
chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said this on NBC Nightly News last Sunday: "We need to
tighten up our drivers' license provisions and our immigration laws so that terrorists cannot take
advantage of the present system to kill thousands of Americans again." That is a perfect sound bite. There
is no vague talk about "the terrorist threat" or "stopping further attacks." Sensenbrenner concisely
explained exactly what is at risk, and what needs to be thwarted--no more killing of Americans by the
thousands again. Quote Islamo-fascist leaders to remind people of their true intentions. President George
W. Bush, Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner, or Deroy Murdock can talk about how deadly militant
Islam is and how seriously we should take this gravely dangerous ideology. Far more persuasive, however,
is to let these extremists do the talking. However, their words are nowhere as commonly known as they
should be. For instance, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri said in their 1998 declaration of war on
the United States: "The ruling to kill all Americans and their allies--civilian and military--is an individual
duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it." The late Iranian dictator,
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, put it this way in 1980: "Our struggle is not about land or water.... It is about
bringing, by force if necessary, the whole of mankind onto the right path." Ever the comedian, he said this
in 1986: "Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be
put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no
jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in
whatever is serious." Asked what he would say to the loved ones of the 202 people killed in the October
2002 Bali nightclub bombings, Abu Bakar Bashir, leader of Indonesia's radical Jemaah Islamiyah, replied,
"My message to the families is, please convert to Islam as soon as possible." The phrase "weapons of mass
destruction" (WMD) has been pounded into meaninglessness. It has been repeated ad infinitum. Fairly or
unfairly, the absence of warehouses full of anthrax and nerve gas in Iraq has made the whole idea of
"WMD" sound synonymous with "L-I-E." America's enemies do not plot the "mass destruction" of empty
office buildings or abandoned parking structures. Conversely, they want to see packed office buildings
ablaze as their inhabitants scream for mercy. That is why I use the terms "weapons of mass death" and
"weapons of mass murder." When speaking about those who are killed by terrorists, be specific, name
them, and tell us about them. Humanize these individuals. They are more than just statistics or stick
figures. I have written 18 articles and produced a Web page, HUSSEINandTERROR.com, to demonstrate
that Saddam Hussein did have ties to terrorism. (By the way, I call him "Saddam Hussein" or "Hussein." I
never call him "Saddam" any more than I call Joseph Stalin "Joseph" or Adolf Hitler "Adolf." "Saddam" has a
cute, one-name ring to it, like Cher, Gallagher, Liberace, or Sting. Saddam Hussein does not deserve such
a term of endearment.) To show that Saddam Hussein's support of terrorism cost American lives, I remind
people about the aid and comfort he gave to terrorism master Abu Nidal. Among Abu Nidal's victims in the
1985 bombing of Rome's airport was John Buonocore, a 20-year-old exchange student from Delaware.
Palestinian terrorists fatally shot Buonocore in the back as he checked in for his flight. He was heading
home after Christmas to celebrate his father's 50th birthday. In another example, those killed by
Palestinian homicide bombers subsidized by Saddam Hussein were not all Israeli, which would have been
unacceptable enough. Among the 12 or more Americans killed by those Baathist-funded murderers was
Abigail Litle, the 14-year-old daughter of a Baptist minister. She was blown away aboard a bus in Haifa on
March 5, 2003. Her killer's family got a check for $25,000 courtesy of Saddam Hussein as a bonus for their
Americans must
son's "martyrdom." Is all of this designed to press emotional buttons? You bet it is.
remain committed--intellectually and emotionally--to this struggle. There are many ways to
engage the American people. No one should hesitate to remind Americans that
terrorism kills our countrymen--at home and abroad--and that those whom militant Islam
demolishes include promising young people with bright futures, big smiles, and,
now, six feet of soil between them and their dreams. Finally, who are we fighting?
Militants? Martyrs? Insurgents? Melinda Bowman of Brief Hill, Pennsylvania, wrote this in a November 24
letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal: "And, by the way, what is all this ìnsurgent' nonsense? These
people kidnap, behead, dismember and disembowel. They are terrorists." Nicely and accurately put,
Ms. Bowman. Is this a war on terror, per se? A war on terrorism? Or is it really a war on Islamo-fascism? It is
really the latter, and we should say so. Jim Guirard runs the TrueSpeak Institute in Washington, D.C. He has
thought long and hard about terrorism and the English language. He informed me Tuesday--to my horror--
that three years into the war on terrorism, the State Department and the CIA have yet to produce a
glossary of the Arabic-language words that Middle Eastern terrorists use, as well as the antonyms for those
words. Such a "Thesaurus of Terrorism" would help us linguistically to turn the war on terrorism upside
down. Why, for instance, do we inadvertently praise our enemies by agreeing that they fight a jihad or
"holy war?" Why not correctly describe them as soldiers in a hirabah or "unholy war?" A Weapon at the
ReadyIn closing, I would say that America and the rest of civilization can and must win this new twilight
struggle against these bloodthirsty cavemen. We can and we will crush them through espionage, high-tech
force, statecraft, and public diplomacy overseas. Here at home, we can and will vanquish
them through eternal vigilance. One of our chief weapons should be
something readily available to each and every one of us--the English
language.
The rhetoric of terrorism creates less violence long term

Chowdhury and Krebs 10 (Arjun Chowdhury, Professor of IR at The
University of British Columbia, Ph.D. Minnesota. His ongoing research focuses
on autocratic survival strategies, the effects of counterinsurgency campaigns,
and the transition from the imperial to the international system. and Ronald
R. Kerbs, Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of
Minnesota. Ph.D., Columbia University. January 2010 Talking about terror:
Counterterrorist campaigns and the logic of representations European
Journal of International Relations 16.125// JG)
The success of counterterrorist efforts, therefore, does not hinge only on military
tactics, operations, and strategy. Also important, if not equally important, is the states
rhetoric. Coercion can temporarily suppress resistance, and co-optation can temporarily sap protest.
Defeating terrorist insurgency in the long run, however, requires both undermining the
legitimacy of political violence and opening space for the pursuit of a
less violent, but still legitimate, communal politics. These are fundamentally rhetorical
projects. An enduring settlement depends on either direct dialogue between the state and the aggrieved
group or the emergence of a moderate politics that mediates between the two, and both paths demand
a sustained rhetorical effort to transform the game of politics. Paul Pillar (2001: 18) nicely characterizes
counterterrorism as an effort to civilize the manner in which any
political contest is waged. Force alone can hardly civilize politics. Remolding the
culture of contention requires rhetorical intervention. To the extent
that the insurgents violence is redirected into non-violent
contestation, and to the extent that this transformation can be attributed to the states efforts,
counterterrorism has succeeded.
Terror representations are key to counterterrorism

legitimation requirements are perhaps particularly pressing in the
These
arenas of terrorism and counterterrorism, which are fundamentally
communicative and symbolic enterprises (Hoffman, 2006; Kydd and Walter, 2006).
Terrorism is open-air theater, seeking to attract large audiences
through spectacular displays (Jenkins, 1975: 16). Counterterrorism does not always need
equally large audiences, and the spectacular is often ineffective (Bueno de Mesquita, 2007). But
counterterrorism is equally theater. If terrorists avidly seek
publicity for their causes and adopt methods designed to signal
their resolve, so too must the terror-fighting state be centra lly
concerned with what messages it sends to what audiences. Thomas
Schelling (1966: 142) observed that force could be an expressive bit of repartee [which] took mainly
the form of deeds, not words. But deeds accompanied by words are that much more expressive, and
there is a good reason that leaders devote effort to molding that interpretive context.
The representational threat of terrorism is real and needs an equal

response

Attacks on civilians are often weighted with symbolism : the World
Trade Center was targeted on 11 September 2001 precisely because it
symbolized Americas cultural and economic power. Terrorists are
simultaneously highly strategic and culturally sensitive. This is not
accidental: terrorists most effectively further their ends when they are attuned to the power of symbols.
The literature, however, has less often recognized that, in this theater, there is a dialogue taking place
on-stage, between terrorist and counterterrorist players. The latter may have superior material resources
at their disposal, but they cannot Complementing military,
stand outside culture.
economic, and political measures, state leaders wage a rhetorical
campaign that not only legitimates these approaches, but has a
logic and effect of its own. This article has focused on ethnonational insurgency, but its
insights travel to the dominant concern of recent years transnational Islamist terrorism. The basic
purpose of counterterrorism is shared across national and transnational contexts: to help
nurture an environment in which moderate co-ethnics (or Muslims), often

themselves voicing nationalist (or Islamist) goals, can offer a credible alternative to
extremists, leading to the latters eventual delegitimation (Krebs, 2008).
This articles analytical framework regarding the representational politics of counterterrorism also
remains relevant to transnational terrorists, whatever their religious, ideological, or communal coloration.
The two questions that structure Table 1 Are the violent actors represented as having a political
agenda? Are they represented as potentially legitimate interlocutors? can be answered in either the
affirmative or the negative, even if the terrorists are not national citizens and are therefore
unquestionably Other. While this is obviously true of the first question, since Others often pursue
recognizably political agendas in international politics, it may not be as self-evident of the second, as one
might assume that clearly-drawn lines between Self and Other prevent the former from offering even the
prospect of legitimacy to the latter. We do not see processes of identity construction as establishing
impermeable boundaries, even in the international arena. The history of foreign relations and we here
cast our subject intentionally as foreign relations is marked by continual bargaining with Others.
Implicit in such negotiations, at least when they are conducted
publicly and must be legitimated, is that the parties, notwithstanding their abiding
differences, share enough to make conversation possible. Identity is nested, and there is
always a conceivable basis for the discovery of sufficient higher-
order commonality. In other words, Self and Other are always potentially
liminal, and thus even foreign terrorists may be represented as
legitimate interlocutors.
Responding to threats is necessary the alternative is isolationist

pacifism
Schweller 4 Randall, Professor of Political Science @ The OSU,

Unanswered threats: political constraints on the balance of power, Google
Book
Balancing behavior requires the existence of a strong consensus among elites that an external threat
exists and must be checked by either arms or allies or both. As the proximate causal variable in the
model, elite consensus is the most necessary of necessary causes of balancing behavior. Thus, when
there is no elite consensus, the prediction is either unbalancing or some other nonbalancing policy
option. Developing such a consensus is difficult, however, because balancing, unlike expansion, is not
a behavior motivated by the search for gains and profit. It is instead a strategy that entails
significant costs in human and material resources that could be directed toward
domestic programs and investment rather than national defense. In addition, when
alliances are formed, the state must sacrifice some measure of its autonomy in foreign
and military policy to its allies. In the absence of a clear majority of elites in favor of a
balancing strategy, therefore, an alternative policy, and not necessarily a coherent one, will
prevail. This is because a weak grand strategy can be supported for many different
reasons (e.g., pacifism, isolationism, pro-enemy sympathies, collective security, a belief in
conciliation, etc.). Consequently, appeasement and other forms of underbalancing will tend
to triumph in the absence of a determined and broad political consensus to
balance simply because these policies represent the path of least domestic resistance
and can appeal to a broad range of interests along the political spectrum . Thus,
underreacting to threats, unlike an effective balancing strategy, does not require overwhelming,
united, and coherent support from elites and masses; it is a default strategy.
2ac terrorism true
Terrorism studies are epistemologically and methodologically valid---

our authors are self-reflexive
Boyle 8, School of International Relations, University of St. Andrews, and

John Horgan, International Center for the Study of Terrorism, Department of
Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, April 2008, A Case Against
Critical Terrorism Studies, Critical Studies On Terrorism, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 51-
64
Jackson (2007c) calls for the development of an explicitly CTS on the basis of what he argues preceded it, dubbed
Orthodox Terrorism Studies. The latter, he suggests, is characterized by: (1) its poor methods and theories, (2) its state
centricity, (3) its problemsolving orientation, and (4) its institutional and intellectual links to state security projects.
Jackson argues that the major defining characteristic of CTS, on the other hand, should be a skeptical attitude towards
accepted terrorism knowledge. An implicit presumption from this is that terrorism
scholars have laboured for all of these years without being aware that their
area of study has an implicit bias, as well as definitional and methodological
problems. In fact, terrorism scholars are not only well aware of these problems,
but also have provided their own searching critiques of the field at various points during the last
few decades (e.g. Silke 1996, Crenshaw 1998, Gordon 1999, Horgan 2005, esp. ch. 2, Understanding Terrorism). Some
of those scholars most associated with the critique of empiricism implied in Orthodox Terrorism Studies have
also engaged in deeply critical examinations of the nature of sources,
methods, and data in the study of terrorism. For example, Jackson (2007a) regularly cites the
handbook produced by Schmid and Jongman (1988) to support his claims that theoretical progress has been
limited. But this fact was well recognized by the authors; indeed, in the introduction of the second edition they point
out that they have not revised their chapter on theories of terrorism from the first edition, because the failure to
address persistent conceptual and data problems has undermined progress in the field. The point of their
handbook was to sharpen and make more comprehensive the result of research on terrorism, not to glide over its
methodological and definitional failings (Schmid and Jongman 1988, p. xiv). Similarly, Silkes (2004) volume on
the state of the field of terrorism research performed a similar function ,
highlighting the shortcomings of the field, in particular the lack of rigorous primary data collection. A non-
reflective community of scholars does not produce such scathing indictments
of its own work.
Impact D
2ac apoc rhetoric
Apoc rhetoric is good

Perhaps, then,
degree or another,


2ac anxiety
Anxiety good
McManus 11, Lecturer in Political Theory at Queens University, "Hope,

Fear, and the Politics of Affective Agency", Volume 14, Issue 4,
muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/v014/14.4.mcmanus.html
fear is a predominant affective formation in the political
Finally, if
present, how can hope and fear be oriented together? Utopian-affect does not efface fear, but
instead, inflects fear differently than hitherto. Restructuring or depathologizing fear-affects involves work on the
sensory organization of all the different kinds of matter that affect agential capacity: affect circulates through various encounters of worldly
matter and stuff through which subject finds itself manifest within. One way of restructuring fear-affect, then, is by intervening in the feedback
loops through which fear is stabilized. This might involve turning the technologies that are central to the production of fear against
themselves: when protesters use surveillance technologies against police, for instance, the feedback loops that those technologies sustain are
Fear need
interrupted, and the hegemonies they secure are disrupted, rendered capricious, variable, and open to intervention.
not be ubiquitous, and visceral experimentation with our everyday

sensorium can have effects upon the 'tone' of the age. Negri is, after all, right:
hope is an 'an antidote to ... fear,' (Brown et al, 2002: 200); but only insofar as the antidote (hope) is made
out of the same matter as the poison (fear). This illustrates the larger point that the future needs to be made
out of matter that is available in the present, out of the same crises, but with different
trajectories: it is from the matter of this world that the future is made. Utopian-affect , then, is made out of
both hope and fear , and while fear might be restructured, it cannot
be effaced, for the fear of utopian-affect also inheres in the
encounter with the world itself, in the struggle, and in the
uncertainty of the emergent. As Duggan puts it, 'there is fear attached to hope
-- hope understood as a risky reaching out for something else that
will fail,' (Duggan and Muoz, 2009: 279). Fear and anxiety, rather than opposing
utopian hope, are vital, necessary to its critical agency, as that
agency works through immanent historical processes that remain
open and undetermined .
No impact to anxietyespecially since our impacts are coupled with

a preferable decisionthey have anxiety about anxiety
Shepard 7 (Anxiety - the ultimate survival tool,

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2050501/Anxiety-The-Ultimate-Survival-Skill)
Anxiety, The Ultimate Survival Skill As much pain and suffering that highly
sensitive people go through because of our worry and anxiety habits, these
are traits that have ensured humanity's survival since time immemorial. What do I mean? First of all you
have to understand that anxiety is a thought process. It is not a mental disease. When you are anxious, what are
you thinking about? What's great? What's wonderful? How everything is going to turn out better than you can possibly imagine? No! You are imagining the worst case
scenario. Anxiety is thinking about what you do not want to have happen . Think about it! Let's
float back in time for a moment to One Gazillion B.C. You are hanging out with your hunter gatherer buddies and it's summer time...There's plenty to eat and it's warm. All
of a sudden you have an anxious thought. You think of something unpleasant about the future. You suddenly think of the coming... winter! You imagine digging through
snow drifts scavenging for whatever scraps of food you can find. You imagine starving. You imagine your children, hungry, cold, sick. That's anxiety. Thinking about what
you do not want to have happen. What it's supposed to do is trigger a resourceful response . In this
case, you come up with a brilliant idea. In order to avoid starvation in the coming winter you start drying food and storing it in underground containers. Thinking about the
cold, you come up with the idea that you can make warm clothing. Come Fall you gladly trade that little summer loin cloth in for a nice woolly mammoth coat. Thus the
Your ability to think ahead and visualize bad
first root cellar is born and the fur coat is invented, because of anxiety.
things happening enables you to plan ahead and take decisive action to
create a different outcome. This planning for the winter results in your family and tribe surviving!
Your children and their children pass along this anxiety gene. The "lug-heads"
who don't have this ability perish. Survival is good , isn't it? So those who were able
to foresee the future and imagine the worst were able to better plan and as a
result create a better future. Now. Fast forward to today. I would be willing to bet that you've been using this wonderful
imagination of yours to imagine the worst. The added factor here is that your unconscious mind does not know the difference between what is real and what is imagined,
The
so when you imagine the worst, your body reacts as if that bad thing is really happening. That releases all sorts of stress hormones and chemicals in your body.
point is to stop beating yourself up for having anxiety. Anxiety is merely an

excellent survival tool that's been pushed beyond its original purpose. You
can reclaim it's usefulness by doing what ancient people did. Become aware
of a possible negative outcome in the future and then take positive, decisive
action to make sure something better happens. If it's something beyond
your control, practice imagining it working out positively and see how
that feels in your body. For example: if you are worried about your kids driving home from college in a snow storm imagine them arriving safely
and sitting in front of the fire sipping hot cocoa.
Paranoia is inevitable and productive

Smith 13 [Daniel, Nothing to Do but Embrace the Dread, 7/13/13, New
York Times, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/13/nothing-to-do-
but-embrace-the-dread/?ref=opinion]
Toss aside anxiety and you will lose excitement, motivation, vigilance. Alice
was 42, and her life had been crippled by a series of mysterious ailments: nausea, vertigo, cramps,
spasms, fainting spells, fleeting paralyses. For years at a time she was a nervous invalid, staggering, as
she put it, under a monstrous mass of subjective sensations. After more than two decades of this vague
but unremitting suffering, the solidity of the lump in her breast and the finality of her prognosis filled Alice
with enormous relief. No one would choose, she wrote, such an ugly and gruesome method of
progression down the dark Valley of the Shadow of Death but we shall gird up our loins and the blessed
peace of the end will have no shadow cast upon it. The blessed peace of the end. For nearly 20 years now
anxiety has been a powerful, often determining force in my own life, and the longer I live with the
experience, the more this sadly exultant phrase strikes me as emblematic of one of the great dangers of
the anxious life. I dont mean the danger of wishing oneself dead, although at anxietys heights suicide
can, indeed, have a terrible appeal. I mean the more subtle and insidious danger of wishing anxiety dead. I
mean the hunger, which invariably comes over the anxiety sufferer, for a definitive conclusion to the
sensation: a bright line, a capping off, a total defusing of the anxious charge. I mean the desperate allure
of the endpoint. In a way, the desire to be rid of anxiety is neither unique nor difficult
to understand. Like any other affliction, psychiatric or strictly physical, anxiety hurts. It is
uncomfortable. If you suffer from emphysema, you will wish to be able to breathe unimpeded. If you suffer
from eczema, you will wish for clear skin. And if you suffer from anxiety, you will wish for a mind that does
not spin every slightest situation into catastrophe a mind that approaches everyday life with poise,
reason and equanimity. Why wouldnt you want such a thing? Why shouldnt a persons ideal be the very
absence or opposite of that which torments him? Its only natural. With anxiety, however, there are two
The first is that anxiety is not the kind of affliction that can
glitches to this desire.
be eradicated. This is because anxiety is not merely or essentially psychiatric.
Even when it swells to the level of a disorder, it remains first and foremost an
emotion, universally felt and necessary for survival , not to mention for a
full experience of human life. Toss aside the bath water of anxiety and you will
also be tossing aside excitement, motivation, vigilance, ambition, exuberance
and inspiration, to name just several of the inevitable sacrifices. Get rid of
anxiety? Even if you could and you cant why would you want to? The
second glitch is more complex and has to do with the nature of anxiety itself,
which for all its attendant discomforts and daily horrors has at its heart a vital
truth, even a transcendent wisdom. This truth which, confusingly enough, doubles as
the source of anxietys pain is of the essential uncertainty and perilousness of human life. Its
fragility and evanescence. Anxiety emphasizes these aspects of existence
with an almost evangelical fervor. It hisses them, hour by hour, minute by
minute, into the sufferers ear. Anything can happen at any time, anxiety
says. There is no sure thing. Everything you hold dear is at risk, everything
is vulnerable. It can all slip through your fingers . And of course this is right. It
is undeniably right, as every practical philosophy from Buddhism to
existentialism acknowledges. That is why anxiety continues for many to carry a frisson of
superiority. Last year I published a book about my difficulties with acute anxiety, and it is the rare public
appearance in which someone does not ask me, Do you think there is a relationship between anxiety and
intelligence? I always answer, jokingly, I think there is a relationship between anxiety and genius! In
fact, I do not think there is a relationship between anxiety and intelligence. Anxiety, like the most effective
parasite, is indiscriminate in its choice of host. It plagues the ignorant and dimwitted as well as the brilliant
and clever. But its message, of contingency, of risk, of skepticism, of flux: that is never dumb. Anxietys
message can never be waved away. And yet that waving away is precisely what the anxiety sufferer
is always trying to do to anxietys message. Tortured as he is by the truth of uncertainty, he develops an
adversarial relationship to that truth. He loathes it. He fights it. He refuses it. He wants it dead, silent,
there is no surer way to
gone. He wants it to end. This is where the danger creeps in, for
compound anxietys power than to reject it outright to yearn, as Alice James did,
for something concrete to counter anxietys relentless ambiguity. Ive gone this way. Ive gone this way for
years at a time, hoping beyond reason for some panacea the right job, the right partner, the right city,
can
the right therapist, the right home, the right friend to snap my constitution into stable order. And I
tell you that the search is worse than useless. Like the ropes that tighten
around your wrists the more you struggle, the discomfort and confusion of
anxiety deepen the more you try to elude them. The harder you fight, the
farther you fall. Not even modern pharmacology, in my experience, has the power to arrest this
pattern. Ive taken the drugs and still take them. They are useful. They have shaved the peaks off my
anxiety or, to flip the metaphor, they have served as a net in anxietys well, protecting me from
plummeting into the full depths. They have turned crippling anxiety into chronic anxiety. Beyond that, they
have effected no miracles. Through a decade of dutiful pill-swallowing, my anxiety has survived and
sometimes flourished, tailing me through periods of good fortune and bad, weighting my life, complicating
and even damaging the relationships with the people I love, and most profoundly, my relationship with life
itself. By now I have met and corresponded with hundreds of people who struggle with anxiety enough
to conclude that my own experience, while maybe not the rule, is certainly representative. Enough to
know, also, the terrible despair that accompanies the condition. Tortured by an uncertainty that
manufactures its own nourishing desperation, what is the anxiety sufferer to do? Is there any way out? Or
is the sufferer fated, like Alice James, to find relief only in the blessed peace of the end? I have also lived
The value and necessity of
with anxiety long enough to conclude that James had a point.
anxiety mean that it will persist until the last breath . It is impossible to
extinguish , no matter the level at which it affects you. If you are one of
those unlucky souls whom anxiety affects profoundly, however, you might just be able to find relief, and
even redemption, in this very impossibility. For what is the message that everything is fluid but its own
solid fact? What is the relentlessness of uncertainty but something about which you can always be certain?
And what other choice do you have? The wisdom is already ringing in your ears. You might as well listen.
You might as well submit. It wont get you out, but it will without a doubt get you through.
2ac biopower
No impact
Short 5 [Jonathan, Ph.D. candidate in the Graduate Programme in Social &

Political Thought, York University, Life and Law: Agamben and Foucault on
Governmentality and Sovereignty, Journal for the Arts, Sciences and
Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1]
Adding to the dangerousness of this logic of control, however, is that while there is a crisis of undecidability
in the domain of life, it corresponds to a similar crisis at the level of law and the national state. It should be
noted here that despite the new forms of biopolitical control in operation
today, Rose believes that bio-politics has become generally less dangerous in recent times
than even in the early part of the last century. At that time, bio-
politics was linked to the project of the expanding national state in his
opinion. In disciplinary-pastoral society, bio-politics involved a process of social
selection of those characteristics thought useful to the nationalist
project. Hence, according to Rose, "once each life has a value which may be calculated, and some lives
have less value than others, such a politics has the obligation to exercise this judgement in the name of
the race or the nation" (2001: 3). Disciplinary-pastoral biopolitics sets itself the task of eliminating
"differences coded as defects", and in pursuit of this goal the most horrible programs of eugenics, forced
sterilization, and outright extermination, were enacted (ibid.: 3). If Rose is more optimistic about bio-
politics in 'advanced liberal' societies, it is because this notion of 'national fitness', in
terms of bio- political competition among nation-states, has
suffered a precipitous decline thanks in large part to a crisis of the perceived
unity of the national state as a viable political project (ibid.: 5). To quote Rose once again, "the
idea of 'society' as a single, if heterogeneous, domain with a national culture, a national population, a
national destiny, co-extensive with a national territory and the powers of a national political government"
no longer serves as premises of state policy (ibid.: 5). Drawing on a sequential reading of Foucault's theory
the territorial state, the
of the governmentalization of the state here, Rose claims that
primary institution of enclosure, has become subject to
fragmentation along a number of lines. National culture has given
way to cultural pluralism; national identity has been overshadowed
by a diverse cluster of identifications, many of them transcending the national
territory on which they take place, while the same pluralization has affected the once singular conception
bio-political programmes
of community (ibid.: 5). Under these conditions, Rose argues, the
of the molar enclosure known as the nation-state have fallen into
disrepute and have been all but abandoned.
2ac endless war
No endless warfare
Gray 7 [Colin, Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies and Professor of
International Relations and Strategic Studies at the University of Reading,
graduate of the Universities of Manchester and Oxford, Founder and Senior
Associate to the National Institute for Public Policy, formerly with the
International Institute for Strategic Studies and the Hudson Institute, July
2007, The Implications of Preemptive and Preventive War Doctrines: A
Reconsideration, http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/ssi10561/ssi10561.pdf]
7. A policy that favors preventive warfare expresses a futile quest for absolute security. It could do so. Most
In the hands of a paranoid or
controversial policies contain within them the possibility of misuse.
boundlessly ambitious political leader, prevention could be a policy for endless
warfare. However, the American political system, with its checks and
balances, was designed explicitly for the purpose of constraining the
executive from excessive folly. Both the Vietnam and the contemporary Iraqi
experiences reveal clearly that although the conduct of war is an executive prerogative,
in practice that authority is disciplined by public attitudes. Clausewitz made this point superbly
with his designation of the passion, the sentiments, of the people as a vital component of his trinitarian
theory of war. 51 It is true to claim that power can be, and indeed is often, abused, both personally and
nationally. It is possible that a state could acquire a taste for the apparent swift decisiveness of preventive
warfare and overuse the option. One might argue that the easy success achieved against Taliban
Afghanistan in 2001, provided fuel for the urge to seek a similarly rapid success against Saddam Husseins
Iraq. In other words, the delights of military success can be habit forming. On balance, claim seven is not
persuasive, though it certainly contains a germ of truth. A country with unmatched wealth and power,
unused to physical insecurity at homenotwithstanding 42 years of nuclear danger, and a high level of
we ought
gun crimeis vulnerable to demands for policies that supposedly can restore security. But
not to endorse the argument that the United States should eschew the preventive
war option because it could lead to a futile, endless search for absolute
security. One might as well argue that the United States should adopt a defense policy and
develop capabilities shaped strictly for homeland security approached in a narrowly geographical
Since a president might misuse a military instrument that had a global
sense.
reach, why not deny the White House even the possibility of such misuse? In
other words, constrain policy ends by limiting policys military means. This
argument has circulated for many decades and, it must be admitted, it does have a certain elementary
the claim that a policy which includes
logic. It is the opinion of this enquiry, however, that
the preventive option might lead to a search for total security is not at all
convincing. Of course, folly in high places is always possible, which is one of the many reasons why
popular democracy is the superior form of government. It would be absurd to permit the fear
of a futile and dangerous quest for absolute security to preclude prevention
as a policy option. Despite its absurdity, this rhetorical charge against
prevention is a stock favorite among preventions critics. It should be
recognized and dismissed for what it is, a debating point with little pragmatic
merit. And strategy, though not always policy, must be nothing if not pragmatic.
1ar endless war
Democracy checks
OKane 97 Prof Comparative Political Theory, U Keele (Rosemary, Modernity, the Holocaust and politics, Economy and Society
26:1, p 58-9)
Modern bureaucracy is not 'intrinsically capable of genocidal action' (Bauman 1989: 106). Centralized state
coercion has no natural move to terror. In the explanation of modern genocides it is chosen policies which play the greatest part, whether in
effecting bureaucratic secrecy, organizing forced labour, implementing a system of terror, harnessing science and technology or introducing
Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR have shown, furthermore, those chosen
extermination policies, as means and as ends. As
genocidal government turned away from

policies of modernity and not towards . The choosing of
policies, however, is not independent of circumstances. An analysis of the history of each case plays an important part in explaining where and
how genocidal governments come to power and analysis of political institutions and structures also helps towards an understanding of the
political factors which stand in the way of

factors which act as obstacles to modern genocide. But it is not just
another Holocaust in modern society. Modern societies have not only pluralist democratic political
systems but also economic pluralism where workers are free to change jobs and bargain wages and where independent firms, each with
their own independent bureaucracies, exist in competition with state-controlled enterprises. In modern societies this economic pluralism both
promotes and is served by the open scientific method. By ignoring competition and the capacity for people to move between organizations
whether economic, political, scientific or social, Bauman overlooks crucial but also very 'ordinary and common' attributes of truly modern
societies. It is these very ordinary and common attributes of modernity which stand in the way of modern genocides.
The impact is the exception not the rule

Abrahamsen 5 (Rita, Department of International Politics, University of Wales, Blair's Africa: The
Politics of Securitization and Fear, Alternatives 30:1)
The war on Iraq can be seen to demonstrate the willingness of the British government to engage in illiberal acts to defend
securitization
the liberal values of the "international community," but it is important to note that the process of
does not automatically dictate such spectacular responses. As argued above, the
process of securitization is gradual and incremental, and an issue can move
along a continuum of risk/fear without ever reaching the stage of "existential
threat" where it merits "emergency action" (as with Iraq ). Instead, most security
politics is concerned with the more mundane everyday management and
containment of risk, and the securitization of Africa is thus entirely
compatible with the feeble response to the brutal and prolonged conflict in the DRC or the Sudan. Rather
than spectacular emergency politics or military action, securitization is more
likely to give rise to policies of containment or policing.
And be rational, just because we might justify genocide doesnt

mean we guarantee it
Dunn 6 PoliSci Prof at Hobart & William Smith Colleges (Kevin,
www.asu.edu/clas/polisci/cqrm/APSA2006/Dunn_Historical_Representations.pdf)
Representations do not cause policies , such as intervention, nor do they explain choices,
such as whether to intervene at one time rather than another. This example underscores the point that
structures of knowledgeestablish preconditions and parameters for the possibility of
action, rather than explaining why certain choices are made. For example, it helps a researcher
understand the range of options imaginable to President John F. Kennedy during the
Cuban Missile Crisis, but it does not explain why he made specific decisions
(Weldes 1999). To examine individual decision making, one would need to employ other methods.
No risk of lash-out institutional safeguards check
Buchanan 7, Professor of Philosophy and Public Policy at Duke, 2007

(Preemption: military action and moral justification, pg. 128)
the higher the stakes in
The intuitively plausible idea behind the 'irresponsible act' argument is that, other things being equal,
acting and in particular the greater the moral risk, the higher are
the epistemic requirements for justified action. The decision to go to
war is generally a high stakes decision par excellence and the moral risks are especially great, for two reasons. First, unless
one is justified in going to war, one's deliberate killing of enemy combatants will he murder, indeed mass murder. Secondly, at least in large-scale modem war, it is a
virtual certainty that one will kill innocent people even if one is justified in going to war and conducts the war in such a way as to try to minimize harm to innocents. Given
these grave moral risks of going to war, quite apart from often substantial prudential concerns, some types of justifications for going to war may simply be too subject to
abuse and error to make it justifiable to invoke them. The 'irresponsible act' objection is not a consequentialist objection in any interesting sense. It does not depend upon
the assumption that every particular act of going to war preventively has unacceptably bad consequences (whether in itself or by virtue of contributing lo the general
acceptance of a principle allowing preventive war); nor does it assume that it is always wrong lo rely on a justification which, if generally accepted, would produce
unacceptable consequences. Instead, the "irresponsible act' objection is more accurately described as an agent-centered argument and more particularly an argument
from moral epistemic responsibility. The 'irresponsible act' objection to preventive war is
highly plausible if but only ifone assumes that the agents who
would invoke the preventive-war justification are, as it were, on
their own in making the decision to go to war preventively. In other words, the objection is incomplete unless the context of decision-making is further
specified. Whether the special risks of relying on the preventive-war justification are unacceptably high will depend, inter alia, upon whether the
decision-making process includes effective provisions for redu cing

those special risks. Because the special risks are at least in significant part epistemicdue to the inherently speculative character of the
preventive war-justificationthe epistemic context of the decision is crucial. Because institutions can improve the
epistemic performance of agents, it is critical to know what the institutional context of the preventive-war decision is,
before we can regard the 'irresponsible agent' objection as conclusive. Like the 'bad practice' argument, this second objection to preventive war is inconclusive because it
well-designed institutions for decision-making

does not consider and rule outthe possibility that
could address the problems that would otherwise make it

irresponsible for a leader to invoke the preventive-war justification.
2ac liberalism
Group their kritiks of liberal humanismyou should embrace a

radical liberalismliberal ideals are not monolithic, but instead
leave room for inclusionary and radical projects
Mills 12 [2012, Charles W. Mills is John Evans Professor of Moral and

Intellectual Philosophy, Occupy Liberalism! Or, Ten Reasons Why Liberalism
Cannot Be Retrieved for Radicalism (And Why Theyre All Wrong), Radical
Philosophy Review, Volume 15 number 2 (2012): 305323]
Here is a characterization of liberalism from a very respectable source, the British political theorist, John
Gray: Common to all variants of the liberal tradition is a definite
conception, distinctively modern in character, of man and society.... It is individualist, in
that it asserts the moral primacy of the person against the claims of
any social collectivity; egalitarian, inasmuch as it confers on all men
the same moral status and denies the relevance to legal or political
order of differences in moral worth among human beings;
universalist, affirming the moral unity of the human species and
according a secondary importance to specific historic associations
and cultural forms; and meliorist in its affirmation of the corrigibility
and improvability of all social institutions and political
arrangements. It is this conception of man and society which gives
liberalism a definite identity which transcends its vast internal
variety and complexity .2 What generate the different varieties of
liberalism are different concepts of individualism , different claims
about how egalitarianism should be construed or realized, more or less
inclusionary readings of universalism (Grays characterization sanitizes liberalisms
actual sexist and racist history), different views of what count as desirable
improvements, conflicting normative balancings of liberal values
(freedom, equality) and competing theoretical prognoses about how best
they can be realized in the light of (contested) socio-historical facts. The
huge potential for disagreement about all of these explains how a common liberal core can
produce such a wide range of variants. Moreover, we need to take into
account not merely the spectrum of actual liberalisms but also
hypothetical liberalisms that could be generated through novel
framings of some or all of the above. So one would need to differentiate dominant versions of
liberalism from oppositional versions, and actual from possible variants. Once the breadth of
the range of liberalisms is appreciateddominant and subordinate,
actual and potentialthe obvious question then raised is: Even if actual dominant
liberalisms have been conservative in various ways (corporate,
patriarchal, racist) why does this rule out the development of
emancipatory, radical liberalisms ? One kind of answer is the following (call this the
internalist answer): Because there is an immanent conceptual/normative logic to liberalism as a political
ideology that precludes any emancipatory development of it. Another kind of answer is the following (call
this the externalist answer): It doesnt. The historic domination of conservative
exclusionary liberalisms is the result of group interests, group
power, and successful group political projects. Apparent internal
conceptual/normative barriers to an emancipatory liberalism can be
successfully negotiated by drawing on the conceptual/normative
resources of liberalism itself, in conjunction with a revisionist socio-
historical picture of modernity . Most self-described radicals would
endorseindeed, reflexively, as an obvious truththe first answer. But as indicated from the
beginning, I think the second answer is actually the correct one. The
obstacles to developing a radical liberalism are, in my opinion, primarily
externalist in nature : material group interests, and the way they
have shaped hegemonic varieties of liberalism. So I think we need to
try to justify a radical agenda with the normative resources of
liberalism rather than writing off liberalism. Since liberalism has
always been the dominant ideology in the United States, and is now
globally hegemonic, such a project would have th e great ideological
advantage of appealing to values and principles that most people
already endorse . All projects of egalitarian social transformation are
going to face a combination of material, political, and ideological
obstacles , but this strategy would at least reduce somewhat the
dimensions of the last. One would be trying to win mass support for
policies thatand the challenge will, of course, be to demonstrate thisare justifiable by
majoritarian norms, once reconceived and put in conjunction with
facts not always familiar to the majority. Material barriers (vested group
interests) and political barriers (organizational difficulties) will of course remain.
But they will constitute a general obstacle for all egalitarian political
programs, and as such cannot be claimed to be peculiar problems for
an emancipatory liberalism.
Their indicts are logically incoherentwe can use the masters tools
to dismantle the masters housemake them provide specific indicts
against our radical vision of liberalism

Few lines in the anti-colonial and anti-racist traditions of the last few
decades or so have been as often quoted as Audre Lorde's (1984)
celebrated dictum: "The master's tools can never be used to
dismantle the master's house." The reason for its popularity is obvious: it sums up so
well, in such a neat epigrammatical form, a seemingly radical and uncompromising
metatheoretical position. But with all due respect to my late fellow Caribbean- American, the
multiple oppressions she had to suffer in the racist, sexist, and heterosexist United States, and her courage
in resisting her subordination, affirming her identity, and making such an invaluable contribution to the
distinctive feminism of women of color, this celebrated dictum is just false. It's not
itself pretending to be an argument, of courseit's just an assertion . But
one does try to come up with a (good) argument for its truth, one
quickly finds oneself floundering. Lorde is not saying: "The masters tools
sometimes can, and sometimes cannot, be used to dismantle the
masters house." Such a qualification, while having the happy virtue of making the claim true,
would have the unhappy vice of reducing it to banalitynot what one wants in a good aphorism or
epigram. Moreover, it would be a banality that nullifies its impact, since, of course, it gets its force
precisely from its implicit uncompromisingness: "The master's tools can never be used to dismantle the
master's house." But only a few seconds' thoughtmore than most of its reciters have
apparently ever given to itshould be sufficient to demonstrate the obvious
falseness of this claim. Take it, to begin with, at the most literal level, since if an aphorism is
untrue in the concrete it is hardly any more likely to be true at the abstract level meant to be figured and
represented by the concrete. Imagine we're a group of escaped slaves who
have begun by dismanding the master (presumably using our own tools) and now
wish to move on to his house. Hunting around the plantation, we come across a
tool-shed of hammers, pickaxes, saws, barrels of gunpowder, and so
forth. Cannot we take these tools andhammering, digging, sawing
in half, blowing updemolish the master's house? Of course we can^you just
watch. So the moment one examines the maxim, it falls apart. Only if it could plausibly be
demonstrated that there is something intrinsic in the tool itself that
prohibits any such emancipatory use of it would the dictum be true .
But obviously there will be many tools, like hammers, which can be
used for a wide variety of ends, so that even if the master has used
them, inter alia, to build his plantation mansion (with our forced labor, of course), this
does not mean that we cannot use them for different purposes once
he is no longer with us. Appropriating the master's toolsafter all, we
figure he owes us a lot of back pay^we head out West, where we construct
freedmen's towns with them. Who will refuse to move into these houses because they were
built with the master's tools? Consider now the abstract level of conceptual tools
and theoretical frameworks that the material tools are supposed to
represent. I suggest that Lorde's dictum is no truer here. Some tools, such as racism, will be
intrinsically oppressive, so that one should be dubious aboutto cite a
famous exampleJean-Paul Sartre's claim in "Black Orpheus" that an "antiracist racism" is
possible. But liberalism and contract theory , I would claim, are different .
Admittedly, liberalism and contractarianism have historically been
racialized this was the whole burden of The Racial Contract. But the crucial disanalogy
as "tools" between racism on the one hand, and liberalism and
contractarianism, on the other hand, is that once you purge racism of its
scientific errors and moral viciousness there is nothing left:, while for
liberalism and contractarianism, this is not the case. Racism as an ideology
about the natural differentiation of humanity into discrete, hierarchically ordered biological groups, or
collapses into nothingness
racism as moral disregard for people because of their race,
once it is realized that not only are the groups historically taken to
be races not in a hierarchy, but that in fact they do not even exist as
discrete biological entities in the first place, and that racially based
disregard for people is morally unconscionable . But liberalism and
contractarianism as descriptive and normative claims about how we
should think of the formation of society and the rights that morally
equal humans should have within that society can survive the
removal of racist conceptions of who should be counted as fully
human and fully equal. The latter "tools," unlike the former, have other
dimensions beside the goal of subordination, and so can be
reclaimed. An anti-contractarian contractarianism is possible in a
way that an anti-racist racism is not.
1ar liberalism
Liberal universalism doesnt explain global violence - their impact is

ahistorical
Teschke 11 - Department of International Relations, School of Global Studies,
University of Sussex, Brighton, UK (Benno, Fatal attraction: a critique of Carl
Schmitts international political and legal theory International Theory (2011),
3:2, 179227, doi:10.1017/S175297191100011X
For at the centre of the heterodox partly post-structuralist, partly realist
neo-Schmittian analysis stands the conclusion of The Nomos: the thesis of a
structural and continuous relation between liberalism and violence (Mouffe
2005, 2007; Odysseos 2007). It suggests that, in sharp contrast to the liberal-
cosmopolitan programme of perpetual peace, the geographical expansion of
liberal modernity was accompanied by the intensification and de-
formalization of war in the international construction of liberal constitutional
states of law and the production of liberal subjectivities as rights-bearing
individuals. Liberal world-ordering proceeds via the conduit of wars
for humanity, leading to Schmitts spaceless universalism. In this
perspective, a straight line is drawn from WWI to the War on Terror
to verify Schmitts long-term prognostic of the 20th century as the age of
neutralizations and de-politicizations (Schmitt 1993). But this attempt to
read the history of 20th century international relations in terms of a
succession of confrontations between the carriernations of liberal modernity
and the criminalized foes at its outer margins seems unable to
comprehend the complexities and specificities of liberal world-
ordering, then and now. For in the cases of Wilhelmine, Weimar and fascist
Germany, the assumption that their conflicts with the Anglo- American
liberal-capitalist heartland were grounded in an antagonism between liberal
modernity and a recalcitrant Germany outside its geographical and
conceptual lines runs counter to the historical evidence. For this reading
presupposes that late-Wilhelmine Germany was not already substantially
penetrated by capitalism and fully incorporated into the capitalist world
economy, posing the question of whether the causes of WWI lay in the
capitalist dynamics of inter-imperial rivalry (Blackbourn and Eley 1984), or in
processes of belated and incomplete liberal capitalist development, due to
the survival of re-feudalized elites in the German state classes and the
marriage between rye and iron (Wehler 1997). It also assumes that the late-
Weimar and early Nazi turn towards the construction of an autarchic German
regionalism Mitteleuropa or Groraum was not deeply influenced by the
international ramifications of the 1929 Great Depression, but premised on a
purely political existentialist assertion of German national identity. Against a
reading of the early 20th century conflicts between the liberal West and
Germany as wars for humanity between an expanding liberal modernity and
its political exterior, there is more evidence to suggest that these
confrontations were interstate conflicts within the crisis-ridden and nationally
uneven capitalist project of modernity. Similar objections and caveats to the
binary opposition between the Western discourse of liberal humanity against
non-liberal foes apply to the more recent period. For how can this optic
explain that the liberal West coexisted (and keeps coexisting) with a
large number of pliant authoritarian client-regimes (Mubaraks Egypt,
Suhartos Indonesia, Pahlavis Iran, Fahds Saudi-Arabia, even Gaddafis pre-
intervention Libya, to name but a few), which were and are actively
managed and supported by the West as antiliberal Schmittian states
of emergency, with concerns for liberal subjectivities and Human
Rights secondary to the strategic interests of political and geopolitical
stability and economic access? Even in the more obvious cases of
Afghanistan, Iraq, and, now, Libya, the idea that Western intervention has to
be conceived as an encounter between the liberal project and a series of foes
outside its sphere seems to rely on a denial of their antecedent histories as
geopolitically and socially contested state-building projects in pro-Western
fashion, deeply co-determined by long histories of Western anti-liberal
colonial and post-colonial legacies. If these states (or social forces within
them) turn against their imperial masters, the conventional policy expression
is blowback. And as the Schmittian analytical vocabulary does not include
a conception of human agency and social forces only friend/ enemy
groupings and collective political entities governed by executive decision it
also lacks the categories of analysis to comprehend the social
dynamics that drive the struggles around sovereign power and the
eventual overcoming, for example, of Tunisian and Egyptian states of
emergency without US-led wars for humanity. Similarly, it seems
unlikely that the generic idea of liberal world-ordering and the
production of liberal subjectivities can actually explain why Western
intervention seems improbable in some cases (e.g. Bahrain, Qatar,
Yemen or Syria) and more likely in others (e.g. Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq,
and Libya). Liberal world-ordering consists of differential strategies of
building, coordinating, and drawing liberal and anti-liberal states into the
Western orbit, and overtly or covertly intervening and refashioning them once
they step out of line. These are conflicts within a world, which seem to push
the term liberalism beyond its original meaning. The generic Schmittian
idea of a liberal spaceless universalism sits uncomfortably with the
realities of maintaining an America-supervised informal empire, which
has to manage a persisting interstate system in diverse and case-
specific ways. But it is this persistence of a worldwide system of states,
which encase national particularities, which renders challenges to American
supremacy possible in the first place.
Liberalism solves violence reform key

Bowie and Simon 8 - *professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota.
Until his retirement in 2009 he was Elmer L Andersen Chair of Corporate
Responsibility and served in the departments of strategic management and
of philosophy AND ** (Norman and Robert, The Individual and the Political
Order: An Introduction to Social and Political Philosophy, p. 199-202)
Implicit in much of the work of Young is a concern that Native
Americans, African Americans, and women have been marginalized
in modern liberal democratic societies and that impartiality is in some way the cause
of the marginalization. Even if the marginalization claim is partially true, we doubt that the
liberal emphasis on impartiality leads to viewing all problems from
one perspective, that of the dominant. Impartiality properly applied
requires each of us to consider the viewpoint of others and to give
no special weight to our own. Moreover, impartiality need not lead to simplistic and highly
abstract rules. Liberal impartiality, as Brian Barry has argued, is a second-order notion requiring that the
major rules governing the political order be reasonable for all to accept, but it does not require that the
rules themselves be simple or few in number.24 On our view, especially complex political issues
sometimes may need to be resolved by suitably constrained democratic procedures that allow for the play
of a variety of perspectives in mutual dialogue. So where does that leave us? We think that the feminists
are right to point out the failures of liberal theory in the real world. Despite the claims of impartiality, great
injustice still exists in the world, and it is statistically correct to say that injustice falls disproportionately on
certain groups. However, liberals need not be convinced that this failure results from any errors of logic in
Where violations of human rights or
the rights-based theory of the democratic state.
justice occur, liberals should remain committed to corrective action.
Feminist theories have sensitized much of our society to potential blind spots, but they have not shown
that rights-based theories of the democratic state are fundamentally flawed. Indeed, if Benhabib is right,
Many "postliberal"
and we think she is, feminism itself needs a rights-based ethical theory.25
thinkers tend to condemn or reject liberal attempts to ground
political argument on impartial, neutral, or relatively objective
grounds because they believe that such notions presuppose a
"god's-eye view" or a neutral perspective of impartiality and objectivity that humans cannot
attain. Of course, we agree that the language of neutrality, impartiality,
and objectivity can be misused as a cover for self-seeking, especially (but not only) by
those in power. And of course we realize that political claims regarding the attributes of the just state arc-
However, there is widespread agreement that the
not scientific claims.
function of the state is to preserve order, limit conflict, and assist its
citizens as they seek fulfillment in their lives and that the state
should do so justly. We believe that the liberal democratic state is best
able to achieve those goals. In the absence of a liberal state, here is what
worries us. Unless there are acceptable points of view from which reason can proceed, impartial ground
rules acceptable to all parties, it is hard to see how people on any side of a dispute can persuade those
who disagree with them. What worries liberals is that if there are no preconditions on
discussion and no human rights that are specifiable in advance, then there is the danger that
individuals will be unjustly treated. The rights theorist believes that some things should
be off the table, such as racism, if justice is to prevail. And a democracy should be
constrained by rights. Otherwise a religious fundamentalist majority
could elect to become a theocracy that would run roughshod over
individual rights . The early twenty-first century provides vivid
pictures of what happens in a fundamentalist theocracy, like that of
the Taliban . Accordingly, although liberal theory is far from perfect, and
forceful objections have been brought against many of its key assumptions, such objections, we have
The liberal democratic state, we have argued, provides
argued, are far from decisive.
protections for the individual that can be abandoned only at our
great peril.
2ac necropolitics
Necropolitics is wrong and its basically the same as biopolitics
Mitropoulos 5, a graduate of La Trobe Universitys Department of

Sociology and Anthropology. She currently writes on border policing. She has
been published on several occasions "Necropolitics" October 16,
http://archive.blogsome.com/2005/10/16/necropolitics-war/
Mbembe concludes the essay by arguing that the concept
of biopolitics might be better replaced with necropolitics, and he discusses
suicide bombings at some length, in a pretty interesting way. But I am not sure I would follow him there
They dont seem to me
with respect to the question of bios versus necros.
distinguishable. The nexus between life and death politics is surely
complicated not only by the right to life (and the politics that attend it), but also
by the reorganisation of so-called health and welfare policies, pharmacapitalism and its geopolitics, the
proprietisation of genes, and so on. But, maybe more than that, I would be inclined to think the following
(the transition between the territorial state to a mobile war machine, as Mbembe puts it)through a more
detailed discussion of the why and how of so-called failed states in relation to their inability to give effect
to the control over populations (and not simply resources). He talks about the erosion of their ability to
its left open
control, but theres no discussion of what it was that eroded this. In that sense,
to characterise this erosion in terms not of peoples struggles but of
processes that occur above their heads as it were. Thereby reducing
them to objects of the war machines movements, but not capable of
movement themselves.
No impact

2ac structural violence
War turns structural violence

Folk 78 [Jerry, Professor of Religious and Peace Studies at Bethany College,
Peace Educations Peace Studies : Towards an Integrated Approach, Peace
& Change, volume V, number 1, Spring, p. 58]
Those proponents of the positive peace approach who reject out of hand the
work of researchers and educators coming to the field from the perspective of negative peace
too easily forget that the prevention of a nuclear confrontation of global
dimensions is the prerequisite for all other peace research, education, and
action . Unless such a confrontation can be avoided there will be no world
left in which to build positive peace. Moreover, the blanket condemnation of
all such negative peace oriented research, education or action as a
reactionary attempt to support and reinforce the status quo is doctrinaire.
Conflict theory and resolution, disarmament studies, studies of the international system and of international organizations,
and integration studies are in themselves neutral. They do not intrinsically support either the status quo or revolutionary
efforts to change or overthrow it. Rather they offer a body of knowledge which can be used for either purpose or for some
purpose in between. It is much more logical for those who understand peace as
positive peace to integrate this knowledge into their own framework and
to utilize it in achieving their own purposes. A balanced peace studies program
should therefore offer the student exposure to the questions and concerns which occupy those who
view the field essentially from the point of view of negative peace.
The alt lacks a mechanism for resolving global violence -- the impact
is global war
Moore 4 [Dir. Center for Security Law @ University of Virginia, 7-time
Presidential appointee, & Honorary Editor of the American Journal of
International Law, Solving the War Puzzle: Beyond the Democratic Peace, John
Norton Moore, pages 41-2]
If major interstate war is predominantly a product of a synergy between a potential nondemocratic aggressor and an
what is the role of the many traditional "causes" of
absence of effective deterrence,
war? Past, and many contemporary, theories of war have focused on the role of
specific disputes between nations, ethnic and religious differences, arms races, poverty or social injustice,
competition for resources, incidents and accidents, greed, fear, and perceptions of "honor," or many other such
factors. Such factors may well play a role in motivating aggression or in serving as a means for generating fear and
while some of these may have more
manipulating public opinion. The reality, however, is that
potential to contribute to war than others, there may well be an infinite set
of motivating factors, or human wants, motivating aggression. It is not
the independent existence of such motivating factors for war but rather the
circumstances permitting or encouraging high risk decisions leading
to war that is the key to more effectively controlling war. And the
same may also be true of democide. The early focus in the Rwanda slaughter on "ethnic
conflict," as though Hutus and Tutsis had begun to slaughter each other through spontaneous combustion, distracted our
attention from the reality that a nondemocratic Hutu regime had carefully planned and orchestrated a genocide against
Certainly if we were able to press a
Rwandan Tutsis as well as its Hutu opponents.I1
button and end poverty, racism, religious intolerance, injustice, and
endless disputes, we would want to do so. Indeed, democratic
governments must remain committed to policies that will produce a
better world by all measures of human progress . The broader
achievement of democracy and the rule of law will itself assist in this
progress. No one, however, has yet been able to demonstrate the kind
of robust correlation with any of these "traditional" causes of war as
is reflected in the "democratic peace." Further, given the difficulties in
overcoming many of these social problems , an approach to
war exclusively dependent on their solution may be to doom us to
war for generations to come.
Structural violence doesnt escalate

Hinde 2k Robert Hinde and Lea Pulkkinnen, Cambridge psychology
professor and University of Jyvskyl psychology professor, 2000, DRAFT
Background Paper for Working Group 1: HUMAN AGGRESSIVENESS AND WAR,
50th Pugwash Conference On Science and World Affairs: "Eliminating the
Causes of War" Queens' College, Cambridge,
http://www.pugwash.org/reports/pac/pac256/WG1draft1.htm
People are capable of perpetrating the most terrible acts of violence on their fellows. From before recorded history
humans have killed humans, and violence is potentially present in every society. There is no escaping the fact that the
capacity to develop a propensity for violence is part of human nature. But that does not mean that aggression is
inevitable: temporary anger need not give rise to persistent hostility, and hostility need not
give rise to acts of aggression. And people also have the capacity to care for the needs of others, and are capable
of acts of great altruism and self-sacrifice. A subsidiary aim of this workshop is to identify the factors that make aggressive
Some degree of conflict of interest is
tendencies predominate over the cooperative and compassionate ones.
often present in relationships between individuals, in the relations between groups of individuals
within states, and in the relations between states: we are concerned with the factors that
make such conflicts escalate into violence. The answer to that question depends critically on the context.
While there may be some factors in common, the bases of individual aggressiveness are
very different from those involved in mob violence, and they differ yet again from the factors
influencing the bomb-aimer pressing the button in a large scale international war. In considering
whether acts which harm others are a consequence of the aggressive motivation of individuals, it is essential to recognise
the diversity of such acts, which include interactions between individuals, violence between groups, and wars of the WW2
type. We shall see that, with increasing social complexity, individual aggressiveness becomes progressively less
important, but other aspects of human nature come to contribute to group phenomena. Although research on human
violence has focussed too often on the importance of one factor or another, it is essential to remember that
violence always has multiple causes, and the interactions between the causal
factors remain largely unexplored.
2ac vtl
Value to life is subjective --- life is a prerequisite

Schwartz 2, Chair at the Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis,
2002 Medical Ethic: A Case Based Approach Chapter 6,
www.fleshandbones.com/readingroom/pdf/399.pdf
The second assertion made by supporters of the quality of life as a criterion for decisionmaking is closely related to
the determination of the
the first, but with an added dimension. This assertion suggests that
value of the quality of a given life is a subjective determination to
be made by the person experiencing that life. The important
addition here is that the decision is a personal one that, ideally,
ought not to be made externally by another person but internally
by the individual involved. Katherine Lewis made this decision for herself based on a comparison
between two stages of her life. So did James Brady. Without this element, decisions based on quality of life criteria
Patients must be
lack salient information and the patients concerned cannot give informed consent.
given the opportunity to decide for themselves whether they think
their lives are worth living or not. To ignore or overlook patients judgement in this matter is to
violate their autonomy and their freedom to decide for themselves on the basis of relevant information about their
future, and comparative consideration of their past. As the deontological position puts it so well, to do so is to violate
the imperative that we must treat persons as rational and as ends in themselves.
VTL is inevitable
Tnnsj 11, the Kristian Clason Professor of Practical Philosophy at

Stockholm University, 2011, Shalt Thou Sometimes Murder? On the Ethics of
Killing, online: http://people.su.se/~jolso/HS-texter/shaltthou.pdf
if Schopenhauer is right, if life is never worth living,
I suppose it is correct to say that,
then according to utilitarianism we should all commit suicide and put

an end to humanity. But this does not mean that, each of us should
commit suicide. I commented on this in chapter two when I presented the idea that utilitarianism should
be applied, not only to individual actions, but to collective actions as well. It is a well-known fact that people
rarely commit suicide. Some even claim that no one who is mentally sound commits suicide. Could that be taken as evidence for the claim that
people live lives worth living? That would be rash. Many people are not utilitarians. They may avoid suicide because they believe that it is
It is also a possibility that, even if people lead lives not

morally wrong to kill oneself.
worth living , they believe they do . And even if some may believe that
their lives, up to now, have not been worth living, their future lives
will be better . They may be mistaken about this. They may hold false expectations about the future. From the point of view of
evolutionary biology, it is natural to assume that people should rarely commit suicide. If we set old age to one side, it has poor survival value
(of ones genes) to kill oneself. So it should be expected that it is difficult for ordinary people to kill themselves. But then theories about
cognitive dissonance, known from psychology, should warn us that we may come to believe that we live better lives than we do. My
strong belief is that most of us live lives worth living. However, I do believe that our
lives are close to the point where they stop being worth living. But then it is at least not very far-fetched to think that they may be worth not
for the sake of the argument assume

living, after all. My assessment may be too optimistic. Let us just
that our lives are not worth living, and let us accept that, if this is
so, we should all kill ourselves. As I noted above, this does not answer the
question what we should do, each one of us . My conjecture is that we should not
commit suicide. The explanation is simple. If I kill myself, many people will suffer.
Here is a rough explanation of how this will happen: ... suicide survivors confront a complex array of feelings. Various forms of guilt are
quite common, such as that arising from (a) the belief that one contributed to the suicidal person's anguish, or (b) the failure to recognize that
Suicide also leads to rage, loneliness, and

anguish, or (c) the inability to prevent the suicidal act itself.
awareness of vulnerability in those left behind. Indeed, the sense that suicide is an
essentially selfish act dominates many popular perceptions of suicide. The fact that all our lives lack
meaning , if they do, does not mean that others will follow my
example. They will go on with their lives and their false expectations at least for a while devastated because of my suicide. But
then I have an obligation, for their sake, to go on with my life. It is highly likely that, by committing suicide, I create more suffering (in their
lives) than I avoid (in my life).
Authors
baudrillard
Baudrillard is the worst example of ivory tower academiainstead of

dealing with real problems, he retreats into his safe western
university and cloaks genocide in philosophical terms.
Balsas 6 [BALSAS is an interdisciplinary journal on media culture.

Interview with Art Group BBM, on first cyborgs, aliens and other sides of new
technologies, translated from lithiuanian http://www.balsas.cc/modules.php?
name=News&file=print&sid=151]
We all know that Jean Baudrillard did not believe that the Gulf War
Valentinas:
did take place, as it was over-mediated and over-simulated. In fact, the Gulf War II is still not over,
and Iraq became much more than just a Frankenstein laboratory for the new media, technology and
democracy games. What can we learn from wars that do not take place, even though they cannot be
finished? Are they becoming a symptom of our times as a confrontation between multiple time-lines,
ideologies and technologies in a single place? Lars: Actually, it has always been the same: new wars have
been better test-beds for the state of art technologies and the latest computer-controlled firearms. The
World War I already was a fully mechanized war where pre-robots were fighting each other and gassing the
troops. And afterwards, the winners shape the new world order. Olaf: Who on hell is Baudrillard?
Theone who earns money by publishing his prognoses after the things
happen? What a fuck, French philosophy deals too much with luxury problems
and elegantly ignores the problem itself . Its no wonder, this is the colonizers
mentality, you can hear it roaring in their words: they use phrases made to
camouflage genocide. I went to see that Virilios exhibition "Ce qui arrive" at Foundation Cartier in
2003. I was smashed by that banal presentation of the evil of all kinds: again , natural catastrophes
and evil done by man were exposed on the same wall, glued together with a piece of
"theory". There you find it all, filed up in one row: the pure luxury of the Cartier-funded Jean
Nouvel building, an artwork without any blood in its veins , and that late Christian philosophy
about the techno-cataclysm being the revenge of God. Pure shit, turned into gold in the holy
cellars of the modern alchemists museums . The artist-made video "documents" of the
Manhattan towers opposed to Iraqian war pictures: thats not Armageddon, thats man-invented war
there is always somebody who pushes the
technology to be used to subdue others. And
buttons, even when the button is a computer mouse some ten thousand
kilometers away from the place where people die, or even if it is a civil
airplanes redirected by Islamists. Everybody knows that. War technology has always
been made to make killing easier. And to produce martyrs as well. Janneke: Compare
Baudrillard with Henry Dunant, the founder of the International Committee of the Red
Cross. Dunant was no philosopher, he was just an intelligent rich man in the late 19th century.
But his ideas went far more in the direction where you should hope to find
philosophers as well. He experienced war as a "randonneur": he passed by, he saw the suffering
and the inhumanity of war. And he felt obliged to act. Apart from the maybe 10 days he
spent on the battlefield, on the beautiful meadows in the Europeans Alps, helping wounded people to
survive,as a complete medical layman he decided to do something more
sustainable against these odds. He knew that his efforts couldnt prevent war
in general, but he felt that he could alter the cruelty of reality. And he succeeded
in doing it. No wonder that in our days we find the most engaged people to support the
TROIA projects intention in Geneva, where they are still based. And they are not only doing their necessary
surgeons work in the field: they are as well fighting with the same energy on the
diplomatic battlefield.
bifo
Vote aff if they win solves the whole kritik better for two reasons:
1. If subjectivity is bad, dont reward the neg team because they

made negative arguments decouple their subjectivity from the
ballot
2. If we should withdraw from debate, voting for the team who loses
guarantees community destruction
Bifo is a moron --- exhaustion denies possibility of radical change,

which is empirically possible
Mal 11 (Mal, Destructural, 20 February 2011, I Sure Hope Bifo Doesnt Count Vibrators as Tools of
Estrangement, http://destructural.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/i-sure-hope-bifo-doesnt-count-vibrators-as-
tools-of-estrangement/)
1. Berardi should be the last one to think a brain of any sort is

univocal. Hes horrified by Bill Gatess idea of business at the speed of
thought, but what is the speed of thought really? Brains can be and
are used to produce value for the market, but any friend of Felix
Guattari should know brains are chaotic . They produce ideas for the
boss, but they inevitably produce jokes and nightmares as well . Just
because capital has organized a social brain transcending more spatial and
interpersonal barriers than ever before doesnt make it the hives necessary
owner. The processes that Berardi outlines (wealth into misery, power into
anguish, creativity into dependency) present the possibility that it could be
otherwise, that there could be a reverse movement. What capital
offers is this impoverished multitude, but we ought not treat this as
an offer to be either accepted or refused. 2. I feel pretty derisive about
this fear of speed. Certainly a lot of his critiques about the schizogenic nature of contemporary
knowledge-work are valid, but the worry that society is not able to deliberate
reasonably at these speeds is misplaced. The swarm has been
empirically capable of making decisions contrary to its instructions
in Egpyt, Tunisia, The UK, Wisconsin, etc., and these actions have
been successful to the degree that theyve been fast and
unreasonable. Crisis calls on creativity and innovation, and sabotage
requires the multitude to seize the boss networks. In Madison, WI, the
Capitol occupiers are engaged in the sabotage of the labor of
citizenship, which is, as Tahrir Square was/is in Egypt, productive of
new relations and subjectivities. Berardi points to the role of
prescription drugs in pacifying and anesthetizing young people as
intrinsically related to the speed technology requires, but Im willing
to bet there are a bunch of students in Madison who may be on
Twitter, but havent needed to take their ADD meds. 3. Berardi is old .
Besides the you kids need to slow down crap, I object to the way
he describes sex as something that requires withdrawal from the
(sometimes literal) circuits of production. One need not go to Damn You Autocorrect to know
sexting provides more potential for the play of libidinal flows than a
room with two sets of doors gave Moliere.
giroux alt
Perm do both the aff may not be the end all be all, but rolling
back the surveillance state through reform is also worth fighting for
Giroux 14 [Henry A., Global TV Network Chair Professor at McMaster
University in the English and Cultural Studies Department and a
Distinguished Visiting Professor at Ryerson University, Totalitarian Paranoia
in the Post-Orwellian Surveillance State, Truthout, 10 February 2014,
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/21656-totalitarian-paranoia-in-the-post-
orwellian-surveillance-state]
If the first task of resistance is to make dominant power clear by addressing critically and meaningfully the abuses
perpetrated by the corporate surveillance state and how such transgressions affect the daily lives of people in different
ways, the second step is to move from understanding and critique to the hard work of building popular movements that
The left has been fragmented
integrate rather than get stuck and fixated in single-issue politics.
for too long, and the time has come to build national and international movements capable of dismantling the
political, economic and cultural architecture put in place by the new authoritarianism and its post-Orwellian surveillance
industries.This is not a call to reject identity and special-issue politics as

much as it is a call to build broad-based alliances and movements ,
especially among workers, labor unions, educators, youth groups, artists, intellectuals,
students, the unemployed and others relegated, marginalized and harassed by the political
and financial elite. At best, such groups should form a vigorous and broad-
based third party for the defense of public goods and the
establishment of a radical democracy. This is not a call for a party based on traditional
hierarchical structures but a party consisting of a set of alliances among different groups that would democratically decide
its tactics and strategies. Modern history is replete with such struggles, and the arch of that history has to be carried
In
forward before it is too late. In a time of tyranny, thoughtful and organized resistance is not a choice; it is a necessity.
the struggle to dismantle the authoritarian state, reform is only
partially acceptable. Surely, as Fred Branfman argues, rolling back the surveillance
state can take the form of fighting : to end bulk collection of
information; demand Congressional oversight ; indict executive-
branch officials when they commit perjury; give Congress the
capacity to genuinely oversee executive agency; provide strong
whistle-blower protection; and restructure the present system of
classification.84 These are important reforms worth fighting for , but
they do not go far enough. What is needed is a radical restructuring of our understanding of
democracy and what it means to bring it into being. The words of Zygmunt Bauman are useful in understanding what is at
stake in such a struggle. He writes: "Democracy
expresses itself in continuous and
relentless critique of institutions; democracy is an anarchic, disruptive element inside
the political system ; essential, as a force of dissent and change. One can
best recognize a democratic society by its constant complaints that it is not democratic enough."85 What cannot be
emphasized enough is that only through collective struggles can change take place against modern-day authoritarianism.
If the first order of authoritarianism is unchecked secrecy, the first moment of resistance to such an order is widespread
critical awareness of state and corporate power and its threat to democracy, coupled with a desire for radical change
rather than reformist corrections. Democracy involves a sharing of political existence, an embrace of the commons and
the demand for a future that cannot arrive quickly enough. In short, politics needs a jump start, because democracy is
much too important to be left to the whims, secrecy and power of those who have turned the principles of self-
government against themselves.
***Specific Ks***
Agamben
2ac F/L
The kritik must prove that the whole plan text is bad
weighing the aff is vital to fair and educational
engagement isolated negation doesnt invalidate the
plan the ballot should simulate its enactment solves
infinite regression.
Violence is down despite the sovereign

Beauchamp and Pinker 15 (Zack; Steven Pinker explains how
capitalism is killing war; Jun 4; www.vox.com/2015/6/4/8725775/pinker-
capitalism; kdf)
the world has
I spoke with Pinker this week to discuss some of the reasons why, specifically, he thinks
gotten so much safer, especially in the past 70 years. We talked about the idea that war
just isn't as profitable as it used to be, why Vladimir Putin and ISIS seem to think differently, and what world leaders
should do if they actually want to make sure the unprecedented peace of the past 70 years holds. What follows is a
transcript of our conversation, lightly edited for length and clarity. Zack Beauchamp: One story you hear from political
scientists for why there's been less war recently that it's just less profitable countries don't gain very much,
economically or politically, from taking over new land anymore. Does that seem right to you? Steven Pinker: Yes, it's one
It's the theory of the capitalist peace: when it's cheaper to
of the causes.
buy things than to steal them, people don't steal them. Also, if other
people are more valuable to you alive than dead, you're less likely to
kill them. You don't kill your customers or your lenders, so the arrival of the
infrastructure of trade and commerce reduces some of the sheer exploitative incentives of conquest. This is an idea that
goes back to the Enlightenment. Adam Smith and Montesquieu extolled it; it was on the minds of the founders when they
I don't think it's the entire story of the
built incentives for free trade into the Constitution.
decline in war. But I do think it's part of the story. There was a well-
known study from Bruce Russett and John Oneal showing statistically that countries
that engage in more trade are less likely to get into militarized
disputes, and countries that are more integrated into the world
economy are less likely to get into trouble with their neighbors. ZB: Is it
just that pairs of countries are trading with each more, or has something fundamentally changed about the global
Countries that trade with each other are less likely to
economy? SP: It's both.
pick fights with each other. Independently, individual countries that get
more integrated into the global economy are less likely to make
trouble. But one of the reasons I say this is only part of the answer is that in the Oneal and Russett analysis, it
counted for some percentage of the variance in militarized dispute, but only a chunk. They found
independent contributions from democracy and membership in the
international community (namely, the number of international organizations and treaties that a country
has signed on to). Quite across from calculations of interest that are tilted by international markets and institutions,
there's the idea of norms: what you consider and don't consider as a legitimate possible move. [Some scholars] argue that
the main factor is that war has been delegitimated at least among the great powers and the developed states as a
thinkable option. In the 19th century, there was this clich from [Carl] von Clausewitz that war was just the continuation of
you consider whether to go to war [like any other
politics by other means:
policy option]. Now that's just not something decent leaders do. Finally,
cost-benefit calculations depend on what counts as a "cost." If you lose several tens or hundreds of thousands of your own
citizens, is that a cost? And how big a cost is it? Now, increasingly, that counts as a cost :
leaders are less
likely to see their young men as cannon fodder, which means
countries are willing to endure other costs to avoid that one. That's a
result of the rise of humanistic sentiments, as opposed to nationalistic or ideological ones.
The alt fails if state sovereignty is diffused between

different agents, then breaking down sovereignty is
impossible even anarchy is merely another form of
sovereignty
Caplan 9, Professor of Economics at George Mason University 09, (Bryan,
Professor of Economics at George Mason University and blogger for EconLog,
My first book, The Myth of the Rational Voter, was named "the best political
book of the year" by the New York Time, currently working on my next book,
The Case Against Education. I've published in the New York Times,
Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, American Economic Review, Economic
Journal, Journal of Law and Economics, and Intelligence, and appeared on
20/20 and C-SPAN, Anarchist Theory FAQ or Instead of a FAQ, by a Man Too
Busy to Write One, June 18, 2009,
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm)
Under anarchy, it is conceivable that e.g. a brutal gang might use its superior
might to coerce everyone else to do as they wish. With nothing more
powerful than the gang, there would (definitionally) be nothing to stop
them. But how does this differ from what we have now?
Governments rule because they have the might to maintain their
power; in short, because there is no superior agency to restrain
them. Hence, reason some critics of anarchism, the goal of anarchists is futile
because we are already in a state of anarchy.
This both precedes and outweighs power relations

Hall 7, 5/7/2007 Master of Arts in Political Science (Lindsay, Death, Power,
and the Body: A Bio-political Analysis of Death and Dying, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, p. 19)//roetlin
Death, in modernity, according to Foucault, is no longer a visible
manifestation of power, it is the end of life , the term, the limit, or the end of
power too. Death is outside the power relationship , he claimed, [it] is beyond the
reach of power, [for] power has a grip on it only in general, overall, or statistical terms (Foucault 2003c,
247-8). As exemplified by Damiens execution, death in a society based upon sovereign power was the
most public, the most obvious, and the most spectacular manifestation of sovereign authority. Even if one
did not die by execution, death still had everything to do with power, as it was ultimately the manner in
which one sovereign (the king) was relieved by another (god) (Foucault 1978, 138). In contrast, Foucault
maintained, modern death is now the moment when the individual escapes power, the most secret and
private aspect of existence (2003c, 248).
Perm do both
Perm create a space to resist sovereignty writ large and
choose not to resist the plan
The perms are necessary to alter the nature of

sovereignty Agambens wrong about sovereigntys
intrinsically violent nature the plan is not a
concentration camp this proves the k just begs the
question of whether the aff is good or bad they have no
mechanism to solve terrorism, food prices, or conflict
which makes it try or die to preserve the state
Robinson 11 (Andrew, Political Theorist, Activist Based in the UK and
research fellow affiliated to the Centre for the Study of Social and Global
Justice (CSSGJ), University of Nottingham, Giorgio Agamben: Destroying
Sovereignty, January 21th, https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-theory-giorgio-
agamben-destroying-sovereignty/, wcp)
My main concern with Agambens theory arises from some degree of
scepticism regarding the assumption that political issues have an ontological
status. Agambens work has become strongly resonant and fashionable for a
very clear reason: he is talking about issues which speak to the problems of
the moment, which seem to communicate directly with issues such as
Guantanamo Bay, anti-terror laws, attacks on civil liberties, and the global
war on terror. It is a good thing that theorists are giving serious attention to these issues, and the social logics of
states are clearly tied-up in them. The difficulty is the question of whether these issues
really operate on the deep ontological or structural level which Agamben
assumes. Political events are taken to express ontological rather than
contingent phenomena (or more generously to Agamben, perhaps the contingencies reveal ever-present
potentialities). Sovereignty has always been what it is (i.e. Auschwitz), but it has unfolded
cumulatively according to its own logic. But can sovereignty unfold of its
own accord, as if the entire political context derives from it? I feel there is a
fundamental problem with Agambens work, and that of several other continental theorists,
which stems from an unduly reductive, single- (or at most double-)agent account of
social forces, in which sovereignty is treated as a determining instance from
which the rest of modern social life follows (akin to the role of capitalism in Marxist theory, but
with capitalism replaced by sovereignty). Agamben explains the current situation mainly through the unfolding of a single
This underestimates the extent to which the states
dynamic, that of sovereignty.
unfolding is restricted and inflected by other powerful social forces. For instance,
there are cases where state power is constrained from the outside by the power of social movements (such as various
discussions of society against the state, from Clastres to works on Latin American social movements), or by forces such as
transnational capital (as much of the scholarship on globalisation argues); cases where the state is in society and fuses
with it, becoming at least partly dependent on social movements, as discussed by comparativists such as Joel Migdal; and
cases where a historical bloc of local class forces contributes to the formation and direction of the state, as in neo-
Gramscian analysis.
The states inevitable using it to reduce violence is
contingently productive
Passavant 7 [The Contradictory State of Giorgio Agamben, Paul, Associate
Professor of Political Science Ph.D., Wisconsin at Madison M.A., Wisconsin at
Madison B.A., Michigan, p. Sage Publications] Tina
State actions that mitigate chaos, economic inequality, and violence, then,
potentially contribute to the improved justice of outcomes and
democracy. Political theorists must temper celebrating contingency with a simultaneous
consideration of the complicated relation that determination has to democratic purposes.50 Fourth,
the states institutions are among the few with the capacity to
respond to the exigency of human needs identified by political
theorists . These actions will necessarily be finite and less than
wholly adequate, but responsibility may lie on the side of
acknowledging these limitations and seeking to redress what is
lacking in state action rather than calling for pure potentiality and
an end to the state. We may conclude that claims to justice or
democracy based on the wish to rid ourselves of the state once and
for 170 Political Theory Downloaded from ptx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on July 4, 2013 all
are like George W. Bush claiming to be an environmentalist because he
has proposed converting all of our cars so that they will run on
hydrogen.51 Meanwhile, in the here and now, there are urgent claims
that demand finite acts that by definition will be both divisive and
less than what a situation demands.52 In the end, the state remains.
Let us defend this state of due process and equal protection against
its ruinous other.
Legal reform can force compliance without producing new

states of exception debates over the law are key
Sanders 8 - Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science, University of Toronto
(Rebecca, Norms of Exception? Intelligence Agencies, Human Rights, and the
Rule of Law, 6/6/08, http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2008/Sanders.pdf)//DBI
There is no doubt that law is part of and shaped by power. But there
is a reason the Bush administration is disdainful of law. There is a potential
for an anti-imperialist egalitarianism within international law that should be
pursued, not rejected. Law can be a weapon of the weak (Bartholomew,
2006, p. 178). While recognizing the unilateral violence of empires law that is derivative of its own will
as the global sovereign (p. 162) we should also remain committed to Dworkins laws empire, where
The
human rights and international law regimes forge a democratic cosmopolitan order (p. 164).
aspirational view of law, devoted to a substantive rule of law as
opposed to lawless legal black holes and procedural positivistic legality or rule by law,
suggests there are moral resources in the law available to deal
with crises without producing exceptions (Dyzenhaus, 2007). Finally, it should be
noted that unlike domestic law, the absence of a unified international sovereign negates the possibility of
pure sovereign suspension. Breaches of international law are just that - they break rather than remake the
law. This is not to say the law alone provides some sort of antidote to the abuses of the powerful. In this
human rights campaigners would do well to examine the
sense international
debates over the role of law in achieving minority rights in the domestic
context. For instance Stuart Scheingold (2004) has argued that the myth of rights should
be supplanted with a politics of rights in which rights are treated as contingent resources
which impact on public policy indirectly-in the measure, that is, that they can aid the altering balance of
the political forces (p. 148). In this view, law is a resource in a larger political
struggle that takes place not only in the courts, but through various channels of social action. In
acknowledging the role of power relations in shaping law, the excluded
should not be obliged to renounce the possibility of rights. Instead, oppressed
people can contribute to the generation of new norms that reflect their
experience. As Matsuda (1987) asks How could anyone believe both of the following statements? (1) I
have a right to participate equally in society with any other person. (2) Rights are whatever people in
power say they are...the experience of the bottom is that one can believe in both of those statements
Rather than painting a
simultaneously, and that it may well be necessary to do so (p. 138).
black and white portrait, the ambiguities and contingencies inherent in the
relationship between law and power demand examination and
engagement in their historically specific configurations.
No impact
Adding to the dangerousness of this logic of control, however, is that while there is a crisis of undecidability in the domain
despite
of life, it corresponds to a similar crisis at the level of law and the national state. It should be noted here that
the new forms of biopolitical control in operation today, Rose believes that
bio-politics has become generally less dangerous in recent times than even in the early
part of the last century. At that time, biopolitics was linked to the
project of the expanding national state in his opinion. In disciplinary-pastoral society, bio-
politics involved a process of social selection of those characteristics
thought useful to the nationalist project. Hence, according to Rose, "once each life has a
value which may be calculated, and some lives have less value than others, such a politics has the obligation to exercise
this judgement in the name of the race or the nation" (2001: 3). Disciplinary-pastoral biopolitics sets itself the task of
eliminating "differences coded as defects", and in pursuit of this goal the most horrible programs of eugenics, forced
sterilization, and outright extermination, were enacted (ibid.: 3). If Rose is more optimistic about bio-politics in 'advanced
liberal' societies, it is because this notion of 'national fitness', in terms of bio-

political competition among nation-states, has suffered a
precipitous decline thanks in large part to a crisis of the perceived unity of the national
state as a viable political project (ibid.: 5). To quote Rose once again, "the idea of 'society' as a single, if
heterogeneous, domain with a national culture, a national population, a national destiny, co-extensive with a national
territory and the powers of a national political government" no longer serves as premises of state policy (ibid.: 5). Drawing
the
on a sequential reading of Foucault's theory of the governmentalization of the state here, Rose claims that
territorial state, the primary institution of enclosure, has become
subject to fragmentation along a number of lines. National culture
has given way to cultural pluralism; national identity has been
overshadowed by a diverse cluster of identifications, many of them transcending
the national territory on which they take place, while the same pluralization has affected the once singular conception of
bio-political programmes of the
community (ibid.: 5). Under these conditions, Rose argues, the
molar enclosure known as the nation-state have fallen into disrepute
and have been all but abandoned.
The law is good and mitigates state coercion

Smith 2k [Carole, Professor of Social Policy and Social Work at Univ of
Manchester, The sovereign state v Foucault: law and disciplinary power,
The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review, p. 291-2]
Foucault's analysis has much to offer in terms of his creative and radical thinking about the
nature of power, the relationship between power and knowledge, the role of disciplinary power as it works to regulate the
subject from without and to constrain the subject from within, and forms of modern government. The rise of liberal
democracy, the thrust of welfare policy, government by administrative regulation and the enormous influence of expert
knowledge and therapeutic intervention (Giddens. 1991; Rose. 1990; Miller and Rose. 1994) have all had an impact on law
however, that Foucault's characterisation
and operations of the juridical field. I would argue,
of law, in the context of the modern liberal state, does not reflect
our everyday experience of the means through which power and
government are exercised. Similarly, the role played by expert
knowledge and discursive power relations in Foucault's conceptualisation of
modernity, such that law is fated to justify its operations by 'perpetual reference to something other than itself*
and to 'be redefined by knowledge' (Foucault, 1991: 22), does not accord with the world of
mundane practice. In their sympathetic critique of his work. Hunt and Wickham (1998) point to the way in
which Foucault's treatment of sovereignty and law must necessarily lead him
to neglect two related possibilities . First, that law may effectively

re-define forms of disciplinary power in its own terms and second,
that law and legal rights may act to protect the subject from the
coercive influence of such power . Reported judgments on sterilisation and
caesarean interventions, without consent, show how law can achieve both of
these reversals of power. They also demonstrate law's ability to turn
the 'normalizing gaze *, as the production of expert knowledge,
back upon the normative behaviour of experts themselves .
1ar EXT State Engagement Key
Agambens strategy is too pessimistic the most effective
modes of resistance do not begin through the acceptance
that one is bare life but rather a constant struggle to be
recognized as valuable
Robinson 11 (Andrew, Political Theorist, Activist Based in the UK and
research fellow affiliated to the Centre for the Study of Social and Global
Justice (CSSGJ), University of Nottingham, Giorgio Agamben: Destroying
Sovereignty, January 21th, https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-theory-giorgio-
agamben-destroying-sovereignty/, wcp)
Another problem is with the view that resistance should come from the
standpoint of bare life. I would suggest that it should, rather, come from the
standpoint of whatever-subjectivity as something which is at once bare and
self-recognised, and which reconstitutes itself outside the statist frame. The
idea of taking the standpoint of the most excluded or oppressed, the social symptom in Zizeks terms, is
not unique to Agamben, and has a certain emotional pull. It is, indeed, at this point that the
oppressiveness of a particular system becomes most apparent. It is, however, not in the helpless abjection
of homo sacer but in the rejection of the states view of ones status as (potentially or actually) valueless
This means that resistance cant
and insistence, against such a view, on self-valorisation.
actually be expected from people reduced literally to the status of the so-
called musselmannen at Auschwitz. Part of the difficulty is that the group
which is most oppressed and despairing is also likely to be reduced to a
condition of learned helplessness. On the other hand, inmates of camps, even Nazi death
camps, did resist, to the point of staging a mass uprising at Sobibor death camp and in the Warsaw Ghetto.
Authors such as Erving Goffman, Thomas Mathiesen, Michel Foucault and James Scott have shown how
Forms
people resist and recompose their subjectivities and social relations even in camp-like settings.
of everyday resistance, spectacular protest (such as hunger strikes), and occasional
uprisings can be observed even in horrific places like Guantanamo Bay and
Abu Ghraib. This resistance comes, however, not from the most abject
people, but from people who are resisting being reduced to this status. It
comes, not from bare life, but from a refusal to be reduced to bare life. It is thus
not a passage through despair, but a way of warding it off. The conditions for recomposing
hope in desperate circumstances do not stem automatically from despair, but
rather, emerge from active practices of resistance and the reconstruction of
meaning. Agamben is thus right in starting from the standpoint of the excluded, but wrong in viewing
abjection as a correlate of (rather than an effect of state power on) this standpoint. Rather, transformation
becomes possible through the conversion of exclusion into autonomy, through the rejection and immanent
overcoming of sovereignty
1ar EXT No Impact
Residual bio-power precludes the power to kill solves the
impact
Ojakangus 5 (Mika, Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies , Impossible
Dialogue on Bio-power http://www.foucault-studies.com/no2/ojakangas1.pdf]
In fact, the history of modern Western societies would be quite incomprehensible without taking into account that there
exists a form o power which refrains from killing but which nevertheless is capable of directing peoples lives .
The
effectiveness of biopower can be seen lying precisely in that it refrains and withdraws before
every demand of killing, even though these demands would derive from the demand of justice. In
bio-political societies, according to Foucault, capital punishment could not be maintained except by
invoking less the enormity of the crime itself than the monstrosity of the criminal: One had the
right to kill those who represented a kind of biological danger to others. 112 However, given that the
right to kill is precisely a sovereign right, it can be argued that the biopolitical societies analyzed by Foucault were not
entirely bio-political. Perhaps, there neither has been nor can be a society that is entirely bio-political. Nevertheless,
the
fact is that present-day European societies have abolished capital punishment. In them, there are no
longer exceptions. It is the very right to kill that has been called into question. However, it is not called into question
because of enlightened moral sentiments, but rather because of the deployment of bio-political thinking and practice. For
all these reasons, Agambens thesis, according to which [of] the concentration camp is the
fundamental bio-political paradigm of the West, has to be corrected.113 The bio-political
paradigm of the West is not the concentration camp, but, rather, the present-day welfare society
and, instead of homo sacer, the paradigmatic figure of the bio -political society can be seen, for
example, in the middle-class Swedish social democrat. Although this figure is an object and a product of
the huge bio-political machinery, it does not mean that he is permitted to kill without committing
homicide. Actually, the fact that he eventually dies, seems to be his greatest crime against the
machinery. (In bio-political societies, death is not only something to be hidden away, but, also, as Foucault stresses,
the most shameful thing of all.114) Therefore, he is not exposed to an unconditional threat of death, but
rather to an unconditional retreat of all dying. In fact, the bio-political machinery does not want to
threaten him, but to encourage him, with all its material and spiritual capacities, to live healthily, to live long
and to live happily even when, in biological terms, he should have been dead long ago.115 This is because bio-
power is not bloody power over bare life for its own sake but pure power over all life
for the sake of the living. It is not power but the living , the condition of all life individual as
well as collective that is the measure of the success of bio -power.
Baudrillard
2ac F/L
Vote aff if they win solves the whole kritik better for
three reasons:
1. If subjectivity is bad, dont reward the neg team

because they made negative arguments decouple their
subjectivity from the ballot
2. If information is dissuasive, voting for the K would just

confirm theyre wrong, because you were able to process
their speech act enough to do what they told you
3. It better allows the neg to run toward death since

everyone hates losing debates
Their critique is reductive and represents the same

obsession with death that they criticize --- death isnt the
driving force of society
Dollimore 98 Sociology U Sussex, (Jonathan, Death, Desire and Loss in
Western Culture, pg. 221)
JeanBaudrillard presents the argument for the existence of a denial of death in
its most extreme form. For him, this denial is not only deeply symptomatic of contemporary
reality, but represents an insidious and pervasive form of ideological control. His account depends heavily
upon a familiar critique of the Enlightenment's intellectual, cultural and political legacy. This critique has
Baudrillard's version of it is
become influential in recent cultural theory, though
characteristically uncompromising and sweeping, and more reductive than
most. The main claim is that Enlightenment rationality is an instrument not of freedom and democratic
empowerment but, on the contrary, of repression and violence. Likewise with the Enlightenment's secular
emphasis upon a common humanity; for Baudrillard this resulted in what he calls 'the cancer of the
Human' - far from being an inclusive category of emancipation, the idea of a universal humanity made
possible the demonizing of difference and the repressive privileging of the normal: the 'Human' is from the
outset the institution of its structural double, the 'Inhuman*. This is all it is: the progress of Humanity and
Culture are simply the chain of discriminations with which to brand 'Others' with inhumanity, and therefore
with nullity, {p. 125) Baudrillard acknowledges here the influence of Michel Foucault, but goes on to
identify something more fundamental and determining than anything identified by Foucault: at the very
core of the 'rationality' of our culture, however, is an exclusion that precedes every other, more radical
than the exclusion of madmen, children or inferior races, an exclusion preceding all these and serving as
their model: the exclusion of the dead and of death, (p. 12.6) So total is this exclusion that, 'today, it is not
normal to be dead, and this is new. To be dead is an unthinkable anomaly; nothing else is as offensive as
this. Death is a delinquency, and an incurable deviancy' (p. 126). He insists that the attempt to
abolish death (especially through capitalist accumulation), to separate it from life, leads only to
a culture permeated by death - 'quite simply, ours is a culture of death' (p. 127). Moreover, it is
the repression of death which facilitates 'the repressive socialization of life'; all existing agencies
of repression and control take root in the disastrous separation of death from
life (p. 130). And, as if that were not enough, our very concept of reality has its
origin in the same separation or disjunction (pp. 130-33). Modern culture is
contrasted with that of the primitive and the savage, in which, allegedly, life
and death were not separated; also with that of the Middle Ages, where,
allegedly, there was still a collectivist, 'folkloric and joyous' conception of
death. This and many other aspects of the argument are questionable, but
perhaps the main objection to Baudrillard's case is his view of culture as a
macro-conspiracy conducted by an insidious ideological prime-mover whose
agency is always invisibly at work (rather like God). Thus (from just one page), the
political economy supposedly întends* to eliminate death through accumulation; and 'our whole culture is
just one huge effort to dissociate life and death' {p. 147; my emphases). What those like Baudrillard find
interesting about death is not the old conception of it as a pre-cultural constant which diminishes the
significance of all cultural achievement, but, on the contrary, its function as a culturally relative - which is
to say culturally formative - construct. And, if cultural relativism is on the one hand about relinquishing the
comfort of the absolute, for those like Baudrillard it is also about the new strategies of intellectual mastery
made possible by the very disappearance of the absolute. Such modern accounts of how death
is allegedly denied, of how death is the supreme ideological fix, entail a new
intensity and complexity of interpretation and decipherment, a kind of hermeneutics of death. To
reinterpret death as a deep effect of ideology, even to the extent of regarding
it as the most fundamental ideological adhesive of modern political
repression and social control, is simultaneously to denounce it as in some sense a
deception or an illusion, and to bring it within the domain of knowledge and
analysis as never before. Death, for so long regarded as the ultimate reality - that which
disempowers the human and obliterates all human achievement, including the achievements of knowledge
Like omniscient seers,
- now becomes the object of a hugely empowering knowledge.
intellectuals like Baudrillard and Bauman relentlessly anatomize and diagnose
the modern (or post-modern) human condition in relation to an ideology of death
which becomes the key with which to unlock the secret workings of Western
culture in all its insidiousness. Baudrillard in particular applies his theory
relentlessly, steamrollering across the cultural significance of the quotidian
and the contingent. His is an imperialist, omniscient analytic, a perpetual act
of reductive generalization, a self-empowering intellectual performance which
proceeds without qualification and without any sense that something might
be mysterious or inexplicable. As such it constitutes a kind of interpretative,
theoretical violence, an extreme but still representative instance of how the
relentless anatomizing and diagnosis of death in the modern world has
become a struggle for empowerment through masterful -i.e. reductive - critique.
Occasionally one wonders if the advocates of the denial-of-death argument are
not themselves in denial. They speak about death endlessly yet indirectly, analysing
not death so much as our culture's attitude towards it. To that extent it is not the truth of death but the
truth of our culture that they seek. But, even as they make death signify in this indirect way, it
is still death that is compelling them to speak. And those like Baudrillard and
Bauman speak urgently, performing intellectually a desperate mimicry of the
omniscience which death denies.
Suffering and death --- even if reversible --- cause

spiritual annihilation and endless pain --- this interrupts
becoming
White 12 (Richard White is associate professor of philosophy Creighton
University "Levinas, the Philosophy of Suffering, and the Ethics of
Compassion" The Heythrop Journal Volume 53, Issue 1, pages 111123,
Published online esept 27 2011, official publication date: January 2012, Wiley)
Suffering includes the extremity of physical pain, as well
What is suffering?
as the emotional anguish and spiritual despair which every

individual is bound to experience at some point in her life. It has been suggested that there
is a significant difference between pain and suffering , since the first is
primarily physical while the latter is basically mental. As Eliot Deutsch comments: One has a pain or that is painful, but I am
Against this, however,

suffering. Where there is no ego there is no suffering although there might be pain.[9]
the language of physical experience is often used to describe what Deutsch would
regard as purely mental aspects of suffering: This is why we express emotional suffering
in physical terms; when we say that we are tortured by guilt, or burning with shame; or our heart aches because of
something that happened. Indeed, it would not be surprising if every form of suffering, including those which are primarily spiritual or
emotional had a physical correlate in the body itself fear is both physical and mental, for example, and depression always has a
it may be possible to understand the nature

somatic aspect. The upshot of all this is that
of suffering by focusing on physical pain as its most direct and

unmediated form. In suffering, we experience the limits of self-
assertion , and the most extreme form of this is physical anguish, in
which the self is rendered passive and impotent by the torment that ruins it as a subject.
Herbert Fingarette puts this point succinctly when he notes that: To suffer is to be compelled to
endure , undergo, and experience the humbled will, rather than to be able to impose one's will.[10] This means
that the experience of suffering is the opposite of self-assertion
and is shot through with the will's experience of impotence and
limitation. Something like this is also the starting-point for Levinas's own account of what it is to suffer. In the course of several
books and numerous articles, Emmanuel Levinas sketches the outlines of a phenomenology of suffering. Suffering is not always a central
concern of his philosophy, but it is possible to reconstruct his basic view of suffering by examining comments drawn from several different
texts. In Time and the Other, for example, Levinas announces that he will focus his remarks on the pain lightly called physical, for in it
engagement in existence is without any equivocation.[11] Once again, the point here is that physical suffering is the purest form of
suffering since it completely overwhelms the sovereignty of the self and as such it is an experience without mediation. As Steven Tudor
Many physical pains intrude so forcefully

notes in his account of compassion and remorse:
into one's consciousness that they impose their own significance

which no stoic attitude can alter that significance possibly
being a pure sense of raging chaos that obliterates all other
matters of significance, so rupturing, so consuming is the pain .[12]
Levinas also notes that in spiritual suffering it is still possible to preserve an attitude of dignity and distance from whatever affects one,
and in this respect one remains independent and free. Indeed, it can be argued that spiritual suffering is itself a kind of luxury that can
only exist for as long as we are not disturbed by physical pain. As Levinas comments, from one perspective (which he refers to as
socialism), solitude and its anxieties are an ostrichlike position in a world that solicits solidarity and lucidity; they are epiphenomena
phenomena of luxury or waste of a period of social transformation, the senseless dream of an eccentric individual, a luxation in the
physical suffering in its most extreme form
collective body.[13] By contrast,
effaces subjectivity and all subjective attitudes . For Levinas, physical suffering
involves the irremissibility of being and the absence of all refuge; in such pain we are backed up against being with no possibility of
escape, and for this reason it provides the clearest, most unambiguous model for suffering in general. As Levinas notes,
significant suffering corrodes all the structures of meaning that

we project into the world; it overwhelms all virility or the effort
to be masters of our own fate until finally one is reduced to a
state resembling helpless infancy: Where suffering attains its purity, where there is no longer
anything between us and it, the supreme responsibility of this extreme assumption turns into supreme irresponsibility, into infancy.
Sobbing is this, and precisely through this it announces death. To

die is to return to this state of irresponsibility, to be the infantile
shaking of sobbing.[14] In her own account of torture in The Body in Pain, Elaine Scarry confirms this point, when she
argues that more than resisting language, suffering and pain actively
destroy language and all other meaningful projects , so that the subject reverts to
a state anterior to language, to the sounds and cries a human being makes before language is learned.[15] In this way,
suffering is world-destroying . Indeed, to suffer greatly is to have one's world reduced to the content of
one's pain. In the passage cited above, Levinas notes a connection between suffering and death. According to Levinas, the one announces
the other: There is not only the feeling and the knowledge that suffering can end in death. Pain of itself includes it like a paroxysm, as if
there were something about to be produced even more rending than suffering, as if despite the entire absence of a dimension of
withdrawal that constitutes suffering, it still had some free space for an event, as if it must still get uneasy about something, as if we were
on the verge of an event beyond what is revealed to the end in suffering.[16] Extreme suffering involves complete passivity. In suffering
we are subject to something which does not come from ourselves and which tends to undermine all meaningful structures of subjectivity.
In this respect, suffering is the anticipation of death as the encounter with something that cannot be avoided or held at arm's length. Both
suffering and death involve the end of mastery, and with each, the contents of consciousness are destroyed. In his collection of essays, At
the Mind's Limits, Jean Amery, who was tortured by the Nazis, also seeks to articulate the strong sense of a connection between acute
physical suffering and death. Speculating on the meaning of his own experience, he comments that Pain is the most extreme
intensification imaginable of our bodily being. But maybe it is even more, that is: death. No road that can be travelled by logic leads us
to death , but perhaps the thought is permissible that through pain a path of feeling and premonition can be paved to it for us. In the end,
we would be faced with the equation: Body = Pain = Death, and in our case this could be reduced to the hypothesis that torture, through
In
which we are turned into body by the other, blots out the contradiction of death and allows us to experience it personally.[17]
extreme physical suffering, such as the torment that Amery describes, the individual
becomes purely a body, and nothing else besides that. For as long as it continues
there is no space for reflection ; and this violent reduction to physical
being is the most intense form of negation which seems to parallel the negation of death.
Elaine Scarry agrees: death and suffering are the purest expressions of the
anti-human, of annihilation, of total aversiveness , though one is
an absence and the other a felt presence, one occurring in the
cessation of sentience, the other expressing itself in grotesque
overload.[18]
Life has value

Kacou 8 WHY EVEN MIND? On The A Priori Value Of Life, Cosmos and
History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, Vol 4, No 1-2 (2008)
cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/92/184
that manner of finding things good that is in pleasure can certainly not exist
Furthermore,
in any world without consciousness (i.e., without life, as we now understand the word)
slight analogies put aside. In fact, we can begin to develop a more sophisticated definition of the concept
of pleasure, in the broadest possible sense of the word, as follows: it is the common psychological
element in all psychological experience of goodness (be it in joy, admiration, or whatever else).
In this sense, pleasure can always be pictured to mediate all awareness or perception or judgment of
goodness: there is pleasure in all consciousness of things good; pleasure is the
common element of all conscious satisfaction . In short, it is simply the very
experience of liking things, or the liking of experience, in general. In this sense, pleasure is,
not only uniquely characteristic of life but also, the core expression of goodness in lifethe most
general sign or phenomenon for favorable conscious valuation, in other words. This does
not mean that good is absolutely synonymous with pleasantwhat we value may well
go beyond pleasure. (The fact that we value things needs not be reduced to the experience of liking
things.) However, what we value beyond pleasure remains a matter of speculation or
theory. Moreover, we note that a variety of things that may seem otherwise unrelated are correlated with
pleasuresome more strongly than others. In other words, there are many things the
experience of which we like. For example: the admiration of others; sex; or rock-paper-
scissors. But, again, what they are is irrelevant in an inquiry on a priori value
what gives us pleasure is a matter for empirical investigation. Thus, we can see now that, in general,
something primitively valuable is attainable in livingthat is, pleasure itself. And it
seems equally clear that we have a priori logical reason to pay attention to the world in
any world where pleasure exists. Moreover, we can now also articulate a foundation for a
security interest in our life: since the good of pleasure can be found in living (to the extent
pleasure remains attainable),[17] and only in living , therefore, a priori , life ought to be
continuously (and indefinitely) pursued at least for the sake of preserving the
possibility of finding that good.However, this platitude about the value that can be found in life turns out to be,
at this point, insufficient for our purposes. It seems to amount to very little more than recognizing that our subjective
life has some objective value . For what difference is

desire for life in and of itself shows that
there between saying, living is unique in benefiting something I value (namely, my

pleasure); therefore, I should desire to go on living, and saying, I have a unique desire
to go on living; therefore I should have a desire to go on living, whereas the latter proposition
immediately seems senseless? In other words, life gives me pleasure, says little more than, I like life. Thus, we
seem to have arrived at the conclusion that the fact that we already have some
( subjective) desire for life shows life to have some ( objective) value . But, if that
is the most we can say, then it seems our enterprise of justification was quite superficial, and the subjective/objective
distinction was uselessfor all we have really done is highlight the correspondence between value and desire. Perhaps,
our inquiry should be a bit more complex.
Life is a prerequisite to confronting death

Lawtoo 5 (Nidesh Lawtoo 5, Dept of Comparative Lit, U Washington,
Bataille and the Suspension of Being, linguaromana.byu.edu/Lawtoo4.html)
Bataille's notion of communication involves a dialectic with two positives (hence a non-dialectic) where two sovereigns confront death not in
confronting death," in fact, "puts the subjects at

view of an end but as an end in itself: "
stake-"l'tre en eux-mmes [est] mis en jeu" (Sur Nietzsche 61). Further, Bataille affirms that "[p]ersonne n'est-un
instant-souverain qui ne se perde" (OC VIII 429). It is the Nietzschean self-forgetfulness that is here evoked; a self-
forgetfulness which implies a transgression of the limits of both

communicating subjects. Again, for Bataille "[l]a 'communication' n'a lieu qu'entre deux tres mis en jeu-dchirs,
suspendus, l'un et l'autre penchs au-dessus de leur nant" (Sur Nietzsche 62). However, if according to
Nietzsche, self-forgetfulness takes place in solitude, for Bataille it

necessitates the presence of an "other ."(5) Communication in fact, asks for "deux tres mis en
jeu" who participate in what he defines as "une fte immotive" (Sur Nietzsche 31). There the sovereign loses
himself (se perde) with the other, through the other, in the other, in a
process of "mutual laceration" (Essential 105) which is simultaneously tragic and ludic. The emphasis on the
other is Hegelian, but unlike dialectics, communication does not confront the subject with an object (Gegen-stand, something that stands
against the subject). As Bataille puts it (apparently echoing Baudelaire), communication takes place with "un semblable," "mon frre" (OC VIII
Bataille's notion of
289). And he adds: "Cela suppose la communication de sujet sujet" (OC VIII 288).
communication is not based upon a "violent hierarchy" (Derrida's term) but

rather upon egalitarianism. Moreover, transgressing the limits of the
subject implies that the two subjects already possess (in potential) the
characteristics of sovereignty. Hence, the status of sovereign is not
achieved as a result of a fight to the death, but requires the subject
to be open to an other who is outside the limits of the self . Derrida speaks of
the "trembling" to which Bataille submits Hegelian concepts (253). This trembling, I would argue, has its source in Nietzsche (6): "The figs fall
from the trees" says Zarathustra, "they are good and sweet, and when they fall, their red skins are rent. A north wind am I unto ripe figs" (qtd.
in Philosophy 135). If we apply this passage to Bataille's philosophy, we could say that inherent in this "fall" is an explosion of Hegelian
concepts, and in particular, as we have seen, the notion of Herrshaft. Further, communication, for Bataille, involves a similar "fall" which rents
(dchire) the skin of the subjects (their limits) exposing the red flesh which lies beneath the skin. According to the French philosopher,
Nietzsche's critique of the subject is more radical than Hegel's, since, as he puts it in "Hegel, la mort et le sacrifice," Hegel's philosophy, and I
would add Kojve's interpretation of it, is "une thologie, o l'homme aurait pris la place de Dieu" (OC XII 329). Hegel's "theology" preserves
the identity of the subject. Now, Bataille makes his position to this "theology" clear as he writes: "I don't believe in God-from the inability to
believe in self" (Essential 10). By establishing a direct link between the death of the subject and the death of God, Bataille extends his critique
of "beings" into the larger, ontological, critique of "Being." Implicit in this theoretical move is the articulation of the ontology of sovereignty.
Bataille's philosophy is Nietzschean insofar as it is grounded in experience and in the immanence of the body. Communication, for Bataille is
first and foremost a bodily affair. Hence the interrogation of the limits of the subject starts from an interrogation of what we could call the
"gates," or openings of the body: the mouth, the vagina, the anus and the eyes are for Bataille central places for philosophical investigation
because at these gates, the integrity of the subject is questioned; its limits can be transgressed. They are spaces of transition where a
"glissement hors de soi" (OC VIII 246) can take place. These bodily openings, which Bataille also defines as "blessures," (Sur Nietzsche 64)
found his conception of the sovereign subject. In fact, each "blessure" can be linked to a specific dimension of communication which obsesses
Bataille. His central themes match different bodily openings: the mouth connects to laughter; the vagina to eroticism; the eyes to tears; the
anus to the excrements which he links to death. Through these openings the subject is traversed by different fluxes and its integrity, totality
and stability is challenged. They allow for the possibility of a glissement of the subject's being. The same could be said of Bataille's corpus: it is
a unitary entity, which, like a body, escapes the totalizing temptation of closure. Despite the fact that Bataille defines sovereignty in terms of
the Kojvian/Hegelian "nothingness" (Bataille's Rien), his conception of communication is built upon the Nietzschean ontological distinction
between the Dionysian and the Apollonian. In fact, the ontological movement that takes place in communication "exige que l'on glisse" (OC VI
158) from an "insufficient" and "discontinuous" being to a reality of "continuity" that transcends binary oppositions (Erotism 13-14). To put it
more simply, communication introduces a movement from the "many" to the "One"; from a "discontinuity of being" to a "continuity of being;"
from separate "beings" to a common ontological ground ("Being"). The source of Bataille's ontology is clear: it stems from Nietzsche's The
Birth of Tragedy which in turn, is construed upon Schopenhauer's distinction between will and representation. "As a sailor sits in a small boat in
a boundless raging sea," writes Schopenhauer," surrounded on all sides by heaving mountainous waves, trusting to his frail vessel; so does the
individual man sit calmly in the middle of a world of torment, trusting to the principium individuationis" (Birth 21) .(7)
Communication, for Bataille, as the Dionysian for Nietzsche, involves the shattering of the principium individuationis,
a tearing down of the veil of Maya which constitutes, what Bataille calls, with a blink of the eye to
Schopenhauer, the "illusion of a being which is isolated " (Essential 10; my emphasis).
Communication, thus, involves an opening of the subject to the

larger ground of Being. The sovereign's boat is constantly leaking.
Yet, in order for communication to take place, the boat needs to
keep floating. That is to say that for transgression to take place, the limits of
the subject need to be preserved (Erotism 63; Foucault 34). The being of the
sovereign subject is suspended upon the abme-what Bataille also calls "une realit plus vaste" (OC II 246)-
which means that the subject neither dwells safely within the limits of the
"small, insufficient boat" of individuation, nor within the depth of the

undifferentiated "raging sea," but in the space of contact in-between
the two spheres. This precision is key in order to delineate the originality of
Bataille's ontology of sovereignty. Bataille's conception of the
communicating subject (i.e., of sovereignty) walks a thin line
between its self-dissolution and its self-preservation. Hence the idea
that he is above all a thinker of limits or borders. The sovereign's being, in
fact,is "suspended" on the "bord de l'abme" (Coupable V 355) but never actually falls , except, of
course, in death. Hence, for Bataille, "[i]l s'agit d'approcher la mort" [it is approaching death] that is to say, the abme, or
the continuity of being, "d'aussi prs qu'on peut l'endurer" [as close as one can endure] (337-338). The
sovereign subject confronts death while preserving his life. His being
is placed at the border between life and death. Hence, if Bataille defines
philosophy as "existence striving to reach its limits" (Essential 146), it should
be specified that the being of the subject is not found beyond its
limits, as his use of "existence" seems to suggest (Ek-sistenz) since that would imply a
total dissolution of the subject. Bataille's philosophy of transgression implies the
preservation of the limits of the subject so that the sovereign can
experience and endure death in life. The tension between self-
expenditure (Nietzsche's Verschwendung) and self-preservation (linked to Hegel's Anerkennung) is
analogous to the movement of a moth that is first attracted by the
fire of a candle and subsequently distances itself from the fire in
order to preserve its life.(8) This repeated back and forth movement
recapitulates the movement of communication and is responsible for
the underlying tension which traverses Bataille's philosophy. It is an
inner (bodily) drive that attracts the moth to death and not, as it is the case for Hegel's
master, a reasoned project in view of an end (recognition). The moth's self-sacrifice, in fact, is perfectly useless (it serves no purpose) and
hence is truly sovereign. Bataille would call it "une ngativit sans emploi." Or, as he says with respect to eroticism in his first and last
interview before he died, "it is purely squandering, an expenditure of energy for itself" (in Essential 220). This movement
forwards, towards the flame of self-dissolution (which takes place in death, eroticism,
laughter) and its retreat backwards, towards life and the limits it
involves, epitomizes Bataille's notion of communication. A practice which for

Bataille seems to have the characteristic of a fort-da game in which the subject is not in control of the movement. This movement, Bataille
writes in the Preface to Madame Edwarda, happens "malgr nous" (III 11). Thus conceived the sovereign accepts the place of a toy in the
hands of a child playing-a definition similar to Heraclitus' vision of life, which he defines as "a child at play, moving pieces in a game (Fragment
52, in GM 149). This view of communication is both tragic and joyful; violent and useless. A joyful tragedy, which challenges the limits of the
If Bataille is deeply fascinated by death, decay

subject; that puts the subject's being en jeu.
and the dissolution of the subject in a continuity of being, he

escapes the temptation to embrace death at the expense of life . His
definition of eroticism sums up this fundamental tension:
"Eroticism," he writes, "is assenting to life up to the point of death"
(Erotism11). This applies not only to eroticism but also to all communicating activities such as laughter, play,
tears, and ultimately to the ethos that sustains the totality of Bataille's philosophy . If
Kojve defines dialectics as a "negating-negativity" (5), Bataille's communication can be read as
an affirmative negativity. In fact, death is confronted and even invoked ,

but what is found in death is the ultimate affirmation of life .
Negation of the integrity (the limits) of the subject leads to a radical
affirmation of life . And if in the Preface to Madame Edwarda, Bataille can affirme "l'identit de l'tre et de la mort" (OC III
10), let us also note thatthe identity of being and death is realized in life . Faithful to
Nietzsche, Bataille does not become a negator of the will; a negator of
life; a pessimist, a Buddhist or worse, a nihilist (some of the derogatory terms used by Nietzsche to
retrospectively define his first and last master). Bataille remains truthful to life . While the ontological
premises grounding sovereignty are taken from Schopenhauer (via Nietzsche), Bataille's conclusions are diametrically opposed to Nietzsche's
Bataille's philosophy can be seen as an affirmation of the

first master. In fact,
will (he operates an inversion of values) through Dionysian practices (included sexuality which
Schopenhauer condemned) that put the subject in touch with the ultimate ground
of being, without dissolving him/her in it .

AT Signification K
Language is action their attempt to strictly demarcate
speaking from violence is shallow oversimplified nonsense
---at: signification kritiks
Chen 12. Mel Y. Chen, professor of linguistics and womens studies at UC

Berkeley, Animacies: Biopolitics, Racial Mattering, and Queer Affect, Duke U
Press, pg. 53
Language is as much alive as it is dead , and it is certainly material .

For humans and others, spoken and signed speech can involve the tongue ,
vocal tract , breath , lips , hands , eyes , and shoulders . It is a
corporeal, sensual, embodied act. It is, by definition, animated . But in spite of,
or because of, the so-called linguistic turn (which occurred outside of the social-science discipline of
linguistics, largely in the humanities) and the influence of poststructuralist thought, language in theory has
in many ways steadily become bleached of its quality to be anything but referential, or structural, or
performative. Some attempts at theorizing language have been labeled
shallow linguisticisms that fail to recognize , or include , the vast
materialities that set up the conditions under which language
might even begin to be spoken . As Judith Butler has stated, the point has never been
that everything is discursively constructed; that point, when and where it is made, belongs to a kind of
discursive monism or linguisticism that refuses the constitutive force of exclusion, erasure, violent
foreclosure, abjection, and its disruptive return within the very terms of discursive legitimacy.74
Words more than signify; they affect and effect . Whether read or heard, they
complexly pulse through bodies (live or dead), rendering their
effects in feeling and active response. They are a first level of animation, one in which
we deeply linguistic creatures attached to our own language are caught, but not the last. Indeed,
language is but one discourse among many in a cacophony of anti-,
re-, and miscoordinations between objects, things, and beings. It
sometimes only sees itself; if it sees outside of itself, it sometimes
responds only with itself; and it sometimes must be left altogether,
perishing in the nonlanguage the moment demands. If we think only
about insult and effect , injury and response , then language, for all
its special investments, cannot suffice as the final agent or medium
by which any of these is actuated .
1ar EXT Life Prereq
Life is a pre-requisite to deaths symbolic value---fearing
death doesnt preclude recognizing lifes finitude and its
inevitability---we can still create provisional value in life---
individuals should have the option to live
Kalnow 9 (Cara Kalnow 9 A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of MPhil at the
University of St. Andrews WHY DEATH CAN BE BAD AND IMMORTALITY IS
WORSE https://research-repository.st-
andrews.ac.uk/bitstream/10023/724/3/Cara%20Kalnow%20MPhil
%20thesis.PDF)
(PA) also provided us with good reason to reject the Epicurean claim that the finitude of life cannot be bad for us. With (PA), we saw that
our lives could accumulate value through the satisfaction of our desires
beyond the boundaries of the natural termination of life. But Chapter Four
determined that the finitude of life is a necessary condition for the value of life as
such and that many of our human values rely on the finite temporal
structure of life. I therefore argued that an indefinite life cannot present a desirable alternative to our finite life, because life
as such would not be recognized as valuable. In this chapter, I have argued that the finitude of life is
instrumentally good as it provides the recognition that life itself is

valuable . Although I ultimately agree with the Epicureans that the finitude of life cannot be
an evil, this conclusion was not reached from the Epicurean
arguments against the badness of death, and I maintain that (HA) and (EA) are insufficient to justify
changing our attitudes towards our future deaths and the finitude of life. Nonetheless, the instrumental good of the finitude of life that we
arrived at through the consideration of immortality should make us realize that the finitude of life cannot be an evil; it is a necessary condition
for the recognition that life as such is valuable. Although my arguments pertaining to the nature of death and its moral implications have
yielded several of the Epicurean conclusions, my position still negotiates a middle ground between the Epicureans and Williams, as (PA)
accounts for the intuition that it is rational to fear death and regard it as an evil to
be avoided . I have therefore reached three of the Epicurean conclusions pertaining to the moral worth of the nature of death: (1)
that the state of being dead is nothing to us, (2) death simpliciter is nothing to us, and (3) the finitude of life is a matter for contentment. But
we can rationally fear our future deaths, as

against the Epicureans, I have argued that
categorical desires provide a disutility by which the prospect of

death is rationally held as an evil to be avoided. Finally, I also claimed against the
Epicureans, that the prospect of death can rationally be regarded as morally good for one if one no longer desires to continue living. 5.3
Conclusion I began this thesis with the suggestion that in part, the Epicureans were right: deathwhen it occursis nothing to us. I went on to
defend the Epicurean position against the objections raised by the deprivation theorists and Williams. I argued that the state of being dead,
and death simpliciter, cannot be an evil of deprivation or prevention for the person who dies because (once dead), the personand the
it is rational to fear
grounds for any misfortunecease to exist. I accounted for the anti-Epicurean intuition 115 that
death and to regard death as an evil to be avoided, not because death simpliciter is bad, but
rather because the prospect of our deaths may be presented to us as
bad for us if our deaths would prevent the satisfaction of our
categorical desires. Though we have good reasons to rationally
regard the prospect of our own death as an evil for us, the fact that
life is finite cannot be an evil and is in fact instrumentally good,
because it takes the threat of losing life to recognize that life as
such is valuable . In this chapter, I concluded that even though death cannot be of any
moral worth for us once it occurs, we can attach two distinct values
to death while we are alive : we can attach a value of disutility (or
utility) to the prospect of our own individual deaths, and we must attach an
instrumentally good value to the fact of death as such. How to
decide on the balance of those values is a matter for psychological
judgment.
No link---deaths symbolic value does not deny the value

of life---the option to continue living should always be
available
Kacou 8 (Amien Kacou 8 WHY EVEN MIND?On The A Priori Value Of Life
Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, Vol 4, No 1-
2 (2008) cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/92/184)
I. What we mean (in more detail) Regardless of whether or not we find that it is the fundamental
question of philosophy,[8] we can see that judging whether life is or is not worth living is, in one sense
at least, when understood with a general character, a fundamentally philosophical question. The
question calls on the living individual to make a value judgment (which seems of the most serious
extent) about the condition it most basically, most generally, and in a sense most intimately, finds
itself inand in this sense, the question must be seen as a personal one.[9] But the judgment called
for only becomes especially interesting for philosophical exercise once we attempt to make it
objective, so to speak. On the one hand,
from a subjective point of view, the
question whether life is or is not worth living reduces simply to the
question whether or notor howwe the living already in fact, in our variable
situations, desire or not to live. Its answer is a function of descriptions of motivational
dispositions as they may vary from individual to individual and circumstance to circumstance. (For
instance, some may find certain cases of euthanasia justified, or find certain forms of suicide
honorable.) In other words, from a subjective point of view,
the answer would simply be
that life is worth living to the extent that, while we could have a
different attitude, we just happen to want it (to be disposed towards it),
perhaps in light of circumstantial considerations . And, thus, the
question could be quickly addressed in some cases, without much
need for philosophical inquiry except perhaps on collateral issues. Similarly, typical
answers referring simply to how fun or beautiful life is, or (perhaps the contemporary scientists
favorite) how fascinating or mysteriousthese answers are, as stated, inadequate for our
purposes, to the extent that they are primitive (uncritical) generalizations expressing our preexisting
desire for (or infatuation with) life. On the other hand, from a point of view that purports to be
objective, we must have a more complex approach. We must problematize the value of life in
general. The question is not simply whether (or how, or even why in the broad sense of an explanation)
we happen to desire or not to live, but rather whether (or why in the narrow sense of a justification) we
should or should not ever desire to live in the first place. a. The objective approach In seeking a
justification, we must look, beyond the mere freedom (or given-ness) of any primitive desire, for
something like a final authority that we could show through some fact or logical inference[10] to
make us right (i.e., as a matter of reasoning) to have such a desire. In other words, we must try to
present life as being instrumental or not to some uncontested value (or purpose)and, thus, as either
useful or futile. In this sense, the word meaningful (pertaining to life) would be basically
synonymous with the word usefula relation between objects and moments, on the one hand, and
how what we value can be served, on the other hand. In addition, we do not look for conditions that
demonstration that
would sustain or increase the value of a proposed venture; we look for a
the venture can have any value. Accordingly, in order to find the objective position,
we must avoid in our picture of life or death any variable circumstance that could be taken to make
any
either one of them arbitrarily more or less attractive or pursuable. Furthermore,
description of how we desire to live may well entail conditions
under which we would not prefer to live. But even if such
conditions exist , it does not necessarily follow that life is without
value when those conditions prevail. Indeed, by analogy, that we would
prefer ten dollars to five dollars if we could choose does not mean
at all that the five dollars would then have no value. Other example:
that we would happily accept an ice cream cone if it were free but
refuse it if we had to pay for it does not mean at all that ice cream
has no value to us. The distinction can be expressed as follows: the value of ice cream in
light of its cost, we call its a posteriori value; the value of ice cream irrespective of its cost, we call its a
priori value. What we seek in this inquiry is the a priori value of life-
as-such the value that subsists in, or is essential to, or is the
initial value in, any life , irrespective of its circumstances ,
including, to any extent possible, any explanation for its
existence.[11] (The objective question calls for an a priori answer.) In contrast, we are not
interested in questions such as whether seppuku is honorable or how end-of-life decisions should be
made. (The subjective question, the question of circumstances and the a posteriori answer coincide.)
1ar EXT Passivity DA
Change and survival are key to avoid passivity and
ressentiment
May 5 [Todd, Professor of Philosophy at Clemson University, September
2005, To change the world, to celebrate life, Philosophy & Social Criticism,
Vol. 31, No. 5-6]
For those among us who seek in philosophy a way to grapple with our
lives rather than to solve logical puzzles; for those whose reading and whose writing
are not merely appropriate steps toward academic advancement but a struggle to see ourselves and our
world in a fresher, clearer light; for those who find nourishment among impassioned ideas and go hungry
among empty truths: there is a struggle that is often waged within us. It is a struggle
that will be familiar to anyone who has heard in Foucaults sentences the stammering of a fellow human
We seek to
being struggling to speak in words worth hearing. Why else would we read Foucault?
conceive what is wrong in the world, to grasp it in a way that offers
us the possibility for change. We know that there is much that is, to use
Foucaults word, intolerable. There is much that binds us to social and
political arrangements that are oppressive, domineering, patronizing, and
exploitative. We would like to understand why this is and how it happens,
in order that we may prevent its continuance. In short, we want our
theories to be tools for changing the world, for offering it a new face, or at least a
new expression. There is struggle in this, struggle against ideas and ways of thinking that present
themselves to us as inescapable. We know this struggle from Foucaults writings. It is not clear that he ever
there is, on the
wrote about anything else. But this is not the struggle I want to address here. For
other hand, another search and another goal. They lie not so much in
the revisioning of this world as in the embrace of it . There is much to
be celebrated in the lives we lead, or in those led by others, or in the unfolding of the
world as it is, a world resonant with the rhythms of our voices and our movements. We would like
to understand this, too, to grasp in thought the elusive beauty of our world. There is, after all,
no other world, except, as Nietzsche taught, for those who would have created another one with which to
denigrate our own. In short,we would like our thought to celebrate our lives. To
change the world and to celebrate life. This, as the theologian Harvey Cox saw, is the
struggle within us.1 It is a struggle in which one cannot choose sides; or
better, a struggle in which one must choose both sides. The
abandonment of one for the sake of the other can lead only to
disaster or callousness. Forsaking the celebration of life for the sake
of changing the world is the path of the sad revolutionary . In his preface to
Anti-Oedipus, Foucault writes that one does not have to be sad in order to be revolutionary. The matter is
more urgent than that, however. One cannot be both sad and revolutionary. Lacking a sense of the
wondrous that is already here, among us, one who is bent upon changing the world can only become
solemn or bitter. He or she is focused only on the future; the present is what is to be overcome. The vision
of what is not but must come to be overwhelms all else, and the point of change itself becomes lost. The
history of the left in the 20th century offers numerous examples of this, and the disaster that attends to it
The alternative is surely not to shift ones
should be evident to all of us by now.
allegiance to the pure celebration of life, although there are many who have chosen
this path. It is at best blindness [immoral] not to see the misery that
envelops so many of our fellow humans, to say nothing of what happens to sentient
nonhuman creatures. The attempt to jettison world-changing for an
uncritical assent to the world as it is requires a self-deception that I
assume would be anathema for those of us who have studied Foucault. Indeed, it is
anathema for all of us who awaken each day to an America whose expansive boldness is matched only by
an equally expansive disregard for those we place in harms way. This is the struggle, then. The one
The struggle
between the desire for life-celebration and the desire for world-changing.
between reveling in the contingent and fragile joys that constitute
our world and wresting it from its intolerability . I am sure it is a struggle that is
not foreign to anyone who is reading this. I am sure as well that the stakes for choosing one
side over another that I have recalled here are obvious to everyone.
The question then becomes one of how to choose both sides at once.
Cap/Neolib
2ac F/L
Aggregate violence is decreasing because of cap

Beauchamp and Pinker 15 (Zack; Steven Pinker explains how
capitalism is killing war; Jun 4; www.vox.com/2015/6/4/8725775/pinker-
capitalism; kdf)
the world has
I spoke with Pinker this week to discuss some of the reasons why, specifically, he thinks
gotten so much safer, especially in the past 70 years. We talked about the idea that war
just isn't as profitable as it used to be, why Vladimir Putin and ISIS seem to think differently, and what world leaders
should do if they actually want to make sure the unprecedented peace of the past 70 years holds. What follows is a
transcript of our conversation, lightly edited for length and clarity. Zack Beauchamp: One story you hear from political
scientists for why there's been less war recently that it's just less profitable countries don't gain very much,
economically or politically, from taking over new land anymore. Does that seem right to you? Steven Pinker: Yes, it's one
It's the theory of the capitalist peace: when it's cheaper to
of the causes.
buy things than to steal them, people don't steal them. Also, if other
people are more valuable to you alive than dead, you're less likely to
kill them. You don't kill your customers or your lenders, so the arrival of the
infrastructure of trade and commerce reduces some of the sheer exploitative incentives of conquest. This is an idea that
goes back to the Enlightenment. Adam Smith and Montesquieu extolled it; it was on the minds of the founders when they
I don't think it's the entire story of the
built incentives for free trade into the Constitution.
decline in war. But I do think it's part of the story. There was a well-
known study from Bruce Russett and John Oneal showing statistically that countries
that engage in more trade are less likely to get into militarized
disputes, and countries that are more integrated into the world
economy are less likely to get into trouble with their neighbors. ZB: Is it
just that pairs of countries are trading with each more, or has something fundamentally changed about the global
Countries that trade with each other are less likely to
economy? SP: It's both.
pick fights with each other. Independently, individual countries that get
more integrated into the global economy are less likely to make
trouble. But one of the reasons I say this is only part of the answer is that in the Oneal and Russett analysis, it
counted for some percentage of the variance in militarized dispute, but only a chunk. They found
independent contributions from democracy and membership in the
international community (namely, the number of international organizations and treaties that a country
has signed on to). Quite across from calculations of interest that are tilted by international markets and institutions,
there's the idea of norms: what you consider and don't consider as a legitimate possible move. [Some scholars] argue that
the main factor is that war has been delegitimated at least among the great powers and the developed states as a
thinkable option. In the 19th century, there was this clich from [Carl] von Clausewitz that war was just the continuation of
you consider whether to go to war [like any other
politics by other means:
policy option]. Now that's just not something decent leaders do. Finally,
cost-benefit calculations depend on what counts as a "cost." If you lose several tens or hundreds of thousands of your own
citizens, is that a cost? And how big a cost is it? Now, increasingly, that counts as a cost :
leaders are less
likely to see their young men as cannon fodder, which means
countries are willing to endure other costs to avoid that one. That's a
result of the rise of humanistic sentiments, as opposed to nationalistic or ideological ones.
Perm do both we control the only avenue for solvency
neolib and cap are both inevitable and sustainable its
try or die for pragmatic reforms
Wolfenstein 2k (Eugene, Inside/Outside Nietzsche: Psychoanalytic
Explorations)
human
As to the matter of political aims, we have no choice but to live with the disjunction between the potential for realizing the project of
emancipation and the recognition that this potential is not going to be realized any time soon . In
the foreseeable future, we are not going to be able to go beyond
capitalism. We cannot hope for the emergence of a society in which the free
development of each individual is a condition for the free development of all .
Capitalism is a system of structurally determined inequality; its normal and necessary operations preclude genuine social democracy. This is the sobering premise of
from its inception, capitalism has combined

contemporary enmancipatory politics. Yet
emnancipatory and oppressive tendencies . We must resist the temptation of

one-dimensionalizing it one way or the other. Putting the point pragmatically, we can hope and work for the
realization of progressive policy aims so long as these do not (unduly?) inhibit the process
of capital accumulation or threaten the power relationships that maintain them . This defines
a substantial field for political action, one in which outcomes are contingent and not determinable in advance. It is an
abnegation of political responsibility not to take advantage of these
potentialities, even if social injustices and metabolic imbalances cannot be altogether
eliminated . To carry the argument a hit further, the realization of progressive political aims depends on collective action, ultimately at national or even
international levels. Local action, vital as it may be, just is not enough. We--critical
theorists-must be prepared for a war on two fronts: against the hegemonic

power of capitalist ruling classes, on the one side, and against sometimes diffuse,
sometimes organizationally embodied, ur-fascistic tendencies, on the other. The
fissiparous tendency in leftist politics, sometimes celebrated in postmodern discourse, puts us at a terrible strategic and tactical disadvantage. The dangers of a dissent-
stiffling leftist hegemony, although not a mere phantasy, are far less pressing than the risks of selffragmentation and political incoherence. In this regard, the more things
change, the more they stay the same: resistance politics must be both dialectically self-unifying and perspectivally self-differentiating. (235-6)
The perm avoids the disempowerment DA their

universalizing critique creates the illusion of
powerlessness -- turning the alt
Griffith 14, Prof. School of social science, University of East London , 8-13-14
(Jon, http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/aug/13/neoliberalism-myth-
disempowers-us)
When I was growing up, consumerism was the bogey . Later, it was individualism.
Now its neoliberalism (George Monbiot, 6 August). But these ideas mask the
truth: if I move my mortgage or my savings from one bank to another to get a fractionally
improved rate of interest, then I, too, am screwing the economy, and, ultimately, the
planet; and, uncomfortably for Guardian readers, its the hundreds of millions of people like us,
worldwide, who do most of the damage not the super-rich. Were not neoliberals, nor selfish,
nor acquisitive, just ordinary people, doing our best to eat , live, and pay the
salary of whoever sold us the cover we took out, so we dont have to pay a weeks wages to get the boiler
Widespread belief in the neoliberalism myth, like others before it, leads to
fixed.
widespread disempowerment: the larger and vaguer the abstraction,
the less able we feel (and are) to take effective action. We can change our
habits, influence others and reform institutions (radically as well as incrementally),
whether alone or jointly, in response to specific wrongs, abuses and injustices, but the
idea of neoliberalism does not help. And Monbiot himself acknowledges a further
problem: if the neoliberal condition actually exists nowhere and not even its alleged
advocates believe in it, or want it then it cannot be the enemy we have so collusively
and easily settled on. He is right about the pervasive bureaucratic
juggernaut, but neoliberalism does not explain it: we need a better theory.
Prefer particularity even if markets are bad in the

abstract, theyre productive in certain instances
Barnett 5 Clive BARNETT Faculty of the Social Sciences @ Open University
(UK) 5 [The Consolations of Neoliberalism Geoforum 36 (1) p. Science
Direct]
The blind-spot in theories of neoliberalism
3. There is no such thing as neoliberalism!
whether neo-Marxist and Foucauldiancomes with trying to account for how top-
down initiatives take in everyday situations. So perhaps the best thing

to do is to stop thinking of neoliberalism as a coherent
hegemonic project altogether . For all its apparent critical force, the
vocabulary of neoliberalism and neoliberalization in fact provides a double
consolation for leftist academics: it supplies us with plentiful
opportunities for unveiling the real workings of hegemonic
ideologies in a characteristic gesture of revelation; and in so doing, it invites us to align our
own professional roles with the activities of various actors out
there, who are always framed as engaging in resistance or contestation. The
conceptualization of neoliberalism as a hegemonic project does not need refining by adding a splash of Foucault.
Perhaps we should try to do without the concept of neoliberalism altogether, because it might actually compound rather
than aid in the task of figuring out how the world works and how it changes. One reason for this is that ,
between
an overly economistic derivation of political economy and an overly
statist rendition of governmentality, stories about neoliberalism
manage to reduce the understanding of social relations to a residual
effect of hegemonic projects and/or governmental programmes of
rule (see Clarke, 2004a). Stories about neoliberalism pay little attention to
the pro-active role of socio-cultural processes in provoking changes
in modes of governance, policy, and regulation. Consider the example of the restructuring of public services
such as health care, education, and criminal justice in the UK over the last two or three decades. This can easily be
thought of in terms of a hegemonic project of neoliberalization, and certainly one dimension of this process has been a
form of anti-statism that has rhetorically contrasted market provision against the rigidities of the state. But in fact
these ongoing changes in the terms of public-policy debate involve a
combination of different factors that add up to a much more
dispersed populist reorientation in policy, politics, and culture . These
factors include changing consumer expectations, involving shifts in expectations towards public entitlements which follow
from the generalization of consumerism; the decline of deference, involving shifts in conventions and hierarchies of taste,
trust, access, and expertise; and the refusals of the subordinated, referring to the emergence of anti-paternalist attitudes
found in, for example, womens health movements or anti-psychiatry movements. They include also the development of
the politics of difference, involving the emergence of discourses of institutional discrimination based on gender, sexuality,
race, and disability. This has disrupted the ways in which welfare agencies think about inequality, helping to generate the
emergence of contested inequalities, in which policies aimed at addressing inequalities of class and income develop an
ever more expansive dynamic of expectation that public services should address other kinds of inequality as well (see
Clarke, 2004b J. Clark, Dissolving the public realm? The logics and limits of neo-liberalism, Journal of Social Policy 33
(2004), pp. 2748.Clarke, 2004b). None of these populist tendencies is simply an expression of a singular hegemonic
project of neoliberalization. They are effects of much longer rhythms of socio-cultural change that emanate from the
bottom-up. It seems just as plausible to suppose that what we have come to recognise as
hegemonic neoliberalism is a muddled set of ad hoc, opportunistic
accommodations to these unstable dynamics of social change as it is to
think of it as the outcome of highly coherent political-ideological projects. Processes of privatization,
market liberalization , and de-regulation have often followed an

ironic pattern in so far as they have been triggered by citizens
movements arguing from the left of the political spectrum against
the rigidities of statist forms of social policy and welfare provision
in the name of greater autonomy, equality, and participation (e.g. Horwitz,
1989). The political re-alignments of the last three or four decades
cannot therefore be adequately understood in terms of a
straightforward shift from the left to the right, from values of
collectivism to values of individualism, or as a re-imposition of class power. The emergence
and generalization of this populist ethos has much longer, deeper, and wider roots than those ascribed to hegemonic
neoliberalism. And it also points towards the extent to which easily the most widely resonant political rationality in the
world today is not right-wing market liberalism at all, but is, rather, the polyvalent discourse of democracy (see Barnett
and Low, 2004). Recent theories of neoliberalism have retreated from the
appreciation of the long-term rhythms of socio-cultural change , which
Stuart Hall once developed in his influential account of Thatcherism as a variant of authoritarian populism. Instead,
they favour elite-focused analyses of state bureaucracies, policy
networks, and the like. One consequence of the residualization of the social is that theories of
neoliberalism have great difficulty accounting for, or indeed even in
recognizing, new forms of individualized collective-action (Marchetti, 2003) that have
emerged in tandem with the apparent ascendancy of neoliberal
hegemony: environmental politics and the politics of sustainability ;
new forms of consumer activism oriented by an ethics of assistance and global
solidarity; the identity politics of sexuality related to demands for changes in modes of
health care provision, and so on (see Norris, 2002). All of these might be thought of as variants of what we might want to
call bottom-up governmentality. This refers to the notion that non-state and non-corporate actors are also engaged in
trying to govern various fields of activity, both by acting on the conduct and contexts of ordinary everyday life, but also by
acting on the conduct of state and corporate actors as well. Rose (1999, pp. 281284) hints at the outlines of such an
analysis, at the very end of his paradigmatic account of governmentality, but investigation of this phenomenon is poorly
developed at present.
Instead, the trouble-free amalgamation of Foucaults
ideas into the Marxist narrative of neoliberalism sets up a
simplistic image of the world divided between the forces of
hegemony and the spirits of subversion (see Sedgwick, 2003, pp. 1112). And
clinging to this image only makes it all the more difficult to
acknowledge the possibility of positive political action that does not
conform to a romanticized picture of rebellion , contestation, or protest against
domination (see Touraine, 2001). Theories of neoliberalism are unable to recognize the emergence of new and
innovative forms of individualized collective action because their critical imagination turns on a simple evaluative
The radical academic
opposition between individualism and collectivism, the private and the public.
discourse of neoliberalism frames the relationship between
collective action and individualism simplistically as an opposition
between the good and the bad. In confirming a narrow account of
liberalism, understood primarily as an economic doctrine of free
markets and individual choice, there is a peculiar convergence
between the radical academic left and the right-wing interpretation
of liberal thought exemplified by Hayekian conservatism. By obliterating the political origins of modern
liberalismunderstood as answering the problem of how to live freely in societies divided by interminable conflicts of
value, interest, and faiththe
discourse of neoliberalism reiterates a longer
problem for radical academic theory of being unable to account for
its own normative priorities in a compelling way . And by denigrating
the value of individualism as just an ideological ploy by the right,
the pejorative vocabulary of neoliberalism invites us to take
solace in an image of collective decision-making as a practically and
normatively unproblematic procedure . The recurrent problem for theories of neoliberalism
and neoliberalization is their two-dimensional view of both political power and of geographical space. They can only
account for the relationship between top-down initiatives and bottom-up developments by recourse to the language of
centres, peripheries, diffusion, and contingent realizations; and by displacing the conceptualization of social relations with
The turn to an overly systematized theory of
a flurry of implied subject-effects.
governmentality, derived from Foucault, only compounds the
theoretical limitations of economistic conceptualizations of
neoliberalism. The task for social theory today remains a quite classical one, namely to try to specify the
recurrent causal processes that govern the intersections between abstract, centrally promoted plans and social life on the
small scale (Tilly, 2003, p. 345). Neither neoliberalism-as-hegemony nor neoliberalism-as-governmentality is really able
to help in this task, not least because both invest in a deeply embedded picture of subject-formation as a process of
getting-at ordinary people in order to make them believe in things against their best interests. With respect to the
problem of accounting for how hegemonic projects of neoliberalism win wider consensual legitimacy, Foucaults ideas
on governmentality seem to promise an account of how people come to acquire what Ivison (1997) calls the freedom to
be formed and normed. Over time, Foucaults own work moved steadily away from an emphasis on the forming-and-
norming end of this formulation towards an emphasis on the freedom end. This shift was itself a reflection of the
realization that the circularities of poststructuralist theories of subjectivity can only be broken by developing an account of
the active receptivity of people to being directed. But, in the last instance, neither the story of neoliberalism-as-hegemony
or of neoliberalism-as-governmentality can account for the forms of receptivity, pro-activity, and generativity that might
help to explain how the rhythms of the everyday are able to produce effects on macro-scale processes, and vice versa. So,
rather than finding convenient synergies between what are already closely related theoretical traditions, perhaps it is
better to keep open those tiresome debates about the degree of coherence between them, at the same time as trying to
broaden the horizons of our theoretical curiosity a little more widely.
Our studies are better competition solves their

arguments
Hernandez 5 senior associate with the Washington law firm of Pillsbury
Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, former prosecutor for the FAA (David Hernandez,
Sept 2005, A Logical End: Private Screening, Lexis)//twemchen
AB: What makes you say that opt-out is "the next big thing ?" Hernandez: I think they, the
TSA and Congress, are going to realize that the money just isn't there. They have to incentivize
it in some way to get more airports to join. Something has to give, and I think the first thing will
be the liability, something that relieves the airports and security companies from
liability , essentially putting them into a government contractor's position . It has to
because there is so much data there from the pilot program that suggests they can do it
more efficiently. I think a big problem with the TSA now, but they don't want to admit it,
is they've probably doubled their human relations attorneys just dealing
with the HR issues . They didn't expect the huge problems they're having . I
think the private sector is more efficient dealing with those HR issues. AB: I recently heard
some Congressional staffers suggest that by putting an in-line screening system in place at an airport you
pretty much eliminate two screener positions and the system pays for itself within the first year. Have we
gotten to the point that this instant bureaucracy we've created is proving to be an obstacle
to getting this accomplished ? Hernandez: I think the biggest thing, without pointing
fingers, is that when this all came about in 2001, the total cost was grossly
underestimated . Projections were based on pre-9/11 numbers when the airlines were
responsible for screening and were paying dirt wages . AB: In the final analysis, it would seem that
you think private screening is ultimately the direction this thing is headed.
Hernandez: We have to; there are just too many inefficiencies . You may see
gradual changes; perhaps you'll see a quarter of the airports switching over to a
private security model and, once efficiencies are realized there, it will expand. Run it like a
business instead of a bureaucracy. I wouldn't be surprised if you were to see Lockheed Martin and
Covenant just come roaring down and overnight taking it over at airports. That's going to be a huge
revenue-generating stream. Competition, in its pure form, is good .
Market systems are sustainable institutions and

freedoms allow cultural reforms
Strain 14, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (Michael R.,
Responsible Politics Can Cure Capitalisms Ills, New York Times, March 30,
2014, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/03/30/was-marx-
right/responsible-politics-can-cure-capitalisms-ills)
Though it is not hard to see why Marx believed that the free enterprise
system required the exploitation of workers, it is hard to see why anyone would
believe that today. In 1970, 26.8 percent of the world's population lived on
less than one dollar per day. In 2006, only 5.4 percent did an 80 percent
drop in this extreme poverty measure in less than four decades. What economic
system was responsible for this accomplishment? It wasn't "from each according to his ability,
to each according to his needs." It was free enterprise. Far from exploiting
workers, free enterprise liberated them from deep poverty. Marx was
a brilliant thinker and writer, but economists who have meticulously studied his
writings easily find its flaws. An obvious one is central to his theory, that the value of
an object is determined by the labor required to produce it. This is obviously false:
I could spend hundreds of hours writing a song; Bruce Springsteen could write
one in 15 minutes worth far more than mine. Q.E.D. But as devastatingly wrong as Marx was
about the most important questions he tried to tackle (see also: "Union, Soviet"), Marx was right about quite a bit.
There is an inherent instability in capitalism cycles of boom and bust lead to
human misery. Capitalism does create income and wealth inequality. Our tough
times now heighten our sensitivity to asymmetries, making Marx's observations particularly poignant. Wages are
stagnant, while corporate profits are high. Millions knock on doors looking for
jobs with no success, while the economy's superstars take home seven-figure
salaries. Political candidates debate the marginal tax rate on the highest earners while ignoring the unemployed.
But these problems don't mean capitalism will inevitably unravel , as
Marx thought. First, many of today's problems are temporary results of the Great
Recession. And on a deeper level, Marx erred significantly in believing that social relations and social institutions are
founded upon economics. We are not slaves to changes in the way goods and
services are produced and exchanged. Likewise, the flipside of communism

is mistaken: The economy is not a holy, untouchable, object. In fact, both
Marxism and pure laissez-faire elevate the economy above its proper station,
ignoring the ability (Marxism) and the duty (laissez-faire) of culture, and through it politics, to soften the rough edges of
The social safety net for the truly needy is the example of
the free enterprise system.
how culture and politics can correct the excesses of the free enterprise
system. We let the free enterprise system create wealth and give
people the freedom to pursue their dreams and to flourish, while
letting culture direct the fruits of the market to proper social ends.
Finding the right balance is the hard work of responsible politics.
No impact their root cause scholarship is flawed

Carden 4 graduate student in economics at Washington University in St.
Louis (Art, June, The Free Market, The Mises Institute Monthly, "Mistaken
Identity," vol. 24, no. 6, www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?
control=497&sortorder=articledate)
It is always the fashion among many intellectuals to blame societys ills on the free market. One college
newspaper recently argued that the market is "The God That Sucked." The course summaries in my universitys catalog,
the themes of the lecture series, and the editorial content of the student newspapers suggest that many students and
faculty would agree. Popular contempt for the market is distressing. Few institutions are so universally
reviled, and perhaps fewer institutions are so universally misunderstood. This misunderstanding
can be dangerous: the radicals who protest so vehemently against the workings of the free
market rarely understand that they advocate strangling the goose that lays the golden eggs.
To borrow from Robert Frost, we should consider how the heavens go before we try to change the world. In other words,
we must consider what is before we talk about what ought to be. Many disagreements have their
genesis in misunderstanding and equivocation. So lets define the term "free market." Dictionary.com defines a "market"
as "an opportunity to buy or sell" and a "free market" as "an economic market in which supply and demand are not
regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions." "Free markets" and "capitalism" are practically synonymous, and
George Reisman defines capitalism eloquently: "Capitalism is a social system based on private ownership of the means of
production. It is characterized by the pursuit of material self-interest under freedom and it rests on a foundation of the
cultural influence of reason. Based on its foundations and essential nature, capitalism is further characterized by saving
and capital accumulation, exchange and money, financial self-interest and the profit motive, the freedoms of economic
competition and economic inequality, the price system, economic progress, and a harmony of the material self-interests of
all the individuals who participate in it." Thus, we can define a "free market" as a social system based on the voluntary
exchange of property rights. And yet the "free market" is almost universally reviled within the academy. Many popular
criticisms of the market are so common as to warrant the charge of clich (critics of capitalism might say "axiom"). They
can be distilled into a few broad propositions, which we consider here. They are: the market is antisocial; the
market tramples human rights; the market is the enemy of the environment; and the market
is the weapon of the rich against the poor. Lets consider each in turn. One of the more popular myths about the
market economy is that it necessarily entails a Hobbesian "war of all against all," a man-eat-man
world in which we all compete in a zero-sum scramble for resources. A recent op-ed in the Washington University Student
Life posited that the "apocryphal idea of [the markets] reality . . . may lead the entire species to self
destruction." Thats scary stuff. It follows, then, that the market must be warlike: if resources are finite and
everyone lives to consume, conflictand warmust be the natural result. But conflict and war are the very
antithesis of free-market principles. The essence of market exchange is cooperation: two
parties exchange goods and services, and both are enriched as a result. You pay Wal-Mart for a necktie. Wal-Mart buys the
necktie from the manufacturer. The manufacturer pays for the labor and capital necessary to produce the necktie.
Everybody wins. The reader should also note that people never start wars of subjugation to extend
the voluntary exchange of goods and services. In fact, many wars occur for fundamentally
anticapitalist reasons: namely, trade disputes. We would do well to consider the wisdom of Frdric Bastiat, who
noted that whengoods dont cross borders, armies will. Another popular criticism of the free market is
that it tramples human rights. Slavery,
racism, sexism, and "sweatshops" are the children of
capitalism; therefore, the market economy should be overthrown post haste. First, slavery is anti-market by
definition: free markets are guided by the principle of voluntarism. Second, racism and
sexism are difficult to sustain in competitive markets : no matter how much a certain employer hates
blacks, women, Jews, homosexuals, etc., consumers are rarely willing to pay the price premium that
would be necessary to allow them to indulge their taste for discrimination. The market has been
profoundly benevolent to even the most oppressed minorities. In his masterful Competition and Coercion: Blacks in the
American Economy 18651914, Robert Higgs chronicled the spectacular gains the sons and daughters of slaves made
when they were allowed to participate in the market economy. Third, we have to ask two questions when we consider the
plight of "sweatshop" laborers. First, why are working conditions so wretched? Second, what are these workers next best
alternatives? Working conditions in the third world are wretched precisely because many
third-world countries have only recently begun to adopt the institutions that characterize
the market economies of the west. Workers next best alternatives are often appalling: many children leave
lives of crime, prostitution, and starvation to work in sweatshops. If we close the sweatshops, they will
likely return to crime, prostitution, and starvation. It is also popular to charge that the market is the
enemy of the environment. This is also untrue; environmental degradation occurs when
property rights are poorly specified or enforced. If anyone or anything has failed in this respect, it is the
state. There is ample evidence for this in former communist countries: many lakes and
streams in the former Soviet Union are so polluted as to be unusable . The market economy is
also accused of being the ultimate weapon of rich against poor. Capitalist "meritocracy" is responsible for
widespread poverty, rampant inequality, and Big Business choke-hold on the world. While these challenges to
capitalist institutions make for intriguing rhetoric, they are also false . Todays poor countries
were poor long before modern liberal market economies developed in Europe and North
America; therefore, we cannot blame capitalism for poverty. Many critics also point to the unequal
distribution of wealth in the United States as evidence of capitalisms evils, but this overlooks two crucial points. The first
is income mobility: someone born into poverty in the US stands a very good chance of moving up in the world. Second,
while the distribution of money incomes is relatively unequal, the distribution of access to goods of similar technological
composition has narrowed considerably. For most of world history, the difference between rich and poor was the
difference between who ate and who starved. In todays market econ-omies, the difference between the super-rich and the
poor is the difference between who drives a Dodge Viper and who drives an 87 Chevy Cavalier. The reader should note
that the power of "big business" is overstated. A unique feature of capitalism is that the
greatest rewards go to those who cater to the common [person] man. Consider Wal-Mart, a
favorite whipping boy among left-wing intellectuals: Wal-Marts clientele consists almost exclusively of the middle- and
lower-class. Capitalism generates fantastic wealth, and the benefits accrue almost entirely to the least of these among us.
Ludwig von Mises put it succinctly in a series of lectures which were published posthumously as Economic Policy:
Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow. He notes that "this is the fundamental principle of capitalism as it exists today in all
those countries in which there is a highly developed system of mass production: Big business . . . produces almost
exclusively to satisfy the wants of the masses." The "power relationship" of which Marxists are so fond is precisely the
opposite of that which is most often supposed: consumers, not producers, are the masters of the dance. Nonetheless,
enemies of the market argue that the only reason people put up with market economies is because they are forced to. The
evidence of twentieth-century immigration doesnt support the hypothesis. Thousands died trying to cross into free West
Germany and South Korea, and there was very little traffic in the opposite direction. Similarly, thousands of Cubans have
risked life and limb to come to America. Fewif anyhave braved the ocean on a homemade raft to seek a better way of
life in Cuba. Finally, it is deficient scholarship to merely point out the litany of crimes that the
market (supposedly) commits and suggest that it has "failed" in any meaningful way. One
must propose a superior alternative. In this case, both theory and history are firmly on the side
of the free market. Mises and Hayek demonstrated that rational calculation is impossible without
private ownership of the means of production. This isnt to say that a "socialist economy" is
inefficientit is quite literally an oxymoron. Our experience with radical revolutions and
planned economies in the twentieth century is hardly encouraging: in the name of "the
people," Che Guevara killed thousands, Hitler millions, Stalin and Mao t ens of millions.
It may be fashionable to blame the market economy for all of societys ills, but this blame is
undeserved and many scholars faith in alternatives to the market is misplaced. No
socialist regime has ever held a free election, and no free market has ever produced a
death camp. Popular academic opinions to the contrary, the market works. And we can
take that to the bank.
AT Environment
Neolib solves the environment
Shireman 2/19, Eco activist and CEO Future 500, 2-19-15 (Bill,
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/feb/19/realistic-
optimists-post-carbon-economy-nature-environment-business)
When it comes to stories about the fate of the earth, headlines are
usually dominated by tales of gloom and doom. And theres certainly a great deal
to be depressed about: global temperatures hit their highest levels ever last year, oceans are growing so
warm and acidic that fisheries could be lost, and food and water systems are in decline. A big reason for
bad news tends to drive action. According to research by
focusing on the negative is that
my organization, sustainable business nonprofit Future 500, negative messages typically
yield two and a half times as much fundraising and five times as
much media attention as positive ones. But as effective as the doom-and-gloom
storyline is, theres another important environmental narrative
thats waiting to be told. Following the work of environmental pioneers like William McDonough, Paul
Hawken, Amory Lovins and other eco-designers, its clear that theres an audience and a desperate need
fora new generation of realistic optimists to help us envision a
genuinely prosperous post-carbon economy. There is much to be
optimistic about. In its 2013 report The 3% Solution, wildlife nonprofit World Wildlife Fund says
that the key challenge facing developed countries is the need to reduce carbon
emissions by roughly 3% a year. The McKinsey Global Institute says thats not
only doable, but its exactly what the economy needs to grow
sustainably and overcome its economic deficits. Specifically, it says, the US
needs to squeeze a third more value out of the energy it uses in the next decade, and improve that
efficiency by 3% a year or more thereafter, to avoid painful economic and environmental consequences.
The quest for that 3% solution may prove challenging, but it will also
open up a wide range of business opportunities. Here are some of the biggest
potential opportunities and the companies trying to tap them: Creating living farms, oceans and forests
The industrial agriculture system treats land like a machine. Its based on the
assumption that, if farmers feed the earth the right fuel and keep out contaminants, the engine will run
smoothly and generate massive agricultural output. That can be true, but nature offers a much more
productive and sustainable model: life.Farms, forests and oceans have the
capacity to create more value than they consume, something that machines
cant do. Whats more, theyre inherently sustainable. One step that large-scale
agriculture could take towards adopting the nature-based model
would be to shift to carbon-reducing agriculture. Fertile soil is a complex system
with millions of carbon-sequestering microorganisms per square inch. Tilling, a common agricultural
practice, burns fuel, releases poisonous exhaust gasses and strips the soil. The standard solution
pumping in pesticides, herbicides and nitrogen only adds to the problem by contaminating groundwater
and polluting oceans with runoff. Studies have shown that more natural soil amendments, like compost,
manure and charcoal products, like those produced by the Biochar Company, can reduce atmospheric
In terms of water usage, treatment
carbon and keep soils highly productive.
alternatives developed by companies like Algae Systems purify
water at low cost, while generating carbon-negative fuels and
fertilizers that are chemically identical to petroleum-based products.
On the retail end, Whole Foods is driving mainstream consumer
demand for approaches like these. At the same time, organic, slow and
local food movements are also continuing to gain momentum. For further-
reaching substantive change, however, major food companies and manufacturers will need to get involved
The sustainable seafood
in order to make any broader systemic changes mainstream.
movement could offer a useful model for businesses and activists
looking to change the agriculture system. Increasingly, careful fisheries
management and the support of retailers like Walmart and Safeway are making sustainable seafood more
commonplace. At the same time, groups like Environmental Defense Fund are continuing to push the
needle forward. Admittedly, the aquaculture battle is still raging and oceans are still in crisis. Carbon
emissions are making them warmer, more acidic and less productive, and resource competition is driving
fishing well beyond sustainable yields. So how can a living agriculture approach further benefit the seas?
One way is to end the race for fish through catch shares, a market
based system that sets aside a secure share of fish for individual
fishermen, communities or fishing associations. Forestry is another
industry that could potentially offer a useful agricultural model. On
the market end, brands like Nestle and Staples are helping to shift
the market towards more sustainable forest practices. In this case, too, the
problem is far from over, and activist groups are continuing to ramp up pressure on customers of
companies like April and a host of other palm oil and paper producers. The zero deforestation effort,
championed by Greenpeace and others, has driven attention and engagement to a critical international
issue. Prosperity, not consumption, by design Another business opportunity lies in the shift from excessive
Traditional business models are moored in
consumption to impressive design.
consumption. The industrial economy, for example, propelled
consumption by accelerating the speed of extraction. Natural
systems, on the other hand, develop value through efficient, smart
design. AT&T, Advanced Micro Devices and Cisco are already putting
this lesson to work, bringing productivity leaps to the non-digital
economy. The internet of things is connecting computing devices and the Internet in factories, farms,
buildings and homes. To put this in context, while industrial companies find it difficult to achieve 25%
productivity gains, AMD expects a 2,500% gain in energy productivity for its computer processors by 2020.
Rather than
New technologies are also following natures lead when it comes to design.
following the traditional model of extracting complex raw materials
from the earth, AMD is producing microchips and solar cells that
take plentiful raw materials like silica and inscribe on them a value-
creating design, building value up. Thats why as Future 500 has documented
innovations in microchips, telecommunications, and the Internet often yield productivity gains of 1000% or
more. If producers and consumers can use these innovations wisely admittedly, a big if it will be
possible for the economy to harness natures value-creating strategy. The sharing economy is another step
forward. When digital technologies come into contact with consumptive industrial-era practices, the result
How many fewer hotels, rental cars, and taxis do
can be positively disruptive.
we need, now that AirBNB, Zipcar and Uber enable consumers to
share what they already have? Putting a price on carbon The third
strategy also applies a core principle of nature: feedback and
adaptation. While Congress delays on overarching federal climate
policy, hundreds of companies are acting on their own, supporting
an internal carbon price that drives down energy costs and carbon
emissions simultaneously. Carbon taxes in British Columbia and
Sweden, for example, outperform regulations and emission trading
systems combined. Critics argue that a carbon tax cant happen broadly, but environmental
groups have more carbon-pricing allies than they think. Even oil company ExxonMobil, a major carbon
Exxon Mobils
producer, is a genuine supporter a fact that many simply cant comprehend. But
data tells it that, in the long term, its smart policy to insure that
carbon pays its way. Adopting a carbon tax shift is one systemic way
to put a price on an atmospherically dangerous byproduct. And while
the quest for that 3% solution will be difficult, it will open up a wide
range of opportunities as well. So lets begin to think outside the
standard gloom-and-doom mentality to make systemic, positive
environmental changes that benefit multiple interests. When we do,
we might very well discover that the technological, corporate, and
political support needed to save the planet is well within our reach.
Environment resilient and alt causes

Kareiva et al 12 Chief Scientist and Vice President, The Nature
Conservancy (Peter, Michelle Marvier --professor and department chair of
Environment Studies and Sciences at Santa Clara University, Robert Lalasz --
director of science communications for The Nature Conservancy, Winter,
Conservation in the Anthropocene,
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/past-issues/issue-
2/conservation-in-the-anthropocene/)
2. As conservation became a global enterprise in the 1970s and
1980s, the movement's justification for saving nature shifted from
spiritual and aesthetic values to focus on biodiversity . Nature was
described as primeval, fragile, and at risk of collapse from too much
human use and abuse. And indeed, there are consequences when humans
convert landscapes for mining, logging, intensive agriculture, and
urban development and when key species or ecosystems are lost. But
ecologists and conservationists have grossly overstated the fragility
of nature, frequently arguing that once an ecosystem is altered, it is gone forever. Some
ecologists suggest that if a single species is lost, a whole ecosystem
will be in danger of collapse, and that if too much biodiversity is
lost, spaceship Earth will start to come apart. Everything, from the
expansion of agriculture to rainforest destruction to changing
waterways, has been painted as a threat to the delicate inner-
workings of our planetary ecosystem. The fragility trope dates back,
at least, to Rachel Carson, who wrote plaintively in Silent Spring of the
delicate web of life and warned that perturbing the intricate balance
of nature could have disastrous consequences.22 Al Gore made a similar
argument in his 1992 book, Earth in the Balance.23 And the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
warned darkly that, while the expansion of agriculture and other forms of development have been
overwhelmingly positive for the world's poor, ecosystem degradation was simultaneously putting systems
the data simply do not
in jeopardy of collapse.24 The trouble for conservation is that
support the idea of a fragile nature at risk of collapse. Ecologists now know
that the disappearance of one species does not necessarily lead to the
extinction of any others, much less all others in the same ecosystem.
In many circumstances, the demise of formerly abundant species can be
inconsequential to ecosystem function. The American chestnut, once
a dominant tree in eastern North America, has been extinguished by
a foreign disease, yet the forest ecosystem is surprisingly
unaffected. The passenger pigeon, once so abundant that its flocks darkened the sky,
went extinct, along with countless other species from the Steller's
sea cow to the dodo, with no catastrophic or even measurable
effects . These stories of resilience are not isolated examples -- a
thorough review of the scientific literature identified 240 studies of
ecosystems following major disturbances such as deforestation,
mining, oil spills, and other types of pollution. The abundance of
plant and animal species as well as other measures of ecosystem
function recovered, at least partially, in 173 (72 percent) of these studies .25
While global forest cover is continuing to decline, it is rising in the
Northern Hemisphere, where "nature" is returning to former
agricultural lands.26 Something similar is likely to occur in the Southern Hemisphere, after poor
countries achieve a similar level of economic development. A 2010 report concluded that
rainforests that have grown back over abandoned agricultural land
had 40 to 70 percent of the species of the original forests.27 Even
Indonesian orangutans, which were widely thought to be able to survive only in pristine forests, have been
Nature is so
found in surprising numbers in oil palm plantations and degraded lands.28
resilient that it can recover rapidly from even the most powerful
human disturbances. Around the Chernobyl nuclear facility, which melted
down in 1986, wildlife is thriving, despite the high levels of radiation .29 In
the Bikini Atoll, the site of multiple nuclear bomb tests , including the 1954
hydrogen bomb test that boiled the water in the area, the number of coral species has
actually increased relative to before the explosions .30 More recently, the
massive 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was degraded and
consumed by bacteria at a remarkably fast rate.31 Today, coyotes roam
downtown Chicago, and peregrine falcons astonish San Franciscans as they
sweep down skyscraper canyons to pick off pigeons for their next
meal. As we destroy habitats, we create new ones : in the
southwestern United States a rare and federally listed salamander
species seems specialized to live in cattle tanks -- to date, it has been found in
no other habitat.32 Books have been written about the collapse of cod in
the Georges Bank, yet recent trawl data show the biomass of cod
has recovered to precollapse levels.33 It's doubtful that books will be
written about this cod recovery since it does not play well to an
audience somehow addicted to stories of collapse and environmental
apocalypse. Even that classic symbol of fragility -- the polar bear,
seemingly stranded on a melting ice block -- may have a good chance of surviving
global warming if the changing environment continues to increase
the populations and northern ranges of harbor seals and harp seals.
Polar bears evolved from brown bears 200,000 years ago during a
cooling period in Earth's history, developing a highly specialized carnivorous diet focused
on seals. Thus, the fate of polar bears depends on two opposing trends -- the decline of sea ice and the
The history of life on Earth is of species
potential increase of energy-rich prey.
evolving to take advantage of new environments only to be at risk
when the environment changes again. The wilderness ideal
presupposes that there are parts of the world untouched by
humankind, but today it is impossible to find a place on Earth that is
unmarked by human activity. The truth is humans have been
impacting their natural environment for centuries. The wilderness so beloved
by conservationists -- places "untrammeled by man"34 -- never existed, at least not in the last thousand
years, and arguably even longer.
AT Structural Violence
Structural violence is declining
Seawright 15, Chief Investment and Information Officer, 2015 (Bob Wealth,
Poverty and Keeping Perspective, Think Advisor, March 2nd,
http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2015/03/02/wealth-poverty-and-keeping-
perspective?page=1)
Earlier this year I published my annual investment outlook. Doing so provides me with a great opportunity to look at the big picture and
The overall picture seems very

major themes we should be following in the markets in 2015 and beyond.
bright indeed. The U.S. economy has continued to improve , if not as quickly as
we all would want. GDP has remained in the 22.5% range with some recent signs of quickening growth. Inflation has dipped below 1%, largely
thanks to the tanking of oil prices. The unemployment rate, 7.9% in 2012 and 6.7% in 2013, dropped below 6% in 2014. The
economy is doing pretty well in the aggregate . Stocks were up solidly again in 2014, if not
by as much as in 2013, continuing a mostly uninterrupted upward run since March of 2009. The Dow ended the year up 7.52% while the
Nasdaq and the S&P 500 rose 13.40% and 11.39% (13.7% if dividends are included), respectively, for the year. The S&P is now up an average
of 20.7% a year for the last three years including dividends, its best three-year return since the late 1990s. Meanwhile, the bond market
performed well too. Whether were looking at bonds in the aggregate (AGG was up 6% on the year) or at various component parts (LQD,
representing corporate bonds, produced an 8.2% return, while EDV, a decent proxy for long-duration U.S. Treasuries, gained a whopping 45.1%
in 2014), fixed income had a pretty good year too. Commodities did very poorly (especially oil, obviously; after hitting a peak around $107 a
barrel in June, U.S. crude oil futures finished the year at $53.27), while European stocks and emerging markets were spotty, but that's mostly
More broadly (as Steven

quibbling, unless you work in the oil industry, and it's mostly good news for consumers.
Pinker, among others, persuasively argues), in many ways the current world
is a huge improvement over what came before. Statistically speaking, tribal
warfare was nine times as deadly as war and genocide were even in
the 20th century, despite its concentration camps, gulags and killing fields. The murder rate of
medieval Europe was more than 30 times what it is today. Slavery,
excessive and sadistic punishments, and frivolous executions were
unexceptionable features of life for millennia , but are quickly
disappearing today (if not nearly quickly enough). Wars between developed
countries have all but vanished, and even in the developing world ,
warfare kills at a fraction of the rate it did just a few decades ago.
Rape, assault, hate crimes, deadly riots, child abuse and more are all
substantially less common than they once were . Hunger has been
halved in the developing world since 1990. Disease is waning dramatically ,
Things are a long ways from perfect and plenty of
allowing most of us to live longer.
problems exist, but the overall picture isn't half-bad . Not many of us would jump at
the chance to switch places with those who lived during other eras.
Alt cant solve structural violence this just reentrenches

the impact
Market systems are more equal than the alt

Wolf 3 Masters in Economics @ Oxford, a British journalist, widely considered
to be one of the worlds most influential writers on economics. He is the
associate editor and chief economics commentator at the Financial Times
[Martin, The Morality of the Market, Foreign Policy, Sept 1, 2003,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2003/09/01/the_morality_of_the_market
%5D///WNM
A sophisticated market economy works better than any other
economic arrangement that has ever existed. After two centuries of unprecedented
economic advance, and especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union and Chinas transition to capitalism, it is hard to
argue anything else. Yet the victory of the market model is detested almost everywhere. Critics grudgingly concede that
capitalism may work better than any plausible alternative, but they insist it remains a wicked system, one that rewards
immoral behavior greed, ruthlessness, and indifference to the fate of others and produces immoral outcomes,
namely widening inequality. This view is most stridently expressed by the anti-globalization left. But a similar, if more
subtle, critique has emerged among economists themselves, some of whom even decry capitalism as inherently
inhumane and in need of a human face. It is easy to agree that a market economy requires a supporting system of laws
and regulations. It is also easy to accept the desirability of government-sponsored programs of social welfare, provided
the claim that the market economy is
these are kept within manageable bounds. But
immoral is nonsense. The market economy rests on and encourages
valuable moral qualities; provides unprecedented opportunities for
people to engage in altruistic activities; underpins individual
freedom and democracy; and has created societies that are, in all
significant respects, less unequal than the traditional hierarchies
that preceded them. In short, capitalism is the most inherently just
economic system that humankind has ever devised. It is true that market
economies neither create, nor reward, saints. But consider the virtuous behavior that
capitalism fosters: trustworthiness, reliability, individual initiative,
civility, self-reliance, and self-restraint. These qualities are, critics correctly note, placed in
the service of self-interest. Since people are, with few exceptions, self-interested, that should be neither surprising nor
people are also not completely self-interested. Prosperous
shocking. Yet
market economies generate a vast number of attractive
opportunities for those who are not motivated by wealth alone. People
can seek employment with non-governmental organizations or charities. They can work in the public sector, as doctors,
teachers, or police officers. They can teach the iniquities of capitalism in schools and universities. Those who make a great
In the
deal of money can use it for any purpose they wish. They can give it away, for example. Quite a few have.
advanced market economies, people care deeply about eliminating
pain and injustice and ensuring the welfare of fellow humans and,
more recently, animals. This concern exists because a rich, liberal society places enormous emphasis on
the health and well-being of the individual. Life is no longer nasty, brutish, and short; rather, it is gentle, kind, and long,
The savage punishments and casual indignities of
and more precious than before.
two centuries ago are no longer acceptable to civilized people. Nor
are slavery and serfdom, both of which were rendered obsolete and
immoral under the capitalist system. Militarists, extreme
nationalists, communists, and fascists the anti-liberals brought
these horrors back, if only temporarily. And it is no accident that the
creeds that brought them back were fiercely anti-individualistic and
anti-market. Yet another example of changed sensibilities is environmentalism. The environmental
catastrophes caused by supposedly benevolent state socialist
economies are well documented. The market economy has largely
avoided such disasters. That is because prosperous people tend to
care more about the environment in which they live than those who are condemned to squalor.
Moreover, only liberal democracy makes it possible for concerns about
the environment to be routinely aired and addressed . It affords environmentalists
the right to pursue their agendas and to raise money in support of their goals. It segregates the public and private
because information is widely
sectors, which enables government to regulate business. And
disseminated in a free society, companies must adhere to
environmental standards if they hope to maintain their reputations .
Branding Dissent One of the more insidious charges now leveled against the market economy is that it undermines
individual liberty and subverts democracy. In her book No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies, acclaimed anti-
globalization campaigner Naomi Klein lapses into paranoia and delusion when she writes of corporate space as a fascist
state where we all salute the logo and have little opportunity for criticism because our newspapers, television stations,
Internet servers, streets and retail spaces are all controlled by multinational corporate interests. In reality, a competitive
market economy is a necessary condition for democracy. The bedrock of a market economy is, as the 17th-century
philosopher John Locke argued, the right of individuals to own and use property freely, subject to reasonable legal
constraints. In turn, the right to own and use property freely gave rise to ideas about political liberty and the rule of law.
Secure property rights require stable, durable governments interested in the long-term health of their countries. As the
late economist Mancur Olson observed, The only societies where individual rights to property and contract are
confidently expected to last across generations are the securely democratic societies. But sustained democracy requires
the rule of law: The system can only endure if those in power accept free speech and political competition and abide by
The rule of law came about as a means of facilitating
the results of elections.
commerce; in this sense, capitalism provides the basis for
democracy, not vice versa. A planned economy, by contrast, will
always go hand-in-hand with tyranny. Vaclav Havel, erstwhile dissident and later president of
the Czech Republic, has pointed out that a government that controls the economy will
inevitably also control the civic life of a nation. True, some countries have proved the
reverse: They have market economies but not democracy nor civil and human rights. But even if all nations with market
economies are not (yet) democratic, all democracies have market economies. As the distinguished Hungarian economist
Janos Kornai notes, There has been no country with a democratic political sphere, past or present, whose economy has
not been dominated by private ownership and market coordination. The market supports democracy in another way
through growth. When per capita output rises, a societys condition can be described as positive sum every person in
that society can become better off. This outcome makes politics relatively easy to manage. In a static society, however, a
zero-sum condition prevails: If anyone is to receive more, someone else must receive less. It is a safe bet that if
environmentalists imposed a zero-economic growth agenda on a country, that country would swiftly become
authoritarian. And far from stifling democracy, as Klein and her cohorts contend, the market economy manufactures
political dissent with unparalleled efficiency. As the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter argued in Capitalism,
Socialism, and Democracy, liberal democracies are the only societies that create their own opposition. Only in a market
economy would the wealthy give large sums of money to universities, despite the contempt that many professors and
Only in a market economy could books and
students express for capitalism and the affluent.
newspaper articles condemning the rich and powerful be published and
promoted with such success. Indeed, for all her jeremiads against capitalism,
multinationals, and global brands, Klein appears to have done quite well by
the market economy. Under no other system could her book have become
such an international sensation. Her complaints about media conglomeration ring somewhat hollow
considering what a media darling she has become. It could even be said that No Logo is now a brand of its own. The
market economy does not merely support its critics; it embraces them. The Great Leveler Inequality is considered the
scourge of capitalism. Yes, the rewards in market economies are far from equally distributed. However, all complex
societies with elaborate divisions of labor are unequal. Those countries with market economies are not only the least
unequal, but the inequality they generate is the least harmful. In agrarian kingdoms and feudal societies, kings and lords
could seize at will the labor, possessions, and even the lives of subjects, serfs, and slaves. Perhaps the most unequal
societies of all were the state-socialist and national-socialist regimes of the 20th century. When, on a whim, Chinese
leader Mao Zedong initiated the Great Leap Forward in the late 1950s, some 20 million people died. The irony is that such
tyranny was justified by the alleged depredations of capitalism. To eliminate market-driven inequality, all power was
concentrated in the hands of the state; the result was an infinitely more unjust distribution of wealth that benefited those
who controlled the economy. It is fashionable now to claim that the market economy has produced staggering global
inequality. Disparity in the global distribution of household incomes did increase progressively from the early 19th century
The proportion of the worlds
to around 1965. But this trend must be properly understood.
population living on the margins of subsistence that is, on an income of $1 per day
has actually decreased from more than 80 percent in 1820 to
around 20 percent today, despite a roughly six-fold increase in world
population. Moreover, the rise in global inequality was not caused by
increased inequality within countries but increased inequality among
them. This gap reflects the success of those countries that embraced
capitalism and the failure of those that did not . Likewise, the reduction in
global inequality that has apparently occurred in the past two
decades reflects the successful introduction of dynamic market
economies in China and, to a lesser extent, in India. In all that matters-the ability to define ones
aspirations and to enjoy the full rights and protections of citizenship-modern liberal democracies are uniquely equal.
Wealthy people have more influence in a democracy than the working class. But compared to the power wielded by the
affluent in traditional, hierarchical societies, the influence of todays wealthy is tightly circumscribed. No millionaire or
corporation can flout the law, as a number of scoundrels discovered in 2002. Even Microsofts Bill Gates, the worlds
wealthiest person according to Forbes, discovered he could not ignore the low-paid lawyers of the Department of Justice
when they went after Microsofts monopolistic abuses. In a competitive market economy subject to the rule of law, Gates
can support politicians but not coerce them; cajole customers but not compel them; and control the destiny of his
company but not the lives of the people he employs. Gates is neither a tyrant nor an overlord. He is simply a citizen,
entrepreneur, investor, and philanthropist. The liberal market economy is morally imperfect, not least because it reflects
the tastes, desires, and motivations of imperfect human beings. A market economy satisfies the desires of the majority
more than the tastes of a refined minority. It rewards the hustler more than the sage. It rests on the power of self-interest
more than universal benevolence. The relentless tirades against capitalism come from dreamers who compare it with an
ideal system that has never existed and from intellectuals who resent their modest status in a society where wealth and
prestige are gained by satisfying the wants of ordinary people. It is not the market that is immoral but the sloppy and self-
indulgent arguments and attitudes of its critics.
Alt AT Revolution
The revolution fails
De Soysa and Fjelde 10 (Indra, Director, Globalization Research Program,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) & Centre for the
Study of Civil War, PRIO , and Hanne, Department of Peace and Conflict
Research, Uppsah University & Centre for the Study of Civil War, PRIO Is the
hidden hand an iron fist? Capitalism and civil peace, 1970-2005 Journal of
Peace Research 47(3) 287-298 )
The literature on conflict and income inequality is highly mixed and theoretically somewhat
ambiguous (Lichbach, 1989; Weede, 1998). Since the poor face massive
collective action problems, they may starve in silence. If the
capitalists control state power, as Marxists claim they do, then state
repression may prevent large-scale civil violence. In fact, many recent
methodologically sophisticated empirical stud ies find no
relationship between various measures of income inequality and civil
war (Collier, Hoeffler & Rohner, 2009; Fearon & Laitin, 2003). In fact, Przeworski &
Wallerstein's (1988) seminal article on the question of why the poor don't
'soak' the rich as often as we would expect, shows clearly that even if the
poor would be better off in the long run, the Valley of transition'
when the rich withdraw their 'investment' would dissuade such
action. In other words, there could be an equilibrium of class
compromise, not class war, leading to democracy and some
redistribution without outright expropriation (Przeworski & Wallerstein,
1988). This literature demolished Marxist arguments about how
democracy and redistribution would never be allowed by a state
acting in the interests of capital (Iversen, 2008). (288)
No collective revolution
De Soysa and Fjelde 10, PhDs, 10 (Indra, Director, Globalization Research
Program, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) & Centre
for the Study of Civil War, PRIO , and Hanne, Department of Peace and
Conflict Research, Uppsah University & Centre for the Study of Civil War, PRIO
Is the hidden hand an iron fist? Capitalism and civil peace, 1970-2005 Journal
of Peace Research 47(3) 287-298 )
much of this literature is focused on industrial countries
Notice that
where developed class interests and distinctive class consciousness
exists, something that might be absent in much of the developing world.
Rather than using measures of inequality, which was always a proxy for arguments about
capitalism versus socialism, we utilize a measure of 'capitalist' economic policies directly in
models of conflict. This method allows us to answer the question of capitalistic economic pol
icies and social peace head on, relative to the many studies that have addressed the issue
indirectly by focusing on material conditions that ostensibly proxy class consciousness,
Even Marx, after all, understood that non-
namely the degree of inequality.
industrial societies are unprepared for revolution because of the
lack of class consciousness. Today's civil wars take place largely in
areas where class consciousness is conspicuously absent.(289)
1ar EXT Neolib Inevitable
Social pressures deck the alt
Han 14, professor at the Universitt der Kunste Berlin , 14 (Byung-Chul, 9-12,
http://www.worldcrunch.com/opinion-analysis/why-revolution-is-impossible-
on-the-seductive-power-of-neoliberalism/byung-chul-han-leadership-work-imf-
crisis-economics/c7s16949/)
When a debate took place in Berlin last year between two opponents of capitalism, Antonio
Negri and myself, Negri took the position that global resistance to
Empire was a possibility. He presented himself as a communist revolutionary and
called me a skeptical professor. Negri apparently believes a "multitude" the interconnected
protest and revolutionary mass can bring down the neoliberal leadership system. I felt that
the position of communist revolutionary was naive and removed
from reality, and I tried to explain why, today, revolution is no longer possible.
Why is our neoliberal system of global leadership so stable? Why is there so
little resistance to it? Why is everyone led so easily into the void? Why is revolution no longer
possible today despite an ever-growing chasm between rich and poor? To explain, we need
greater understanding about how power and leadership function today. Anyone trying to
install a new leadership system has to eliminate resistance. And that
includes the neoliberal governance system. To bring about a new system of leadership, you
need established power often achieved through violence . But this
established power is not the same as the stabilizing power inside a system. It is well known
that Margaret Thatcher, a precursor of neoliberalism, considered unions as
"inner enemies" and fought them forcefully. Installing a neoliberal
agenda via aggressive intervention will not, however, yield the
necessary kind of stabilizing power needed to keep a system in
place. That power in the disciplinary and industrial society was
repressive. Factory workers were brutally exploited by factory owners, and
the violent exploitation of workers led to protest and resistance. A revolution that
would bring down the existing production system was possible then.
In this repressive system, both the repression and the repressors were
identifiable. There was a concrete enemy to address resistance to. Better than
repression The neoliberal leadership system is structured entirely
differently. Here the power needed to keep the system going is not
repressive it is seductive, alluring. It is no longer as clear-cut as it is under a
disciplinary regime. There is no concrete them, no enemy, repressing freedom
and against whom rebellion would be possible. Never has our society been as rich as it is
today. And some people in it are richer than others. French economist Thomas Piketty warns
that the disparities could become as drastic as they were in feudal times. Neoliberalism
turns the exploited worker into a free entrepreneur the entrepreneur of
himself. Everyone is now a self-exploiting worker in his own business. Everyone is master and
servant in one.Class warfare has changed into a running inner battle
with the self. Failing today means blaming oneself and feeling ashamed. People see
themselves as the problem, not society. Any disciplinary system that
expends a great deal of force to repress people is inefficient. Considerably
more efficient is a system of power that ensures that people
voluntarily align with the system. The particular efficiency here is that it doesnt
work based on forbidding and withholding, but through pleasing and fulfilling. Instead of
making people obedient it aims to make them dependent. Uber arrives in
Neoliberalisms logic of efficiency also applies to
Paris (UBER/FB)
policing. In the 1980s, there were many protests against population
censuses; even school kids protested against it. From todays standpoint, the easy availability
of information about our educational and career backgrounds is a given, but there was a time
now long gone when people believed that the state was trying to wrest information from
Today we give up information of our own accord, perceiving
citizens.
this as freedom. And it is precisely that perception that makes protest
impossible. Unlike the days when we protested population censuses, we do not protest
this monitoring. What does one protest against? Oneself? American concept artist Jenny Holzer
expresses this paradoxical situation with a "truism:" "Protect me from what I want." It is
crucial to distinguish between the kind of power that activates and the kind of power that
maintains. The latter today takes on a smart, friendly form that makes it opaque and
unassailable.The exploited subject is unaware of his own oppression.
He imagines he is free. This leadership technique neutralizes
resistance most effectively. Leadership that oppresses freedom and attacks it is not
stable. The neoliberal regime is as stable as it is, immunized against
resistance, because it makes use of freedom instead of suppressing
it. Suppressing freedom leads quickly to resistance, whereas exploiting freedom does not. A
Korean case The Asian financial crisis of 1997 left South Korea shocked and paralyzed. Then
along came the International Monetary Fund to give the Koreans
1ar EXT World Getting Better
World is doing better every standard shows life quality
is better
Seawright 15 (Bob Wealth, Poverty and Keeping Perspective, Think
Advisor, March 2nd, http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2015/03/02/wealth-poverty-
and-keeping-perspective?page=1)
Earlier this year I published my annual investment outlook. Doing so provides me with a great opportunity to look at the big picture and major themes we should be
The overall picture seems very bright indeed. The

following in the markets in 2015 and beyond.
U.S. economy has continued to improve , if not as quickly as we all would want. GDP has remained in the 2
2.5% range with some recent signs of quickening growth. Inflation has dipped below 1%, largely thanks to the tanking of oil prices. The unemployment rate, 7.9% in 2012
and 6.7% in 2013, dropped below 6% in 2014. The economy is doing pretty well in the
aggregate . Stocks were up solidly again in 2014, if not by as much as in 2013, continuing a mostly uninterrupted upward run since March of 2009. The
Dow ended the year up 7.52% while the Nasdaq and the S&P 500 rose 13.40% and 11.39% (13.7% if dividends are included), respectively, for the year. The S&P is now up
an average of 20.7% a year for the last three years including dividends, its best three-year return since the late 1990s. Meanwhile, the bond market performed well too.
Whether were looking at bonds in the aggregate (AGG was up 6% on the year) or at various component parts (LQD, representing corporate bonds, produced an 8.2%
return, while EDV, a decent proxy for long-duration U.S. Treasuries, gained a whopping 45.1% in 2014), fixed income had a pretty good year too. Commodities did very
poorly (especially oil, obviously; after hitting a peak around $107 a barrel in June, U.S. crude oil futures finished the year at $53.27), while European stocks and emerging
More broadly (as

markets were spotty, but that's mostly quibbling, unless you work in the oil industry, and it's mostly good news for consumers.
Pinker, among others, persuasively argues), in many ways the current

Steven
world is a huge improvement over what came before. Statistically speaking, tribal
warfare was nine times as deadly as war and genocide were even in
the 20th century, despite its concentration camps, gulags and killing fields. The murder rate of medieval
Europe was more than 30 times what it is today. Slavery, excessive
and sadistic punishments, and frivolous executions were
unexceptionable features of life for millennia , but are quickly
disappearing today (if not nearly quickly enough). Wars between developed countries
have all but vanished, and even in the developing world , warfare kills
at a fraction of the rate it did just a few decades ago. Rape, assault,
hate crimes, deadly riots, child abuse and more are all substantially
less common than they once were . Hunger has been halved in the
developing world since 1990. Disease is waning dramatically , allowing most of us to live longer.
Things are a long ways from perfect and plenty of problems exist,
but the overall picture isn't half-bad . Not many of us would jump at the chance to switch places with those who lived
during other eras.
1ar EXT Solves War
Markets solves war promotes interdependence which
creates market signaling which de-esclates war and
makes it costly
Dafoe 14, Assistant Professor in Political Science @ Yale, and Kelsey,
Research Associate in International Economics @ Berkeley, 2014 (Allan and
Nina, Observing the capitalist peace: Examining market-mediated signaling
and other mechanisms, Journal of Peace Research 2014, 115)
Countries with liberal political and economic systems rarely use military
force against each other. This anomalous peace has been most prominently
attributed to the democratic peace the apparent tendency for democratic countries to
avoid militarized conflict with each other (Maoz & Russett, 1993; Ray, 1995; Dafoe, Oneal & Russett,
2013).More recently, however, scholars have proposed that the liberal peace could be
partly (Russett & Oneal, 2001) or primarily (Gartzke, 2007; but see Dafoe, 2011) attributed to
liberal economic factors , such as commercial and financial

interdependence . In particular, Erik Gartzke, Quan Li & Charles Boehmer (2001), henceforth
referred to as GLB, have demonstrated that measures of capital openness have a
substantial and statistically significant association with peaceful
dyadic relations. Gartzke (2007) confirms that this association is robust to a large
variety of model specifications. To explain this correlation, GLB propose that countries with
open capital markets are more able to credibly signal their resolve through
the bearing of greater economic costs prior to the outbreak of
militarized conflict. This explanation is novel and plausible, and resonates with the rationalist
view of asymmetric information as a cause of conflict (Fearon, 1995). Moreover, it implies clear testable
we exploit this
predictions on evidential domains different from those examined by GLB. In this article
opportunity by constructing a confirmatory test of GLBs theory of market-
mediated signaling . We first develop an innovative quantitative case
selection technique to identify crucial cases where the mechanism of market-
mediated signaling should be most easily observed . Specifically, we employ
quantitative data and the statistical models used to support the theory we are probing to create an
impartial and transparentmeans of selecting cases in which the theory as specified by the theorys
creators makes its most confident predictions.We implement three different case selection rules to select
cases that optimize on two criteria: (1) maximizing the inferential leverage of our cases, and (2)
minimizing selection bias. We examine these cases for a necessary implication of market-mediated
signaling: that key participants drew a connection between conflictual events and adverse market
movements. Such an inference is a necessary step in the process by which market-mediated costs can
signal resolve. For evidence of this we examine news media, government documents, memoirs, historical
works, and other sources. We additionally examine other sources, such as market data, for evidence that
economic costs were caused by escalatory events. Based on this analysis, we assess the evidence for
GLBs theory of market mediated costly signaling. Our article then considers a more complex
heterogeneous effects version of market-mediated signaling in which unspecified scope conditions are
required for the mechanism to operate. Our design has the feature of selecting cases in which scope
conditions are most likely to be absent. This allows us to perform an exploratory analysis of these cases,
looking for possible scope conditions. We also consider alternative potential mechanisms. Our cases are
our confirmatory test
reviewed in more detail in the online appendix.1 To summarize our results,
finds that while market-mediated signaling may be operative in the
most serious disputes, it was largely absent in the less serious
disputes that characterize most of the sample of militarized interstate
disputes (MIDs). This suggests either that other mechanisms account for the
correlation between capital openness and peace, or that the scope conditions
for market-mediated signaling are restrictive. Of the signals that we observed,
strategicmarket-mediated signals were relatively more important
than automatic market-mediated signals in the most serious
conflicts. We identify a number of potential scope conditions, such as that (1) the conflict
must be driven by bargaining failure arising from uncertainty and (2) the
economic costs need to escalate gradually and need to be substantial, but
less than the expected military costs of conflict. Finally, there were a number of other
explanations that seemed present in the cases we examined and could account for the capitalist peace:
capital openness is associated with greater anticipated economic
costs of conflict ; capital openness leads third parties to have a greater
stake in the conflict and therefore be more willing to intervene; a dyadic
acceptance of the status quo could promote both peace and capital openness; and countries seeking to
institutionalize a regional peace might instrumentally harness the pacifying effects of liberal markets. The
correlation: Open capital markets and peace The empirical puzzle at the core of this article is the
significant and robust correlation noted by GLB between high levels of capital openness in both members
of a dyad and the infrequent incidence of militarized interstate disputes (MIDs) and wars between the
members of this dyad (Gartzke, Li & Boehmer, 2001). The index of capital openness (CAPOPEN) is intended
to capture the difficulty states face in seeking to impose restrictions on capital flows (the degree of lost
policy autonomy due to globalization) (Gartzke & Li, 2003: 575). CAPOPEN is constructed from data drawn
from the widely used IMFs Annual Reports on Exchange Arrangements and Exchange Controls; it is a
combination of eight binary variables that measure different types of government restrictions on capital
and currency flow (Gartzke, Li & Boehmer, 2001: 407). The measure of CAPOPEN starts in 1966 and is
defined for many countries (increasingly more over time). Most of the countries that do not have a
measure of CAPOPEN are communist.2 GLB implement this variable in a dyadic framework by creating a
new variable, CAPOPENL, which is the smaller of the two dyadic values of CAPOPEN. This operationalization
is sometimes referred to as the weak-link specification since the functional form is consonant with a
model of war in which the weakest link in a dyad determines the probability of war. CAPOPENL has a
negative monotonic association with the incidence of MIDs, fatal MIDs, and wars (see Figure 1).3 The
strength of the estimated empirical association between peace and CAPOPENL, using a modified version of
the dataset and model from Gartzke (2007), is comparable to that between peace and, respectively, joint
democracy, log of distance, or the GDP of a contiguous dyad (Gartzke, 2007: 179; Gartzke, Li & Boehmer,
2001: 412). In summary, CAPOPENL seems to be an important and robust correlate of peace. The question
of why specifically this correlation exists, however, remains to be answered. The mechanism: Market-
mediated signaling? Gartzke, Li & Boehmer (2001) argue that the classic liberal account for the pacific
effect of economic interdependence that interdependence increases the expected costs of war is not
consistent with the bargaining theory of war (see also Morrow, 1999). GLB argue that conventional
descriptions of interdependence see war as less likely because states face additional opportunity costs for
fighting. The problem with such an account is that it ignores incentives to capitalize on an opponents
reticence to fight (Gartzke, Li & Boehmer, 2001: 400.)4 Instead, GLB (see also Gartzke, 2003; Gartzke & Li,
2003) arguethat financial interdependence could promote peace by facilitating
the sending of costly signals . As the probability of militarized conflict
increases, states incur a variety of automatic and strategically imposed
economic costs as a consequence of escalation toward conflict. Those states
that persist in a dispute despite these costs will reveal their willingness to
tolerate them, and hence signal resolve . The greater the degree of
economic interdependence, the more a resolved country could demonstrate
its willingness to suffer costs ex ante to militarized conflict. Gartzke, Li & Boehmers
mechanism implies a commonly perceived costly signal before militarized conflict breaks out or escalates:
if market-mediated signaling is to account for the correlation between CAPOPENL and the absence of MIDs,
then visible market-mediated costs should occur prior to or during periods of real or potential conflict
(Gartzke, Li & Boehmer, 2001). Thus, the proposed mechanism should leave many visible footprints in the
This theory predicts that these visible signals must arise in any
historical record.
escalating conflict, involving countries with high capital openness, in which
this mechanism is operative Clarifying the signaling mechanism Gartzke, Li & Boehmers
signaling mechanism is mostly conceptualized on an abstract, game-theoretic level (Gartzke, Li &
Boehmer, 2001). In order to elucidate the types of observations that could inform this theorys validity, we
A conceptual
discuss with greater specificity the possible ways in which such signaling might occur.
classification of costly signals The term signaling connotes an intentional
communicative act by one party directed towards another . Because the term
signaling thus suggests a willful act, and a signal of resolve is only credible if it is
costly , scholars have sometimes concluded that states involved in

bargaining under incomplete information could advance their interests by
imposing costs on themselves and thereby signaling their resolve (e.g. Lektzian &
Sprecher, 2007). However, the game-theoretic concept of signaling refers more generally to any situation
states
in which an actors behavior reveals information about her private information. In fact,
frequently adopt sanctions with low costs to themselves and high costs to
their rivals because doing so is often a rational bargaining tactic on other
grounds: they are trying to coerce their rival to concede the issue. Bargaining
encounters of this type can be conceptualized as a type of war-of-attrition
game in which each actor attempts to coerce the other through the
imposition of escalating costs . Such encounters also provide the
opportunity for signaling: when states resist the costs imposed by their rivals,
they signal their resolve. If at some point one party perceives the conflict to have become
too costly and steps back, that party signals a lack of resolve. Thus, this kind of signaling arises
as a by-product of anothers coercive attempts. In other words, costly signals come in
two forms: self-inflicted (information about a leader arising from a leaders intentional or incidental
infliction of costs on himself) or imposed (information about a leader that arises from a leaders response
costs may arise as an automatic byproduct
to a rivals imposition of costs). Additionally,
of escalation towards military conflict or may be a tool of statecraft that is
strategically employed during a conflict. The automatic mechanism stipulates that as the
probability of conflict increases, various economic assets will lose value due to
the risk of conflict and investor flight. However, the occurrence of these costs may
also be intentional outcomes of specific escalatory decisions of the states, as in the case of deliberate
Finally, at a practical level, we identify three
sanctions; in this case they are strategic.
different potential kinds of economic costs of militarized conflict that may be
mediated by open capital markets: capital costs from political risk, monetary
coercion, and business sanctions. T

Corporate Personhood
1ar On T Domestic
No link we dont think corporations are literally people

just that treating them as such allows productive dialogue
on their role in domestic surveillance the alternative
excludes that discussion which is worse for their
epistemological interrogation its also more predictable
since legal definitions best define a legal topic
Perm do both their focus on corporate peronsonhood

crowds out a more effective analysis on the legal system
writ large
Ripken 12 --- Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law (Susanna
Kim, Citizens United, Corporate Personhood, and Corporate Power: The
Tension Between Constitutional Law and Corporate Law,
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1025&context=susanna_ripken)//trepka
Part of the problem with this strategy, however, is that it places too much weight on
the corporate personhood designation . The Move to Amend campaign
assumes that a constitutional amendment abolishing the personhood of corporations
will effectively diminish the power of corporations and dramatically
transform society. Part III reveals that this is a mistaken assumption because the
personhood concept is largely indeterminate and often irrelevant .
Legal history shows that the personhood label has long been arbitrarily
applied in constitutional law cases, suggesting that the label itself does not dictate necessary
outcomes. The Move to Amend supporters place all their eggs in the corporate personhood basket, but
corporate personhood simply does not carry the force and meaning
that they assume . A more significant problem lies in the popular belief that the Supreme Court
and constitutional law are largely to blame for the rise of corporate power and influence in society.
While judicial development and interpretation of constitutional law
has played a role in elevating the status of corporations, it is
corporate law that has permitted the empowerment of large corporate
entities. Parts IV and V explain that fundamental corporate law doctrines and deeply entrenched
norms, such as shareholder primacy, profit maximization, the business judgment rule, and the separation
of ownership and control, have shaped the role that corporations play in our society and political system.
The combination of these corporate law doctrines work together to
create an environment where corporations can achieve exactly what
the activists do not want corporations to have enormous drive and power to accumulate
and spend money, and thereby significantly influence our economic, social, and political spheres. This
suggests that a constitutional amendment to revoke corporate personhood and reverse the effect of
Citizens United will not accomplish what people think because it is more than just a constitutional law/free
It is
speech/First Amendment issue. It is about the core fundamentals of the corporate law regime.
embedded into the very structure of corporate law itself . To ignore
the tensions that corporate law raises in this regard is to miss the
deeper origins of corporate ascendance in the modern world.
Reps don't shape reality

Balzacq 5Thierry, Professor of Political Science and International Relations
at Namur University [The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency,
Audience and Context European Journal of International Relations, London:
Jun 2005, Volume 11, Issue 2] Jeong
However, despite important insights, this position remains highly disputable. The reason behind this
one of the main
qualification is not hard to understand. With great trepidation my contention is that
distinctions we need to take into account while examining securitization is
that between 'institutional' and 'brute' threats. In its attempts to follow a more
radical approach to security problems where in threats are institutional, that is, mere
products of communicative relations between agents, the CS has neglected the
importance of 'external or brute threats', that is, threats that do not depend on
language mediation to be what they are - hazards for human life. In
methodological terms, however, any framework over-emphasizing either
institutional or brute threat risks losing sight of important aspects of a
multifaceted phenomenon. Indeed, securitization, as suggested earlier, is successful when
the securitizing agent and the audience reach a common structured perception of an ominous
development. In this scheme, there is no security problem except through the language game. Therefore,
how problems are 'out there' is exclusively contingent upon how we
linguistically depict them. This is not always true. For one, language does not
construct reality; at best, it shapes our perception of it. Moreover, it is not
theoretically useful nor is it empirically credible to hold that what we say
about a problem would determine its essence. For instance, what I say about a
typhoon would not change its essence. The consequence of this position, which would
require a deeper articulation, is that some security problems are the attribute of the
development itself. In short, threats are not only institutional; some of them can
actually wreck entire political communities regardless of the use of
language. Analyzing security problems then becomes a matter of
understanding how external contexts, including external objective
developments, affect securitization. Thus, far from being a departure from constructivist
approaches to security, external developments are central to it.
AT Framework
No internal link --- stats
Allman 11 --- JD Candidate (Matthew, SWIFT BOAT CAPTAINS OF INDUSTRY FOR TRUTH:
CITIZENS UNITED AND THE ILLOGIC OF THE NATURAL PERSON THEORY OF CORPORATE PERSONHOOD, 38
Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 387 2010-2011, HeinOnline)//trepka
there is some reason to believe that

VI. THE IMPACT OF CITIZENS UNITED At first glance,
the practical impact of Citizens United may be somewhat limited . To
begin with, the now invalidated sections of 441b pertaining to
electioneering communications were somewhat limited in scope .
Although the majority opinion attempted to characterize 441b as a complete ban,13 8 the reality is that
the restrictions on electioneering materials operated only during a
relatively short period immediately preceding elections.
Corporations were already free to use their general treasury funds
to support electioneering materials outside of that window. Furthermore,
corporate PACs were completely exempt from this prohibition and could
release electioneering materials at any time of their choosing. Many of these PACs are almost as well-
funded and capable as the corporations themselves. Justice Stevens notes in his dissent that PACs raised
nearly a billion dollars in the 2008 election cycle.139 Thus, the limited nature of 441b suggests that
corporations may not have gained much through its invalidation. Even aside from these considerations,
there is some support for the position that corporate campaign spending is relatively slight in our
elections. A 2003 study that examined corporate PAC spending found that individual donor expenditures
still constitute the vast majority of campaign spending.140 The study notes that individual citizen
expenditures in the 2000 presidential election totaled nearly $2.4 billion, compared to only $380 million
The study also concludes that there
worth of corporate general treasury expenditures.141
is little statistical correlation between corporate campaign
expenditures and favorable voting behavior in Congress.142 Still other
studies claim that corporate expenditures are actually correlated with
negative economic returns , a phenomenon which, if true, may dissuade
corporations from making large election expenditures altogether.143 Taken together, these facts
suggest that the impact of Citizens United may be less sweeping than some fear.
Cosmo
2ac F/L
infinite regression externally, state engagement is vital
to resist oppression
Pugh 10 - Senior Academic Fellow, Director The Spaces of Democracy and
the Democracy of Space network, Department of Geography, School of
Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle University (Jonathan, The
Stakes of Radical Politics have Changed: Post-crisis, Relevance and the State
Globalizations MarchJune 2010, Vol. 7, Nos. 12, pp. 289301)
for some radicals on the Left it made sense to turn
Given this dominant imaginary,
to a more mobile and trans-national civil society, rather than the
state for radical politics (Appadurai, 1996; Routledge, 2003). Within some academic
disciplines there was a certain distaste for [the] state (Low, 2003, p. 628). For society did not seem to
operate anymore according to the rules of those older, modern, disciplinary categories, which concerned
those radicals from the previous generation, like Foucault or Laclau and Mouffe. So new forms of analysis
and radical politics were developed by new radicals, responding to the arrival of a new era (Featherstone,
2003; Anand et al., 2004). Hardt and Negri (2000), for example, talked up the idea that the new phase of
capitalism operated far beyond the nation state, directly organising brain and body, through the complex
interactions of globalised systems of trade and global media. Hardt and Negri therefore sought to work
with the stakes of radical politics, as they saw them at the time, pre-crisis radicalising the post-modern
categories4 of a global networked society itself, to create a borderless, less oppressive world. When these
it seemed an almost natural conclusion to
new radicals developed their manifesto,
seek to get rid of outdated modes of representational politics,
instead radicalising the deterritorialised potential of the multitude
into new trans-national forms of bio-power, by intensifying this new phase of
capitalism. This seemed logical, when all the analysis pointed to the way that globalised capitalism was
going precrisis states were holding back the revolutionary potential of the multitude. As well as those
radicals who advocate a global civil society from below, like Hardt and Negri and Mary Kaldor, there are of
course those who advocate global civil society from above, in the form of some sort of global governance,
such as the United Nations. Developing theories of globalisation in a particular way, many have argued for
a move away from the national to the cosmopolitan public sphere, claiming that we are witnessing the
The reality is of course that this
formation of a global polity (Kohler, 1998, p. 231).
global polity is dominated by quasi-governmental organisations
and elites that claim to speak on behalf of civil society, often without being
elected by it. Nevertheless, as David Harvey (2000, p. 529) has written: Cosmopolitanism
is back. This revival has been led by authors such as David Held, Daniele Archibugi, Richard Falk, and
Martin Kohler (see Archibugi et al., 1998, for some examples). As David Chandler (2004, p. 320) said pre-
crisis, such authors tend to look upon representational politics as a mechanism of domination. The belief
is that trends in globalisation have shifted the way in which government is being and should be done. Yet
as Will Hutton (2009, p. 214) said post-crisis, on 5 December 2008: to those who say that globalisation
really constrains states, I say well look at the bail out of the last six or eight weeks. Look at the way in
which when push came to shove, it was nation states that had to write taxpayers money to support
we were all reminded that these nation states
Western banks, and suddenly
that allegedly had little or no power were, when the system broke,
the only thing that you had. It would have been unthinkable a few years ago that the
government of the USA would own 60% of General Motors. It would have been unthinkable that British
citizens would, without any major protests, allow 8% of national income to be invested in failing private
banks, making the state the major shareholder in some of the worlds largest companies, like the Royal
Bank of Scotland (84% in this case). From the USA to India, as recent elections reveal and trends in the
global economy suggest, the new era is going to be one that extends the powers of government. Elected
governments have expressed their power in an unparalleled way since 2007. Those who
command the representational politics of the state command an
incredibly powerful force. Radicals will need to work with the new
tide of history, and the new opportunities it presents. As Saskia Sassen (2009) says, in her
contribution to a recent analysis of radical politics today, the radical Left now needs to
re-engage with the state . A point that wraps up this section of my essay is that in that same
book Chantal Mouffe (2009) looks back over the past decade or so, noticing two dominant trends in radical
politics. The first is critique as withdrawal from the state; the second is critique as engagement with it.
She says that many radicals believe withdrawal is more valuable. This was (and probably still is) the
dominant trend within contemporary radical politics. And it is this trend that we need to reverse. As I will
the new stakes also demand that the radical Left re-engage
now discuss,
in representational politics more seriously, if the Right is not to
continue its rise to power.
This terminally reinforces state power

Mouffe 13 (Chantal Mouffe, Director of the Centre for the Study of
Democracy and Professor of Political Theory, Department of Political and
International Relations, University of Westminster, former researcher at
Harvard University, Cornell University, the University of California and the
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique in Paris, Agonistics: Thinking
The World Politically, Verso Books, 2013, locations 2036-2054, Kindle Edition)
I: How would you differentiate your work from the concept of the cosmopolitan second modernity
as it is formulated by Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens? Mouffe: It is clear that, according to my
views of
agonistic model, democratic politics needs to be partisan. This is why I am very critical of the
Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens, who argue that the adversarial model of
politics has become obsolete and that we need to think beyond left
and right. For me, the adversarial model is constitutive of democratic
politics. Of course, we should not envisage the left/right opposition
as having some kind of essential content. These notions need to be redefined
according to different historical periods and contexts. What is really at stake in the
left/right distinction is the recognition of social division and the
existence of antagonistic conflicts that cannot be overcome through
rational dialogue . I would not deny, of course, that we have experienced in
recent years an increasing blurring of the frontiers between left
and right. But while Beck and Giddens see this as a sign of progress for democracy, I am convinced
that this is an evolution that was not necessary and that can be
reversed. In my view, it needs to be resisted because it can endanger
democratic institutions . The consequence of the disappearance of a
fundamental difference between the democratic parties of centre-
left and centre-right is that people are losing interest in politics .
Witness the worrying decline in voting. The reason is that most social
democratic parties have moved so far towards the centre that they
are unable to offer alternatives to the existing hegemonic order. No
A vibrant democratic politics needs to
wonder people are losing interest in politics.
offer people the possibility of making genuine choices. Democratic
politics must be partisan. In order to get involved in politics, citizens
have to feel that real alternatives are at stake. The current
disaffection with democratic parties is very bad for democratic
politics. In several countries, it has led to the rise of right-wing
populist parties who present themselves as the only ones concerned
with offering alternatives and giving voice to the people neglected
by the establishment parties. Remember what happened in France in 2002 in the first
round of the presidential elections. Jean-Marie Le Pen, the leader of the Front National, came in second
and eliminated the Socialist candidate Lionel Jospin. Honestly, I was shocked but not surprised. I had
been joking with my students during the campaign that the difference between Chirac and Jospin was
really like the difference between Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Indeed, Jospin had insisted that his programme
was not a socialist one, and the consequence was that many people could not bring themselves to vote
for him in the first round. On the other side, many disgruntled voters were motivated to vote for Le Pen,
who, thanks to his successful demagogic rhetoric, had managed to mobilize them against what they saw
I am really worried by the celebration of the politics
as the uncaring elites.
of consensus at the centre that exists today. I feel very strongly that such a
post-political Zeitgeist is creating a favourable terrain for the rise of
right-wing populism.
Utopian alts are a voter for deterrence lack of a plan of

action to achieve it structurally deprives the aff of ground
causes intellectual laziness and decreases advocacy
skills
No endless warfare
we ought
sense.

work of researchers and educators coming to the field from the perspective of negative
peace too easily forget that the prevention of a nuclear confrontation of
global dimensions is the prerequisite for all other peace research, education,
and action . Unless such a confrontation can be avoided there will be no
world left in which to build positive peace. Moreover, the blanket
condemnation of all such negative peace oriented research, education or
action as a reactionary attempt to support and reinforce the status quo is
doctrinaire. Conflict theory and resolution, disarmament studies, studies of the international system
and of international organizations, and integration studies are in themselves neutral. They do not
intrinsically support either the status quo or revolutionary efforts to change or overthrow it. Rather they
offer a body of knowledge which can be used for either purpose or for some purpose in between .
It is
much more logical for those who understand peace as positive peace to
integrate this knowledge into their own framework and to utilize it in
achieving their own purposes. A balanced peace studies program should therefore
offer the student exposure to the questions and concerns which occupy those who view the field
essentially from the point of view of negative peace.
Absorbing the plan is a voter for deterrence makes aff
offense impossible and artificially narrows the debate to
only the things they can win weakens education and
advocacy counter-interp any piks must be explicit in
the 1nc alt text and have a case-specific solvency
advocate
Perm do both restrictions can check state power the

plan can be a starting point for the alt
Deleixhe 13 researcher at the Free University of Brussels after a Masters
Degree on the debate between liberals and communitarians, he studied the
role of migration in collective identity (Martin Deleixhe, 4/6/13, Universal Us:
Rethinking Cosmopolitanism, http://www.booksandideas.net/Universal-Us-
Rethinking-Cosmopolitanism.html)//twontwon
Cosmopolitanism is a deceiving philosophical ideal. While every political vision

that ever aspired to universalism seems to have ended up betraying it
badly , the world we live in has nonetheless turned, almost inadvertently, into a tight-knit web of
interdependence relations mirroring in some respects the dream of a unified planet. Somewhat
paradoxically, cosmopolitanism, which appeared for so long to be out of humankinds reach, is
all of a sudden knocking at our doors. And it finds us relatively unprepared to
welcome it. This paradox has fueled a certain sense of urgency in the field of political theory.
Cosmopolitanism, not exactly a newcomer in the realm of political ideologies, nevertheless found
itself regarded as in dire need to be quickly redefined, amended and updated in order to meet the modern
challenges of a globalized world. Human rights, global justice and governance have been restored as major
political and philosophical issues, and garner an ever-growing attention. This collective effort, dating back
from the 1990s and led by prominent thinkers such as Marta Nussbaum or Jurgen Habermas, is to be
commended. In James D. Ingrams view, it suffers however from a fundamental
misconception . Its elitist approach keeps it at bay from the
democratic tradition. Attempting to overturn this original default, Ingram sketches in a
stimulating book what a radical cosmopolitics in sync with democratic requirements would entail.
Cosmopolitanism, at a first glance, has often found itself guilty of offering
a towering worldview that would be as ethically demanding as it is
politically toothless . It too often put forward lofty ambitions that it did
not have the means to meet. To reverse this well-established trend, Ingram suggests a shift
in our practical approach of the universal. In normative political philosophy, cosmopolitanism should no
longer be regarded as a derivative from a universal ethics but rather as a political intervention.
Cosmopolitanism should be redefined as cosmopolitics, [1] that is, as an
localized and contextualized political disruption aiming at
always
overcoming the inherited and often arbitrary boundaries that limit the scope of our
moral concern. To elaborate his own views on cosmopolitanism, Ingram splits his argument in two
parts. First, he critically reviews what he calls the top-down approaches to cosmopolitanism. Then, he
formulates what he considers to be a bottom-up cosmopolitanism that would avoid the pitfalls into which
previous universal political ideologies have tended to fall, i.e. empty abstraction and hidden particularism.
Those are aptly illustrated, in his view, by the strengths and weaknesses of Kants practical philosophy.
Kants pure ethics famously intends to be the very embodiment of the
universal. After all, the categorical imperative commands to each moral being
to act as if the maxim of his actions could be universalized.
Cosmopolitanism from this perspective is almost equated with the proper application of morality. However,
this transcendental principle calls for some specifications . For, as
such, it is too indeterminate to guide any agency . If it is to steer
anyone through the muddled world of hard moral choices, the
categorical imperative has to be mediated through some impure ethics . It
should not only say what is to be done, but also how and by whom. And, as soon as Kant tries to address
this reproach, he flips in Ingrams view from an empty abstraction into an exclusive particularism to which
he is surprisingly oblivious. While defining, for instance, who is entitled to be called a moral being, Kant
notoriously marginalized women and non-European peoples, who were deemed too irrational to be fully
autonomous and therefore unfit to participate in public life. Unaware of his internalization of his times
prejudice, Kant drew an unjustifiably narrow picture of the cosmopolitan world. According to Ingram, this
tension is not just to be found in Kants writing and should rather be considered as inherent to any form of
universalism. Abstract and impartial universal principles need to be qualified
to have some empirical repercussions on the practical world, but
in order
they cannot do so without running the risk of reintroducing some
particularistic and therefore exclusionary elements in the political equation.
Even worse, Kant staunchly refused to seriously address the question of power imbalances. As his writings
on the French Revolution testify, he firmly believed that the cosmopolitan agents par excellence were no
other than the State sovereigns. Although he admired and welcomed but strictly as a bystander the
birth of a new republican State at the heart of Europe, he also firmly condemned the overthrow of the
French monarch by the Jacobins, for the people had, according to him, an absolute duty to obey its
sovereign. The citizens are encouraged to speak their mind in order to enlighten the sovereign. But this
liberty is confined to the realm of persuasion and should not be mistaken for a coercive tool. Sovereigns
therefore should act as their citizens suggest them to, and in the long run it is supposed that they will, but
they have no immediate reason to do so. The idealist shortcomings of this approach are almost too obvious
to be stated. Why should those that benefit from injustices attempt to correct them? Relying on the
powerful to curb their own abusive power seems to betray the egalitarianism on which cosmopolitanism
This tension between the ambitious goals of cosmopolitanism and
rests.
the modesty of the means allocated to it is not solely a thing of the past.
The school of thought promoting the idea of a cosmopolitan democracy seems
to be still believing this delusion . Addressing itself to the political
elites, it appears sometimes to be more interested in convincing those in
power to renounce some of their prerogatives, than in providing the
oppressed and the powerless with a strategy to overcome their exclusion.
Vague alts are a voter for deterrence forces the aff to

start the alt debate in the 1AR moots the 2AC and
causes irrevocable strat skew <and makes floating piks
inevitable>
Alt AT Sousveillance
Sousveillance fails farmer's dilemma and lack of trust
Danaher 14 - John Danaher holds a PhD from University College Cork
(Ireland) and is currently a lecturer in law at NUI Galway (Ireland). His
research interests are eclectic, ranging broadly from philosophy of religion to
legal theory, with particular interests in human enhancement and
neuroethics. (John, "What's the case for sousveillance?", IEET, Feb 10, 2014,
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/danaher20140210)//A-Sharma
Mann and Ali are clear that "authority" here is understood in terms of ability and legitimacy. In other words,
a person possesses authority over another if they have the ability and the legitimacy to impose their will
on that other. This is the first slip-up in the argument for me .
They explicitly say that
legitimacy is understood in a "normative sense", but I don't see why they say
that. Indeed, many of the most problematic cases of surveillance
ones that sousveillance may be able to counteract arise precisely
because the person doing watching can illegitimately impose their
will on another. Furthermore, depending on how you define legitimacy, this definition of
"authority" risks foreclosing much of the ethical debate about
surveillance and sousveillance. If legitimacy entails the moral right
to enforce your will, it's difficult to see how or why the use of
surveillance equipment would be of major ethical concern. I would
suggest, then, that we drop "legitimacy" from the definition of
authority. This raises the next issue. It seems obvious that in making a case for sousveillance you
must, implicitly or explicitly, believe that there is something morally problematic or sub-optimal about a
world in which surveillance dominates. But what is that something? Well, first of all, let's consider the
advantages of surveillance. Clearly, surveillance has advantages from the perspective of authority. It can
be used to police and enforce behavioural norms (e.g. street cameras and laws against vandalism) or to
prevent the breach of such norms. Consequently, to the extent that these norms are morally valid,
surveillance is of benefit to us all. The obvious disadvantages of surveillance are when it goes too far, and
personal rights such as the right to privacy are traded-off against the good of enforcement, or when the
norms being enforced are not morally valid. Another, perhaps more subtle, problem with a surveillance
culture is best-expressed using republican conceptions of liberty and non-domination. One thing that
constant surveillance seems to carry with it is the implicit threat that if you do something to displease the
de facto authority figure, you risk punishment or sanction. You live in the permanent shadow of a threat.
This will force you to engage in ingratiating, self-censoring and extra-cautious acts. The position strikes me
as being similar to that of the happy slave in neo-republican political theory. The happy slave is happy only
to the extent that he or she doesn't step out of line. That's not real freedom (according to the republican
theory). Those us living under the domination of surveilling authorities might have a similarly restricted
type of freedom. This problem of surveillance and domination needs further exploration, but it seems
important to me. Indeed, I think it can be used to great effect when evaluating the strengths and
weaknesses of Mann's case for sousveillance. Let's turn to that case next. 2. Trust, Exchange and the Case
main argument that Ali and Mann make for
for Sousveillance The
sousveillance is based on the value of efficient economic exchange. As
any classical economist will tell you, free and fully-informed exchanges between rational agents should
increase societal well-being. The idea being that such a system of exchange ensures that resources are
there are many problems with
distributed to their highest expected value uses. Now,
this model, particularly in terms of the idealistic assumptions one
needs to make in order for the conclusion to hold. Nevertheless, Mann and
Ali's arguments are based on the notion that sousveillance gets us closer to those idealistic assumptions.
Central to this argument is an analysis of the conditions for efficient
economic exchange. It has long been clear that social cooperation
can be mutually advantageous. It has also long been clear that such
cooperation carries risks. Hume's story of the two corn farmers
illustrates the point rather nicely. Imagine that there are two farmers, A and
B, both with crops of corn. These crops will ripen at different times. Each
farmer will need the help of the other to ensure that they can
harvest their crops, and put them in storage in good time . Without such
help, a portion of the crops will start rotting in the field. In this case, cooperation would be mutually
problem is that a purely rationalistic analysis suggests
beneficial. The
that they won't help each other: if farmer A helps B before his crops ripen, then farmer B
will have no real incentive to help farmer A later on. Reasoning backwards, A will expect B to betray him
and so won't bother helping B. This is sometimes referred to as the Farmers'
Dilemma. There are various solutions to this dilemma. A legal system that enforces promises is one: if
the breach of promise carries with it a risk of legal sanction, then more people might be inclined to keep
their promises. So too is trust: simply voluntarily committing yourself to help another, in spite of the risk.
Some people argue that trust is a social emotion that evolved so that we could solve the problem of social
cooperation. And some people argue that trust of this sort is incredibly virtuous. Something that society
should be keen to promote and protect. Indeed, trust plays a considerable role in many important social
exchanges. People can feel offended if you don't trust them, and may back out of an exchange if you seem
to lack trust. Think, for example, of how betrayed you might feel if you caught your partner snooping
through your text messages just to make sure you were being faithful. Ali and Mann argue that
sousveillance can facilitate beneficial social exchanges. They say it does so by making the parties to an
exchange less vulnerable to exploitation. The mechanism for this is not stated, but I assume the authors
are imagining something like the following: There is a system in place that will enforce promises if they are
breached (this system could be a formal legal system or an informal social one). This system relies on
proof of claim before enforcement. Those who use sousveillance will record every detail of every
negotiated promise. In this way, they will always be able to prove a claim should they need to rely on the
social system of enforcement. Consequently, every exchange with a sousveiller will carry an implicit threat
of enforcement. If both parties are sousveillers (as they should be according to Ali and Mann), they can
keep each other honest, and thereby clear the path to beneficial exchange. In this sense, sousveillance is a
trust-substitute: it overrides the vulnerabilities inherent in exchange without forcing us to voluntarily
assume the risk of exploitation. To lay this out more formally: (1) If mutually advantageous social
exchanges carried less risk of exploitation, people will be more likely to undertake them. (2) Sousveillance
helps to reduce the risk of exploitation inherent in mutually advantageous social exchanges. (3) Therefore,
sousveillance increases the likelihood of people undertaking mutually advantageous social exchanges.
We've already considered the case for premise (2) in the preceding paragraph. I want to dwell on premise
(1). It seems to me that this is potentially vulnerable to a counterargument.
The counterargument brings us back to the virtue of trust. Although some exchanges
could be facilitated by sousveillance, it could also be the case that people insist
on the voluntary assumption of risk as a gesture of good faith prior
to entering into an exchange. We could imagine, for example, one of the CEOs of
two major corporations, negotiating a merger deal, asking the other
to "switch off" his sousveillance equipment before they agree on the
final terms of the deal. After all, if this merger is going to work, they
need to trust each other, and they can't do that if they are
constantly monitoring and recording one another's words. This might, of
course, be terribly naive, and agreeing to this gesture of good faith may be costly, but humans are
sometimes irrational and one could imagine this kind of insistence
taking place. What matters is whether the number of valuable
exchanges in which people insist upon trust, will be larger than the
number of valuable exchanges facilitated by sousveillance. In their
discussion, Ali and Mann break the possible exchanges down into three categories: (i) those that are
unaffected by the presence of sousveillance; (ii) those that are facilitated by sousveillance; and (iii) those
that are discouraged or prevented by sousveillance. As long as categories (i) and (ii) are larger and more
valuable than category (iii), a case for sousveillance can be made. So which is it? Ali and Mann try to argue
that the number of exchanges in category (iii) will be minimal. They do so on the grounds of
desensitisation. As sousveillance becomes more widespread, people will adjust their expectations to
accommodate it. They will be less "creeped out" or offended by its use. Arguably, this has already
happened with surveillance technologies. Whenever I get the train, I see little signs reminding me that my
Why
every movement is being recorded by CCTV. It doesn't bother me. I've become so used to it.
wouldn't the same thing happen with sousveillance? I think there are some
problems with this argument. While it is true that we could become
desensitised to sousveillance if it achieved sufficient social
penetration, that seems to assume what needs to be proved,
namely: that sousveillance will achieve sufficient social penetration .
Elsewhere in their article, Ali and Mann defend this on the grounds of economic inevitability: sousveillance
will be so economically beneficial that it will become widespread. But, again, that seems to assume what
If the economic benefit
needs to be proved: that sousveillance really is economically beneficial.
of technology depends on whether it facilitates voluntary exchange
between parties, and if a sufficient number of parties are offended
by the use of sousveillance technologies, then they won't be
economically beneficial. People won't consent to their use. This is
markedly different from the surveillance case. Since surveillance technologies are
imposed from the top-down by de facto authorities they don't
require the immediate consent of those being watched. Economic
exchanges arguably do. Admittedly, this is a technical objection, based more on how Ali and
Mann make their argument, than on what I think the reality is going to be. The fact is that the marketplace
is currently characterised by inequalities of bargaining power between parties to economic exchange. It is
perfectly possible that those inequalities create conditions in which veillance technologies will get a
foothold. This may clear the path to widespread sousveillance
Alt Antisurv Alt
Antisurveillance fails its vagueness is coopted
Martin 98 Professor of Social Sciences at the University of Wollongong,
Australia (Brian, Antisurveillance Information Liberation,
http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/98il/il04.html
another
Instead of disrupting the surveillance that is carried out by powerful organisations,
approach is to undertake "countersurveillance": surveillance of
powerful organisations. Today, large organisations and powerful individuals have as much
privacy as money will buy, and most surveillance is carried out against the weak, disorganised and
defenceless. The builders of weapons of mass destruction use every available means to ensure secrecy
while spying on their enemies (foreign powers and peace movements). Can this pattern be challenged and
reversed by promoting surveillance of the rich, powerful and dangerous? The challenge is enormous, but
some courageous individuals and groups have made efforts in this direction. A few investigators have
probed the corridors of power.[10] Their exposs are incredibly threatening to organisational elites simply
because they reveal what is actually happening on the inside. Such information undoubtedly contributes to
better strategies by social movements. Many more exposs are needed. Even more daring is spying on
spies and publicising the results, such as the efforts of the magazine Counterspy to expose CIA agents.
This was so threatening to the spy agency that special legislation was passed to stop such revelations.
Much more could be said of the potential for disrupting surveillance. The techniques to do this deserve
they offer at most one
much more study and experimentation. It does seem, though, that
part of a solution: they interfere with surveillance but do not offer
an alternative to the systems that generate and thrive on it. Furthermore,
as the experience of Earth First! has shown, disruption sometimes
triggers increased surveillance and repression. To achieve a society
with less surveillance, disruption is far from an ideal approach .
Alt AT Security
Our authors arent lying otherwise theyd get fired
Ravenal 9 [Earl C., distinguished senior fellow in foreign policy studies @
Cato, is professor emeritus of the Georgetown University School of Foreign
Service. He is an expert on NATO, defense strategy, and the defense budget.
He is the author of Designing Defense for a New World Order. What's Empire
Got to Do with It? The Derivation of America's Foreign Policy. Critical Review:
An Interdisciplinary Journal of Politics and Society 21.1 (2009) 21-75]
The underlying notion of the security bureaucracies . . . looking for
new enemies is a threadbare concept that has somehow taken hold across the political spectrum,
from the radical left (viz. Michael Klare [1981], who refers to a threat bank), to the liberal center (viz. Robert H. Johnson [1997], who
dismisses most alleged threats as improbable dangers), to libertarians (viz. Ted Galen Carpenter [1992], Vice President for Foreign and
What is missing from most

Defense Policy of the Cato Institute, who wrote a book entitled A Search for Enemies).
analysts claims of threat inflation, however, is a convincing theory of

why , say, the American government significantly(not merely in excusable rhetoric) might magnify
and even invent threats (and, more seriously, act on such inflated threat estimates). In a few places, Eland (2004,
185) suggests that such behavior might stem from military or national security bureaucrats attempts to enhance their personal status and
organizational budgets, or even from the influence and dominance of the military-industrial complex; viz.: Maintaining the empire and
retaliating for the blowback from that empire keeps what President Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex fat and happy. Or, in the
same section: In the nations capital, vested interests, such as the law enforcement bureaucracies . . . routinely take advantage of crisesto
satisfy parochial desires. Similarly, many corporations use crises to get pet projects a.k.a. porkfunded by the government. And national
security crises, because of peoples fears, are especially ripe opportunities to grab largesse. (Ibid., 182) Thus, bureaucratic-
politics theory, which once made several reputations (such as those of Richard Neustadt, Morton Halperin, and Graham Allison)
in defense-intellectual circles, and spawned an entire sub-industry within the field of international relations,5 is put into the
service of dismissing putative security threats as imaginary . So, too, can a surprisingly
cognate theory, public choice,6 which can be considered the right-wing analog of the bureaucratic-politics model, and is a preferred
interpretation of governmental decision- making among libertarian observers. As Eland (2004, 203) summarizes: Public-choice theory argues
[that] the government itself can develop separate interests from its citizens. The government reflects the interests of powerful pressure
groups and the interests of the bureaucracies and the bureaucrats in them. Although this problem occurs in both foreign and domestic policy,
it may be more severe in foreign policy because citizens pay less attention to policies that affect them less directly. There is, in this statement
of public-choice theory, a certain ambiguity, and a certain degree of contradiction: Bureaucrats are supposedly, at the same time, subservient
to societal interest groups and autonomous from society in general. This journal has pioneered the argument that state autonomy is a likely
consequence of the publics ignorance of most areas of state activity (e.g., Somin 1998; DeCanio 2000a, 2000b, 2006, 2007; Ravenal 2000a).
But state autonomy does not necessarily mean that bureaucrats substitute their own interests for those of what could be called the national
society that they ostensibly serve. I have argued (Ravenal 2000a) that, precisely because of the public-ignorance and elite-expertise factors,
and especially because the opportunitiesat least for bureaucrats (a few notable post-government lobbyist cases nonwithstanding)for
lucrative self-dealing are stringently fewer in the defense and diplomatic areas of government than they are in some of the contract-
dispensing and more under-the-radar-screen agencies of government, the public-choice imputation of self-dealing, rather than working
toward the national interest (which, however may not be synonymous with the interests, perceived or expressed, of citizens!) is less likely to
hold. In short, state autonomy is likely to mean, in the derivation of foreign policy, that state elites are using rational judgment, in insulation
from self-promoting interest groupsabout what strategies, forces, and weapons are required for national defense. Ironically, public
choicenot even a species of economics, but rather a kind of political interpretationis not even about public choice, since, like the
bureaucratic-politics model, it repudiates the very notion that bureaucrats make truly public choices; rather, they are held, axiomatically, to
exhibit rent-seeking behavior, wherein they abuse their public positions in order to amass private gains, or at least to build personal empires
within their ostensibly official niches. Such sub- rational models actually explain very little of what they purport to observe. Of course, there is
some truth in them, regarding the behavior of some people, at some times, in some circumstances, under some conditions of incentive and
motivation. But the factors that they posit operate mostly as constraints on the otherwise rational optimization of objectives that, if for no
other reason than the playing out of official roles, transcends merely personal or parochial imperatives. My treatment of role differs from
that of the bureaucratic-politics theorists, whose model of the derivation of foreign policy depends heavily, and acknowledgedly, on a narrow
and specific identification of the role- playing of organizationally situated individuals in a partly conflictual pulling and hauling process that
results in some policy outcome. Even here, bureaucratic-politics theorists Graham Allison and Philip Zelikow (1999, 311) allow that some
players are not able to articulate [sic] the governmental politics game because their conception of their job does not legitimate such activity.
This is a crucial admission, and one that points empiricallyto the need for a broader and generic treatment of role. Roles (all theorists
virtually every governmental role, and

state) give rise to expectations of performance. My point is that
especially national-security roles, and particularly the roles of the uniformed

military, embody expectations of devotion to the national interest; rationality in the derivation of policy at every functional
level; and objectivity in the treatment of parameters, especially external
parameters such as threats and the power and capabilities of other

nations. Sub-rational models (such as public choice) fail to take into account even a
partial dedication to the national interest (or even the possibility that the
national interest may be honestly misconceived in more parochial terms). In
contrast, an officials role connects the individual to the (state-level) process,
and moderates the (perhaps otherwise) self-seeking impulses of the individual. Role-
derived behavior tends to be formalized and codified; relatively transparent
and at least peer-reviewed , so as to be consistent with expectations;
surviving the particular individual and trans- mitted to successors and
ancillaries; measured against a standard and thus corrigible; defined in terms
of the performed function and therefore derived from the state function; and
uncorrrupt, because personal cheating and even egregious aggrandizement
are conspicuously discouraged. My own direct observation suggests that defense decision-
makers attempt to frame the structure of the problems that they try to
solve on the basis of the most accurate intelligence . They make it their
business to know where the threats come from. Thus, threats are not
socially constructed (even though, of course, some values are). A major reason for the rationality, and the
objectivity, of the process is that much security planning is done, not in vaguely undefined circumstances that offer scope for idiosyncratic,
subjective behavior, but rather in structured and reviewed organizational frameworks. Non-rationalities (which are bad for understanding and
People are fired for presenting skewed analysis and

prediction) tend to get filtered out.
for making bad predictions. This is because something important is riding on

the causal analysis and the contingent prediction. For these reasons, public choice
does not have the feel of reality to many critics who have participated in
the structure of defense decision-making. In that structure , obvious, and even not-so-
obvious,rent-seeking would not only be shameful; it would present a severe
risk of career termination . And, as mentioned, the defense bureaucracy is hardly a productive place for truly
talented rent-seekers to operatecompared to opportunities for personal profit in the commercial world. A bureaucrats very self-placement in
these reaches of government testi- fies either to a sincere commitment to the national interest or to a lack of sufficient imagination to exploit
opportunities for personal profit.
Some threats are objective defer to expert judgments,

the alternative isnt credible
Cole, 12 professor of law at Georgetown (David, Confronting the Wizard of
Oz: National Security, Expertise, and Secrecy, 44 Conn. L. Rev. 1617,
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub
Rana notes that in the early days of the republic, every able-bodied man had to serve in the militia,
whereas today only a small (and largely disadvantaged) portion of society serves in the military.11 But
serving in the militia and making decisions about national security are two different matters. The early
days of the Republic were at least as dominated by elites as today. Rana points to no evidence that
decisions about foreign affairs were any more democratic then than now. And, of course, the nation as a
whole was far less democratic, as the majority of its inhabitants could not vote at all.12 Rather than
moving away from a golden age of democratic decision-making, it seems more likely that we have simply
to the extent
replaced one group of elites (the aristocracy) with another (the experts). Second,
that there has been an epistemological shift with respect to national
security, it seems likely that it is at least in some measure a response to objective
conditions, not just an ideological development. If so, its not clear that
we can solve the problem merely by thinking differently about
national security. The world has, in fact, become more
interconnected and dangerous than it was when the Constitution was drafted. At our
founding, the oceans were a significant buffer against attacks, weapons were primitive, and travel over
long distances was extremely arduous and costly. The attacks of September 11, 2001, or anything like
them, would have been inconceivable in the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries. Small groups of non-state
actors can now inflict the kinds of attacks that once were the exclusive province of states. But because
such actors do not have the governance responsibilities that states have, they are less susceptible to
deterrence. The Internet makes information about dangerous weapons
and civil vulnerabilities far more readily available , airplane travel
dramatically increases the potential range of a hostile actor, and it is
not impossible that terrorists could obtain and use nuclear, biological, or
chemical weapons.13 The knowledge necessary to monitor nuclear weapons, respond to cyber
warfare, develop technological defenses to technological threats, and gather intelligence is increasingly
specialized.The problem is not just how we think about security threats;
it is also at least in part objectively based. Third, deference to expertise is not always an
error; sometimes it is a rational response to complexity. Expertise is generally developed
by devoting substantial time and attention to a particular set of
problems. We cannot possibly be experts in everything that concerns
us. So I defer to my son on the remote control, to my wife on directions (and so much else), to the
plumber on my leaky faucet, to the electrician when the wiring starts to fail, to my doctor on my back
problems, and to my mutual fund manager on investments. I could develop more expertise in some of
these areas, but that would mean less time teaching, raising a family, writing, swimming, and listening to
music. The same is true, in greater or lesser degrees, for all of us. And it is true at the level of the national
community, not only for national security, but for all sorts of matters. We defer to the Environmental
Protection Agency on environmental matters, to the Federal Reserve Board on monetary policy, to the
Department of Agriculture on how best to support farming, and to the Federal Aviation Administration and
Specialization is not
the Transportation Security Administration on how best to make air travel safe.
something unique to national security. It is a rational response to an increasingly
complex world in which we cannot possibly spend the time
necessary to gain mastery over all that affects our daily lives . If our
increasing deference to experts on national security issues is in part
the result of objective circumstances, in part a rational response to complexity, and
not necessarily less elitist than earlier times, then it is not enough to think
differently about the issue. We may indeed need to question the extent to which we rely on
experts, but surely there is a role for expertise when it comes to assessing
threats to critical infrastructure, devising ways to counter those threats, and
deploying technology to secure us from technologys threats. As challenging as it may be to adjust our
even if we were able to sheer away all
epistemological framework, it seems likely that
the unjustified deference to expertise, we would still need to rely
in substantial measure on experts. The issue, in other words, is not whether to rely on
experts, but how to do so in a way that nonetheless retains some measure of self-government. The need
for specialists need not preclude democratic decision-making. Consider, for example, the model of
adjudication. Trials involving products liability, antitrust, patents, and a wide range of other issues typically
rely heavily on experts.14 But critically, the decision is not left to the experts. The decision rests with the
jury or judge, neither of whom purports to be an expert. Experts testify, but do so in a way that allows for
adversarial testing and requires them to explain their conclusions to laypersons, who render judgment
informed, but not determined, by the expert testimony.
Threat deflations more likely

Schweller 4 professor of political science at Ohio State (Randall,
Unanswered Threats A Neoclassical Realist Theory of Underbalancing
International Security, JSTOR)
Despite the historical frequency of underbalancing, little has been written on the subject. Indeed, Geoffrey
Blainey's memorable observation that for "every thousand pages published on the causes of wars there is
less than one page directly on the causes of peace" could have been made with equal veracity about
overreactions to threats as opposed to underreactions to them.92 Library shelves are filled
with books on the causes and dangers of exaggerating threats, ranging from
studies of domestic politics to bureaucratic politics, to political psychology, to organization theory. By
comparison, there have been few studies at any level of analysis or from any theoretical
perspective that directly explain why states have with some, if not equal,
regularity underestimated dangers to their survival. There may be some
cognitive or normative bias at work here. Consider, for instance, that there is a commonly used word,
paranoia, for the unwarranted fear that people are, |in some way, "out to get you" or are planning to do
many people are afflicted with the opposite
one harm. I suspect that just as
psychosis: the delusion that everyone loves you when, in fact, they do not even like you.
Yet, we do not have a familiar word for this phenomenon. Indeed, I am unaware of any word that describes
this pathology (hubris and overconfidence come close, but they plainly define something other than what
I have described). That noted, international relations theory does have a frequently used phrase for the
pathology of states' underestimation of threats to their survival, the so-called Munich analogy. The term is
used, however, in a disparaging way by theorists to ridicule those who employ it. The central claim is that
the naivete associated with Munich and the outbreak of World War II has become an overused and
inappropriate analogy because few leaders are as evil and un- appeasable as Adolf Hitler. Thus, the
analogy either mistakenly causes leaders to adopt hawkish and overly competitive policies or is
deliberately used by leaders to justify such policies and mislead the public. A more compelling explanation
for the paucity of studies on underreactions to threats, however, is the tendency of theories to reflect
contemporary issues as well as the desire of theorists and journals to provide society with policy- relevant
theories that may help resolve or manage urgent security problems. Thus, born in the atomic age with its
security studies has naturally
new balance of terror and an ongoing Cold War, the field of
produced theories of and prescriptions for national security that have had little to say about
and are, in fact, heavily biased against warnings ofthe dangers of underreacting
to or underestimating threats. After all, the nuclear revolution was not about overkill but, as
Thomas Schelling pointed out, speed of kill and mutual kill.93 Given the apocalyptic consequences of
miscalculation, accidents, or inadvertent nuclear war, small wonder that theorists were more concerned
about overreacting to threats than underresponding to them. At a time when all of humankind could be
wiped out in less than twenty-five minutes, theorists may be excused for stressing the benefits of caution
under conditions of uncertainty and erring on the side of inferring from ambiguous actions overly benign
assessments of the opponent's intentions. The overwhelming fear was that a crisis "might unleash forces
of an essentially military nature that overwhelm the political process and bring on a war that nobody
wants. Many important conclusions about the risk of nuclear war, and thus about the political meaning of
nuclear forces, rest on this fundamental idea."94 Now that the Cold War is over, we can begin to redress
these biases in the literature. In that spirit, I have offered a domestic politics model to explain why
threatened states often fail to adjust in a prudent and coherent way to dangerous changes in their
strategic environment. The model fits nicely with recent realist studies on imperial under- and overstretch.
Specifically, it is consistent with Fareed Zakaria's analysis of U.S. foreign policy from 1865 to 1889, when,
he claims, the United States had the national power and opportunity to expand but failed to do so because
it lacked sufficient state power (i.e., the state was weak relative to society).95 Zakaria claims that the
United States did not take advantage of opportunities in its environment to expand because it lacked the
institutional state strength to harness resources from society that were needed to do so. I am making a
states are
similar argument with respect to balancing rather than expansion: incoherent, fragmented
unwilling and unable to balance against potentially dangerous
threats because elites view the domestic risks as too high, and they
are unable to mobilize the required resources from a divided society .
The arguments presented here also suggest that elite fragmentation and disagreement within a
competitive political process, which Jack Snyder cites as an explanation for overexpansionist policies, are
more likely to produce underbalancing than overbalancing behavior among threatened incoherent
states.96 This is becausea balancing strategy carries certain political costs
and risks with few, if any, compensating short-term political gains, and
because the strategic environment is always somewhat uncertain. Consequently, logrolling
among fragmented elites within threatened states is more likely to
generate overly cautious responses to threats than overreactions to them. This
dynamic captures the underreaction of democratic states to the rise of Nazi Germany during the interwar
period.97 In addition to elite fragmentation, I have suggested some basic domestic-level variables that
regularly intervene to thwart balance of power predictions.
Imperialism DA
A cosmopolitan ethic reinforces imperialism
Dhawan 13- Professor for Political Theory at the University of Innsbruck
(Nikita Dhawan, Fall/ Winter 2013, Human Rights between Past and Future,
Qui Parle, Vol. 22, No. 1pp. 139-166, JSTOR)//Yak
The German sociologist Ulrich Beck points out that, because we live in an increasingly
interdependent world, we face common threats to our ecologies, finances, and security, so
that any violation of rights in one part of the world is felt
everywhere. This globalization of risk unites us in our equal
vulnerability, providing the basis for the cosmopolitan moment of
a world risk society.9 In response to the question How can the relationship between global risk
and the creation of a global public be understood?, Beck discusses a globalization of
compassion (W, 114), as seen in global media events such as the Haitian earthquake and the
tsunamis, spectacularly demonstrated by the unprecedented readiness of
citizens in faraway countries to donate to relief efforts . World risk societys
shocking threats open up questions of social accountability and responsibility that cannot be adequately
addressed either in terms of national politics or the available forms of international cooperation. Public
debate enables a range of voices to be heard and the public to participate in decisions that would
otherwise evade their involvement. For Beck, international civil society actors are
thus given new opportunities to intercede in the fields of human
rights and global justice and in the search for a new grand narrative
of radical- democratic globalization. Beck endorses a cosmopolitan realpolitik (W,
368), viewing global institutions such as the United Nations and the International Criminal
Court, as well as global NGOs and transnational social movements such as the World Social Forum, as
legitimate vanguards of global governance. International NGOs like Amnesty
International and Greenpeace enjoy a high level of legitimacy in the public sphere and are increasingly
entrusted with the task of globally monitoring issues of human rights and ecology. Although Nussbaum and
Beck enthusiastically endorse cosmopolitanism as a solution for past injustices and a promise of better
I want to emphasize the complicities between liberal
times to come,
cosmopolitan articulations of solidarity and the global structures of
domination they claim to resist. Pheng Cheah argues that such a critique of
cosmopolitanisms elitist detachment is motivated by a vision of cosmopolitanism as an intellectual
ethos espoused by a select clerisy lacking feasible political structures for the universal
I object to the project of cosmopolitanism,
institutionalization of its ideals.10 But
because it fails to seriously address the historical processes through
which certain individuals are placed in a situation from which they
can aspire to global solidarity and universal benevolence in other words,
it lacks a concept of cosmopolitanism as the self- indulgence of the
altruistic and the magnanimous. Nussbaum, to her credit, is trying to explore
ways of improving peoples lives. But that itself is the problem. Her
attempt to act in the interests of distant others, to look beyond her
position and make everyone have as good a life as ours,
disregards the connection between the well- off here and the
impoverished elsewhere. As Spivak has argued, Nussbaums
cosmopolitanism appears profoundly provincial, in its too- hasty
assumption, as given, that a first- world metropolitan academic
and a third world sexed subaltern subject would share
fundamental aims and interests.11 Nussbaum firmly believes in a critical
Socratic pedagogy12 that would circumvent Eurocentrism through
cultivating sensitivity to other cultures and perspectives, even as
she asserts that she would rather risk charges of imperialism than
refuse to take a moral stand on urgent issues facing women (WCD, 2). In
contrast to Nussbaums faith in cosmopolitanisms self-correctional reflexivity, S pivak diagnoses
in the cosmopolitan call to align ourselves with our fellow citizens a
shift from the white mans burden to the the burden of the
fittest.13 This revision of social Darwinism defines the unfit as
unable either to help or to govern themselves . The distance between
those who dispense justice, aid, rights, and solidarity and those
who are simply coded as victims of wrongs and thus as receivers remains a
signature of historical violence (OA, 266n14). When progressive activists
and intellectuals intervene benevolently in the struggles of
subaltern groups for greater recognition and rights, they reinforce
the very power relations that they seek to demolish. Conversely, Beck
proposes that our common vulnerability in the face of risk brings us
together. But as we all know, though we might be facing the same storm,
we are not all in the same boat, and that makes all the difference. For Beck, the tsunamis
resulted in the globalization of compassion; but, as an instructive contrast, I would like to consider
a moment in Spivaks narrative of a major cyclone in Bangladesh in
1991 and the subsequent intervention by Mdecins sans frontire s.
The MSF workers, none of whom spoke the local language, were obliged to work through interpreters.
When Spivak later arrived at one of the villages where she had worked actively in the past, some of the
villagers ran up to her, saying, We dont want to be saved, we want to
die, they are treating us like animals.14 In a situation like this, and
without any common language, can we even think of solidarity? For
these reasons, the Sri Lankan feminist Malathi De Alwis15 has asked if we are truly
capable of empathizing with the pain of others, and even if we
should be allowed to witness their pain if this witnessing only serves
to affirm our humanity and our capacity to care. Correspondingly, of course, we
need to find authentic victims who truly deserve our benevolence. What do we do with our will to
empower the disenfranchised and the vulnerable, and how do we deal with those who refuse to be
interpellated as appropriate objects of our solidarity?
1ar FW AntiSurveillance
The alts coopted absent state engagement
Martin 98 Professor of Social Sciences at the University of Wollongong,
Australia (Brian, Antisurveillance Information Liberation,
http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/98il/il04.html
Corrupting databases and other ways of disrupting surveillance challenge the
encroachments of the surveillance society, but they have a number of
limitations. Introducing errors into databases sounds effective, but
databases are full of errors already. How much difference would
more errors make? The impact would need to be financially significant
(even more wrong names on mailing lists!) or politically potent (names of
powerful people on embarrassing lists). More importantly, disrupting
surveillance in this fashion is, by necessity, mostly an individual
activity. It provides a poor basis for mobilising a social movement;
instead, it tends to breed secrecy and vanguards. Such secret
activities are ideal for the duels of spy versus counterspy. When it
comes to spying and infiltration, social movements are likely to come
off second best to state agencies. This was certainly the case with
Earth First!, which was infiltrated by the FBI. Some Earth First!ers have
renounced sabotage and secret tactics and, as a result, been able to forge
links with workers in a way impossible using individualist, secretive methods.
1ar EXT Perm
Marquez 12 - Victoria University of Wellington, School of History, Philosophy,
Political Science & International Relations, Lecturer in Political Theory (Xavier,
Spaces of Appearance and Spaces of Surveillance, Polity, January 2012,
http://www.palgrave-
journals.com/polity/journal/v44/n1/full/pol201120a.html)//DBI
A solution to these problems would at least involve the expansion of spaces of
appearance (even if they can never be untainted by surveillance)
and the reduction of the reach of spaces of surveillance, and in particular of
those disciplinary spaces that reduce the disclosiveness of human action and make it the slave of production processes.
Arendts apparently utopian proposal for a council system in lieu of representative democracy can be understood as an
attempt to describe the way a society would look if its spaces of appearance were greatly expanded, even though she
never fully or properly articulated the connection between these potential new spaces of appearance with the myriad
the point is not
other spaces that would still remain in society.77 Yet it is important to stress again that
that spaces of surveillance could or should be eliminated wholesale ;
any moderately complex society, and indeed any society that aspires to a certain level of material security, will certainly
But the number of activities that
contain a very large number of spaces of surveillance.78
take place in spaces of surveillance can be decreased while
increasing the number of activities that take place in spaces of
appearance (however imperfect), and groups excluded from public
spaces can be brought into such spaces. Moreover, spaces of appearance
can be generated within spaces that remain shot through with
surveillance; witness, for example, the ways in which social media
technologies enabled many activists in the Middle East both to enter
the public space (and mobilize collective action through their stories of resistance to oppression) while at the
same time enabling governments to monitor their activities: as in Eastern Europe in the 1980s, the activists courage to
appear tended to subvert or undermine the apparatus of surveillance without completely rendering it ineffective.79
Indeed,spaces of appearance have repeatedly emerged within disciplinary
organizations as a result of what Foucault calls resistance. As Arendt notes, during
the twentieth century, labor movements time and again attempted to create
spaces of appearance and to engage in political action where , in our terms, only
spaces of surveillance had existed. According to Arendt, such political action by the
working class eventually provided workers with an unprecedented amount of
economic security and political power (now under threat in various ways, to be sure). But the
significance of the working-class action lay not in its economic success (which,
arguably, simply integrated the working class into the apparatuses of the state, with all its spaces of surveillance), but
in its ability to force open the public realm to a whole new segment
of the population that appeared in public for the first time .80
These movements of resistance to disciplinary power (both in labor movements and more
recently in Egypt and Syria) illustrate the Arendtian notion of action. Human beings generate
counter- power by means of their joint action , disrupt the

instrumentalization imposed on them by disciplinary organization, and create,
at least momentarily, spaces of appearance where peoples individual stories can be
articulated. Perhaps Foucaults notion of resistance could be enriched through the Arendtian notion of a space of
appearance. Foucault values the rejection of imposed identities, but when discussing the possibility of such rejection, he
seems to consider only the evasion of visibility. He does not consider the establishment of new spaces of appearance
Arendt, in contrast,
where the disclosure of individual identity and the generation of power go hand in hand.
proposes changing the way in which visibility operates . Her goal is to make
visibility function less as a lever of control and more as an opportunity to
express individuality, less as an experience that separates people and more
as one that enables collective action, less as a weapon with which to impose
norms and more as a springboard from which to launch new experiments in
collective self-regulationnew modes and orders, in the Machiavellian phrase that Arendt was fond of
quoting.81 The creation of spaces of appearances may well involve providing
opportunities for individuals to escape visibility , but it is not reducible to such an

escape. Late in life, Foucault also came to the conclusion that we need to expand the spaces where
self-creation is possible.82 He tended to understand these spaces as places where one
can make the self as one might make a thing. Although his aesthetic of existence is not devoid of a
collective dimension,83 it misses Arendts important points about how the human condition of plurality
prevents us from making ourselves as we make other things . At best, we can

disclose ourselves as individuals (in spaces of appearance) or as
types or roles (in spaces of surveillance) , or as a mixture of both (in most spaces). Finally,
it may be possible to harness the power of surveillance to control those commanding heights of public space in modern
because the structural features of modern states have
democracies. As Green has argued,
restricted access to enduring and significant public spaces to a small elite,
the actors in these spaces should be prevented as far as possible
from fully controlling the conditions of their visibility. One might, for
example, increase the number of opportunities where relatively spontaneous and
sometimes hostile challenges can occurperhaps through the use of
of the visible leader
press conferences and parliamentary question time.84 When political leaders cannot control the
conditions of their visibility, they are both more subject to the surveillance of
the public (which compensates, to some extent, for its normal lack of power), and more likely to
engage in genuine action, which is unpredictable and incalculable and
capable of generating new modes and orders . A space of surveillance can thus work in
tandem with the maintenance of a genuine space of appearance.
1ar EXT Cede the Political
Pallitto and Heyman 8 Political Science, Seton Hall University;
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, The University of Texas at El Paso
(Robert and Josiah, Theorizing Cross-Border Mobility: Surveillance, Security
and Identity, 2008, http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/surveillance-and-
society/article/viewFile/3426/3389) KW
Cosmopolitanism covers
One such analysis involves the concept of cosmopolitanism.
various phenomena within which political and cultural imaginations
become relatively unbounded, losing their localized prejudices and
sentiments, and thus cosmopolitanism is, predictably, often celebrated as
a triumph of technology, or of social-cultural development (Vertovec and Cohen, 2002).
However, its benefits are unequally distributed, and they come at a
cost . The mobility freedom enjoyed by some depends on an

authoritarian underside that denies movement to others (Sparke, 2006:
173, 174). Mobility freedom can be seen as a right or as a privilege, but either way it usually
comes with greater speed of movement and lower designation of
risk; that is, high rights and high speed are mutually reinforcing, and they are associated with lower risk.
Those designated as higher-risk, on the other hand, will experience risk in a double
sense: they are seen to pose a higher risk of harm to others, and at the same time they themselves are
more at risk for state scrutiny, detention and even mistreatment . Ulrich
Beck (1992,1999) sees risks as products of modern and post-modern technological, social, and economic
processes, creating new, shared domains of political collectivity that cut across traditionally bounded
Risk calculations made on a global scale can drive political
polities.
decisionmaking, with the resulting calculations shaping the space
for action in a postmodern context. This may be plausible for some issues (such as
global warming), but as our analysis of securitization of movement after 9/11 shows, world risk may also
result in greater differentiation of treatment and potentially segmentation of subjectivities. When applied
risk calculation is problematic because of its stratifying
to social groups,
effect that entrenches the unequal position of those at the losing
end of the rights/risk/speed calculus.
Critical Race Theory
2ac F/L
Only the plan alleviates these concrete instances of

oppression reform is essential
2. The


Perm use the law as a starting point for the

incorporation of critical race theory into politics this is
essential to address surveillance overreach

Alt fails pragmatic reform key to avoid violence

Condit 15 [Celeste, Distinguished Research Professor of Communication
Studies at the University of Georgia, Multi-Layered Trajectories for Academic
Contributions to Social Change, Feb 4, 2015, Quarterly Journal of Speech,
Volume 101, Issue 1, 2015]
when iek and others urge us to Act with violence to destroy the current Reality,
Thus,
without a vision of an alternative , on the grounds that the links between actions and
consequences are never certain, we can call his appeal both a failure of
imagination and a failure of reality . As for reality, we have dozens of
revolutions as models, and the historical record indicates quite
clearly that they generally lead not to harmonious cooperation (what I
call AnarchoNiceness to gently mock the romanticism of Hardt and Negri) but instead to the
production of totalitarian states and/or violent factional strife. A

materialist constructivist epistemology accounts for this by predicting that it is not possible for symbol-using animals to
All symbolic movement has a trajectory, and if you
exist in a symbolic void.
have not imagined a potentially realizable alternative for that

trajectory to take, then what people will leap into is biological
predispositionsthe first iteration of which is the rule of the
strongest primate. Indeed, this is what experience with revolutions has
shown to be the most probable outcome of a revolution that is
merely against an Evil . The failure of imagination in such rhetorics thereby
reveals itself to be critical, so it is worth pondering sources of that failure. The rhetoric of the kill in
social theory in the past half century has repeatedly reduced to the leap into a void because the symbolized alternative
that the context of the twentieth century otherwise predispositionally offers is to the binary opposite of capitalism, i.e.,
communism. That rhetorical option, however, has been foreclosed by the historical discrediting of the readily imagined
The hard work to invent better alternatives is
forms of communism (e.g., iek9).
not as dramatically enticing as the story of the kill: such labor is
piecemeal , intellectually difficult , requires multi-disciplinary
understandings, and perhaps requires more creativity than the typical
academic theorist can muster. In the absence of a viable alternative,
the appeals to Radical Revolution seem to have been sustained by the
emotional zing of the kill, in many cases amped up by the appeal of autonomy and manliness (iek
uses the former term and deploys the ethos of the latter). But if one does not provide a viable
vision that offers a reasonable chance of leaving most people better off than they are now, then Fox
News has a better offering (you'll be free and you'll get rich!). A revolution posited
as a void cannot succeed as a horizon of history, other than as
constant local scale violent actions, perhaps connected by shifting networks we call
terrorists. This analysis of the geo-political situation, of the onto-epistemological character of language, and of the
limitations of the dominant horizon of social change indicates that the focal project for
progressive Left Academics should now include the hard labor to
produce alternative visions that appear materially feasible .
Surveillance isnt neutral curtailing it is actively tailored

to protect Black Bodies from arbitrary incarceration
Beckett and Sasson 2k (Katherine and Theodore, Beckett: Professor of
Law, Societies & Justice Program Department of Sociology, University of
Washington/ Sasson: Professor of International and Global Studies at
Middlebury College The Politics of Injustice: Crime and Punishment in
America pg. 179-181 2000 Sage Publications, Inc., cayla_)
All Americans are experiencing stepped-up surveillance . Suspect

populations, however, are kept under far tighter scrutiny. Black
men, regardless of their involvement with the justice system, are
routinely subjected to motor vehicle stops for the crime of DWBDriving While Black. Members
of minority groups are often stopped in airports, bus terminals, and
other public places and questioned about drugs, a practice
legitimated by typically ambiguous drug courier profiles, which
open the door for unlimited police discretion. Since September 11,
2001, racial profiling of Arabs and people believed to have ties to
the Middle East has become especially widespread . For individuals of all races
who have been sentenced by a court, forms of surveillance range from regular probation, which might entail nothing more
than a notification requirement concerning change of address, to electronic monitoring, day reporting, halfway house
residency, and house arrest. Probationers and parolees suspected of substance abuse problems must submit to regular
drug and alcohol testing. Sex offenders must register with local police, who in turn, in may jurisdictions, notify area
In the United States, on any given day, nearly 1
residents and prospective employers.
in 3 young black men is under one form or another of criminal justice
supervision. In many U.S. cities, the proportion is even more dramatic. As noted in Chapter 1, in 1997, 50% of
black males in Washington, DC, between 18 and 35 years old were in jail or prison, on probation or parole, out on bond, or
wanted on an arrest warrant. In neighboring Baltimore, Maryland, in 1991, the comparable statistic was 56 %.
In
high-poverty, racially segregated neighborhoods, the percentage is
still higher. One unsurprising consequence of the expansion and
intensification of community surveillance (e.g., probation and
parole) is the burgeoning number of people sent to prison for
violating the conditions of community release. In 1980, new court commitments
were responsible for 82% of prison admissions; parole and probation violations were responsible for 17%. By 1997, the
share of prison admissions from the courts had declined to 60%, and the share stemming from conditional release
Although probation
violations surged to 40%. Many of these violators are detected through drug tests.
and parole were conceived, at least in part, as mechanisms for
reintegrating offenders into community life, they now help to explain
why U.S. prisons are bursting at their seams.
If time
This is particularly true of border enforcement against
Latin Americans
ACLU 9 (a nonpartisan, non-profit organization whose stated mission is "to
defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every
person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States."
The Persistence of Racial and Ethnic Profiling in the United States: A Follow-
Up Report to the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
August 2009
https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/humanrights/cerd_finalreport.pdf , cayla_)
As of May 2009 a total of sixty-six 287(g) MOAs have been signed in twenty-three states,83 and approximately eighty
applications to join the program are pending approval.84 ICEs budget for the program has increased tenfold in the last
two years, from $5.4 million in 2007 to $54.1 million in 2009.85
Enforcement of federal
immigration law by local law enforcement is inherently problematic
and tied to practices of racial profiling , as noted recently in ACLU testimony before
Congress: Because a person is not visibly identifiable as being undocumented, the basic problem with local police
enforcing immigration law is that police officers who are often not adequately trained, and in some cases not trained at
in federal immigration enforcement will improperly rely on race or
all,
ethnicity as a proxy for undocumented status. In 287(g) jurisdictions, for example,
state or local police with minimal training in immigration law are put on the street with a mandate to arrest illegal
aliens. The predictable and inevitable result is that any person who looks or sounds foreign is more likely to be stopped
by police, and more likely to be arrested (rather than warned or cited or simply let go) when stopped. . . . The
problem of racial profiling , however , is not limited to 287(g) field models . . . the
federal government uses an array of other agreements to encourage
local police to enforce immigration law. Racial profiling concerns
therefore are equally present under jail-model MOUs or other jail-
screening programs . Officers, for example, may selectively screen in
the jails only those arrestees who appear to be Latino or have
Spanish surnames. Police officers may also be motivated to target Latinos for selective or pretextual arrests
in order to run them through the booking process and attempt to identify undocumented immigrants among them.86 As
such, immigration enforcement by local police raises grave concerns about racial profiling of Latinos and other racial
Although the overwhelming
minorities, and of both U.S. citizens and non-citizen immigrants.
majority of Latinos in the United States are U.S. citizens or legal
permanent residents87 (and Latinos are expected to constitute more than
twenty-five percent of the U.S. population by 2050),88 Latinos have
frequently been singled out for immigration stops and inquiries by
local law enforcement. Such race and ethnic-based immigration
enforcement imposes injustices on racial and ethnic minorities,
specifically reinforcing the harmful perception that LatinosU.S.
citizens and non-citizens alikeare presumptively illegal
immigrants and therefore not entitled to full and equal citizenship
unless and until proven legal. 89 Low-wage Latino immigrant workers are particularly
threatened as are low-wage South Asian workers, who face an intersection of anti-immigrant hostility, employment abuse,
and post-9/11-related discrimination.90 In addition to exacerbating pre-existing racial profiling in local communities, local
ICE ACCESS
police enforcement of the immigration laws under the 287(g) program and other related
programs undermines the trust between the police and the
communities that they serve. When local police function as immigration agents, the message is sent
that some citizens do not deserve equal protection under the law. Fear, as opposed to trust, is created in Latino and other
immigrant communities, and Latino U.S. citizen children with parents, who are either immigrants or citizens, may avoid
coming in contact with police or any public officials (including school officials) out of concern that they, their parents or
family members will be targeted by local enforcement because of their actual or perceived immigration status.91 Latina
and other immigrant women who are victims of domestic violence may fear interacting with the police because of their
immigration status, or the status of their families, or even their abusers, and the consequences of that fear can leave
Respect and trust between law
them in dangerous and violent situations.92
enforcement and communities of color are essential to successful
police work.93 It is for this reason that many police executives and
police organizations have expressed concern that local police
enforcement of the immigration laws has a negative overall impact
on public safety. 94 Despite the significant problems associated
with local police enforcement of immigration laws, ICE has not
responded to, or monitored, complaints about the 287(g) program
or other ICE ACCESS programs. The U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) recently reported that ICE lacks key internal controls
for the implementation of the287(g) program, even though the
program has been in operation for approximately seven years.95 The
GAO report conclusively found that 287(g) program objectives have not been documented in any program-related
materials; guidance on how and when to use program authority is inconsistent; guidance on how ICE officials are to
supervise officers from participating agencies has not been created; data that participating agencies use to track and
report to ICE has not been defined; and performance measures valuating progress
toward program objectives have not been developed.
No Link AT Calderson 6
No link the plan doesnt force Latin Americans to take
the white oath of citizenship the thesis of the aff is to
eliminate the necessity for migrants to declare loyalty to
a state and instead create a permeable border which
allows circular migration
No Link AT Gonzalez 15
The alt doesnt solve any of this stuff Gonzalez says
solving would require institutionalizing a writ of habeas
data which the alt explicitly rejects by foreclosing state
action
1ar EXT Border Control Racist
Its a Petit ApartheidSurveillance and searches reinforce
white, middle-class citizens suspicionsturns their
offense
Romero 6 (Mary, professor and faculty head of Justice and Social Inquiry
at Arizona State University and an affiliated faculty member with Women and
Gender Studies, Asian Pacific American Studies and African and African
American Studies Racial Profiling and Immigration Law Enforcement:
Rounding Up of Usual Suspects in the Latino Community Critical Sociology,
Volume 32, Issue 23 2006 nclc203muir.pbworks.com/f/Crit%20Sociol-2006-
Romero-447-73.pdf , cayla_)
paradigm of grand and petit apartheid
Daniel Georges-Abeyies (2001:x) theoretical
links current practices of racial profiling with other negative social
factors and discretional decision-making by both criminal justice
agents and criminal justice agencies. Georges-Abeyies theoretical work outlines a
continuum of petit apartheid discriminatory practices ranging from the covert and informal to the overt
and formal. Petit apartheid has been used to explain racial profiling in
the war against drugs (Campbell 2001; Covington 2001 ), regulating and
policing public space (Bass 2001; Ferrell 2001b ), under-representation of
persons of color interested in law enforcement (Ross 2001) and the use of racial
derogation in prosecutors closing arguments ( Johnson 2001). Petit apartheid relates to concerns about
struggles over access to urban public space, freedom of movement,
the processes of capital investment, political decision-making, and
policing first theorized by Henri Lefebvre (1996 [1968]) and others (see Caldeira 2000; Ferrell 2001a;
Harvey 1973, 1996; Holston 1999; Mitchell 2003). Images and perceptions of public space are used to
encourage, discourage, or prohibit use and movement. Exclusionary models of public life are most noted
for privileging middle-class consumers. Surveillance, stops, and searches maintain
a landscape of suspicion and reinforce white, middle-class citizens
suspicions of racial minorities and protect their access to public
space. When citizenship is racially embodied through law-enforcement practices that
target Mexican-American neighborhoods and business areas, then Henri
Lefebvres (1996 [1968]:174) statement about urban space is actualized: The right of the city manifests
itself as a superior form of rights: right to freedom, to individualization in socialization, to habitat and to
Immigration law enforcement assists such exclusionary use of
inhabit.
urban public spaces and limits freedom of movement. However, the INS is in
the position of having to negotiate an adequate flow of undocumented labor to meet urban capitalist
needs while maintaining the appearance of controlling immigration. Consequently, immigration law
enforcement in US cities is not structured around systematic or random checking of identification but
Given the
rather a pattern of citizenship inspection that maintains the landscape of suspicion.
class and racial segregation perpetuated by exclusive residential
zoning, the INS targets ethnic cultural spaces marked by Mexican-
owned businesses, agencies offering bilingual services, and
neighborhoods with the highest concentration of poor and working-
class Latinos. Within these areas, INS agents engage in typing suspected aliens (Heyman 1995;
Weissinger 1996) that embodies a figurative border (Chang 1999). In the process of typing
Mexicans as suspects, Americans are whitened. The 1975 Supreme Court
decision that Mexican appearance constitutes a legitimate consideration under the Fourth Amendment
for making an immigration stop ( Johnson 2000:676) legalized micro- and macro-aggressions inflicted
upon Mexican Americans. Micro- and macroaggressions, as well as petit apartheid, are experienced by
Mexican Americans when they are caught within a racially profiled dragnet in which INS agents operate
with unchecked discretion. Harms of reductions and repression occur when Latinos are subjected to racially
motivated (and frequently class-based) stops and searches and race-related INS abuse (Arriola 199697;
Micro-aggressions are racial affronts on a
Benitez 1994; Lazos 2002; Vargas 2001).
personal level, experienced when an individual Mexican American is
stopped and asked to prove citizenship status; macro-aggressions
are group affronts because they are directed towards Mexicanness
in general. Macro-aggressions target dark complexions and physical characteristics characterized as
Mexican or Latino; speaking Spanish, listening to Spanish music, shopping at Mexican-owned
businesses, or any other cultural practices bring on racially motivated stops.
Mexican immigrants are discriminated against in

immigration searches
While legal scholars, civil rights advocates, and the general public
denounced federal law enforcement practices towards Muslims and
persons of Middle-Eastern descent under the Patriot Act, racialized
immigration stops and searches, abuse, and harassment are
ongoing processes honed over a century of citizenship inspections
of Mexicans . Immigration policing is based on determining that citizenship is visibly inscribed on
bodies in specific urban spaces rather than probable cause. In the Chandler Roundup, official
investigations found no evidence that stops and searches were based on probable cause of criminal
activity. The conclusion drawn by the Attorney Generals investigation underscores the harms of micro- and
macro-aggressions and the use of petit apartheid: . . . there were no other warrants, charges, or holds for
these individuals that in any way indicated other criminal activity or that required extraordinary security or
physical force. The issue raised by this type of treatment is not whether the arrest and deportation is legal,
but whether human beings are entitled to some measure of dignity and safety even when they are
The Chandler Roundup fits
suspected of being in the United States illegally. (1997:289)
into a larger pattern of immigration law enforcement practices that
produce harms of reduction and repression and place Mexican
Americans at risk before the law and designate them as second-class
citizens with inferior rights. Latino residents in Chandler experienced racial
affronts targeted at their Mexicanness indicated by skin color,
bilingual speaking abilities, or shopping in neighborhoods highly
populated by Latinos. During immigration inspections, individuals stopped were
demeaned, humiliated, and embarrassed. Stops and searches
conducted without cause were intimidating and frightening,
particularly when conducted with discretionary use of power and
force by law enforcement agents. [. . .] Racialized immigration stops
establish, maintain, and reinforce second-class citizenship and limit
civil, political, economic, and cultural rights and opportunities. In urban
barrios, the costly enterprise of selected stops and searches, race-related police abuse, and harassment
results in deterring political participation, in identifying urban space racially, in classifying immigrants as
deserving and undeserving by nationalities, and serves to drive a wedge dividing Latino neighborhoods on
the basis of citizenship status.
Viewing Mexicans as foreigners links to the Kborder

patrol and securitization prove
Conquest of the Southwest subliminally grafted Mexicans to the
American psyche as a foreigner, even though the land had once
belonged to Mexico (Romero 2001:1091). Following the Mexican-American War, special
law-enforcement agencies were established to patrol the newly
formed border and to police Mexicans who remained in occupied
territory, as well as later migrants across the border. The most
distinct form of social control and domination used by the US in this occupation
was the creation of the Texas and Arizona Rangers. Maintaining the interests of cattle barons in Texas, the
Texas Rangers treated Mexicans living along the border as cattle thieves and bandits when they attempted
Arizona Rangers protected
to reclaim stolen property from cattle barons. Similarly, the
capitalist interests by protecting strikebreakers against Mexican
miners. Following a parallel pattern, the INS rarely raided the fields during harvest time and scheduled
massive immigration roundups during periods of economic recession and union activity (Acua 2000).
Remembering the policing functions of the Texas and Arizona
Rangers and the Border Patrol (including the current militarization
at the border) is crucial in recognizing the social functions
accomplished by racialized immigrant raids, sweeps, and citizenship
inspections (Acua 2000; Andreas 2000; Dunn 1996; Nevins 2002). Under Operation Wetback, for
example, only persons of Mexican descent were included in the campaign and thus were the only group to
bear the burden of proving citizenship (Garcia 1980). Militarized sweeps of Mexicans maintained the
community in a state of permanent insecurity in the 1950s; in response a petition was submitted to the
United Nations charging the USA with violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Acua
US border policies that
2000:306). A number of recent studies unveil the hypocrisy of
manage to allow enough undocumented immigrant labor in to meet
employers demands while at the same time increasing INS and
Border Patrol budgets (Andreas 2000; Massey et al. 2002; Nevins 2002). Longitudinal studies
comparing INS efficiency and increased budget prior to the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act
immigration law reforms suggest that the cost of
(IRCA) to late-1990s
detaining unauthorized border crossers has increased (Massey et al. 2002).
Immigration researchers (Chavez 2001; Massey et al. 2002) claim that we are paying for the illusion of
controlled borders while politicians make a political spectacle, pandering to alarmist public discourse about
a Mexican immigrant invasion, the breakdown of the US-Mexico border, and increased crime resulting from
immigration (Chavez 2001). Operation Blockade and Operation Gatekeeper
failed to deter extralegal immigration from Mexico. US employers continue to
have access to a vulnerable, cheap labor force created by assigning workers an illegal status. The
worst cost of these failed policies are the increasing loss of human
lives as migrants are forced to cross the border in the most desolate
areas of the desert (Cornelius 2001; Eschbach et al. 1999)
Deleuze Surveillance
2ac F/L
The alt cant solve if surveillance is rhizomatic,

individual activism fails to challenge it. Its try or die to
challenge state surveillance which is uniquely violent.
Lobel 7 - Assistant Professor of Law, University of San Diego (Orly, THE
PARADOX OF EXTRALEGAL ACTIVISM: CRITICAL LEGAL CONSCIOUSNESS AND
TRANSFORMATIVE POLITICS HARVARD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 120:937,
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/lobel.pdf)
Once again, this conclusion reveals flaws parallel to the original disenchantment with legal reform.
Although the new extralegal frames present themselves as apt
alternatives to legal reform models and as capable of producing significant changes to
the social map, in practice they generate very limited improvement in
existing social arrangements. Most strikingly, the cooptation effect here can be explained
in terms of the most profound risk of the typology that of legitimation. The common pattern
of extralegal scholarship is to describe an inherent instability in
dominant structures by pointing, for example, to grassroots strategies,223 and then to
assume that specific instances of counterhegemonic activities
translate into a more complete transformation. This celebration of
multiple micro-resistances seems to rely on an aggregate approach an idea
that the multiplication of practices will evolve into something
substantial. In fact, the myth of engagement obscures the actual
lack of change being produced , while the broader pattern of
equating extralegal activism with social reform produces a false
belief in the potential of change. There are few instances of
meaningful reordering of social and economic arrangements and
macro-redistribution. Scholars write about decoding what is really happening, as though the
scholarly narrative has the power to unpack more than the actual conventional experience will admit.224
the
Unrelated efforts become related and part of a whole through mere reframing. At the same time,
elephant in the room the rising level of economic inequality is
left unaddressed and comes to be understood as natural and
inevitable .225 This is precisely the problematic process that critical
theorists decry as losers self-mystification, through which
marginalized groups come to see systemic losses as the product of
their own actions and thereby begin to focus on minor achievements
as representing the boundaries of their willed reality . The
explorations of micro-instances of activism are often fundamentally
performative, obscuring the distance between the descriptive and the prescriptive. The
manifestations of extralegal activism the law and organizing model; the
proliferation of informal, soft norms and norm-generating actors; and the celebrated, separate
nongovernmental sphere of action all produce a fantasy that change can be
brought about through small-scale, decentralized transformation . The
emphasis is local, but the locality is described as a microcosm of the whole and the audience is national
and global. In the context of the humanities, Professor Carol Greenhouse poses a comparable challenge to
ethnographic studies from the 1990s, which utilized the genres of narrative and community studies, the
latter including works on American cities and neighborhoods in trouble.226 The aspiration of these genres
was that each individual story could translate into a time of the nation body of knowledge and
motivation.227 In contemporary legal thought, a corresponding gap opens between the local scale and the
larger, translocal one. In reality, although there has been a recent proliferation of associations and
grassroots groups, few new local-statenational federations have emerged in the United States since the
1960s and 1970s, and many of the existing voluntary federations that flourished in the mid-twentieth
century are in decline.228 There is, therefore, an absence of links between the local and the national, an
absent intermediate public sphere, which has been termed the missing middle by Professor Theda
Skocpol.229 New social movements have for the most part failed in sustaining coalitions or producing
significant institutional change through grassroots activism. Professor Handler concludes that this failure is
due in part to the ideas of contingency, pluralism, and localism that are so embedded in current
activism.230 Is the focus on small-scale dynamics simply an evasion of the need to engage in broader
substantive debate? It is important for next-generation progressive legal scholars, while maintaining a
critical legal consciousness, to recognize that not all extralegal associational life is transformative. We
must differentiate, for example, between inward-looking groups, which tend to be self- regarding and
depoliticized, and social movements that participate in political activities, engage the public debate, and
aim to challenge and reform existing realities.231 We must differentiate between professional associations
and more inclusive forms of institutions that act as trustees for larger segments of the community.232 As
described above, extralegal activism tends to operate on a more divided and hence a smaller scale than
earlier social movements, which had national reform agendas. Consequently, within critical discourse there
is a need to recognize the limited capacity of small-scale action. We should question the narrative that
imagines consciousness-raising as directly translating into action and action as directly translating into
not every cultural description is political. Indeed, it is
change. Certainly
questionable whether forms of activism that are opposed to
programmatic reconstruction of a social agenda should even be
understood as social movements. In fact, when groups are situated in
opposition to any form of institutionalized power, they may be
simply mirroring what they are fighting against and merely
producing moot activism that settles for what seems possible within
the narrow space that is left in a rising convergence of ideologies. The original
vision is consequently coopted, and contemporary discontent is
legitimated through a process of self-mystification. V. RESTORING CRITICAL
OPTIMISM IN THE LEGAL FIELD La critique est aise; lart difficile. A critique of cooptation often takes an
Critique has always been and remains not simply an
uneasy path.
intellectual exercise but a political and moral act. The question we
must constantly pose is how critical accounts of social reform
models contribute to our ability to produce scholarship and action
that will be constructive. To critique the ability of law to produce
social change is inevitably to raise the question of alternatives . In and
of itself, the exploration of the limits of law and the search for new possibilities is an insightful field of
the contemporary message that emerges from critical
inquiry. However,
legal consciousness analysis has often resulted in the distortion of
the critical arguments themselves. This distortion denies the
potential of legal change in order to illuminate what has yet to be
achieved or even imagined . Most importantly, cooptation analysis is not
unique to legal reform but can be extended to any process of social
action and engagement. When claims of legal cooptation are
compared to possible alternative forms of activism, the false
necessity embedded in the contemporary story emerges a story that
privileges informal extralegal forms as transformative while
assuming that a conservative tilt exists in formal legal paths . In the
triangular conundrum of law and social change, law is regularly the first to be questioned,
deconstructed, and then critically dismissed. The other two components of the equation social and
Understanding the limits
change are often presumed to be immutable and unambiguous.
of legal change reveals the dangers of absolute reliance on one
system and the need, in any effort for social reform, to contextualize
the discourse, to avoid evasive, open-ended slogans, and to develop
greater sensitivity to indirect effects and multiple courses of action.
Despite its weaknesses, however, law is an optimistic discipline. It
operates both in the present and in the future. Order without law is often the privilege of the strong.
Marginalized groups have used legal reform precisely because they
lacked power. Despite limitations, these groups have often
successfully secured their interests through legislative and judicial
victories. Rather than experiencing a disabling disenchantment with
the legal system, we can learn from both the successes and failures
of past models, with the aim of constantly redefining the boundaries
of legal reform and making visible laws broad reach.
Perm do both the alt and the plan both agree

surveillance is bad which means their methods are
compatible. We link equally weve presented our
advocacies in the same academic space but empirics like
the civil rights movements prove the our strategies arent
mutually exclusive. Our approach is net beneficial
a) Cap DA their alt causes neo-fascist fill in

Dhawan 13- NIKITA DHAWAN is a junior professor of political science for
gender/postcolonial studies at Goethe University in Frankfurt. (Nikita Dhawan,
Winter 2013, Coercive Cosmopolitanism and Impossible Solidarities, Studies
in American Indian Literatures, JSTOR)
The other significant challenge lies in negotiating the Enlightenment legacies of cosmopolitanism,
democracy, justice, and rights without reproducing the constitutive violence that marked the emergence of
these normative ideals. Spivak proposes that the aporetic, simultaneously imperial and counter-imperial,
nature of the Enlightenment makes the exploration of possible ways to mobilize anti-paternalistic forms of
Enlightenment more necessary than nativist denunciations of the legacies of Enlightenment or
Despite their white,
ethnocentric searches for pure non-Western knowledge systems.
bourgeois, masculinist bias, Enlightenment ideals are eminently
indispensable, and we cannot not want them, even as we must
doggedly critique their coercive mobilization in service [End Page 156] of
the continued justification of imperialism. Spivak proposes an affirmative
sabotage of those Enlightenment principles with which we are in sympathy, enough to subvert!32 One
etymology of sabotage traces the word back to sabot (wooden shoe): workers in fifteenth-century
Holland would throw their clogs into the gears of textile looms, breaking their cogs lest the automated
machines render the human workers obsolete. The saboteur aims to subvert through obstruction and
disruption, through intentionally withdrawing efficiency. Spivak supplements the term with the adjective
the instruments of colonialism are turned
affirmative, devising a strategy in which
around into tools for transgression, poison turned into medicine . She
explains: The invention of the telephone by a European upper class male in no way preempts its being put
Thus decolonization is not about
to the use of an anti-imperialist revolution.33
forsaking the masters tools but about enabling subaltern access
to these tools .34 The problem is that native elites have monopolized the masters tools and use
them not to dismantle the masters house but to cement their own hegemony. Transnational elites have an
interest in preventing subaltern agency and manipulating the tools to serve their purposes. The project of
desubalternization poses some interesting questions, which it leaves necessarily unanswered. How can we
listen to and learn from those who have been exiled from intellectual labor, from those who do not know
the larger script? How can we resolve the paradox in which the intellectual must learn to be transformed
through an ethical encounter with the subaltern, even as he or she must create conditions conducive to
subaltern agency, activate habits of democracy, and insert subalterns into hegemony, which in turn
reinforce the agency of the vanguard? Finally, we must ask: What is the role of wrongs in the constitution
of our ethical agency? Spivak stresses that wrongs is not the only antonym of rights; rather, responsibility
is another possible antonym that has not yet been derived from rights. Differentiating between rights-
based and responsibility-based subordinate cultures (oa , 37) impels us to rethink the meaning of
responsibility, not as the duty of the fitter self for the other but as responsibility to the other (ph , 180;
oa , 28). Spivak moves beyond the traditional [End Page 157] aporias of ethics and politics: hereethics
is imagined not as a self-driven political calculus of doing the right
thing but rather as openness toward the imagined agency of the
other; and political work is marked by uncertainty, the ethical
interrupting the political even as they become more and more
entangled. Spivak describes critical practice through the example of brushing your teeth: although
you know that you will die, you still brush your teeth as an act of defiance of mortality.35 Revisiting
Lenins suggestion in What Is to Be Done?, Spivak recommends
that vanguardism be supplanted by the slow, patient work of
building up of a will to social justice for all in place of the promotion of self-
interest and consciousness raising. Changing the intellectuals habits of mind
while training the subaltern to undertake intellectual performance
involves much more than producing educated electorates. In contrast to
Rousseaus dictum Men must be forced to be free, Spivak outlines the impossible, albeit necessary, task
The task of undoing subalternity demands
of uncoercive rearrangement of desires.
the Gramscian/Spivakian intellectual to be a permanent persuader even as
the question of how uncoercive persuasion should function poses itself more and more forcefully. In
contrast to Nussbaums project of educating intelligent world citizens (np , 100), I find more compelling
Spivaks idea of preparing subalterns to enter the circuit of hegemony so that they are capable of
The challenge is to transform the subaltern from an object of
governing.
benevolence into an agent of democracy. Instead of ensuring the survival of the
suffering classes, thus reducing the deprived to their basic needs (themselves coded as transparent to our
reading practices), decolonization engages with the imaginations and desires of both the dispensers and
the receivers of justice. Against theories that presume sovereign subjects, who know what they need and
how to get it, Spivak unpacks the discontinuity of interest and desire, namely, how subjects perceive
unpleasure as pleasure to protect themselves. Rather than teach self-help or seek to ensure immediate
material comfort, Spivak attempts to act as a conduit between class-privileged and subaltern subjects and
to construct a necessary but impossible collectivity: her aim is the uncoercive undermining of the class
habit [End Page 158] of obedience (ss , 562), to elicit consent rather than compliance (ss , 558). The
epistemic discontinuity between the advocates of global justice and human rights and those they protect
is a constant reminder of the subaltern as a space of difference. The subaltern has been torn away from
the public sphere, and this tear must be invisibly sutured through epistemic transformation, as a
supplement to infrastructural support (oa , 3435). This demands a wider egoity of the postcolonial
feminist: we are forced to think beyond ourselves. We have to resist becoming self-selected moral
entrepreneurs who distribute philanthrophy without democracy (ss , 482). Spivak reminds us that
Directly
colonialism was carried out by ethical subjects like us with good intentions.
scapegoating colonialism masks our complicity in global injustice.36
Spivak examines a case of sati in 1987 in India, in which the mother of the eighteen-year-old Rup Kanwar,
who had been married for only eight months, smiled at her daughters suicide and said that she was proud.
She points out that feminist activists in India could not come to terms with this smile. To remove this smile
involves engaging in a painstaking and patient work of epistemic change, which any mere criminalization
of gender violence will not achieve.37 Instead of seeing ourselves the altruistic solvers of the worlds
problems, as those who have the responsibility as well as the capacity to implement global democracy,
peace, and justice, we have to learn to see ourselves as part of the problem. This entails a productive
acknowledgement of complicity wherein we need to interrogate the processes that convert us into
dispensers of justice and rights. Self-doubt and modesty are important aspects of ethico-political practice,
but not in the Christian sense of selflessness. Instead, we must question the invincibility of our
convictions (we , 532). As Spivak warns: History is larger than personal goodwill. In this business of
solidarity with the poorest of the poor in the global south personal goodwill is not enough. Thats a
Christian thing to think that you can undo thousands of years of oppression by just being nice (mg , 27).
In addition to the necessary collective efforts to reform laws and relations of production and to improve
access to education and health care (cpr , 383), [End Page 159] we must undo the rupture between the
privileged classes and the gendered subaltern, and this will not be done through top-down solidarity
politics. Spivak cautions that without persistent efforts to establish ethical singularity with subalterns (cpr ,
384) first-world activism (US-based anti-sweatshop consumer boycott campaigns, for example) can take
the form of the highly damaging moral imperialism of solidarity tourists (cpr , 415). Instead, the
uncoercive rearrangement of desires through an interruptive, supplementary education, the remapping
of subject formation through epistemic change at both ends of postcoloniality, is the heart of the project
of decolonization. This entails a recoding of our reading practices of interpreting and acting in the world.
We, transnational elites, urgently need to rethink and reimagine our understanding of politics by examining
how, despite our best efforts, subaltern groups remain the objects of benevolence and not the agents of
The relationship of democratization and decolonization to
transformation.
the indigenous subalterns remains a tenuous one. Even as subaltern
groups weather the impact of neocolonial globalization, they remain
marginal to both nation-states and to civil society. Resistance, for
subaltern groups, lies not in anti-statism or postnationalism, but
instead in their insertion into the existing framework of the nation-
state .38 Despite the nation-states crisis of legitimacy, it is dangerous to disregard
the immense political implications of state-phobic positions , which
are immensely popular in radical discourses in the West (cn , 106).
Postcolonial states are still the most important mediators between
the injunctions of global capital and disenfranchised groups. We
cannot understand the state narrowly as a repressive apparatus;
instead, we must envisage a different state capable of articulating
the will of excluded subaltern populations (cn , 106). To a large extent, the
dictates of neoliberal political economy, which posits a false
opposition between the ills of state planning and the virtues of free
markets, drive this attack on the state. What this operation
conveniently conceals is that neoliberalism itself requires the state
as its precondition (cn , 114). Thus we should not frame the discussion
as for or against the state, but instead focus on how the interests of
disenfranchised groups can be articulated in the struggle for
hegemony, through [End Page 160] the institutionalization of the
redistributive functions of the state (cn , 114). We should direct our
efforts toward enabling subaltern groups to make claims on the
state within the formal grammar of rights and citizenship to activate
a democracy from below.
b) Reform DA they foreclose concrete and immediate

changes
2. The

evidence that the system is fair and just. In fact, Crits believe that teaching the common law or using the
case method in law school is a disguised means of preaching incrementalism and thereby maintaining the current power structure. To avoid
this, CLS scholars urge law professors to abandon the case method, give up the effort to find rationality and order in the case law, and teach in
an unabashedly political fashion. The CLS critique of piecemeal reform is familiar,

imperialistic and wrong . Minorities know from bitter experience that occasional court victories do not mean the
Promised Land is at hand. The critique is imperialistic in that it tells minorities and other
oppressed peoples how they should interpret events affecting them.

A court order directing a housing authority to disburse funds for
heating in subsidized housing may postpone the revolution, or it
may not . In the meantime, the order keeps a number of poor
families warm. This may mean more to them than it does to a
comfortable academic working in a warm office. It smacks of
paternalism to assert that the possibility of revolution later
outweighs the certainty of heat now, unless there is evidence for that possibility. The Crits do
not offer such evidence. Indeed, some incremental changes may bring
c) Technique DA they strip power from the
disempowered and discards tools to combat oppression
The
human rights campaigners would do well to examine the
sense international
Dealth Cult
2ac F/L
Death impacts good

Perhaps, then,
degree or another,


Fear of extinction is a legitimate and productive response

to the modern condition---working through it by validating
our representations is the only way to create an authentic
relationship to the world and death
Macy 2K Joanna Macy, adjunct professor at the California Institute of
Integral Studies, 2000, Environmental Discourse and Practice: A Reader, p.
243
The move to a wider ecological sense of self is in large part a function of the dangers that are
threatening to overwhelm us. We are confronted by social breakdown, wars,
nuclear proliferation , and the progressive destruction of our
biosphere . Polls show that people today are aware that the world, as they know it, may come to
an end. This loss of certainty that there will be a future is the pivotal psychological reality of our time.
Over the past twelve years my colleagues and I have worked with tens of thousands of
people in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia, helping them confront and explore what
they know and feel about what is happening to their world. The purpose of this work ,
which was first known as Despair and Empowerment Work, is to overcome the numbing
and powerlessness that result from suppression of painful responses to

massively painful realities. As their grief and fear for the world is allowed to be
expressed without apology or argument and validated as a wholesome, life-

preserving response , people break through their avoidance mechanisms,
break through their sense of futility and isolation . Generally what they break through
into is a larger sense of identity . It is as if the pressure of their acknowledged
awareness of the suffering of our world stretches or collapses the culturally
defined boundaries of the self . It becomes clear, for example, that the grief and
fear experienced for our world and our common future are
categorically different from similar sentiments relating to ones personal
welfare. This pain cannot be equated with dread of ones own individual demise. Its source lies less in
concerns for personal survival than in apprehensions of collective suffering of what looms for human
life and other species and unborn generations to come. Its nature is akin to the original meaning of
compassion suffering with. It is the distress we feel on behalf of the larger
whole of which we are a part. And, when it is so defined, it serves as a trigger
or getaway to a more encompassing sense of identity, inseparable
from the web of life in which we are as intricately connected as cells in a larger
body. This shift in consciousness is an appropriate, adaptive response. For the crisis that
threatens our planet , be it seen in its military, ecological, or social aspects,
derives from a dysfunctional and pathogenic notion of the self . It is a
mistake about our place in the order of things. It is the delusion that the self is so separate and fragile
that we must delineate and defend its boundaries, that it is so small and needy that we must endlessly
acquire and endlessly consume, that it is so aloof that we can as individuals, corporations, nation-
states, or as a species be immune to what we do to other beings.
Fear Inevitable
The alt is useless and prevents attempts to cause
extinction
Pyszczynski et al 6 (Tom, Prof. Psych. U. Colorado, Sheldon Solomon, Prof.
Psych. Skidmore College, Jeff Greenberg, Prof. Psych. U. Arizona, and Molly
Maxfield, U. Colorado, Psychological Inquiry, On the Unique Psychological
Import of the Human Awareness of Mortality: Theme and Variations 17:4,
Ebsco)
Kirkpatrick and Navarettes (this issue) first specific complaint with TMT is that it is
wedded to an outmoded assumption that human beings share with many other
species a survival instinct. They argue that natural selection can only build instincts that respond to
specific adaptive challenges in specific situations, and thus could not have designed an instinct for survival
Our
because staying alive is a broad and distal goal with no single clearly defined adaptive response.
use of the term survival instinct was meant to highlight the general
orientation toward continued life that is expressed in many of an
organisms bodily systems (e.g., heart, liver, lungs, etc) and the diverse approach and
avoidance tendencies that promote its survival and reproduction, ultimately
leading to genes being passed on to future generations. Our use of this term also reflects the classic
psychoanalytic, biological, and anthropological influences on TMT of theorists like Becker (1971, 1973,
1975), Freud (1976, 1991), Rank (1945, 1961, 1989), Zilborg (1943), Spengler (1999), and Darwin (1993).
We concur that natural selection, at least initially, is unlikely to design a unitary survival instinct, but
rather, a series of specific adaptations that have tended over evolutionary time to promote the survival of
an organisms genes. However, whether one construes these adaptations as a series of
discrete mechanisms or a general overarching tendency that encompasses many specific systems,
we think it hard to argue with the claim that natural selection usually orients organisms to
approach things that facilitate continued existence and to avoid things that would likely
cut life short. This is not to say that natural selection doesnt also select for characteristics that facilitate
gene survival in other ways, or that all species or even all humans, will always choose life over other
valued goals in all circumstances. Our claim is simply that a general orientation toward continued life
exists because staying alive is essential for reproduction in most species, as well as for child rearing and
support in mammalian species and many others. Viewing an animal as a loose collection of independent
modules that produce responses to specific adaptively-relevant stimuli may be useful for some purposes,
but it overlooks the point that adaptation involves a variety of inter-related mechanisms working together
to insure that genes responsible for these mechanisms are more numerously represented in future
generations (see, e.g., Tattersall, 1998). For example, although the left ventricle of the human heart likely
evolved to solve a specific adaptive problem, this mechanism would be useless unless well-integrated with
other aspects of the circulatory system. We believe it useful to think in terms of the overarching function of
the heart and pulmonary-circulatory system, even if specific parts of that system evolved to solve specific
adaptive problems within that system. In addition to specific solutions to specific adaptive problems, over
time, natural selection favors integrated systemic functioning(Dawkins, 1976; Mithen, 1997). It is the
improved survival rates and reproductive success of lifeformspossessing integrated systemic
characteristics that determine whether those characteristics become widespread in a population. Thus, we
think it is appropriate and useful to characterize a glucose-approaching amoeba and a bear-avoiding
salmon as oriented toward self-preservation and reproduction, even if neither species possesses one single
genetically encoded mechanism designed to generally foster life or insure reproduction, or cognitive
representations of survival and reproduction.This is the same position that Dawkins (1976)
took in his classic book, The selfish gene: The obvious first priorities of a survival
machine, and of the brain that takes the decisions for it, are
individual survival and reproduction. Animals therefore go to elaborate
lengths to find and catch food; to avoid being caught and eaten themselves;
to avoid disease and accident; to protect themselves from unfavourable
climatic conditions; to find members of the opposite sex and persuade them to mate; and to confer
on their children advantages similar to those they enjoy themselves. (pp. 6263) All that is really essential
to TMT is the proposition thathumans fear death. Somewhat ironically, in the early days of the
theory,we felt compelled to explain this fear by positing a very basic desire for
life, because many critics adamantly insisted, for reasons that were never
clear to us, that most people do not fear death . Our explanation for the fear of death is
that knowledge of the inevitability of death is frightening because people know
they are alive and because they want to continue living . Do Navarrete and
Fessler (2005) really believe that humans do not fear death? Although
people sometimes claim that they are not afraid of death, and on rare
occasions volunteer for suicide missions and approach their death, this requires extensive
psychological work, typically a great deal of anxiety, and preparation
and immersion in a belief system that makes this possible (see TMT for an
explanation of how belief systems do this). Where this desire for life comes from is an interesting question,
but not essential to the logic of the theory. Even if Kirkpatrick and Navarrete (this issue) were correct in
their claims that a unitary self-preservation instinct was not, in and of itself, selected for, it is indisputable
A desire
that many discrete and integrated mechanisms that keep organisms alive were selected for.
to stay alive, and a fear of anything that threatens to end ones life, are likely
emergent properties of these many discrete mechanisms that result from the
evolution of sophisticated cognitive abilities for symbolic, future- oriented, and self-
reflective thought. As Batson and Stocks (2004) have noted, it is because we are so intelligent, and hence
so aware of our limbic reactions to threats of death and of our many systems oriented toward keeping us
alive that we have a general fear of death. Here are three quotes that illustrate this point. First, for
Such constant
psychologists, Zilboorg (1943), an important early source of TMT:
expenditure of psychological energy on the business of preserving
life would be impossible if the fear of death were not as constant (p.
467). For literature buffs, acclaimed novelist Faulkner (1990) put it this way: If aught can be more painful to
any intelligence above that of a child or an idiot than a slow and gradual confronting with that which over a
long period of bewil- derment and dread it has been taught to regard as an irrevocable and unplumbable
finality, I do not know it. (pp. 141142) And perhaps most directly, for daytime TV fans, from The Young
and the Restless (2006), after a rocky plane flight: Phyllis: I learned something up in that plane Nick: What?
An important consequence of the emergence of this
Phyllis: I really dont want to die.
general fear of death is that humans are susceptible to anxiety due to
events or stimuli that are not immediately present and novel threats
to survival that did not exist for our ancestors, such as AIDS, guns, or
nuclear weapons. Regardless of how this fear originates, it is abundantly
clear that humans do fear death. Anyone who has ever faced a man with a
gun, a doctor saying that the lump on ones neck is suspicious and requires
further diagnostic tests, or a drunken driver swerving into ones lane can
attest to that. If humans only feared evolved specific death-related threats like spiders and heights,
then a lump on an x-ray, a gun, a crossbow, or any number of weapons pointed at ones chest would not
cause panic; but obviously these things do. Of what use would the sophisticated cortical structures be if
they didnt have the ability to instigate fear reactions in response to such threats?
Fear of death is inevitable --- the alternative fails and kills

the value to life
Pyszczynski 4 (Tom, Prof. Psych. U. Colorado, Social Research, What are
we so afraid of? A terror management theory perspective on the politics of
fear, Winter,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2267/is_4_71/ai_n13807478/)
TMT starts with a consideration of how human beings are both similar to, and different from, all other
like all other animals, humans are born
animals. We start with the assumption that,
with a very basic evolved proclivity to stay alive and that fear, and
all the biological structures of the brain that produce it, evolved, at
least initially, to keep the animal alive. This, of course, is highly adaptive, in that it
facilitates survival, and an animal that does not stay alive very long has little
chances of reproducing and passing on its genes . But as our species evolved, it
developed a wide range of other adaptations that helped us survive and reproduce, the most important
intellectual abilities that enable us to: a) think and
being a set of highly sophisticated
communicate with symbols, which of course is the basis for language, b) project ourselves
in time and imagine a future including events that have never happened before, and c) reflect back
on ourselves, and take ourselves as an object of our own attention--self-awareness. These are all very
adaptive abilities that play central roles in the system through which humans regulate their behavior--
usually referred to as the self (cf. Carver and Scheier, 1998). These abilities made it possible for us to
survive and prosper in a far wider range of environments than any other animal has ever done, and
accomplish all that we humans have done that no other species ever has been capable of doing. However,
these unique intellectual abilities also created a major problem: they made us aware
that, although we are biologically programmed to stay alive and avoid
things that would cut our life short, the one absolute certainty in life is that we must die. We are also
forced to realize that death can come at any time for any number of reasons, none of which are
particularly pleasant--a predator, natural disaster, another hostile human, and an incredible range of
diseases and natural processes, ranging from heart attacks and cancer to AIDS. If we are "lucky" we realize
that our bodies will just wear out and we will slowly fade away as we gradually lose our most basic
this clash of a core desire for life with
functions. Not a very pretty picture. TMT posits that
awareness of the inevitability of death created the potential for paralyzing
terror. Although all animals experience fear in the face of clear and present dangers to their survival,
only humans know what it is that they are afraid of, and that ultimately there is no escape from this
this potential for terror would have greatly interfered
ghastly reality. We suspect that
with ongoing goal-directed behavior, and life itself, if it were left unchecked.
It may even have made the intellectual abilities that make our species special
unviable in the long run as evolutionary adaptations --and there are those who think
that the fear and anxiety that results from our sophisticated intelligence may still eventually lead to the
So humankind used their newly emerging intellectual
extinction of our species.
abilities to manage the potential for terror that these abilities produced by calling the
understandings of reality that were emerging as a result of these abilities into service as a way of
controlling their anxieties. The potential for terror put a "press" on emerging explanations for reality, what
we refer to as cultural worldviews, such that any belief system that was to survive and be accepted by the
masses needed to manage this potential for anxiety that was inherent in the recently evolved human
condition.Cultural worldviews manage existential terror by providing a
meaningful, orderly, and comforting conception of the world that helps
us come to grips with the problem of death . Cultural worldviews provide a meaningful
explanation of life and our place in the cosmos; a set of standards for what is valuable behavior,
good and evil, that give us the potential of acquiring self-esteem, the sense that we are
valuable, important, and significant contributors to this meaningful reality; and the hope of
transcending death and attaining immortality in either a literal or symbolic sense. Literal immortality refer
to those aspects of the cultural worldview that promise that death is not the end of existence, that some
part of us will live on, perhaps in an ethereal heaven, through reincarnation, a merger of our consciousness
with God and all others, or the attainment of enlightenment-- beliefs
in literal immortality are
nearly universal, with the specifics varying widely from culture to culture. Cultures also
provide us with the hope of attaining symbolic immortality , by being part of
something larger, more significant, and more enduring than ourselves, such as our families, nations, ethnic
groups, professions, and the like. Because these entities will continue to exist long after our deaths, we
attain symbolic immortality by being valued parts of them.
Perm
Perm do both---it is a contingent recognition of the
capacity of catastrophe to forge relations of empathy---
disaster reps dont cause compassion fatigue or anxiety,
and the alt alone is epistemic colonialism by
circumscribing possible responses
Recuber 11 Timothy Recuber is a doctoral candidate in sociology at the
EMOTION IN MASS-MEDIATED DISASTER" gradworks.umi.com/3477831.pdf
Conclusion: Contemporary Disaster Consumption and the Aura
the trend among scholars and cultural critics has been to argue
Recently
that media culture has grown increasingly focused on the tragic and
disastrous , often elevating minor events to disproportionately high
levels of public concern through incessant multi-media hype. Herbert Gans (1979) found that
journalists were worried about inducing panic and disorder, and tried to steer clear of reporting that they thought would encourage such
behavior, but the moral panic literature in sociology and criminology, beginning with Cohens (1972) seminal study of the misguided British
Glassner had argued credibly that the media

panic over violent youth gangs, suggests otherwise. By 1999,
was inducing a culture of fear by drumming up anxieties over a host of

largely invented crises and threats. Similar arguments have also been made by Furedi (1997) and Stearns (2006), to name just a couple,
They all take

though these arguments are not very different from turn-of-the-century concerns over journalistic sensationalism.
the position that new technologies enable greater manipulation of

public emotions, in ways which prevent reasoned or rational
consideration of facts, or of more important but less exciting news stories. Although consumer culture
does certainly rely on increasingly high levels of spectacle (see 63 Ritzer, 1999), consumers may
also grow accustomed to, and thus less affected by, media technologies and consumption styles over time.
Radio broadcasts and color photographs were once accused of the same deleterious, panic-inducing
effects as twenty-four-hour cable news channels and Hollywood disaster movies, though the former are
inducement to complacency is
now seen as antiquated or unremarkable. This gradual
the reverse side of contemporary media criticism; instead of frenzy
and panic, some critics cite the medias erosion of affect, its
generation of compassion fatigue (Moeller, 1999), or empty empathy (Kaplan,
2005). The question then becomes how to reconcile these two
perspectives; are we too concerned with disasters, or not concerned
enough? Is our concern empty or genuine? In reality, these
perspectives are not mutually exclusive . The contemporary state of
disaster consumption hints at new conceptions of authenticity and
genuineness that encompass, or perhaps circumvent, both views .
Understandings of authenticity often begin with the notion that authentic experiences are unmediated, un-
In the face of such a position, the
reproducible, locked in a particular time and space.
only response to the spread of mass media and consumer culture
has been to suggest that nothing is authentic any longer , that the
world is increasingly artificial or simulated (see Debord, 2006; Baudrillard, 1994).
But this is precisely what makes disasters and tragedies such an

important part of contemporary consumer culture. They provide the
hint of a longed-for connection to reality ; they resonate by
frightening, mystifying, or titillating, but always with the prospect
of real loss, real death . As new media technologies and consumer culture have cast doubt on
the authenticity of human experience and emotion, the baseline authenticity of
disasters has become that much more valuable. As Slavoj Zizek put it, the
Real itself, in order to be sustained, has to be perceived as a

nightmarish unreal spectre (Zizek, 2006, p. 93). Contemporary popular culture has set in
motion a dialectical frenzy where the phenomenon of authenticity that producers, marketers, and
politicians hope to capture is the same phenomenon they end up nearly destroying through endless
the consumption of
reproduction. But rather than a destruction of the real or the aura,
catastrophe today reveals an ongoing struggle over the undeniable
kernel of reality that stubbornly persists in disasters, often despite
their continued reproduction and mediation. In such a context, consumers
of catastrophe are neither nave nor prurient ; they are simply drawn
to the traces of authenticity that make catastrophes stand out from
the rest of a hyper-mediated, seemingly inauthentic culture . The
kernel of authenticity at the heart of a disaster transcends the
conditions of its reproduction in media culture, at least for the most
powerful disasters. Benjamin found this transcendent aura in early photographs, where the
beholder feels an irresistible urge to search such a picture for the tiny spark of contingency, of the here
and now, with which reality has (so to speak) seared the subject (Benjamin, 1999, p. 510). One sees the
same traces of the here and now, the same seared markers of reality, in the Zapruder film, or the footage
of the Challenger explosion, and in iconic photographs from Vietnam such as Accidental Napalm, in which
That
a young Vietnamese girl runs naked and screaming due to the burns on her back and arms.
same trace of reality, that aura of disaster is also apparent in the
incredible array of images from September 11, as well as certain
footage of flooded New Orleans streets and stranded rooftop
survivors during Hurricane Katrina. In these cases, the disaster as a multi-media
event in and of itself may be the seat of the aura: it is not so much one image but the sum total of these
shots, their blending or composite in individual recollections and collective memory. But the determining
factor here is not the technology with which images of disaster are produced, but the context in which they
are apprehended. As Duttlinger (2008) and Hansen (2007) have argued, aura may refer to an imaginary
encounter between viewer and image, a haunting and destabilizing interaction with even mechanically
reproduced imagery; by this definition, the aura obtains even in contemporary multi-mediated disasters.
As such, the central problem of contemporary disaster consumption
is not the inauthenticity of disaster consumption, or of those
engaged in it, but the ability of political elites to frame a narrow
range of emotional or political responses as the only appropriate
ones. The consumption of catastrophe is most threatened, or perhaps most threatening, when
dominant interests are able to channel the wide range of emotions surrounding disasters into a few
politically useful contexts. The aura of disaster is not only a source of deep emotion for audiences and
victims, it is a contested terrain, a site of struggle for control over the fleeting essence of reality itself, but
as this dissertation will show, over the past decadee that contest has tended to heavily favor elite
the importance of genuine
interpretations and definitions. Since the Enlightenment,
emotional responses to the suffering of others has been a subject of
public discussion and debate. In the intervening centuries, the
contours of that debate have changed alongside new developments
in media technology and new styles of consumer culture, but always
some belief in the possibility of an authentic public reaction has
obtained, even if that possibility seemed a diminishing one . This remains
true today, at a time when consumer culture puts a premium on authentic selfhood despite the doubt cast
on the entire notion of authenticity by modern and postmodern critics of media culture. Disasters
partially resolve this problem by providing, at least in extreme
cases, cultural products with an undeniable relation to reality ,
Emotional investment in such cultural
regardless of their mediation or reproduction.
products has become accepted and even expected, precisely
because of this connection to the real, though the outcome of such investment is
liable to encompass a wide range of responses. Disasters, tragedies, and
catastrophes are, after all, complex; they tend to elide simple designations of cause
and effect or blame and victimhood, and they generate multiple meanings based on the context in which
they are experienced, viewed, or consumed. Like classical works of art, or the natural landscapes to which
Benjamin compared those works of art, disasters demand contemplation ; they cast a
shadow over victims and media spectators alike, asking them to confront the lingering ghosts of collective
trauma. That is their aura, and as this chapter has shown, it remains in the traces and fragments left
behind in a disasters wake, not only in the physical landscape, but also in the landscape of media and
consumer culture that disasters generate today.
Cooption DA
The alt alone gets coopted - our progressive deployment
is key
Schatz, 12 [JL, Binghamton U, "The Importance of Apocalypse: The Value
of End-Of- The-World Politics While Advancing Ecocriticism," The Journal of
Ecocriticism: Vol 4, No 2 (2012]
Any hesitancy to deploy images of apocalypse out of the risk of acting in

a biopolitical manner ignores how any particular metaphorapocalyptic or not
always risks getting co--opted. It does not excuse inaction .

Clearly hegemonic forces have already assumed control of determining environmental practices when one
looks at the debates surrounding off--shore drilling, climate change, and biodiversity within the halls of
Congress. As this ideological quagmire worsens, urgent problems will go unsolved only to fester
more ominously into the future. [E]cological crisis cannot be understood outside the larger social and
global context of internationalized markets, finance, and communications (Boggs 774). If it werent for
people such as Watson connecting things like whaling to the end of the world it wouldnt get the needed
coverage to enter into public discourse. It takes big news to make headlines and hold attention spans in
the electronic age. Sometimes it even takes a reality TV show on Animal Planet. As Luke reminds us,
Those who dominate the world exploit their positions to their advantage by
defining how the world is known. Unless they also face resistance,
questioning, and challenge from those who are dominated, they certainly
will remain the dominant forces (2003: 413). Merely sitting back and
theorizing over metaphorical deployments does a grave injustice to the
gains activists are making on the ground. It also allows hegemonic
institutions to continually define the debate over the environment by
framing out any attempt for significant change , whether it be radical or reformist. Only
by jumping on every opportunity for resistance can ecocriticism have the
hopes of combatting the current ecological reality . This means we must
recognize that we cannot fully escape the masters house since the
surrounding environment always shapes any form of resistance . Therefore, we
ought to act even if we may get co--opted. As Foucault himself reminds us,
instead of radial ruptures more often one is dealing with mobile and transitory points of resistance,
producing cleavages in a society that shift about[.] And it is doubtless the strategic codification
of these points of resistance that makes a revolution possible, somewhat similar to the way
in which the state relies on the institutional integration of power relationships. It is in this sphere of force
relations that we must try to analyze the mechanisms of power (96--97). Here Foucault asks us to think
about resistance differently, as not anterior to power, but a component of it. If we take seriously these
notions on the exercise and circulation of power, then we open up the field of possibility to talk about
particular kinds of environmentalism (Rutherford 296). This is not to say that all actions are resistant.
revolutionary actions that are truly resistant oftentimes appear
Rather, the
mundane since it is more about altering the intelligibility that frames
discussions around the environment than any specific policy change . Again, this
is why people like Watson use one issue as a jumping off point to talk about wider politics of ecological
awareness. Campaigns that look to the government or a single policy but for a moment, and then go on to
challenge hegemonic interactions with the environment through other tactics, allows us to codify strategic
points of resistance in numerous places at once. Again, this does not mean we must agree with every
tactic. It does mean that even failed attempts are meaningful. For example, while PETAs ad campaigns
have drawn criticism for comparing factory farms to the Holocaust, and featuring naked women whod
rather go naked than wear fur, their importance extends beyond the ads alone6. By bringing the issues to
the forefront they draw upon known metaphors and reframe the way people talk about animals despite
their potentially anti--Semitic and misogynist underpinnings. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negris
utilizing the power of
theorization of the multitude serves as an excellent illustration of how
the masters biopolitical tools can become powerful enough to
deconstruct its house despite the risk of co--optation or backlash.
For them, the multitude is defined by the growing global force of people around the world who are linked
together by their common struggles without being formally organized in a hierarchal way. While Hardt and
Negri mostly talk about the multitude in relation to global capitalism, their understanding of the commons
and analysis of resistance is useful for any ecocritic. They explain, [T]he multitude has matured to such an
extent that it is becoming able, through its networks of communication and cooperation [and] its
production of the common, to sustain an alternative democratic society on its own. Revolutionary
politics must grasp, in the movement of the multitudes and through the accumulation of common and
cooperative decisions, the moment of rupture that can create a new world. In the face of the destructive
state of exception of biopower, then, there is also a constituent state of exception of democratic
biopolitics[,] creating a new constitutive temporality. (357) Once one understands the world as
interconnectedinstead of constructed by different nation--states and single environmentsconditions in
one area of the globe couldnt be conceptually severed from any other. In short, wed all have a stake in
Ecocritics can then utilize biopolitics to shape discourse and
the global commons.
fight against governmental biopower by waking people up to the pressing
need to inaugurate a new future for there to be any future . Influencing other people
through argument and end--of--the--world tactics is not the same biopower of the state so long as it
doesnt singularize itself but for temporary moments. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to hope that in a
biopolitical future (after the defeat of biopower) war will no longer be possible, and the intensity of the
cooperation and communication among singularities will destroy its [very] possibility (Hardt & Negri
347). In The context of capitalism, when wealth fails to trickle down it would be seen as a problem for the
top since it would stand testament to their failure to equitably distribute wealth. In the context of
environmentalism, not--in--my--backyard reasoning that displaces ecological destruction elsewhere
would be exposed for the failure that it is. There is no backyard that is not ones own. Ultimately,
images of planetary doom demonstrate how we are all
interconnected and in doing so inaugurate a new world where multitudes,
and not governments, guide the fate of the planet .
AT Apathy
Crisis logic good spurs political action and creates
internal reflection that independently makes us more
ethical and solves value to life
Amsler 10 Department of Sociology, Amston University
(Sarah, Bringing hope to crisis: Crisis thinking, ethical action and social change, from Future Ethics:
Climate Change and Apocalyptic Imagination, edited by Stefan Skrimshire, dml)
But is it possible to distinguish between these different forms of crisis thinking in normative terms? The
answer to this question does not lie in the definition of the term crisis itself, which has been characterized
as illusive, vague, imprecise, malleable, open-ended and generally unspecified (Hay, 1996, p. 421). This
ambiguity is a good thing; it means we can make crisis mean something other than what it often seems to
are often understood as autopoietic moments of intense
be. In everyday talk, crises
difficulty or danger or times when a difficult or important decision must be
made. This is particularly clear in medical contexts, where a crisis is the turning point of a disease
when an important change takes place, indicating recovery or death (OED, 2005). The objectivism and
activism in these definitions is striking, particularly as the term crisis was originally associated, through its
Greek root krisis, with cultural practices of critique, judgement and deliberation (Benhabib, 1986; Brown,
2005; Kompridis, 2006). In illness, for example, a persons condition was not considered critical simply
because it could go either way, but because the direction of any change depended upon the impact of
Crisis was not a matter of fate, but
judicious human intervention (Brown, 2005, p. 6).
the name for a moment at which those involved in a situation come
to understand they cannot go on as they have before. The medical definition
of crisis is not wholly appropriate for theorizing social experience; there are few instances in which a form
of social life could be presumed to live or die in totality. Its importance is rather that it defines crisis
phenomenologically, referring less to an objective moment of decision into which we are thrown and more
to a subjective realization that we must make new sense of our circumstances and possibilities. In this
view, dangers, difficulties, decisions and changes are not objectively existing things that we can simply
recognize through observation and then make rational judgements about. Our distinctions between
intense and relaxed moments, or difficult and easy decisions are themselves the results of processes
of critical, inter-subjective judgement. They are narrated through cultural explanations, mediated through
emotional rules, and situated within a complex frame of social, political and psychological conditions. Our
experience of emotions of joy and pain involves the attribution of meaning through experience (Ahmed,
2004, p. 23), and even our intentional action is linguistically mediated through a web of cultural meaning
Crisis narratives do not simply allow us to identify or communicate
(Benhabib, 1986, p. 135).
to define complex social situations as critical moments
structural crises, but
of possibility, and to articulate the necessity of alternatives within a
normative critique of existing conditions . They are ways of explaining
how we go on once we decide that we cannot go on as before
(Benhabib, 1986; Hay, 1995; Kompridis, 2006: 248; Lear, 2006; Spivak, 1988). And, in the case of climate
change, where the establishment of thresholds and tipping points is particularly political, they are
also ways of asserting that we cannot. Crisis thinking must therefore be understood as
a cultural and emotional practice as well as a subjective experience or objective condition. A critical
consciousness of crisis can create an intensified engagement with space
and time in which we feel particularly responsible for reflecting
critically on how we reproduce, reject or transform the cultural practices

that shape our world. When crisis can be experienced in this way, it provides
openings for critique, for a reflective practice that not only allows us
to consider the proportion of continuity and discontinuity in the forms of life we
pass on, but that also frames this reflection as an ethical and
political responsibility (Habermas cited in Kompridis, 2006, p. 11). Kompridis thus makes a
clear distinction between thinking of crisis as a moment of decision that resolves a conflict and seeing it as
a moment of decentring which produces or discloses one. On the one hand, we may read crisis as an
urgent call to decisive action; a moment of truth in which we fatefully intervene (or not) to alter the course
of history. On the other hand, we can understand crisis as a space of reflexive self-critique in situations
where you feel that your presuppositions of an enterprise are disproved by the enterprise itself (Spivak,
1990b). 11 In this latter view, the political value of a crisis experience is not that it
allows us to impose order onto uncertainty by expediently cutting out the elements that create
that it brings these elements to the centre of
contradiction. The value is
consciousness, making it necessary for us to question the rules of
order themselves, and the limitations and possibilities of our own
agency, according to these alternative logics. The transformative potential of
crisis in this approach emerges from the experience of being disrupted or
decentred in ways we neither choose nor control ; they are unpredictable,
spontaneous and surprising. Feeling out of place, uncomfortable, unrecognisable, regarded as a
threat to sacred normalitiesor as Nietzsche once wrote, the bad conscience of ones own time and
society (cited in Kompridis, 2006, p. 5)can provoke a state of heightened
reflexivity in which we realize that our bodies, truths and ways of being do
not fit the contours of a dominant reality (Ahmed, 2004, p. 152). It exposes, in
Kompridis terms, breaks and punctuations in everyday life that open up
spaces for reflection and critique , and that give meaning and
shape to everyday life (Kompridis, 2006, p. 114). The experience of crisis is
thus ultimately a moment in which possibility is made possible, when the
not yet impresses upon us in the present, such that we must act ,
politically , to make it our future (Ahmed, 2004, p. 184). However, contrary to the
translation and counter-hegemonic theories of crisis, this experience cannot be deliberately produced
for oneself or others; discomfort is not simply a choice or decision...but an effect of bodies [or ideas and
practices] inhabiting spaces that do not take or extend their shape (Ahmed, 2004, p. 152, my words in
brackets). This being-outsideness, which is a condition of crisis experience, cannot be communicated
it must be
linguistically from one person to another through rational argumentation. Rather,
disclosed through encounters with radically disruptive realities and
imaginations that expose our own as partial and situated.
1ar EXT Apoc Good
Studies prove apocalypticism motivates more activism
than apathy
Veldman 12 Ph.D. candidate in religion at the University of Florida
(Robin Globus, Narrating the Environmental Apocalypse: How Imagining the End Facilitates Moral
Reasoning Among Environmental Activists, Ethics & the Environment, Volume 17, Number 1, Spring 2012,
pp. 1-23, dml)
As we saw in the introduction, critics often argue that apocalyptic rhetoric

induces feelings of hopelessness or fatalism . While it certainly does for some
people, in this section I will present evidence that apocalypticism also often
goes hand in hand with activism. Some of the strongest evidence of
a connection between environmental apocalypticism and activism comes from a
national survey that examined whether Americans perceived climate
change to be dangerous. As part of his analysis, Anthony Leiserowitz identified several
interpretive communities, which had consistent demographic characteristics but varied in their levels of
risk perception. The group who perceived the risk to be the greatest, which he labeled alarmists,
described climate change using apocalyptic language, such as Badbadbadlike after nuclear warno
vegetation, Heat waves, its gonna kill the world, and Death of the planet (2005, 1440). Given
such language, this would seem to be a reasonable way to
operationalize environmental apocalypticism. If such apocalypticism
encouraged fatalism, we would expect alarmists to be less likely to
have engaged in environmental behavior compared to groups with
moderate or low levels of concern. To the contrary, however, Leiserowitz found that
alarmists were significantly more likely to have taken personal
action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (ibid.) than respondents
who perceived climate change to pose less of a threat . Interestingly, while
one might expect such radical views to appeal only to a tiny minority, Leiserowitz found that a respectable
eleven percent of Americans fell into this group (ibid). Further supporting Leiserowitzs findings, in a
separate national survey conducted in 2008, Maibach, Roser-Renouf, and Leiserowitz found that a group
they labeled the Alarmed (again, due to their high levels of concern about climate change) are the
segment most engaged in the issue of global warming. They are very convinced it is happening,
humancaused, and a serious and urgent threat. The Alarmed are already making
changes in their own lives and support an aggressive national
response (2009, 3, emphasis added). This group was far more likely than
people with lower levels of concern over climate change to have
engaged in consumer activism (by rewarding companies that support action to reduce
global warming with their business, for example) or to have contacted elected officials
to express their concern. Additionally, the authors found that [w]hen asked which
reason for action was most important to them personally, the Alarmed were most likely to select
for
preventing the destruction of most life on the planet (31%) (2009, 31)a finding suggesting that
many in this group it is specifically the desire to avert catastrophe ,
rather than some other motivation, that encourages pro-environmental behavior. Taken
together, these and other studies (cf. Semenza et al. 2008 and DerKarabetia, Stephenson,
and Poggi 1996) provide important evidence that many of those who think
environmental problems pose a severe threat practice some form of
activism, rather than giving way to fatalistic resignation.
Rejecting apocalyptic rhetoric creates a discursive field of
acceptable discoursethe impact is an inversion of
religious dogmatism
Franke 9 (William, Associate Prof of Comparative lit at Vanderbilt, Poetry
and Apocalypse Page 4-50)
There is a temptation, especially appealing to articulate, dialectically skillful academicians,
perhaps particularly in the postmodern climate where deconstruction
has become as much a common denominator as a radical challenge ,
to say that every party to the discussion must simply avoid assertions presuming to any final disclosure of
truth, or, in other words, that we must all learn to avoid apocalyptic
discourse .1 But the viability of precisely this solution seems to me to
have been belied by discussions even in purely academic contexts ,
such as an interdisciplinary seminar among humanities scholars.2 for this solution draws the
boundaries of acceptable discourse in a tendentious and

exclusionary way : it in effect makes a rational, pragmatic, relativistic
approach normative for all. And to that extend, so far from overcoming the
arbitrary and dogmatic method of absolutistic religious belief, it
risks becoming just one further manifestation and application of it,
the imposition of ones own apocalypse, however liberal, enlightened, and
philosophical it may be, on others. Indeed, any drawing of boundaries by us that is, by
certain of us, however the claim to being representative may itself be drawn cannot but be
tendentious and exclusionary. That is why we have no right to shut
out the final judgment from above of beyond us though, of course, also not to
appropriate this judgment in order to use it, in the name of God or truth of facts or
the future, in our own biased way against others. The problem here is
that the anti-apocalyptic position belongs to a system of
oppositions with apocalypticist positions, and so can do no more
than turn their violence in the opposite direction. The bracketing or
banning of apocalyptic discourse, even when only by ostracizing it, does not
solve the problem posed by this form of communication so difficult
to accommodate alongside other in an open, neutral forum of debate.
It shifts the imposition of an absolute from the level of the
expressed, the propositions affirmed, to the unending, free, unjudged and
unjudgeable status of conversation itself: anything may be said, but
nothing must be said that would call into question this activity of
unrestricted discourse and mark its limits against something that
could perhaps reduce it to vanity and, in effect, end it. That would be a threat to
the dialogues own unimpeachable power of self-validation. Higher powers, such as those revealed, at least
purportedly, by apocalypse, must be leveled in the interest of this power of our own human Logos that we
feel ourselves to be in command of, or that is, at any rate, relatively within our control. Of course, the we
here depends on who is the most dialectically powerful, and its established not without struggle and
conflict.
Eco-Pessimism
2ac F/L
No link we never said environmental collapse is coming

or can be solved nuke wars just make the collapse
worse/faster
Growth solves
Ben-Ami 11 (Daniel Ben-Ami, journalist and author, regular contributor to
spiked, has been published in the American, the Australian, Economist.com,
Financial Times, the Guardian, the Independent, Novo (Germany), Ode
(American and Dutch editions), Prospect, Shanghai Daily, the Sunday
Telegraph, the Sunday Times, and Voltaire (Sweden), 2011 (Do not knock
prosperity that makes the good life possible, Published Online for Shanghai
Daily on June 15, 2011, Available Online at http://bit.ly/P9JUus)
Finally, there is the argument about the environment itself. The most popular variant of the idea of a
natural limit nowadays is that growth inevitably means runaway climate change. However, there is plenty
There are many forms of energy, including nuclear,
of evidence to the contrary.
that do not emit greenhouse gases. There are also ways to adapt to
global warming such as building higher sea walls. Since such measures are
expensive it will take more resources to pay for them ; which means
more economic growth rather than less. If anything the green drive to curb
prosperity is likely to undermine our capacity to tackle climate change. Schumachers fundamentally
conservative argument chimes well with those who want to reconcile us to austerity. It suits those in power
for the mass of the population to accept the need to make do with less. Under such circumstances it is no
is keen for us to focus on
surprise that David Cameron, like his international peers,
individual contentment rather than material prosperity. It is hard to
imagine a more anti-human outlook than one advocating a sharp
fall in living standards for the bulk of the worlds population.
Perm do both
Extinction reps create empathy

Perhaps, then,
degree or another,

catastrophes to hit the United States in the past decade.
The millions of television viewers

Perm do the alt
Emissions down
Magill 15. (Bobby, Senior Science Writer at Climate Central, focusing on
energy and climate change. Internally quotes IEA Chief Economist and
incoming IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol. Energy Bombshell: CO2
Emissions Stabilized in 2014, Climate Central. March 13th, 2015.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/co2-emissions-stabilized-in-2014-
18777)//CB
Solar, wind and other renewables are making such a big difference in
greenhouse gas emissions worldwide that global emissions from the
energy sector flatlined during a time of economic growth for the first time in 40 years. The
International Energy Agency announced Friday that energy-related CO2 emissions last year were
unchanged from the year before, totaling 32.3 billion metric tons of CO2 in both 2013
and 2014. It shows that efforts to reduce emissions to combat climate change
may be more effective than previously thought. Energy-related CO2
emissions from coal-fired power plants and other sources have gone flat
worldwide, according to the International Energy Agency. Credit: Ian Britton/flickr This is both a very
welcome surprise and a significant one, IEA Chief Economist and incoming IEA Executive Director Fatih
Birol said in a statement. It
provides much-needed momentum to negotiators
preparing to forge a global climate deal in Paris in December. For the first time,
greenhouse gas emissions are decoupling from economic growth. Following an announcement earlier this
week that Chinas CO2 emissions fell 2 percent in 2014, the IEA is crediting 2014s progress
to China using more solar, wind and hydropower while burning less coal. Western Europes focus
on sustainable growth, energy efficiency and renewables has shown
that emissions from energy consumption can fall even as economies grow
globally, according to the IEA. Global CO2 emissions stalled or fell in the early 1980s, 1992 and 2009, each
time correlating with a faltering global economy. In 2014, the economy grew 3 percent worldwide. In
the U.S., energy-related CO2 emissions fell during seven of the past 23 years, most
notably during the recession of 2009, U.S. Energy Information Administration data show. Emissions in 2013
the most recent year for which U.S. data is available were higher than they were in the previous year,
but 10 percent lower than they were in 2005.
Perm do the plan and acknowledge that warmings
inevitable
Biods improving
UN 14. (United Nations. UN convention agrees to double biodiversity
funding, accelerate preservation measures, UN News Centre. 17 October
2014. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?
NewsID=49104#.VZ15UEvrsds)//CB
A United Nations conference in Republic of Korea wrapped up today
17 October 2014
with governments agreeing to double biodiversity-related
international financial aid to developing countries, including small islands and
transition economics, by 2015 and through the next five years. The decision was made at the 12th
meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP-12) in
Pyeongchang. Delegations attending the meeting, which opened 6 October in Republic of Koreas
key mountain and forest region, agreed on the so-called Pyeongchang Road Map, and Gangwon
Declaration, both of which outline conservation initiatives and global
sustainable development goals and initiatives. Parties have listened
to the evidence, and have responded by committing , said UN Assistant-
Secretary-General and Executive Secretary of the CBD, Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias. The funding
decision was originally made at the last CBD meeting in Hyderabad, India, in 2012, but there had been
disagreement on how to implement it. This time, the participants decided to use average annual
biodiversity funding for the years 2006-2010 as a baseline. The targets, in particular, are the least
developed countries and the small island developing States, as well as countries with economies in
transition. Key decisions taken in Pyongchang, including those on resource mobilization, capacity building,
the
scientific and technical cooperation linking biodiversity and poverty eradication, and on monitoring of
Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, form the Roadmap and will, according to the CBD,
strengthen capacity and increase support for countries and
stakeholders to implement their national biodiversity strategies and
action plans. The decisions were bolstered by the call in the Gangwon Declaration, the result of two
days of ministerial-level talks, to link the implementation of the post-2015 development agenda to other
relevant processes such as the UN Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) process and the national
Governments also agreed to increase
biodiversity strategies and action plans.
domestic financing for biodiversity and boost funding from other
resources. Their commitments show the world that biodiversity is a
solution to the challenges of sustainable development and will be a central
part of any discussions for the post-2015 development agenda and its sustainable development goals, Mr.
Dias noted in reference to the agenda succeeding the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
1ar EXT BioD Up
Political will
Davenport 14. (Coral, energy and environment reporter for NYT. Internally
quoting Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance and
Sustainable Development. U.S. Moves to Reduce Global Warming
Emissions, NYT. SEPT. 16, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/17/us/hfc-
emissions-cut-under-agreement.html)//CB
Obama administration on Tuesday announced a series of moves
WASHINGTON The
aimed at cutting emissions of hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, powerful greenhouse gases
that contribute to climate change. The White House has secured voluntary agreements
from some of the nations largest companies to scale down or phase out their use of HFCs, which are
factory-made gases used in air conditioning and refrigeration. Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Red Bull, Kroger,
Honeywell and DuPont, the company that invented fluorinated refrigerants, have agreed to cut their use
and replace them with climate-friendly alternatives. Over all, the administration estimated that the
agreements announced on Tuesday would reduce cumulative global consumption of HFCs by the
equivalent of 700 million metric tons of carbon dioxide through 2025. That is about 1.5 percent of the
worlds 2010 greenhouse gas emissions, or the same as taking 15 million cars off the road for 10 years. A
repair technician in New Jersey removed an air-conditioning unit that uses HCFC-22, which is banned for
The
use in new units, to install a new one that uses a different coolant, R-410A.Chilling
announcement came a week before President Obama is expected to join
over 100 other world leaders at a United Nations climate change
summit in New York, which will begin 15 months of negotiations as
leaders work toward a global climate change agreement in Paris next year.
The primary focus of that deal will be to push for enactment of new
laws around the world aimed at cutting emissions of carbon dioxide, the
abundant planet-warming gas caused by burning fossil fuels such as oil and coal. Negotiators anticipate it
will take a grueling battle to achieve such an agreement, which would require the worlds largest
economies including the United States, China and India to greatly cut their use of burning coal and
small steps aimed at reducing other
oil. But climate policy advocates say
greenhouse gases will also help. While HFCs are less abundant in the atmosphere than
carbon dioxide, they have 10,000 times the planet-warming potency. But carbon dioxide lingers in the
atmosphere for centuries, while HFCs disintegrate after about 15 years. Every
drumbeat in
this symphony helps. It drives it along. This is part of that
drumbeat, said Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable
Development, a research organization. The benefits from cutting non-CO2 come much faster, he added.
CO2 is like a supertanker you can stop it, but it keeps drifting for a long time. Cutting HFCs are like
stopping a steamboat. You stop it and thats that.
Renewables and consumption

Cohen 15. (Steven, executive director of Columbia Universitys Earth
Institute and a professor in the Practice of Public Affairs at Columbia
Universitys School of International and Public Affairs. Renewable Energy
Growth Mitigates Climate Change While Boosting Economy, IEA Reports,
EcoWatch. March 23, 2015. http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/23/renewables-
mitigate-climate-change/)//CB
carbon dioxide
The International Energy Agency (IEA) announced this month that 2014
emissions from the energy sector leveled offthe first time in 40 years this has
happened without being linked to an economic downturn. According to the IEA: Global emissions of
carbon dioxide stood at 32.3 billion tonnes in 2014, unchanged from the preceding year. The preliminary
IEA data suggest that efforts to mitigate climate change may be having a
more pronounced effect on emissions than had previously been
thought. The IEA attributes the halt in emissions growth to changing
patterns of energy consumption in China and OECD countries. In
China, 2014 saw greater generation of electricity from renewable
sources, such as hydropower, solar and wind, and less burning of coal. In OECD economies,
recent efforts to promote more sustainable growthincluding
greater energy efficiency and more renewable energyare
producing the desired effect of decoupling economic growth from
greenhouse gas emissions. In OECD economies, recent efforts to promote
more sustainable growthincluding greater energy efficiency and
more renewable energyare producing the desired effect of
decoupling economic growth from greenhouse gas emissions. While this
halt in global emissions may not survive this years cut in oil prices, its still a promising sign
that the increased adoption of renewable energy technology,
increased use of energy efficiency measures and the transition to a
renewable economy, is well underway. In Europe, three countries have already met
their renewable energy targets five years ahead of schedule. According to United Press International,
Bulgaria, Estonia, and Sweden have all surpassed the required goal of 20 percent renewable energy by
2020, mandated by the EU for each member country, with several other European countries, such as Italy,
Chinas commitment to reducing air
Romania and Lithuania, not far behind.
pollution has likely had a huge effect on the leveling off of global
carbon emissions, as its dependence on coal dropped for the first time in a decade and its clean
energy consumption increased. Bloomberg Business reported that: China led in renewables last year with
investments of $89.5 billion, accounting for almost one out of every three dollars spent on clean energy in
The U.S also reached new
the world, according to BNEF figures released in January.
renewable energy milestones, with solar accounting for one-third of
new generating capacity last year, more than any other energy source besides natural gas.
The Washington Post also reported that electricity generated from renewable energy in 2014 outgrew that
of fossil fuels, with wind power growing faster than all other sources and solar power more than doubling.
Defo down
Howard 14. (Brian Clark, writer, editor and producer for National
Geographics award-winning website. Internally quotes Toby McGrath, a
senior scientist at Earth Innovation Institute. Brazil Leads World in Reducing
Carbon Emissions by Slashing Deforestation, National Geographic. JUNE 05,
2014. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140605-brazil-
deforestation-carbon-emissions-environment/)//CB
Brazil's success in slowing rain forest destruction has resulted in
enormous reductions in carbon emissions and shows that it's
possible to zealously promote sustainability while still growing the
economy, suggests a new study out Thursday. A second study out this week also underscores Brazil's
success and shows that deforestation has also slowed in several other tropical countries. Since 2004,
farmers and ranchers in Brazil have saved over 33,000 square miles (86,000 square kilometers) of rain
forest from clear-cutting, the rough equivalent of 14.3 million soccer fields, a team of scientists and
economists from the U.S. and South America report in Science. At the same time, production of beef and
soy from Brazil's Amazon region rose. The country has reduced deforestation by
70 percent and kept 3.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, because forests use
carbon as they grow and release it when they are removed, often through burning. That makes Brazil's the
biggest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of any country in the world; the cut is more than three
times bigger than the effect of taking all the cars in the U.S. off the road for a year. "Brazil is known as a
leading favorite to win the World Cup, but they also lead the world in mitigating climate change," the
Science study's lead author, Daniel Nepstad of the Earth Innovation Institute in San Francisco, said in a
statement. Brazil's success in saving about 80 percent of the original Amazon serves as a
model for other countries around the world and represents a
"completely different trajectory for forest areas over the last few
centuries," says Toby McGrath, a senior scientist at the institute and another of the study's co-
authors. (See "Photos: The Last of the Amazon.") "For the first time in history, we are
stopping the process of forest loss on a frontier before it gets
seriously depleted, while continuing to develop economies that still
have substantial forest cover," says McGrath. Globally, deforestation is
responsible for about 10 percent of all climate emissions , says a study
released Wednesday by the Union of Concerned Scientists. That's down from 17 percent of
emissions in the 1990s, thanks to falling rates of deforestation. "Brazil
is most notably lauded for their deforestation reductions, but the report found numerous
example of successfully saving forests in unexpected locations," study
author Doug Boucher, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Tropical Forest and Climate Initiative,
said in a statement. Mexico, El Salvador, and six countries in Central Africa, in particular, have shown
decreased rates of deforestation. Measure of Success For the Science study, scientists and economists
analyzed how Brazil was able to reverse decades of high rates of deforestation in the Amazon, starting in
2005, when then-president Luiz Incio Lula da Silva announced the ambitious goal of slashing the rate by
80 percent over the previous year. After that, things turned around due to a number of factors coming
One important element was the advancement of
together, says McGrath.
remote sensing technology. Although Brazil first passed a forest code requiring landowners
in the Amazon to protect at least 50 percent of native forest in 1965, enforcement was spotty. "Officials
didn't have good information on where deforestation was occurring and who was on the ground," says
satellites have given officials a more precise
McGrath. Over the past few years,
picture of the forest, often in real time. Another boost to
deforestation efforts: The forest code was updated in 2012 and now
requires landowners to preserve 80 percent of the Amazon's virgin forest,
as well as protect watersheds. Those that have violated the rules have increasingly received fines and
Nonprofit groups, meanwhile, have helped publicize
even jail time in extreme cases.
data on rule breakers and have built support for enforcing the law.
Campaigns by Greenpeace, Conservation International, and others put pressure on companies that buy
products from the Amazon, especially beef and soy, shaming those that have been found to contribute to
deforestation. Market agreements signed by companies took that a step further, prohibiting practices that
there was rising awareness of the value of
lead to deforestation. "In Brazil,
nature and how essential it is to our society," says Fabio Rubio Scarano, the vice
president of Conservation International's Americas Division, who is based in Rio de Janeiro.
1ar EXT Growth Solves
The free market solves climate change

Callahan 7 Gene Callahan is an American economist and writer. He
currently teaches at State University of New York, Purchase Campus and is
Honorary Fellow at Cardiff University, October 01, 2007, How a Free Society
Could Solve Global Warming, http://fee.org/freeman/detail/how-a-free-
society-could-solve-global-warming
When trying to determine if the free market is to blame for possibly dangerous carbon emissions, a logical
starting point is to list the numerous ways that government policies encourage the very activities that Al
Gore and his friends want us to curtail. The U.S. government has subsidized many activities that burn
carbon: it has seized land through eminent domain to build highways, funded rural electrification projects,
and fought wars to ensure Americans access to oil. After World War II it played a key role in the mass
exodus of the middle class from urban centers to the suburbs, chiefly through encouraging mortgage
lending. Every American schoolchild has heard of the bold
transcontinental railroad (finished with great ceremony at Promontory Summit, Utah)
promoted by the federal government. Historian Burt Folsom explains that due to the
construction contracts, the incentive was to lay as much track as
possible between points A and Bhardly an approach to economize
on carbon emissions from the wood- and coal-burning locomotives .
For a more recent example, consider John F. Kennedys visionary
moon shot. Im no engineer, but Ive seen the takeoffs of the Apollo
spacecraft and think its quite likely that the free markets use of
those resources would have involved far lower CO2 emissions . While
myriad government policies have thus encouraged carbon emissions ,
at the same time the government has restricted activities that would
have reduced them. For example, there would probably be far more reliance on nuclear power
were it not for the overblown regulations of this energy source. For a different example, imagine the
reduction in emissions if the government would merely allow
market-clearing pricing for the nations major roads, thereby
eliminating traffic jams! The pollution from vehicles in major urban areas could be drastically
cut overnight if the government set tolls to whatever the market could bearor better yet, sold bridges
and highways to private owners. Of course, there is no way to determine just what the energy landscape in
on net,
America would look like if these interventions had not occurred. Yet it is entirely possible that
with a freer market economy, in the past we would have burned less
fossil fuel and today we would be more energy efficient . Even if it were true
that reliance on the free-enterprise system makes it difficult to curtail activities that contribute to global
warming, stillthe undeniable advantages of unfettered markets would
allow humans to deal with climate change more easily . For example, the
financial industry, by creating new securities and derivative markets,
could crystallize the dispersed knowledge that many different
experts held in order to coordinate and mobilize mankinds total
response to global warming. For instance, weather futures can serve to
spread the risk of bad weather beyond the local area affected.
Perhaps there could arise a market betting on the areas most likely
to be permanently flooded. That may seem ghoulish, but by betting on their own area,
inhabitants could offset the cost of relocating should the flooding occur. Creative
entrepreneurs, left free to innovate, will generate a wealth of
alternative energy sources. (State intervention, of course, tends to
stifle innovations that threaten the continued dominance of currently powerful special interests,
such as oil companiesfor example, the state of North Carolina recently fined Bob Teixeira for running his
car on soybean oil.)
Economic growth is the only viable way to solve climate

change radical transformation is impossible
Hansen and Wethal 14 Arve Hansen is a Research Fellow in
interdisciplinary development studies and geography at the Centre for
Development and the Environment, University of Oslo, Norway. Ulrikke Wethal
is a Research Fellow in development and economic geography at the Centre
for Development and the Environment, University of Oslo, Norway. October
10, 2014, Emerging Economies and Challenges to Sustainability: Theories,
Strategies, Local Realities, https://books.google.com/books?
id=uxbEBAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=
false
Kuznets curve has been used to
As discussed in Chapter 3 by McNeill and Wilhite, the
describe the alleged relation between the environment and economic
growth. The idea is that, as economies grow, growth will first lead to
environmental degradation, but beyond a certain point, the fruits of
this same growth can be used to prevent or ameliorate degradation.
However, in advanced economies, most reduction in environmental degradation has taken place due to
outsourcing of production rather than any innovative way of mitigating the challenges. In terms of
achieving global sustainable development, the exportation of environmental problems through a
relocalisation of production makes no positive contribution.While there has been
increasing acknowledgement of the environmental crisis we are
facing, radical action remains absent. So-called green-washing has
been the main response to the call for sustainable development. This
is not, we argue, necessarily because the idea of sustainable development is
wrong, but mainly because countries are not willing to commit
deeply to the required trans-formations. It is also because of the lack of visions that
are both viable and appeal to large segments of societies. Economic growth enables job
creation and increases living standards, and can allow governments
to avoid the uncomfortable questions of more radical redistribution.
Halting growth in a capitalist economy leads to recessions and
unemployment. Even though it tends to hit the poorest hardest, the ramifications are
felt across all groups in society. For a powerful political party (whether in
a one-party system or a democracy) to preach no-growth or degrowth in this
context is political suicide. Politics is the art of the possible (as von
Bismarck famously said), and green-washing and technological fixes are much
more palatable alternatives than the societal trans-formations required
by deeper understandings of sustainability.
Ellul/Tech
2ac F/L
Perm do both tech is reflexive and can create social

change
Rose 3 Professor of Education at the University of New Brunswick (Ellen,
The Errors of Thamus: An Analysis of Technology Critique, Bulletin of
Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 23, No. 3, June 2003, pp. 147-156, Sage
Pub, http://bst.sagepub.com/content/23/3/147.full.pdf)BC
technology critique for our time is that it is written from
The third characteristic of a relevant
a position of technological competence, rather than avoidance. As I have suggested
elsewhere (Rose, 2000), such avoidance and dismissal of technology is no longer
possible or warranted, because those who comment on technology are now
unavoidably implicated and immersed in technological developments (Rose,
2000, p. 193). Moreover, in an age devoted to the enlargement and circulation of knowledge,
expertise, not antipathy, confers the authority to speak (Rose, 2000, p. 192). Therefore,
criticism must go hand in hand with a certain degree of technological
competence. Media education offers one model for the way in which technology
use can actually become a means of promoting deeper insight into the
social impacts of media and technology . Media education is a pedagogical
approach designed to help students gain awareness of the ways in which
television, tabloids, and other media function to condition and construct viewers and
readers. As Len Masterman (1992) described it, media education is a demythologizing process which
will reveal the selective practices by which images reach the television screen, emphasize the constructed
nature of the representations projected, and make explicit their repressed ideological function (p. 47). In
its early days, media education consisted largely of an inoculation approach highly reminiscent of
technology critique: It involved protecting impressionable youngsters from the harmful influences of the
mass media (primarily television) by telling them which media products were good and which were
bad. However, over the years, the emphasis of media education has shifted from
regarding students as passive consumers in need of protection to valuing their judgments and experiences
as media consumers and, most important, encouraging them to become active producers
of newspapers, films, computer programs, and other media. Technological competence thus
becomes the means by which students and teachers work together to
develop critical insight into the constructedness of media messages .
Technology critique is, I believe, ready to make a similar transition: from a
discourse grounded in a no-longer-tenable position of technology avoidance
to one that speaks with authority and relevance to members of our
technological society. In the words of Arthur Kroker, editor of an online journal devoted to exploring
the meanings and manifestations of high technology , it is necessary to swim within
the sea which one confronts (Menzies, 2000). The final characteristic of a
renewed technology critique is that it rejects extreme positions in
favor of a middle ground from which we can carefully consider the
impact of technologies without rejecting them wholesale (Nardi & ODay,
1999, p. 20). The irony is that the extreme stance assumed by most technology critics actually
tends to stifle the kind of critical reflection that they want people to engage in
which is precisely why the techno-utopians speak in hyperbole . Ideas become
concretized in absolute terms rather than remaining fluid and open for
analysis and debate. Instead of offering conclusive, sweeping statements about the negative impacts of
technological phenomena, technology critique should draw on and present diverse
perspectives and viewpoints and should indicate, by means of this balanced
presentation, possibilities for responsible local action . I am not by any means
suggesting that, having found a new way of framing social analysis, we abandon as irrelevant to
our lives and time the work and ideas of technology critics such as Ellul , Mumford, and
Postman. On the contrary, this article emerges from my deep respect for their work
and my realization that it has had a disappointingly small impact on societys
response to new media and technology . Yet the technology critics have taught me well. I
have learned from them that it is both possible and necessary to think otherwise about technological
What
developments, but I have also learned that insightful commentary from a distance is not enough:
is needed is a critique that provides guidelines and models for reflection and
action at the level of lived experience. Let me, then, conclude this article as I began it, with
reference to Socrates and his student, Plato. Plato immortalized Socrates teachings by using them as the
I too
basis for his own philosophy. I do not by any means compare myself to Plato, except in this: that
believe it necessary to perpetuate the important ideas of my mentors by
framing them in more relevant, meaningful, and generally accessible terms.
The techniques of law are a prerequisite to the alt they

cause mass suffering
The
sense international human rights campaigners would do well to examine the
Elluls conception of the state was too broad and

contradictory
Moore 98 assistant professor in the Department of Communication at
Boise State University (Robert Clifton, Hegemony, Agency, and Dialectical
Tension in Elluls Technological Society, Journal of Communication, Volume
48, Issue 3, pages 129144, September 1998, Wiley Online)BC
Ellul did not hinge his work on a narrow
Although not avoiding discussion of the state,
definition of the state. This is the other difficulty his excursion into this subject poses. One of
the frustrations for most readers of the French writer is the broad
brushstrokes with which he painted. Benello (1981) wrote, in reference to The
Technological Society, that it operates more in terms of auras and impressions
than clearly defined ideas (p. 91). Whether this aura-like writing was the product of Elluls
existential philosophy, a desire to present ideas that could be comprehended in diverse cultures, or some
other phenomenon, we can only speculate. Though still speculative, there is some
evidence to suggest that Ellul was looking for the big picture, not the details .
Thus, Stanley (1981) pointed out the ambiguous and occasionally contradictory
nature of Elluls work. Specifically, he mentioned how Ellul argues that the state is
simultaneously omnipotent and merely supervisory (p. 84). What Stanley
demonstrated in analyzing Elluls work in relation to Hobbesianism, is that the state must be
defined clearly enough to understand the individuals relation to it (as in the
relation between a citizen and the sovereign). In this light, we can understand that Elluls purpose in the
late 20th century was simply to demonstrate the distinctions that made the technological state different
from the traditional state.
Thus,


No impact tech cant get any worse only a risk of
improvements
Walker 9 (Mark Walker, Assistant Professor @ New Mexico State University,
Ship of Fools: Why Transhumanism is the Best Bet to Prevent the Extinction
of Civilization, 2009, wcp)
This line of thinking is further reinforced when we consider that there is a limit to the downside of creating
posthumans, at least relatively speaking. That is, one of the traditional concerns about increasing
knowledge is that it seems to always imply an associated risk for greater destructive capacity. One way
this point is made is in terms of killing capacity: muskets are a more powerful technology than a bow and
arrow, and tanks more powerful than muskets, and atomic bombs even more destructive than tanks. The
knowledge that made possible these technical advancements brought a
concomitant increase in capacity for evil. Interestingly, we have almost hit
the wall in our capacity for evil: once you have civilization destroying
weapons there is not much worse you can do. There is a point in which the
one-upmanship for evil comes to an endwhen everyone is dead. If you will
forgive the somewhat graphic analogy, it hardly matters to Kennedy if his
head is blown off with a rifle or a cannon. Likewise, if A has a weapon that
can kill every last person there is little difference between that and Bs
weapon which is twice as powerful. Posthumans probably wont have much more capacity for
evil than we have, or are likely to have shortly. So, at least in terms of how many persons can be killed,
posthumans will not outstrip us in this capacity. This is not to say that there are no new worries with the
creation of posthumans, but the greatest evil, the destruction of civilization, is something which we now, or
In other words, the most significant aspect that we should focus
will soon, have.
on with contemplating the creation of posthumans is their upside. They are
not likely to distinguish themselves in their capacity for evil, since we have
already pretty much hit the wall on that, but for their capacity for good.
Tech and management are inevitable

Son 4 assistant professor of philosophy at Handong Global University (Wha-
Chul, Reading Jacques Elluls The Technological Bluff in Context, Bulletin of
Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 24, No. 6, December 2004, pp. 518-533,
Sage Publications)BC
It was already mentioned that Ellul does not see the possibility of radical reform in the
technological society any more. In the light of this perspective, the current
movements and discourses for better technique and society could be viewed by
Ellul in two ways: either that it is too late to expect a radical change, or that
those movements and discourses are different twists of the techno-logical
bluff. In a sense, Ellul says both. Thresholds Passed There are several indications that Ellul thought that it
was possible to experience a radical change and reform in the technological society. Ellul mentioned
somewhere else that since the May Event in 1968, he began to see even more hope. I was, I might say,
more pessimistic before 1968 than after. I used to think that we were so trapped in the technological
system that we had no further resources to draw on. And then 1968 brought an explosion which opened
certain paths and which showed that we were not truly conditioned. (Vanderburg, 2004, p. 45) As
aforementioned, Ellul also expected that the development of computer technique
might lead to a significant momentum for change in the technological society (TB, pp. 1,
101, 179). Although he said that it was a mistake, he does not seem to mean that his hope was
mistaken. It could have happened, but it did not. In the preface of TB, Ellul distinguished the
projects of TSoc and TB. He says that, in 1954, he wanted to play the role of a
watchman. But no one listened to me and the result was inevitable. My main
purpose today, then, is not quite the same. I am now looking at the point which we have
reached today (TB, p. iv). In other words, Ellul viewed that the technological
system has expanded so much that there is little room left for a
radical change. There was a change at a certain moment of history, but it
is now gone.12
Transhumanism turn tech solves the alt and all suffering

ever
Tirosh-Samuelson 8 (Hava Tirosh-Samuelson, Professor of History at ASU,
Engaging Transhumanism: The Meaning of Being Human, wcp)
For transhumanists (i.e., those who advocate the transitional steps humans need to take to reach the
the human species is no more than a work in progress:
posthuman age),
Currently the human species is in a comparatively early phase of human
evolution because humans are still enslaved to their genetic programming
that destines them to experience pain, disease, stupidity, aging, and death.
Bioengineering and genetic enhancement will bring about the posthuman age
in which humans will live longer, will possess new physical and cognitive
abilities, and will be liberated from suffering and pain due to aging and
disease; moreover, humans will even conquer the ultimate enemy
deathby attaining cognitive immortality, that is, the downloading of
the human software (i.e., the mind) into artificially intelligent machines that will
continue to exist long after the individual human has perished. The
human/computer interface will be characteristic of the posthuman age in the
following ways: large computer networks may emerge as superhumanly
intelligent entities; computer/human interfaces may become so intimate that
users may reasonably be considered superhumanly intelligent; and biological
science will improve natural human intellect. This future state of affairs will be so unique
that advocates call it the singularity, namely, a point where our old models must be discarded and a
new reality rules, a point that will loom vaster and vaster over human affairs until the notion becomes a
commonplace. Whether transhumanists focus on human enhancement by design, or radical life
extension, or on computer/human interface, the posthuman age is envisioned as the transcendence of
the posthuman future, humans will not be the
current human biological limitations. In
product of evolution but the designers and controllers of the
evolutionary process itself.
Even if that doesnt solve everything, incrementalism is

good
Bostrom 3 (Nick, Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford University, Transhumanism
FAQ, October, http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq21/88/)
Success in the transhumanist endeavor is not an all-or-nothing matter. There
is no it that everything hinges on. Instead, there are many incremental
processes at play, which may work better or worse, faster or more slowly .
Even if we cant cure all diseases, we will cure many. Even if we dont get
immortality, we can have healthier lives. Even if we cant freeze whole bodies
and revive them, we can learn how to store organs for transplantation . Even if we
dont solve world hunger, we can feed a lot of people. With many potentially transforming
technologies already available and others in the pipeline, it is clear that there
will be a large scope for human augmentation. The more powerful
transhuman technologies, such as machine-phase nanotechnology and
superintelligence, can be reached through several independent paths. Should
we find one path to be blocked, we can try another one. The multiplicity of
routes adds to the probability that our journey will not come to a premature
halt.
The alt causes extinction

Bostrom 3 (Nick Bostrum, PhD from London School of Economics,
Transhumanism FAQ,
http://www.paulbroman.com/myspace/Transhumanism_FAQ.txt 2003, wcp)
Population increase is an issue we would ultimately have to come to grips with even if healthy life-
extension were not to happen. Leaving people to die is an unacceptable solution. A large population should
Another way of looking at the same fact is that it
not be viewed simply as a problem.
means that many persons now enjoy lives that would not have been lived if
the population had been smaller. One could ask those who complain about overpopulation
exactly which peoples lives they would have preferred should not have been led. Would it really have been
better if billions of the worlds people had never existed and if there had been no other people in their
place? Of course, this is not to deny that too-rapid population growth can cause crowding, poverty, and the
How
depletion of natural resources. In this sense there can be real problems that need to be tackled.
many people the Earth can sustain at a comfortable standard of
living is a function of technological development (as well as of how resources
are distributed). New technologies, from simple improvements in irrigation and
management, to better mining techniques and more efficient power
generation machinery, to genetically engineered crops, can continue to
improve world resource and food output, while at the same time reducing
environmental impact and animal suffering. Environmentalists are right to insist that the
status quo is unsustainable. As a matter of physical necessity, things cannot stay as they are today
indefinitely, or even for very long. If we continue to use up resources at the current pace, without finding
more resources or learning how to use novel kinds of resources, then we will run into serious shortages
The deep greens have an answer to this:
sometime around the middle of this century.
they suggest we turn back the clock and return to an idyllic pre-industrial age
to live in sustainable harmony with nature. The problem with this view is that
the pre-industrial age was anything but idyllic. It was a life of poverty, misery,
disease, heavy manual toil from dawn to dusk, superstitious fears, and
cultural parochialism. Nor was it environmentally sound as witness the deforestation of England
and the Mediterranean region, desertification of large parts of the middle east, soil depletion by the
Anasazi in the Glen Canyon area, destruction of farm land in ancient Mesopotamia through the
accumulation of mineral salts from irrigation, deforestation and consequent soil erosion by the ancient
Mexican Mayas, overhunting of big game almost everywhere, and the extinction of the dodo and other big
Furthermore, it is hard to see how more than a few
featherless birds in the South Pacific.
hundred million people could be maintained at a reasonable standard of living
with pre-industrial production methods, so some ninety percent of the
world population would somehow have to vanish in order to
facilitate this nostalgic return. Transhumanists propose a much more
realistic alternative: not to retreat to an imagined past, but to press ahead
as intelligently as we can. The environmental problems that technology
creates are problems of intermediary, inefficient technology, of placing
insufficient political priority on environmental protection as well as of a lack
of ecological knowledge. Technologically less advanced industries in the former Soviet-bloc
pollute much more than do their advanced Western counterparts. High-tech industry is typically relatively
benign.Once we develop molecular nanotechnology, we will not only have
clean and efficient manufacturing of almost any commodity, but we will also
be able to clean up much of the mess created by todays crude fabrication
methods. This would set a standard for a clean environment that todays
traditional environmentalists could scarcely dream of.
1ar EXT Perm Do Both
The alternatives negation fails to engage society the
permutation is best
technology critique
First, rather than offering abstract, general pronouncements from afar,
should be grounded in the lived experiences of real people , whom it
represents as agents of cultural change rather than its mindless victims . A
second, and related, characteristic is that it offers concrete possibilities for enacting
change through everyday practice . Heather Menzies (1996), for example, based her
analyses of the information economy on the experiences and stories of real people.
As she insisted in Whose Brave New World?, to effect change, technology critique must be
grounded in the social context and language of human experience (p. xv). Whereas
Ellul, Postman, Mumford, and other critics emphasized the importance of stepping back
from the fray and seeing the big picture, Menzies recognized the value of climbing
into the trenches and thereby attaining a real understanding of technological
impacts at a personal level as well as an insight into the possibilities for human action. According
to Menzies, the new critical discourse on technological restructuring and the information
highway . . . must be grounded in local dialogue, local community-building, and
locally appropriate action (p. 164). Ross (1991) concurred that technology must be
seen as a lived, interpretive practice for people in their everyday
lives and added that the role of the cultural critic is to redefine the shape and
form of that practice (pp. 131-132). This theme is also taken up by Bonnie Nardi and Vicki
ODay (1999), authors of Information Ecologies: Using Technology With Heart, which offers case
studies of people who use technology effectively and responsibly (p. 211) in
everyday settings and tasks. Nardi and ODay argued that the limits of the analysis of
the technological system lie in its failure to address with enough force the
possibility of local and particular change. Social critics identify sweeping problems,
and they are naturally drawn to sweeping solutions (p. 43), but seeing the problem in such
large-scale, complex terms prevents people from thinking about how they
might take action at a local leveland thus perpetuates their learned helplessness.
Carlisle and Manning 99 Open University Business School, Milton Keynes

AND visiting professor from the University of Durham (Y.M.* AND D.J.**,
Ideological persuasion and technological Determinism, Technology in
Society, Volume 21, pp.81-102, Science Direct)BC
The fact that technological change is progressive is a fundamental fact

about technology whether it be the technology of production or the
technology of its product. Every technological achievement has its natural
ceiling imposed by the laws of nature . A propeller-driven aircraft cannot
exceed the speed of sound as can a jet-propelled aircraft, and neither can
operate as high as the rocket-propelled missile. For the same reasons that the nuclear
submarine has a greater range than the diesel/electric submarine or the hovercraft can exceed the speed
of a surface vessel , there is always a frontier to be crossed by technological
innovation which has been imposed by the inherent limitations on the performance of every machine
subject to the same laws of nature that permit its function in the first place. Consequently, the
technologist has as inexhaustible a challenge to his ingenuity as he has an
inexhaustible source of inspiration in the progressive discoveries of
experimental science. Given a devotion to the criteria of efficiency, economy, and utility in
conceiving improved design, the technologist can only prove to be an agent of
progressive change in what can only be a competitive profession in which

the winner must eventually take all of his technologically determined share of
the market.
1ar EXT Tech Turns Alt
Tech turns the alt
the label anti-utopian is immediately suggestive of a shortcoming of
Of course,
this mode of critique: It emerges less as a response to technological
developments than as a reaction to the hyperbole of technoprophets , which,
insofar as it compels people to succumb to the prophets self-interested prescription of how the world
ought to be, is disparaged as irresponsible and even tyrannical (Dublin, 1989, p. 51).
Following this line, Roszak (1986/1994) confessed on the first page of The Cult of
Information that his interest is not in computers per se but in their folklore
(p. xiii), which it is his intention to discredit. In thus seeking to counterbalance the
unbounded optimism and enthusiasm of the technophiles, technology critics
are inclined to go to the opposite extreme, to speak only of burdens while
remaining silent about the opportunities that new technologies make possible (Postman,
1992, p. 5). This unrelieved pessimism is sometimes offered as a reason for the
lack of effectiveness and diffusion of technology critique. According to Barbara
Warnick (2002), bleak rejection paints a picture that is doomed to be rejected
by the public (p. 125). Self-described cyborg Steve Mann (2001) agreed: How many times
can the alarm be sounded before we start to ignore it (pp. ix-x)? After all, despite
the often unrelenting negativity of the critics messages, technology has
vastly improved human existence in many tangible ways. Though we
may not all want to wear our technology, as Mann does, who among us would
forgo electric lights, automobiles, hot showers, refrigerators, washing
machines, modern medicine? The reality of life without these and other products
of technological development would be, as Raymond Williams (1989) vividly reminded us, dirty
water, an earth bucket, a four-mile walk each way to work, headaches, broken
women, hunger and monotony of diet (p. 10). Indeed, if I and other technology
critics have the time and luxury to create an intellectual space within which to
contemplate the effects of technology, it is in part because of the
innovations that have freed us from the necessity of slaving to scrape
a bare subsistence from the earth. The tendency to present only the
negative implications of technological development is , as Postman (1992) freely
admitted, an error (p. 5), but it alone lacks sufficient explanatory power. We
might also look beyond the quality of negativity to the bleak pictures thus
created: In their dark descriptions of a technology that insinuates itself into our thought world, the
technology critics seem to explain and anticipate the failure of their
investigations to have a significant effect on the way our society receives
technology. Ellul (1954/1964), for example, described an autonomous, self-regulating
technical system that achieves the unquestioning acceptance of the human
beings who maintain it through the creation of a collective passion for technique and the resulting
suppression of all critical response (p. 369). If, as Ellul and other critics argue, the
technological society perpetuates itself by compelling its citizens to accept
without question the doctrine that whatever fosters technical progress is
good whereas whatever and whoever hobble it are bad, then the
technology critique has not a hope of being heard. If, however, one does
not accept that people are so contented with their lot, or so thoroughly
bound in servitude to an autonomous technology, that they are unable to
contemplate other possibilities, then one is led to a somewhat different conclusion: To
understand the failure of technology critique to have a significant impact on the ways in which society
receives technology, we must look more carefully at the nature of the critique itself.
1ar EXT Turn AT We solve turn
They throw out the good with the bad
Hughes 6 (James, Ph.D., Public Policy Studies at Trinity College, Democratic Transhumanism 2.0, Last Mod Jan 26,
http://www.changesurfer.com/Acad/DemocraticTranshumanism.htm)
left Luddism inappropriately equates technologies with the power

First,
relations around those technologies . Technologies do not determine power relations, they merely
create new terrains for organizing and struggle. Most new technologies open up new possibilities
for both expanded liberty and equality, just as they open new opportunities
for oppression and exploitation. Since the technologies will most likely not be stopped, democrats need
to engage with them, articulate policies that maximize social benefits from the technologies, and find liberatory uses for
If biotechnology is to be rejected simply because it is a product of
the technologies.
capitalism, adopted in class society, then every technology must be rejected.
The mission of the Left is to assert democratic control and priorities over the
development and implementation of technology. But establishing democratic
control over technological innovation is not the same as Luddism. In fact, to the
extent that advocates for the democratic control of technology do not
guarantee benefits from technology, and attempt to suppress technology
altogether, they will lose public support.
1ar EXT Alt Fails
Society is aware of the harms of technology the
alternative only reinforces passivity
Here, then, is what I regard as the first significant error: the tendency of technology
critics to construct the population in general not as fully participant members of society but
as dull and even stupid (Postman, 1992, p. 20) victims of an out-of-control
technological system or as the witless dupes (Penley & Ross, 1991, p. xiii) of the
techno-elite. This perspective is, I believe, neither accurate nor useful . It is
inaccurate because it fails to account for the many small ways in which
technology users acknowledge and resist the reality of technological impacts
and imperatives every day. Consider, for example, the cartoons and jokes that
circulate within and festoon the walls of most computerized workplaces: the
well-known picture of the irate duck, frozen in the process of bringing a
hammer down on his computer; the Murphys Laws of Computing posters; the Dilbert
cartoons. Such humor, also perpetuated in a great deal of coffee room banter, communicates, in
an accessible if indirect way, some of the same ideas put forth in the more serious
critique. In particular, it conveys an almost existential awareness of the fact that
rather than empowering its users, technology often seems to collude with
organizational imperatives for efficiency to create a system that individual
users must serve, at the expense of their own needs, values, and personal growth. Although
most technology users may lack the criticspowers of articulation and broader
perspective, they are nevertheless acutely aware of the ways in which their own
lives are being affected, and not always for the better, by new technologies .
Ultimately, technology critique that casts people in the role of passive, mindless victims is not
useful because it merely reinforces that passivity. The critics would serve society
better by acknowledging that people are agents , not victims, of this cultural
transformation and by offering concrete possibilities for everyday practices
that would contest the hegemony of technology and its celebrantsbut that
is something they rarely do.
Critiques of technology are paradoxical and will never

spillover
If these tendencies create a fundamental rift between the technology critics and the rest of society, then
the third error: the critics continual emphasis
the wedge that further enlarges that rift is
on the importance of critical thought as a means of confronting rampant
technological development. This emphasis, which I have elsewhere described
as the critical imperative (Rose, 2000, p. 190), may seem paradoxical: How can
the critics expect sustained, critical reflection from a public whom they have
constructed as an unthinking, lemming-like mass? There is no doubt that
critical thought is antithetical to the sleepwalking state with which citizens of
our technological society are seen to go about their daily business , numbly
allowing more and more of their lives to be mediated and controlled by technology.
Nevertheless, it is also the case that the critics persist in holding out the hope,
however slender, that there are those among that sleepwalking mass who possess
the intellectual will to awake from the hyperbole-induced mass coma and
confront technology as conscious beings. Mere awareness of the runaway juggernaut of
technology is, they suggest, the only thing that can prevent society as a whole from
being flattened by it: For no medium is excessively dangerous if its users understand what its
dangers are and ask questions about it; to ask is to break the spell (Postman, 1985, p. 161). But to
become critically aware, one must somehow (the critics rarely indicate how) achieve a requisite distance
from technology. As Ellul (1981) insisted, We have to locate ourselves on the outside in order to look at
the phenomenon of an all-encompassing technology (p. 90). Postman (1992) also reiterated the
importance of maintaining an epistemological and psychic distance from any technology, so that it always
appears somewhat strange, never inevitable, never natural (p. 185). Mumford (1970) concluded The
Pentagon of Power with a reminder that the only means by which humanity can now free itself from the
technological prison of its own making is to detach oneself from the system, to exercise a steady
withdrawal of interest, for the gates of the technocratic prison will open automatically, despite their rusty
hinges, as soon as we choose to walk out (pp. 433-435). And in her feminist analysis of the discourse of
Wired magazine, Melanie Stewart Millar (1998) agreed that we simply need to step back because as long
as we remain caught up in the speed and novelty of digital discourse, critical understanding of what is
distanced reflection on technology and its
going on is impossible (p. 29). Sustained,
impacts is, of course, what the critics themselves do . However, caught up in
the business of day-to-day living and coping, most people find it impossible to
do the same, to set aside quiet moments during which to engage in sustained contemplation on the
roles that computers and other technologies play in their lives. Indeed, technology itself seems to
preclude the possibility of achieving such moments of deep reflection by
keeping its users chronically overcommitted (Menzies, 2000) and by demanding their
intense involvement. Whether one is using computers for work or pleasure, the machine somehow
compels one to input data ever faster, to churn out ever more documents and spreadsheets,
to spend ever more time dealing with and contributing to a serious e-mail glut, to participate in online chat
rooms and multiuser domains more and more compulsively, and to play video games ceaselessly for hours,
As people run to keep up with the frenetic pace of their
sometimes days, on end.
cybersociety, making time for quiet, distanced contemplation becomes
increasingly impossible.
The alt links to the K the extremes of the critique

undermine its appeal to the public
technology critics have played a key role in the establishment of a
In this way,
polemic between two discursive extremes : those who represent technology as
the ultimate panacea for all social ills and those who represent it as the means
by which people are being robbed of their humanity and transformed into
mere cogs of the system. Neither extreme, because they are extremes, paints an
accurate, believable, or responsible picture. However, faced with these two distinct camps,
both demanding absolute allegiance, most people make the obvious decision . It is not,
as is often mistakenly assumed, a matter of rejecting the gloomy prognostications of the critics in favor of
it is a matter of pragmatically
the technophiles optimistic visions of the future. Rather,
choosing to align oneself with those individuals who possess technical skills
and knowledge, those who have already colonized the present and stand ready to invent
the future, rather than to place ones trust in those who, possessing not even basic
word-processing skills, can easily be dismissed as dour naysayers who do not really
know what they are talking about. What is moreand here we come full circlebecause the
oppositional nature of the critique has helped to create a situation in which
people are compelled to choose between two extremes in the first place, the
critique itself is in part responsible for precisely what it deplores: the
publics uncritical acceptance of technology and its imperatives.
The alt fails 5 reasons

These, then, are what I believe to be important but largely overlooked reasons
for the failure of technology critique to play a significant role in the way society
receives technology: It tends to construct the populace as a mindless mass ; it
is based on a notion of culture that not only bears no relationship to most peoples personal
experiences but that must be defended against the mass society of which all people
compose a part; it emphasizes the importance of achieving a dispassionate,
objective, critical distance from technology that bears no relationship to the
way that most people are compelled to experience computers and other
technologies on a day-to-day basis; it is based on the critics refusal to engage with
technology in the way that most people today must; and it emerges from and perpetuates an
oppositional dialogue that compels people to take sides with those who know
rather than those who, having eschewed technology, apparently do not. In short, rather than
offering a meaningful discourse that speaks to people in terms of their lived experiences, technology
critique tends to establish a clear boundary between the critics and everyone
else.
Extinction
2ac F/L
The kritik links to itself because it discusses extinction

and concedes its a real threat.
Also, the kritik is made up

Tuck 14 B.S. from University of Michigan, (Andrew, Why Did American
Psychiatry Abandon Psychoanalysis?,
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/107788/antuck.pdf?
sequence=1)
To say that psychoanalysis has grown stagnant as a scientific field may at first seem a sweeping and completely
unwarranted claim. After all, in terms of producing new branches of thought, psychoanalytic theory has undoubtedly
proven an expansive and fruitful domain; to argue that psychoanalytic progress suddenly stopped after Freud would
require answering to object relations theory, ego psychology, self psychology, and Lacanian psychoanalysis, to name but
a few. Furthermore, rather than dying with Freud in 1939, psychoanalysis produced these subfields through a variety of
different thinkersthe role of Melanie Klein, Anna Freud, Heinz Kohut, and Jacques Lacan in their respective theories
above seem to demonstrate that psychoanalysis was not a one-man show after all. In fact, it was during the decades
immediately following Freuds death that dynamic psychiatry was at the peak of its influence in the United States. 11,12
Given the proliferation of new models and theories of psychoanalytic thought
under an equally diverse group of psychoanalysts, on what grounds could the
argument that psychoanalysis failed to produce visible and useful knowledge
possibly possess any merit? The answer is in the question: it was precisely
the sheer amount and diversity of psychoanalytic subfields that delegitimized
psychoanalysis as a whole: the presence of such diversity of opinion within
the same field undermined the authority of any one subfield. Rather than
adding to a collective fund of psychoanalytic knowledge, each of these
different subfields took a different approach to psychoanalytic theory and
practice. Former American Psychiatric Association president Alan Stone said: Today, at least in my opinion, and I am
not entirely alone in thinking this, neither Anna Freud's Ego Psychology nor Melanie Klein's
Object Relations Theory seem like systematic advances on Freud's ideas.
Rather they seem like divergent schools of thought, no closer to Freud than
Karen Horney who rebelled against Freudian orthodoxy. 1 3 The frequent
emergence of these competing divergent schools of thought and their
dissenting followers, then, made any developments in psychoanalysis seem
to other scientists less like legitimate scientific discoveries and more like
competing hypotheses. In contrast with more established fields like biology, innovations in
psychoanalysis often seemed to contradict earlier psychoanalytic ideas as
well as one another, frequently forming branches and sub-branches without
regard to maintaining any sort of continuity or internal consistency in
psychoanalysis as a whole. 14,15 In fact, many of these developments were reactionary in nature,
responding to other trends in psychoanalysis rather than to new clinical data. This is the case of Heinz Kohuts
development of self psychology, which was a reaction against the subfields of ego psychology and classical drive theory.
The revival of American interest in the work of Melanie Klein in the second half of the twentieth century has also been
never did one of these new theories
described as a reaction against ego psychology. 16 Furthermore,
thoroughly abrogate and replace a previous one in the way that, for example,
Einsteins theory of general relativity transformed Newtonian physics. This is
not to say that a new idea in psychoanalysis would not have been met with
resistance upon its introduction; however, it soon proved that psychoanalysis
on the whole lacked the tools that other disciplines had to debunk or prove
new theories. By what criteria could psychoanalysts reject or accept a new hypothesis? In physics, a new model
was expected to be compatible with currently available data, as well as able to make predictions to be confirmed by
observation17; similarly, a new pharmaceutical drug was expected to prove itself by beating a control in a double-blind
But such criteria, even if psychoanalysts wanted to use them, were not as
trial.
conveniently applied to unconscious phenomena proposed by
psychoanalysis. Even the gathering of data from clinical psychotherapy was
typically unable to resolve the conflict between two competing subfields;
problematically, any clinical data that could potentially prove the efficacy of
one psychoanalytic school could be interpreted to support others as well. 18 In
an article for Psychoanalytic Psychology, psychologist Robert Holt, even as he argued for the validity of psychoanalysis as
a testable scientific theory,19 admitted the difficulty of producing data that could settle disputes between
psychoanalytic and non-psychoanalytic theories, let alone between schools within psychoanalysis:
Perm do both the net benefit is the compassion da

incorporating extinction threats mobilizes action to
address violence
Perhaps, then,
watching a disaster replayed over and over, when they buy t-shirts or snow globes, when they mail teddy bears to a
memorial, or when they tour a disaster site, is a deep, maybe subconscious, longing for those age-
old forms of community and real human compassion that emerge in
a place when disaster has struck. It is a longing in some ways so
alien to the world we currently live in that it requires catastrophe to
call it forth , even in our imaginations. Nevertheless, the actions of unadulterated
goodwill that become commonplace in harrowing conditions represent the truly
authentic form of humanity that all of us , to one degree or another, chase after in
contemporary consumer culture every day. And while it is certainly a bit foolhardy to seek
authentic humanity through disaster-related media and culture, the

sheer strength of that desire has been evident in the publics
response to all the disasters, crises and catastrophes to hit the United States in the past decade. The
millions of television viewers who cried on September 11, or during
Hurricane Katrina and the Virginia Tech shootings, and the
thousands upon thousands who volunteered their time, labor,
money, and even their blood, as well as the countless others who
created art, contributed to memorials, or adorned their cars or
bodies with disaster-related paraphernalia despite the fact that many knew no one who had
been personally affected by any of these disastersall attest to a desire for real human
community and compassion that is woefully unfulfilled by American

life under normal conditions today. In the end, the consumption of
disaster doesnt make us unable or unwilling to engage with
disasters on a communal level, or towards progressive political
ends it makes us feel as if we already have, simply by consuming. It is ultimately less a form of
political anesthesia than a simulation of politics , a Potemkin village of communal
sentiment, that fills our longing for a more just and humane world with disparate acts of cathartic consumption. Still, the positive
political potential underlying such consumptionthe desire for real

forms of connection and communityremains the most redeeming
feature of disaster consumerism. Though that desire is frequently warped when various media lenses
refract it, diffuse it, or reframe it to fit a political agenda, its overwhelming strength should
nonetheless serve notice that people want a different world than the
one in which we currently live, with a different way of understanding
and responding to disasters. They want a world where risk is not leveraged for profit or political gain, but
sensibly planned for with the needs of all socio-economic groups in mind. They want a world where
preemptive strategies are used to anticipate the real threats posed

by global climate change and global inequality, rather than to
invent fears of ethnic others and justify unnecessary wars . They
want a world where people can come together not simply as a
market, but as a public , to exert real agency over the policies made in
when disaster does strike, they want a world
the name of their safety and security. And,
where the goodwill and compassion shown by their neighbors, by strangers

in their communities, and even by distant spectators and consumers, will be
matched by their own government . Though this vision of the world

is utopian, it is not unreasonable , and if contemporary American culture is ever to give us more than just
an illusion of safety, or empathy, or authenticity, then it is this vision that we must advocate
on a daily basis, not only when disaster strikes.
The impact to this outweighs the k


something.
we might live for


und
No link the impact to the aff isnt just human extinction,

its the obliteration of nature in a nuclear war which
means we havent represented a divide
Their theory inaccurately describes human behavior the

alt is too utopian to solve
Boucher 10 --- literary and psychoanalytic studies at Deakin University
(Geoff M., Zizek and Politics: A Critical Introduction,
https://books.google.com/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=_hmrBgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=%C5%BDi
%C5%BEek+and+Politics:
+An+Introduction&ots=3uqgdGUwxC&sig=MNP7oMG7JXgWMj49yz2DHRTs6BI
#v=onepage&q&f=false)//trepka
Can we bring some order to this host of criticisms? It is remarkable that, for all
the criticisms of Zizek's political Romanticism, no one has argued that the ultra-extremism of
Zizek's political position might reflect his untenable attempt to

shape his model for political action on the curative final moment in
clinical psychoanalysis. The differences between these two realms,
listed in Figure 5.1, are nearly too many and too great to restate - which has perhaps caused
Lacan's notion of traversing the fantasy
the theoretical oversight. The key thing is this.
involves the radical transformation of people's subjective structure :
a refounding of their most elementary beliefs about themselves, the world, and sexual difference. This is
undertaken in the security of the clinic, on the basis of the
analysands' voluntary desire to overcome their inhibitions,
symptoms and anxieties. As a clinical and existential process, it has its own
independent importance and authenticity. The analysands, in transforming their
subjective world, change the way they regard the objective, shared social
reality outside the clinic. But they do not transform the world. The political
relevance of the clinic can only be (a) as a supporting moment in
ideology critique or (b) as a fully-fledged model of politics, provided that the
political subject and its social object are ultimately identical. Option ((7), Zizek's option, rests on the idea, not only of a
subject who becomes who he is only through his (mis) recognition of the objective sociopolitical order, but whose
'traversal of the fantasy' is immediately identical with his transformation of the socio-political system or Other. I-Ience,
according to Zizek, we can analyse the institutional embodiments of
this Other using psychoanalytic categories. In Chapter 4, we saw Zi2ek's resulting
elision of the distinction between the (subjective) Ego Ideal and the (objective) Symbolic Order. This leads him
to analyse our entire culture as a single subject-object, whose
perverse (or perhaps even psychotic) structure is expressed in every
manifestation of contemporary life. Zizek's decisive political-theoretic errors, one substantive
and the other methodological, are different (see Figure 5.1) The substantive problem is to equate any political
change worth the name with the total change of the subject-object that is, today, global capitalism. This is a
type of change that can only mean equating politics with violent
regime change, and ultimately embracing dictatorial govermnent,
as Zizek now frankly avows (IDLC 412-19). We have seen that the ultra-
political form of Zizek's criticism of everyone else, the theoretical
Left and the wider politics, is that no one is sufficiently radical for
him - even, we will discover, Chairman Mao. We now see that this is because Zizek's model of politics
proper is modelled on a pre-critical analogy with the total transformation of a subiect's entire subjective structure, at the
We have seen
end of the talking cure. For what could the concrete consequences of this governing analogy be?
that Zizek equates the individual fantasy with the collective

identity of an entire people . The social fantasy, he says, structures
the regime's 'inherent transgressions': at once subjects' habitual ways of living the letter of
the law, and the regime's myths of origin and of identity. If political action is modelled on the
Lacanian cure, it must involve the complete 'traversal' - in Hegel's terms, the
abstract versus the determinate negation - of all these lived myths, practices and habits. Politics must involve the periodic
founding of of entire new subjectobjects. Providing the model for this set of ideas, the first iekian political subject was
Schellings divided God, who gave birth to the entire Symbolic Order before the beginning of time (IDLC 153; OB 1448).
can the political theorist reasonably hope or expect that subjects
But
will simply give up on all their inherited ways , myths and beliefs, all
in one world-creating moment? And can they be legitimately asked
or expected to, on the basis of a set of ideals whose legitimacy they
will only retrospectively see, after they have acceded to the Great
Leap Forward ? And if they do not for iek laments that today
subjects are politically disengaged in unprecedented ways what
means can the theorist and his allies use to move them to do so?
Their alt is violent and worthless
Gray 12 --- Emeritus Professor of European Thought at the London School of
Economics (John, The Violent Visions of Slavoj iek,
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jul/12/violent-visions-slavoj-zizek/?
pagination=false)//trepka
While he rejects Marxs conception of communism, iek devotes none of the over one thousand pages of Less Than
Nothing to specifying the economic system or institutions of government that would feature in a communist society of the
kind he favors. In effect a compendium of ieks work to date, Less Than Nothing is devoted instead to
reinterpreting Marx by way of Hegelone of the books sections is called Marx as a Reader of Hegel, Hegel as a Reader of
reformulating Hegelian philosophy by reference to the
Marxand
thought of the French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan. A post-structuralist who
rejected the belief that reality can be captured in language, Lacan also rejected the standard interpretation of Hegels idea
of the cunning of reason, according to which world history is the realization by oblique and indirect means of reason in
human life. For Lacan as iek summarizes him, The Cunning of Reasonin no way involves a faith in a secret guiding
hand guaranteeing that all the apparent contingency of unreason will somehow contribute to the harmony of the Totality
of Reason: if anything, it involves a trust in un-Reason. On this Lacanian reading, the message of Hegels philosophy is
not the progressive unfolding of rationality in history but instead the impotence of reason. The Hegel that emerges in
ieks writings thus bears little resemblance to the idealist philosopher who features in standard histories of thought.
Hegel is commonly associated with the idea that history has an inherent logic in which ideas are embodied in practice and
then left behind in a dialectical process in which they are transcended by their opposites. Drawing on the contemporary
French philosopher Alain Badiou, iek radicalizes this idea of dialectic to mean the rejection of the logical principle of
noncontradiction, so that rather than seeing rationality at work in history, Hegel rejects reason itself as it has been
understood in the past. Implicit in Hegel (according to iek) is a new kind of paraconsistent logic in which a proposition
is not really suppressed by its negation. This new logic, iek suggests, is well suited to understanding capitalism today.
Is not postmodern capitalism an increasingly paraconsistent system, he asks rhetorically, in which, in a variety of
modes, P is non-P: the order is its own transgression, capitalism can thrive under communist rule, and so on? Living in
the End Times is presented by iek as being concerned with this situation. Summarizing the books central theme, he
writes: The underlying premise of the present book is a simple one: the global capitalist system is approaching an
apocalyptic zero-point. Its four riders of the apocalypse are comprised by the ecological crisis, the consequences of the
biogenetic revolution, imbalances within the system itself (problems with intellectual property; forthcoming struggles over
With its
raw materials, food and water), and the explosive growth of social divisions and exclusions.
sweeping claims and magniloquent rhetoric, this passage is typical
of much in ieks work. What he describes as the premise of the
book is simple only because it passes over historical facts . Reading it, no
one would suspect that, putting aside the killings of many millions for ideological reasons, some of the last centurys worst
ecological disastersthe destruction of nature in the former Soviet Union and the devastation of the countryside during
Maos Cultural Revolution, for exampleoccurred in centrally planned economies. Ecological devastation is not a result
only of the economic system that exists in much of the world at the present time; while it may be true that the prevailing
version of capitalism is unsustainable in environmental terms, there is nothing in the history of the past century that
suggests the environment will be better protected if a socialist system is installed. But to criticize iek for neglecting
these facts is to misunderstand his intent, for unlike Marx he does not aim to ground his theorizing in a reading of history
that is based in facts. Todays historical juncture does not compel us to drop the notion of the proletariat, or of the
proletarian positionon the contrary, it compels us to radicalize it to an existential level beyond even Marxs
imagination, he writes. We need a more radical notion of the proletarian subject [i.e., the thinking and acting human
being], a subject reduced to the evanescent point of the Cartesian cogito, deprived of its substantial content. In ieks
hands, Marxian ideaswhich in Marxs materialist view were meant to designate objective social factsbecome
subjective expressions of revolutionary commitment. Whether such ideas correspond to anything in the world is irrelevant.
Why should anyone adopt ieks ideas
There is a problem at this point, however:
rather than any others? The answer cannot be that ieks are true
in any traditional sense. The truth we are dealing with here is not
objective truth, iek writes, but the self-relating truth about
ones own subjective position; as such, it is an engaged truth, measured not by its factual accuracy
but by the way it affects the subjective position of enunciation. If this means anything, it is that truth is determined by
reference to how an idea accords with the projects to which the speaker is committedin ieks case, a project of
The
revolution. But this only poses the problem at another level: Why should anyone adopt ieks project?
question cannot be answered in any simple way, since it is far from
clear what ieks revolutionary project consists in. He shows no signs of doubting
that a society in which communism was realized would be better than any that has ever existed. On the other hand, he is
unable to envision any circumstances in which communism might be realized: Capitalism is not just a historical epoch
among others. Francis Fukuyama was right: global capitalism is the end of history.1 Communism is not for iekas it
was for Marxa realizable condition, but what Badiou describes as a hypothesis, a conception with little positive content
but that enables radical resistance against prevailing institutions. iek is insistent that such resistance must include the
use of terror: Badious provocative idea that one should reinvent emancipatory terror today is one of his most profound
insights. Recall Badious exalted defense of Terror in the French Revolution, in which he quotes the justification of the
iek celebrates
guillotine for Lavoisier: The Republic has no need for scientists.2 Along with Badiou,
Maos Cultural Revolution as the last truly great revolutionary
explosion of the twentieth century. But he also regards the Cultural Revolution as a failure,
citing Badious conclusion that the Cultural Revolution, even in its very impasse, bears witness to the impossibility truly
and globally to free politics from the framework of the party-State.3 Mao in encouraging the Cultural Revolution evidently
iek praises the Khmer
should have found a way to break the power of the party-state. Again,
Rouge for attempting a total break with the past. The attempt
involved mass killing and torture on a colossal scale; but in his view
that is not why it failed: The Khmer Rouge were, in a way, not
radical enough: while they took the abstract negation of the past to the limit, they did not
invent any new form of collectivity. (Here and elsewhere the italics are ieks.) A
genuine revolution may be impossible in present circumstances, or
any that can be currently imagined. Even so, revolutionary violence
should be celebrated as redemptive, even divine. While iek has
described himself as a Leninist,4 there can be no doubt that this position would be anathema to the Bolshevik leader.
Lenin had no qualms in using terror in order to promote the cause of communism (for him, a practically attainable
objective). Always deployed as part of a political strategy, violence was instrumental in nature. In contrast, though
iek accepts that violence has failed to achieve its communist goals and has no prospect of doing so, he
insists that revolutionary violence has intrinsic value as a symbolic
expression of rebelliona position that has no parallel in either Marx or Lenin. A precedent may be
seen in the work of the French psychiatrist Frantz Fanon, who defended the use of violence against colonialism as an
assertion of the identity of subjects of colonial power; but Fanon viewed this violence as part of a struggle for national
independence, an objective that was in fact achieved. A clearer precedent can be found in the work of the early-twentieth-
century French theorist of syndicalism Georges Sorel. In Reflections on Violence (1908), Sorel argued that communism was
a utopian mythbut a myth that had value in inspiring a morally regenerative revolt against the corruption of bourgeois
society. The parallels between this view and ieks account of redemptive violence inspired by the communist
A celebration of violence is one of the most prominent
hypothesis are telling.
strands in ieks work. He finds fault with Marx for thinking that violence can be justified as part of the
conflict between objectively defined social classes. Class war must not be understood as a conflict between particular
agents within social reality: it is not a difference between agents (which can be described by means of a detailed social
analysis), but an antagonism (struggle) which constitutes these agents. Applying this view when discussing Stalins
assault on the peasantry, iek describes how the distinction between kulaks (rich peasants) and others became blurred
and unworkable: in a situation of generalized poverty, clear criteria no longer applied, and the other two classes of
peasants often joined the kulaks in their resistance to forced collectivization. In response to this situation the Soviet
authorities introduced a new category, the sub-kulak, a peasant too poor to be classified as a kulak but who shared kulak
values: The art of identifying a kulak was thus no longer a matter of objective social analysis; it became a kind of complex
hermeneutics of suspicion, of identifying an individuals true political attitudes hidden beneath his or her deceptive
Describing mass murder in this way as an exercise in
public proclamations.
hermeneutics is repugnant and grotesque; it is also characteristic of
ieks work. He criticizes Stalins policy of collectivization, but not
on account of the millions of human lives that were violently
truncated or broken in its course. What iek criticizes is Stalins
lingering attachment (however inconsistent or hypocritical) to scientific Marxist
terms. Relying on objective social analysis for guidance in revolutionary situations is an error: at some point, the
process has to be cut short with a massive and brutal intervention of subjectivity: class belonging is never a purely
objective social fact, but is always also the result of struggle and social engagement. Rather than Stalins relentless use
of torture and lethal force, it is the fact that he tried to justify the systematic use of violence by reference to Marxian
theory that iek condemns. ieks rejection of anything that might be described as social fact comes together with his
admiration of violence in his interpretation of Nazism. Commenting on the German philosopher Martin Heideggers much-
discussed involvement with the Nazi regime, iek writes: His involvement with the Nazis was not a simple mistake, but
rather a right step in the wrong direction. Contrary to many interpretations, Heidegger was not a radical reactionary.
Reading Heidegger against the grain, one discovers a thinker who was, at some points, strangely close to communism
indeed, during the mid-Thirties, Heidegger might be described as a future communist. If Heidegger mistakenly chose to
back Hitler, the mistake was not in underestimating the violence that Hitler would unleash: The problem with Hitler was
that he was not violent enough, his violence was not essential enough. Hitler did not really act, all his actions were
fundamentally reactions, for he acted so that nothing would really change, staging a gigantic spectacle of pseudo-
Revolution so that the capitalist order would survive. The true problem of Nazism is not that it went too far in its
subjectivist-nihilist hubris of exercising total power, but that it did not go far enough, that its violence was an impotent
acting-out which, ultimately, remained in the service of the very order it despised. What was wrong with Nazism, it seems,
is thatlike the later experiment in total revolution of the Khmer Rougeit failed to create any new kind of collective life.
iek says little regarding the nature of the form of life that might have come into being had Germany been governed by a
regime less reactive and powerless than he judges Hitlers to have been. He does make plain that there would be no room
in this new life for one particular form of human identity: The fantasmatic status of anti- Semitism is clearly revealed by a
statement attributed to Hitler: We have to kill the Jew within us. Hitlers statement says more than it wants to say:
against his intentions, it confirms that the Gentiles need the anti-Semitic figure of the Jew in order to maintain their
identity. It is thus not only that the Jew is within uswhat Hitler fatefully forgot to add is that he, the anti-Semite, is also
in the Jew. What does this paradoxical entwinement mean for the destiny of anti-Semitism? iek is explicit in censuring
certain elements of the radical Left for their uneasiness when it comes to unambiguously condemning anti-Semitism.
But it is difficult to understand the claim that the identities of anti-Semites and Jewish people are in some way mutually
reinforcingwhich is repeated, word for word, in Less Than Nothingexcept as suggesting that the only world in which
anti-Semitism can cease to exist is one in which there are no longer any Jews. Interpreting iek on this or any issue is not
There is his inordinate prolixity, the stream of texts that
without difficulties.
no one could read in their entirety, if only because the torrent never
ceases flowing. There is his use of a type of academic jargon
featuring allusive references to other thinkers, which has the effect
of enabling him to use language in an artful, hermetic way . As he
acknowledges, iek borrows the term divine violence from Walter Benjamins Critique of Violence (1921). It is
doubtful whether Benjamina thinker who had important affinities with the Frankfurt School of humanistic Marxism
would have described the destructive frenzy of Maos Cultural Revolution or the Khmer Rouge as divine. But this is beside
the point, for by using Benjamins construction iek is able to praise violence and at the same time claim that he is
speaking of violence in a special, recondite sensea sense in which Gandhi can be described as being more violent than
Hitler.5 And there is ieks regular recourse to a laborious kind of clowning wordplay: Thevirtualization of capitalism is
ultimately the same as that of the electron in particle physics. The mass of each elementary particle is composed of its
mass at rest plus the surplus provided by the acceleration of its movement; however, an electrons mass at rest is zero, its
mass consists only of the surplus generated by the acceleration, as if we are dealing with a nothing which acquires some
deceptive substance only by magically spinning itself into an excess of itself. It is impossible to read this without recalling
the Sokal affair in which Alan Sokal, a professor of physics, submitted a spoof article, Transgressing the Boundaries:
Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity, to a journal of postmodern cultural studies. Equally, it is
hard to read this and many similar passages in iek without suspecting that he is engagedwittingly or otherwisein a
kind of auto-parody. There may be some who are tempted to condemn iek as a philosopher of irrationalism whose
praise of violence is more reminiscent of the far right than the radical left.
His writings are often
offensive and at times (as when he writes of Hitler being present in the Jew) obscene. There is a
mocking frivolity in ieks paeans to terror that recalls the Italian Futurist and ultra-nationalist Gabriele DAnnunzio and
the Fascist (and later Maoist) fellow traveler Curzio Malaparte more than any thinker in the Marxian tradition. But there is
another reading of iek, which may be more plausible, in which he is no more an epigone of the right than he is a disciple
of Marx or Lenin. Whether or not Marxs vision of communism is the inherent capitalist fantasy, ieks visionwhich
apart from rejecting earlier conceptions lacks any definite contentis well adapted to an economy based on the
continuous production of novel commodities and experiences, each supposed to be different from any that has gone
before. With the prevailing capitalist order aware that it is in trouble but unable to conceive of practicable alternatives,
ieks formless radicalism is ideally suited to a culture transfixed by the spectacle of its own fragility. That there should
be this isomorphism between ieks thinking and contemporary capitalism is not surprising. After all, it is only an
economy of the kind that exists today that could produce a thinker such as iek. The role of global public intellectual
iek performs has emerged along with a media apparatus and a culture of celebrity that are integral to the current model
of capitalist expansion.In a stupendous feat of intellectual overproduction
iek has created a fantasmatic critique of the present order, a
critique that claims to repudiate practically everything that currently
exists and in some sense actually does, but that at the same time
reproduces the compulsive, purposeless dynamism that he perceives in the
operations of capitalism. Achieving a deceptive substance by endlessly
reiterating an essentially empty vision, ieks worknicely
illustrating the principles of paraconsistent logic amounts in the
end to less than nothing .
Seriously, Zizek thinks the Holocaust is not only okay, but
didnt go far enough
Re 12 --- writer, philosopher and historian (Jonathan, Less Than Nothing by Slavoj iek
review, http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/jun/27/less-than-nothing-slavoj-zizek-review?
newsfeed=true)//trepka
iek refuses to indulge in sanctimonious regrets over the failings of 20th-century communism. He has always had a soft
spot for Stalin, and likes to tell the story of Uncle Joe's response when asked which of two deviations was worse: both of
iek's objection to Stalinism is not
them are worse, he said, with perfect Lacanian panache.
that it involved terror and mass murder, but that it sought to justify
them by reference to a happy communist tomorrow: the trouble with
Soviet communism, as he puts it, is "not that it is too immoral , but
that it is secretly too moral ". Hitler elicits similar even-handedness: the unfortunate Fhrer
was "trapped within the horizon of bourgeois society", iek says,
and the "true problem of nazism" was "not that it went too far but
that it did not go far enough".
Foucault
2ac F/L
infinite regression
State-based reform is good

2. The


No impact
Adding to the dangerousness of this logic of control, however, is that while there is a crisis of undecidability in the domain
despite
of life, it corresponds to a similar crisis at the level of law and the national state. It should be noted here that
the new forms of biopolitical control in operation today, Rose believes that
bio-politics has become generally less dangerous in recent times than even in the early
part of the last century. At that time, biopolitics was linked to the
project of the expanding national state in his opinion. In disciplinary-pastoral society, bio-
politics involved a process of social selection of those characteristics
thought useful to the nationalist project. Hence, according to Rose, "once each life has a
value which may be calculated, and some lives have less value than others, such a politics has the obligation to exercise
this judgement in the name of the race or the nation" (2001: 3). Disciplinary-pastoral biopolitics sets itself the task of
eliminating "differences coded as defects", and in pursuit of this goal the most horrible programs of eugenics, forced
sterilization, and outright extermination, were enacted (ibid.: 3). If Rose is more optimistic about bio-politics in 'advanced

heterogeneous, domain with a national culture, a national population, a national destiny, co-extensive with a national
territory and the powers of a national political government" no longer serves as premises of state policy (ibid.: 5). Drawing
the
on a sequential reading of Foucault's theory of the governmentalization of the state here, Rose claims that
territorial state, the primary institution of enclosure, has become
subject to fragmentation along a number of lines. National culture
has given way to cultural pluralism; national identity has been
overshadowed by a diverse cluster of identifications, many of them transcending
the national territory on which they take place, while the same pluralization has affected the once singular conception of
bio-political programmes of the
community (ibid.: 5). Under these conditions, Rose argues, the
molar enclosure known as the nation-state have fallen into disrepute
and have been all but abandoned.
The law is good and mitigates state coercion



Thus,


theappeals to Radical Revolution seem to have been sustained by the

advocate
The epistemological framework is incoherent its too

abstract to generate coalitions or create political
movements
Schwartz 8 [Joseph M., professor of political science at Temple, The Future of
Democratic Equality, p 59-60, google books]
A politics of radical democratic pluralism cannot be securely grounded

by a whole-hearted epistemological critique of enlightenment
rationality. For implicit to any radical democratic project is a belief in the
equal moral worth of persons ; to embrace such a position renders
one at least a critical defender of enlightenment values of equality and
justice, even if one rejects enlightenment metaphysics and believes that such values are often embraced by non-
Western cultures. Of course, democratic norms are developed by political
practice and struggle rather than by abstract philosophical

argument . But this is a sociological and historical reality rather than a trumping philosophical proof. Liberal
democratic publics rarely ground their politics in coherent ontologies
and epistemologies ; and even among trained philosophers there is no necessary
connection between ones metaphysics and ones politics . There have,
are, and will be Kantian conservatives (Nozick), liberals (Rawls), and radicals (Joshua
teleologists, left, center, and right (Michael Sandel, Alasdair McIntyre, or
Cohen; Sosuan Okin);
Leo Strauss); anti-universalist feminists (Judith Butler, Wendy Brown) and quasi-
universalist, Habermasian feminists (Seyla Benhabib, Nancy Fraser). Post-
structuralists try to read off from an epistemology or ontology a politics;
such attempts simply replace enlightenment meta-narratives with
postmodern (allegedly anti-) meta-narratives. Such efforts represent an
idealist version of the materialist effortwhich post-structuralists explicitly condemnto read social
consciousness off the structural position of the agent. A democratic political
theory must offer both a theory of social structure and of the social agents capable of building such a society. In
post-
exchanging the gods of Weber and Marx for Nietzsche and Heidegger (or their epigones Foucault and Derrida),
structuralist theory has abandoned the institutional analysis of

social theory for the idealism of abstract philosophy .
No global war impact their framing is too abstract

Chandler 9 [David, Professor of International Relations at the Department
of Politics and International Relations, University of Westminster, War Without
End(s): Grounding the Discourse of `Global War', Security Dialogue 2009; 40;
243]
the global war on terror reveals the
For many critical post-structuralist theorists,
essence of liberal modernity and fully reveals the limits of its
universalist ontology of peace and progress, where the reality of Kants perpetual
peace is revealed to be perpetual war (Reid, 2006: 18). Perhaps the most radical abstract framing of
global war is that of Giorgio Agamben. In his seminal work Homo Sacer, he reframed Foucaults
understanding of biopower in terms of the totalizing control over bare life, arguing that the exemplary places of modern
biopolitics [were] the concentration camp and the structure of the great totalitarian states of the twentieth century
(Agamben, 1998: 4; see also Chandler, 2009a). Agambens view of liberal power is that of the concentration camp writ
globally, where we are all merely objects of power, we are all virtually homines sacri (Agamben, 1998: 115). In focusing
critical theorists of
on biopower as a means of critiquing universalist policy discourses of global security,
global war from diverse fields such as security studies ( Jabri , 2007),
development (Duffield, 2007) or critical legal theory (Douzinas, 2007) are in
danger of reducing their critique of war to abstract statements
instrumentalizing war as a technique of global power. These are
abstract critiques because the political stakes are never in question :
instrumentality and the desire for regulation and control are
assumed from the outset. In effect, the critical aspect is merely in the reproduction of the framework
of Foucault that liberal discourses can be deconstructed as an exercise of regulatory power. Without deconstructing the
dominant framings of global security threats, critical theorists are in danger of reproducing Foucaults framework of
biopower as an ahistorical abstraction. Foucault (2007: 1) himself stated that his analysis of biopower was not in any way
a general theory of what power is. It is not a part or even the start of such a theory, merely the study of the effects of
liberal governance practices, which posit as their goal the interests of society the population rather than government.
In his recent attempt at a ground-clearing critique of Foucauldian international relations theorizing, Jan Selby (2007) poses
the question of the problem of the translation of Foucault from a domestic to an international context. He argues that
recasting the international sphere in terms of global liberal regimes of regulation is an accidental product of this move.
This fails to appreciate the fact that many critical theorists appear to be drawn to Foucault precisely because drawing on
his work enables them to critique the international order in these terms. Ironically, this Foucauldian critique of global
wars has little to do with Foucaults understanding or concerns, which revolved around extending Marxs critique of the
freedoms of liberal modernity. In effect, the post-Foucauldians have a different goal: they desire to understand and to
critique war and military intervention as a product of the regulatory coercive nature of liberalism. This project owes much
to the work of Agamben and his focus on the regulation of bare life, where the concentration camp, the totalitarian state
and (by extension) Guantnamo Bay are held to constitute a moral and political indictment of liberalism (Agamben, 1998:
In these critical frameworks, global war is understood as the
4).
exercise of global aspirations for control, no longer mediated by the
interstate competition that was central to traditional realist framings of international relations. This
less-mediated framework understands the interests and
instrumental techniques of power in global terms. As power
becomes understood in globalized terms , it becomes increasingly
abstracted from any analysis of contemporary social relations :
viewed in terms of neoliberal governance, liberal power or
biopolitical domination. In this context, global war becomes little
more than a metaphor for the operation of power. This war is a
global one because, without clearly demarcated political subjects, the unmediated
operation of regulatory power is held to construct a world that
becomes, literally, one large concentration camp (Agamben, 1998: 171)
where instrumental techniques of power can be exercised regardless of frameworks of rights or international law
(Agamben, 2005: 87). For Julian Reid (2006: 124), the global war on terror can be
understood as an inevitable response to any forms of life that exist
outside and are therefore threatening to liberal modernity ,
revealing liberal modernity itself to be ultimately a terrorising
project arraigned against the vitality of life itself. For Jabri , and other
Foucauldian critics, the liberal peace can only mean unending war to pacify,
discipline and reconstruct the liberal subject:
Residual bio-power precludes the power to kill solves the

impact
Ojakangus 5 (Mika, Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies , Impossible
Dialogue on Bio-power http://www.foucault-studies.com/no2/ojakangas1.pdf]
In fact, the history of modern Western societies would be quite incomprehensible without taking into account that there
exists a form o power which refrains from killing but which nevertheless is capable of directing peoples lives .
The
effectiveness of biopower can be seen lying precisely in that it refrains and withdraws before
every demand of killing, even though these demands would derive from the demand of justice. In
bio-political societies, according to Foucault, capital punishment could not be maintained except by
invoking less the enormity of the crime itself than the monstrosity of the criminal: One had the
right to kill those who represented a kind of biological danger to others. 112 However, given that the
right to kill is precisely a sovereign right, it can be argued that the biopolitical societies analyzed by Foucault were not
entirely bio-political. Perhaps, there neither has been nor can be a society that is entirely bio-political. Nevertheless, the
fact is that present-day European societies have abolished capital punishment. In them, there are no
longer exceptions. It is the very right to kill that has been called into question. However, it is not called into question
because of enlightened moral sentiments, but rather because of the deployment of bio-political thinking and practice. For
all these reasons, Agambens thesis, according to which [of] the concentration camp is the
fundamental bio-political paradigm of the West, has to be corrected.113 The bio-political
paradigm of the West is not the concentration camp, but, rather, the present-day welfare society
and, instead of homo sacer, the paradigmatic figure of the bio -political society can be seen, for
example, in the middle-class Swedish social democrat. Although this figure is an object and a product of
the huge bio-political machinery, it does not mean that he is permitted to kill without committing
homicide. Actually, the fact that he eventually dies, seems to be his greatest crime against the
machinery. (In bio-political societies, death is not only something to be hidden away, but, also, as Foucault stresses,
the most shameful thing of all.114) Therefore, he is not exposed to an unconditional threat of death, but
rather to an unconditional retreat of all dying. In fact, the bio-political machinery does not want to
threaten him, but to encourage him, with all its material and spiritual capacities, to live healthily, to live long
and to live happily even when, in biological terms, he should have been dead long ago.115 This is because bio-
power is not bloody power over bare life for its own sake but pure power over all life
for the sake of the living. It is not power but the living , the condition of all life individual as
well as collective that is the measure of the success of bio -power.
The thesis of the kritik takes out the alt. If the Panopticon
makes citizens desire surveillance, theres no way the alt
creates a sufficient discursive transformation. If it does,
theres no reason the alts strategy of discursive change
is incompatible with the plan. Their evidence uses
language like holding power accountable and says the
Snowden revelations were productive the plan does the
former and acts on the latter proves perm do both is the
best option.
Nunes 12 [Reclaiming the political: Emancipation and critique in security
studies, Joo Nunes, Security Dialogue 2012 43: 345,Politics and International
Studies, University of Warwick, UK, p. sage publications]
In the works of these authors, one can identify a tendency to see
security as inherently connected to exclusion, totalization and even
violence. The idea of a logic of security is now widely present in the critical security studies literature. Claudia Aradau (2008: 72), for example, writes of an
exclusionary logic of security underpinning and legitimizing forms of domination. Rens van Munster (2007: 239) assumes a logic of security, predicated upon a political
organization on the exclusionary basis of fear. Laura Shepherd (2008: 70) also identifies a liberal and highly problematic organizational logic in security. Although there
this logic is inescapable, it is symptomatic of an

would probably be disagreement over the degree to which
overwhelmingly pessimistic outlook that a great number of critical scholars are now making the case for moving away
from security. The normative preference for desecuritization has been picked up in attempts to contest, resist and unmake security (Aradau, 2004; Huysmans, 2006; Bigo,
2007). For these contributions, security cannot be reconstructed and political transformation can only be brought about when security and its logic are removed from the
This tendency in the literature is problematic for the critique of

equation (Aradau, 2008; Van Munster, 2009; Peoples, 2011).
security in at least three ways. First, it constitutes a blind spot in the effort of
politicization. The assumption of an exclusionary, totalizing or violent logic of security can be

seen as an essentialization and a moment of closure . To be faithful to itself, the politicization
of security would need to recognize that there is nothing natural or necessary about security and that security as a paradigm of thought or a register of meaning is also a
The exclusionary and violent meanings that

construction that depends upon its reproduction and performance through practice.
have been attached to security are themselves the result of social and
historical processes, and can thus be changed . Second, the
institution of this apolitical realm runs counter to the purposes of
critique by foreclosing an engagement with the different ways in
which security may be constructed. As Matt McDonald (2012) has argued, because security
means different things for different people, one must always understand
it in context . Assuming from the start that security implies the
narrowing of choice and the empowerment of an elite forecloses the
acknowledgment of security claims that may seek to achieve exactly
the opposite: alternative possibilities in an already narrow debate and the contestation
of elite power.5 In connection to this, the claims to insecurity put forward by individuals and groups run
the risk of being neglected if the desire to be more secure is
identified with a compulsion towards totalization, and if aspirations to
a life with a degree of predictability are identified with violence. Finally,
this tendency blunts critical security studies as a resource for
practical politics . By overlooking the possibility of reconsidering
security from within opting instead for its replacement with other ideals the
critical field weakens its capacity to confront head-on the
exceptionalist connotations that security has acquired in
policymaking circles. Critical scholars run the risk of playing into this
agenda when they tie security to exclusionary and violent practices, thereby
failing to question security actors as they take those views for
granted and act as if they were inevitable. Overall, security is just too important both as a concept and as a
political instrument to be simply abandoned by critical scholars. As McDonald (2012: 163) has put it, If security is politically powerful, is the foundation of political
legitimacy for a range of actors, and involves the articulation of our core values and the means of their protection, we cannot afford to allow dominant discourses of
security to be confused with the essence of security itself. In sum, the trajectory that critical security studies has taken in recent years
has significant limitations . The politicization of security has made extraordinary progress in problematizing predominant security
ideas and practices; however, it has paradoxically resulted in a depoliticization of the meaning of security itself. By foreclosing the
possibility of alternative notions of security, this imbalanced

politicization weakens the analytical capacity of critical security
studies, undermines its ability to function as a political resource and
runs the risk of being politically counterproductive . Seeking to address these limitations, the
next section revisits emancipatory understandings of security.
1ar EXT Link Turn
The idea of citizenship of legal and rhetorical ploy to
exclude undesirable populations this maintains
genocidal policies based on different identities
Magal 10-.(Muri Magal is a lecturer at the University of California in San
Diego and focuses on US-Mexico Border) Enforcing Boundaries:
Globalization, State Power and the Geography of Cross-border Consumption
in Tijuana, Mexico UCSD Dissertation, UMI and ProQuest publishing p. 39-41
2010 //droneofark
In Laureanas case, as in many others, the issue of obtaining entry documents to the United States goes
beyond the simple act of fulfilling the requirements of affluence to qualify, which can be a challenge itself.
There needs to be a clear status of citizenship, all paperwork needs
to be updated, so that it is possible to keep a statistical record of
people that allows administrators to track, classify, and register.
This, in essence, is how this disciplinary grid operates among Tijuana
residents and I will discuss it in further detail as I move on in this chapter. In Foucaults words:
Whereas the juridical systems define juridical subjects according to
universal norms, the disciplines characterize, classify, specialize:
they distribute along a scale and, if necessary, disqualify and
invalidate (Foucault, 1977, p.223). Along with the physical enforcement of
the border that I previously described, these technologies of control help
establish a semi-permeable border that creates new channels of
inequality in an already deeply divided world (Wonders, 2006, p.74). For the
purposes of this work, facts and perceptions are equally relevant. Ultimately, it is up to the discretion of
consular agents to grant or deny a visa. The version is always the same: the applicant needs to prove that
he or she has a credible reason to return after a visit to the United States. However, this guideline is
subject to endless interpretations, and many, like Laureana, just fall into the gutters, despite the fact that
it is relevant to
she has lived in Tijuana her whole life and has no intention to change that. In this,
point out Toni Payans reflections about narco-juniors, the children
of drug traffickers who often spend their parents money in the
United States: () the children of the large drug traffickers do study
and travel extensively throughout the United States. They attend colleges
and universities and shop at the most expensive malls in large U.S. cities. They drive luxurious cars and
None of them seem to have trouble obtaining visas to
spend money lavishly.
enter the United States. This is partly because the fact that a visa-
issuing process in American consulates in Mexico place an inordinate
importance on the number of zeros that the bank account of the visa
applicant has. It is nearly sufficient to show a bulky bank account to
obtain a visa to travel and study in the United States (Payan, 2006, p.48).
Regardless of the accuracy of this argument one could always say that there is no evidence of this-
what is relevant for the purposes of this paper is to discuss the perceptions among Tijuana residents about
the real versus the official criteria that are used in the visa granting process. During my conversations with
Laureana, she at some point assessed her chances for replacing her visa. Her business might pose a
problem, her bank account was not in the greatest shapebut who knows, after all, she said no estoy tan
prieta (I am not so dark skinned). This last comment reminded me of my white-skinned neighbor of
European descent, who obtained a visa without much trouble. Interestingly, her husbands co-workers
remarks
comments all gravitated along the lines of can you believe how racist they are? Their
made me think about how this system of standards to regulate
peoples mobility, designed so many miles away from the border
itself, is interpreted and translated on the southern side of the fence
as one of exclusion, based on traditional categories of class and
race, with an impact, like in these cases, on the way people see
themselves and others.
Liberation of cross-border movements are key it is the

ultimate defiance to be identified
2010 //droneofark
The denaturalization of cross-border movement not only applies to
Mexicans, as U.S. Citizens are gradually incorporated into this
process. In compliance with the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, U.S.
authorities have been announcing they will require their citizens to show a passport upon crossing through
the ports of entry. They have postponed the measure on several occasions, but are educating people
So far, oral declarations of citizenship
about the need to obtain this travel document.
are no longer acceptable, and everybody needs to provide a proof of
citizenship, with a birth certificate or a government issued ID. The new
deadline to obtain a visa was June of 2009, and the U.S. Consulate in Tijuana has already seen an increase
in visa daily applications from 20 to 35 or more (Snchez, 2008 ).
Very soon, these new
documents will also be equipped with biometric technologies, in this
case a chip, with data about each individual. At the U.S.-Mexico
border, both visas and passports are devices that enable the State to
exert the legitimate monopoly of movement over citizens of both
countries. As I have shown here, such control relies on the capacity to
identify people, determine their legal relationship with the and
adjudicate, accordingly, the spatial attributions of each individual.
At the border, these documents are serving the purpose of ID cards,
which have been historically opposed in the United States for the
challenges they pose for democracy (Lyon, 2005). Identification ultimately
eases the management and policing of the border, which in the
words of David Lyon, turns out to facilitate extensive social,
economic and political categorization within emerging processes of
control and governance (Lyon, 2005, p.67).
Surveillance technology profiles migrants and reduces

their identity to sets of data this form of population
control inevitable results in disproportionate violence
against minorities
2010 //droneofark
On a more pragmatic level, the use of technologies such as biometrics and
inter-linked information technology data bases became instrumental
to identify problematic entrants either persons or cargo (e.g., terrorists
and their weapons) while at the same time facilitating the quick entry of
legitimate goods and travelers (Ackleson, 2003, p.57). Generally speaking,
biometrics is a digital representation of physiological features
unique to an individual (Wilson, 1998, p.90), such as face, fingerprints, hand geometry, and
retinal and voice features (Ackleson, 2003, p.66). With biometrics the body itself
becomes a source of information about an individual (Muller, 2005, p.99). It is
used to test true claims, and to measure possible deviations from
the norm (Lewis, 2005, p.100). Usually, biometric technology is linked to
data bases that store information about individuals and that can be
accessed by more than one agency. This is the case, for instance, of US-VISIT, a system
that screens all foreign visitors to the United States, which is now available at U.S. consular offices
overseas, airports and some ports of entry, including San Ysidro and Otay Mesa. Upon arrival, people go
through digital finger scans and photographs that are collected and checked against a general database.
There are also technologies developed first in a military context that when applied at the border often
blend into the everyday crossing of people. For instance, 193 alarms are triggered when a person who has
gone through radiation cancer treatments approaches the gate. As a contaminated vehicle positions
itself next to the inspection booth, sensors send a signal to the inspectors computer screen, who in turn
asks the crosser if he or she has undergone any treatment that involves radiation or contrast imagery. The
vehicle is then sent to secondary inspection where it is searched. In these cases, people are prompted to
carry with them evidence of a surgery, and show it to agents upon crossing. The ports of entry also have
installed tracking mechanisms to collect data on vehicles and people entering and leaving the country. For
this purpose, license plates readers were installed on both directions, to help determine patterns of
Evidence on individuals crossing in a given
movement among border crossers.
direction at a specific hour can help indicate a violation of U.S. law.
For example, the movement of a U.S. permanent resident, who lives in Tijuana but works in San Diego, is
tracked at the moment of crossing northwards every morning, putting the person at risk of losing this
status. Likewise, a Mexican citizen with a tourist card, who regularly crosses to San Diego at a specific
As a
time, may be detected as someone who is working without authorization in the United States.
result there is, in Tijuana, an endless repertory of rumors about people
who are confronted with photographs and other evidence that
indicate some sort of violation when applying for U.S. citizenship,
visas or any other sort of document. I have mentioned before that the hybrid
character of borderlanders and the fact that many combine features
of identity from both countries, made it difficult at the port of entry
to make distinctions among them. I have also noted that this
inevitably 194 challenges the ability of States to identify persons of
their own from others (Torpey, 2000, p.2). Along these lines, it is remarkable
that, even if dual citizenship has been tolerated in the case of other
nationalities, the issue became subject of close scrutiny in a Hearing
before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, in
September of 2005. Making explicit reference to Mexico, dual
citizenship was addressed during this debate in terms of the
concerns foreign attachments caused to national security (Dual
Citizenship, 2005, pp.1-5). According to the report, dual citizenship brings a foreign dimension to
membership in a political community, mostly because of the issue of voting, the bonding implications, and
the conflict of interests it entails. In other words, dual citizenship hinders the possibility to establish a
difference between us and them, making it necessary to introduce a classification system, or
taxonomy that helps make and enforce these distinctions.
Biometric identity categorization is not neutral it

reinforces stereotypical notions of the Other
2010 //droneofark
In their book about the power of classification, Leigh Starr and Geoffrey Bowker described a taxonomy that
during decades divided people in South Africa according to their racial features. Thesetaxonomies,
they say, are little machines for classifying and separating categories
(Starr and Bowker, 1999, p.202). In a similar fashion to the case examined by these authors , behind
the technologies and infrastructures put together to secure control
of the border, there is in fact a taxonomy, or a classificatory system,
to make sure that everybody stays where they belong, according
to standards adjudicated by U.S. law that are contingent on place of
birth, citizenship or legal status. After all, classification systems are, say
Starr and Bowker, integral to every working infrastructure (Starr and Bowker, 1999).
In this fashion, biometric technologies effectively provide the full picture
of a crossers biography, not 195 precisely in terms of race, but in relation to their
location in the spectrum of national law. As I will discuss below, these
systems have helped impose a hierarchical order upon border
societies that are substantiated by various modalities of movement .
In sum, I have argued so far that the urge to classify borderlanders has led to the use of biometric
technologies, because they provide the State with the technical tools to read off the body, crucial in the
task of controlling movement, which is considered to be one of the rationalities of government (Burchel,
these technologies enhance the
Gordon and Miller, 1991, p.3). Moreover,
disciplinary power of the State by facilitating the individual
identification of border crossers, which in turn helps determine
spatial attributions according to the rank or place a person occupies
in this classification (Foucault, 1977, p.145). The effectiveness of the Smart
Borders infrastructure to prevent acts of terrorism remains unclear.
However, it has revealed an enormous rhetorical and symbolic appeal
(Ackleson, 2003, p.70) that is comparable to the symbolic uses of border
enforcement described by Andreas. On the one hand, he notes, technology is a
symbol of what is a significant part of the larger modern narrative
of faith and progress through innovation () (Ackleson, 2003, p.70). On the other
hand, cutting edge technology has become an expression of State
power, and its ability to control cross-border movement. Yet, the
impact of this for border communities goes with no doubt beyond
the symbolic, as it has instrumented a new regime of exclusion that
is substantiated in the selectivity of the border. As I will explain below, this
regime relies upon the constant surveillance of every individual that
crosses the border. People who cross the border through the ports of
entry do so for a variety of reasons, in many cases as part of a daily
routine as they attend school, work or shop. While doing so, some
actually violate the spatial attributions conceded to them by law.
Some do not. However, in order to discern violators from potential
terrorists, and criminals from everyday crossers, there is an
increasing standardization of procedures that blur the boundaries
between threatening activities and practices of everyday life . This is
what happens, for instance, to students. After September 11, people who at some point have attended a
higher education institution are subject to intensive screening. At the border, it now seems to be standard
procedure that, at least once, they are sent to secondary inspection. Having to comply with this
requirement myself, I by chance had to witness the violent arrest of the people who were standing before
me in line. When my turn came, the agents were breaking in SAVIS, a new system to identify students and
former students that was designed after September 11, and my name was run against that data base.
After answering a few questions that gradually moved from an accusatory tone to a routine compliance
procedure, I was kindly dismissed. Still shaken by the arrest, I wondered why people like me, who was at
the moment on my way to Sea World, had to be exposed to those incidents. Why was there not a different
facility for potential criminals or terrorists? I then realized that, for the limited time I had spent in
secondary inspection, I myself had become a suspect, a potential threat to national security.
Border surveillance is a tool of management more than it

is one of defense
2010 //droneofark
Like me, many residents of Tijuana learned the hard way that their everyday habit of crossing the border
Every person 197 who goes through the
has indeed become a suspicious activity.
port of entry seems to now be considered guilty until she or he
demonstrates her or himself to be innocent (Payan, 2006, p.110). The
securitization of the agenda and the technologies of control (both
physical and discursive) that have been implemented to restrict and regulate
border crossings, have in fact invested everyday life at the border
with a connotation of illegality , which justifies the close monitoring
of all individuals, without distinction . Accordingly, everyday life at the
border has become in itself potentially threatening and therefore an
object of constant vigilance . This approach has prompted scholars
like Toni Payan to compare the U.S. border with a foucauldian
panopticon (Payan, 2006, p.115). As Foucault said, forms of punishment and
surveillance were destined more than to rehabilitate prisoners, to
exercise the power of the State to control society. This is taking
place at the ports of entry that connect San Diego and Tijuana, not only among
those members of society that live within U.S. borders but on those
who reside beyond them as well, and not only with those targeted or
prosecuted by the law, but with every border crosser . It is through these
mechanisms that territoriality beyond borders is exerted. The panopticon border of the
twenty first century is therefore outlining a scenario where
everyone is under surveillance at all times, where everyone is
tracked in every move, where everyone can be brought under the
swift control of the government (Payan, 2006, p.114). I had never seen myself as a
potential threat before. This new identity, temporarily imposed on me during my stay at
secondary inspection, has rapidly permeated public discourse in the United
States, producing a deep cleavage between 198 the way people living
in Mexican border cities see themselves, and the way they are seen
on the other side. This gap contributes to strengthen boundaries
and perceptions of otherness between those living in the north
and south of the fence, as well as within each of the two sides . In the
last part of this chapter, I will explain in further detail how such boundaries blend in to the local universe of
identities shared by those living in Tijuana. Finally, in the next chapter, I will discuss how these identities
travel south of the border and are translated and adopted in social relations, as they become part of the
everyday lives of local residents.
Territorial segregation reinforce social differences

misconstrued identities can only lash out
2010 //droneofark
In other places of the world, the relationship between territorial and national
identity has sometimes taken space-free forms, nurtured by
Diasporas and national communities that are not territorially bound
(See for instance Fitzgerald, 2002 and 2000). Instead, as I have shown, territory in the Tijuana-San
Diego border is being used as an agent of control, spatial ordering, and
social sorting (Salter, 2005, p.43, Lyon, 2005, p.67 and Lewis, 2005, p.101). It is indeed an
intrinsic element in a classification system that relies on continued
territorial compartmentalization and separation (Pratt and Brown, 2000, p.24).
Such a system relies on mechanisms of control through which
identity is socially constructed and imposed upon constituents (Pratt
and Brown, 2000, p.24). Spatial scale is an important dimension in the
understanding of territorial identities. Just as the individual belongs
to diverse social and economic groups, so too does the individua l live
and function within a number of overlapping spaces within which
different identities take on concrete expressions, and are
demarcated by boundaries which may be more or less permeable (Pratt
and Brown, 2000, p.29.) As I will discuss extensively in the remaining sections of this dissertation,
identities in Tijuana are influenced by different constructions of space, in which peoples mobility play a
there is a growing territorial segregation (Pratt and Brown,
part. In other words,
that enforces and reflects social differences, since for as
2000, p.29),
long as the segregated functions of social and economic groups
remain in place, they will always take place within some form of
nested territorial hierarchy (Pratt and Brown, 2000, p.29). After all, boundary
maintenance goes hand in hand with efforts to reproduce
inequalities across space (Nevins, 2002, p.186). In Tijuana-San Diego the infrastructures and
technologies I have described here come hand in hand with a more subtle architecture of difference that
touches upon peoples identity and the way they are seen and see others, which determines and is
determined by their circulation across space. In Nevins words, the making of the boundary in the area of
San Diego and Tijuana was not merely a process of building up in a physical sense. Just as on the national
scales, it was needed to construct social boundaries between those who belong and those who did not.
Along with the intensification of boundary enforcement, there is a
reification both in the physical and ideological senses of the U.S.-
Mexico border over time (Nevins, 2002, p.92). These developments are a
manifestation of a shift from the divide being a border or a zone of
transition within which there is a common culture, to a boundary
that represents a linear demarcation between us and them both
territorially and socially (Nevins, 2002, p.93). As a result, the border has
turned into a boundary, which represents an increasing emphasis on
difference (Nevins, 2002, p.158). In Tijuana, such difference is, in fact, materialized in the capacity or
incapacity to move, which authors like Zygmunt Bauman believe has become the dominant new form of
social stratification in the global scene, and a powerful mediator of social inclusion and exclusion (Bauman
The territorial demarcation of us and them
in Pickering and Weber, 2006, p.7).
that Nevins addresses, exemplifies the fact that globally, the
opportunities of global mobility are not opening up equally to all the
occupants of the planet (Pickering and Weber, 2006, p.7). These processes are
producing an immobilized global underclass (Pickering and Weber, 2006, p.8).
The idea that transnational mobility is smooth, painless and almost
instantaneous (Urry in Pickering and Weber) that became so common during the first wave of
globalization scholarship, is now being subject to careful consideration, as
inequalities of access become more and more pervasive. In fact,
some authors even argue that the transnational mobility of some is
achieved at the cost of the relative immobility or entrapment of
others producing what they call a global apartheid (see Rogers in Pickering and
Weber, 2006, pp.7-9.) This has fostered binary distinctions that affect both
people and places. Such binaries are created by the state and
reinforced by capital, and they manifest themselves through the
creation of environments for consumption, regulation of some
minorities, the promotion of family and the policing of national
boundaries (Sibley, 2001, p.247.) In Tijuana-San Diego, they illustrate the great impact of State
power over peoples daily life, as the space in which they conduct their daily business is partitioned in half.
Intrinsic activities of everyday life, like consumption, become a function of the classificatory systems I have
described in this chapter, according to which each individual fits differently. To visit friends, shop, go to
school, work, are part of a list that is divided into those activities that are allowed to some, but not others.
This is why, along with the question of where were you born, another favorite mode of interrogation at
the port of entry is A qu va? (What is the purpose of your trip?) But, what is the logic behind the
differences between those who enjoy the freedom of transnational mobility and those who are denied
access? In her article about tourists and migrants, Nancy Wonders talks about how systems of access have
been crafted around the world to facilitate the mobility of tourists while seriously hindering the transit of
the popular mind constructs migrants as individuals
migrants. In her view,
who are disproportionately poor, economically needy, dark-skinned,
from the global south, and increasingly female. Tourists, as
counterparts, are expected to be wealthy, white, from Europe or
other western countries, and predominantly male (Wonders, 2006, p.75). In
her words: Whether trying to keep people out or helping them come in,
border officials must rely heavily on strategies like race and class
profiling, and individualized conceptions of risk and harm when
doing their jobs. Where these policies are not officially sanctioned,
the impetus for such profiling remains strong (Wonders 2006, p.80). If Wonders
distinction does not necessarily operate in full at the U.S.-Mexico border, where gender, race and class are
bundled in more subtle, complex and intricate ways ,
it is clear that at the logic of the
selective border has made what Soja called the lure of binarism a
lot stronger, as well as the practice of sorting and dividing people
into simplified categories becomes more evident (Soja quoted in Sibley, 2001,
p.247). There is, in fact, a binary system of differentiation at the U.S.-
Mexico border that goes along the lines of Wonders demarcation
between tourists and migrants: the distinction between consumers
and workers.
1ar AT Affect
Affect is useless for politics
Schrimshaw 12 [Will Schrimshaw, Ph.D. in Philosophy and Architecture at
Newcastle University, is an artist and researcher from Wakefield based in
Liverpool. January 28th, 2012, "Affective Politics and
Exteriority"willschrimshaw.net/subtractions/affective-politics-and-
exteriority/#]
The affective turn in recent politics thereby becomes auto-affective and in
remaining bound to an individuals feelings and emotions undermines
the possibility of its breaking out into collective action and
mobilisation . Yet, referring back to Fishers article, it is where this affective orientation is inscribed into
the social circuits of musical use and sonorous production that it perhaps
begins to break out of the ideology of individualism through tapping into a
transpersonal or `machinic dimension of affective signals that never find a
voice yet remain expressive and hopefully inch towards efficacy. What is important to
express here is that much of this affective content is inscribed in the use of music as
much as its composition. As little of the Grime and Dancehall that Fisher and Dan Hancox catalogued towards a playlist of the riots and
uprisings expresses in explicitly linguistic and lyrical content the sentiments of political activism, it is in the use of music and sound as a carrier of affects at the point of
Where music is deployed as a more affective than

both playback and composition that its importance lies.2
symbolic force in resistance, its significance becomes obscure and

ambiguous from the perspective and expectations of symbolic coherence.
This noted lack of coherence and communicable message marks , as Fisher points out, a
certain exhaustion of recognised channels of musical resistance : the
protest song seems worn out, lacklustre, its own disempowerment, apparent
obsolescence and displacement in pop culture a symptom compounding
the apathy and estrangement that has characterised much of the still fairly
recent discourse on youth and `political engagement.
Anxiety affects are good

fear is a predominant affective formation in the political present ,
Finally, if
affect does not efface fear, but instead, inflects fear

how can hope and fear be oriented together? Utopian-
differently than hitherto. Restructuring or depathologizing fear-affects involves work on the sensory organization of all the different kinds of matter that
affect agential capacity: affect circulates through various encounters of worldly matter and stuff through which subject finds itself manifest within. One way of restructuring
fear-affect, then, is by intervening in the feedback loops through which fear is stabilized. This might involve turning the technologies that are central to the production of
fear against themselves: when protesters use surveillance technologies against police, for instance, the feedback loops that those technologies sustain are interrupted,
Fear need not be

and the hegemonies they secure are disrupted, rendered capricious, variable, and open to intervention.
ubiquitous, and visceral experimentation with our everyday

sensorium can have effects upon the 'tone' of the age. Negri is, after all, right: hope
is an 'an antidote to ... fear,' (Brown et al, 2002: 200); but only insofar as the antidote (hope) is made out of the same matter as
the poison (fear). This illustrates the larger point that the future needs to be made out of matter that
is available in the present, out of the same crises, but with different trajectories: it is from the matter of this world that the future is
made. Utopian-affect , then, is made out of both hope and fear , and while
fear might be restructured, it cannot be effaced, for the fear of

utopian-affect also inheres in the encounter with the world itself, in
the struggle, and in the uncertainty of the emergent. As Duggan puts it, 'there is
fear attached to hope -- hope understood as a risky reaching out for
something else that will fail,' (Duggan and Muoz, 2009: 279). Fear and anxiety, rather
than opposing utopian hope, are vital, necessary to its critical
agency, as that agency works through immanent historical
processes that remain open and undetermined .
1ar EXT Alt Fails
The kritik destroys reforms and doesnt solve its
contained in its insular academic sphere
Smith 8 [Nick, University of New Hampshire Department of Philosophy,
Questions for a Reluctant Jurisprudence of Alterity,
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~nicks/pdf/Levinas%20and%20Law%20Questions
%20for%20a%20Reluctant%20Jurisprudence.pdf]
These are sobering questions for me. I find the challenges that Levinas and Adorno pose to modernity and the history of
philosophy quite powerful, yet their resistance to practical philosophy is deeply frustrating. Surely not all philosophers
must satisfy our desire to put philosophy to use, but Levinas and Adorno seem to have relinquished their ability to judge
legal and political activity. This seems far from an apolitical, pre-political, or meta-political position. I cannot help but think
that no politics is bad politicspolitics stripped of evaluative thought.
This worries Fraser as well because such a position is tantamount to surrendering
any possibility of distinguishing emancipatory and oppressive
identity claims, benign and pernicious differences. Thus,
deconstructive antiessentialists evade political questions of the day :
Which identity claims are rooted in the defense of social relations of inequality and domination? And which are rooted in a
challenge to such relations? Which identity claims carry the potential to expand actually existing democracy? And which,
in contrast, work against democratization? Which differences, finally, should a democratic society seek to foster, and
which, on the contrary, should it aim to abolish?48 Although we are not now in a position to envision a full-scale
successor to socialism,Fraser encourages us to try nevertheless to conceive
provisional alternatives to the present order that could supply a
basis for a progressive politics.49 There may be no leftist utopia, and all campaigns claiming
otherwise should be treated with deep suspicion. We will not overcome identity thinking in
grand political reformations, but we can fight it in the minutiae of
each conflict, policy, and practice. Laws do identify and categorize,
but they do not all do so with equal violence and disregard for
particularity. Levinas and Adorno, however, deny us any means of drawing comfortable distinctions between the
justifiable and unjustifiable. Given the current state of law and politics, the prospects of achieving reform through non-
Even if we couldagainst Levinas and Adornos spiritactivate a
identity thinking seem quite grim.
coherent program of reform around theories of alterity, I doubt they could
match the powers promoting their antithesis. Prevailing
instrumental institutions gain momentum and crush or integrate
theories of alterity, and the strategy of abstaining from political life in order to preserve the protest against
instrumentality seems more desperate than ever. Our objective should not merely be to use thought to remember the
nonidentical, but rather to safeguard the thought of the non-identical while acting to release it from blind domination.
Without both a practical orientation toward transforming material
conditions and a tolerance for the organizational categories
necessary to implement such reform, deconstruction and critical
theory seem severed from their radical traditions. Pretending that
these critiques provide a form of resistance when they live
harmlessly in their academic niche only reinforces the status quo. As
Adorno and Marx recognized, reason struggles to navigate a course that gives it effect in the concrete world without
sacrificing it to the instrumentalities of that world. I like to think that law is an ally in this project, but I now wonder if there
Any attempt to discover legal praxis in
is any practical upshot for a jurisprudence of alterity.
Levinas and Adorno will traverse such heights that the reformer, if
not forced to turn back, will ultimately find herself in air so
theoretically rarified that one might doubt if any community could
survive at its altitude. From this perspective, a jurisprudence of alterity seems most relevant as a
regulative ideal for all legal activity. Yet for those of us inclined to seek guidance for law in Levinas or Adorno because we
are moved by the threats of authoritarianism and consumerism, we find ourselves on strangely familiar ground as we
stand on this summit.Though separated by miles of conceptual elevation, we
arrive at the familiar practical values recognized by the traditions
we seek to overcome: dignity, respect, difference, non-violence,
dialogue, participation, etc. Did we find these practical principles at the height of Levinas and Adornos works, or
did we bring them with us interpretive biases? It seems odd, for instance, to rely on a
radical critique of Western metaphysics to support rather pedestrian
arguments against racial profiling, capital punishment, violations of
human rights, or the recent wars in Iraq. We can make such
arguments with much less controversial premises, and hence I am suspicious of
myself. Am I, as Adorno accused Lukcs, guilty of smuggl[ing] back the most pitiful clichs of the conformism to which
the critique had once been directed?50 Can law ever be more than such a clich?
It fractures coalitions
Karlberg 3 [Michael, Assistant Professor of Communication at Western
Washington University, PEACE & CHANGE, v28, n3, July, p. 339-41]
Granted, social activists do "win" occasional battles in these
adversarial arenas, but the root causes of their concerns largely
remain unaddressed and the larger "wars" arguably are not going
well. Consider the case of environmental activism. Countless environmental protests, lobbies, and lawsuits mounted in
recent generations throughout the Western world. Many small victories have been won. Yet
environmental degradation continues to accelerate at a rate that far outpaces the
highly circumscribed advances made in these limited battles the most committed environmentalists acknowledge things
adversarial strategies of social change embody

are not going well. In addition,
assumptions that have internal consequences for social movements,

such as internal factionalization. For instance, virtually all of the social projects of the "left
throughout the 20th century have suffered from recurrent internal factionalization. The opening decades of the century
were marked by political infighting among vanguard communist revolutionaries. The middle decades of the century were
marked by theoretical disputes among leftist intellectuals. The century's closing decades have been marked by the
Underlying this pattern
fracturing of the a new left** under the centrifugal pressures of identity politics.
of infighting and factionalization is the tendency to interpret differences of class, race,
gender, perspective, or strategyas sources of antagonism and conflict. In this regard,
the political "left" and "right" both define themselves in terms at a

common adversarythe "other"defined by political differences. Not
surprisingly, advocates of both the left and right frequently invoke
the need for internal unity in order to prevail over their adversaries
on the other side of the alleged political spectrum. However, because the terms left and
right axe both artificial and reified categories that do not reflect the complexity of actual social
relations, values, or beliefs, there is no way to achieve lasting unity within either camp
because there are no actual boundaries between them. In reality, social relations, values,
and beliefs are infinitely complex and variable. Yet once an adversarial posture is
adopted by assuming that differences are sources at conflict, initial distinctions between the left and the right inevitably
are followed by subsequent distinctions within the left and the right. Once this centrifugal process is set in motion, it is
adversarial strategies have
difficult, if not impossible, to restrain. For all of these reasons,
reached a point of diminishing returns even if such strategies were
necessary and viable in the past when human populations were less
socially and ecologically interdependent those conditions no longer
exist. Our reproductive and technological success as a species has led
to conditions of unprecedented interdependence , and no group on
the planet is isolated any longer. Under these new conditions, new
strategies not only are possible but are essential. Humanity has become a single
interdependent social body. In order to meet the complex social and environmental challenges now facng us, we
must learn to coordinate our collective actions. Yet a body cannot coordinate its
actions as long as its "left" and is "right," or its "north" and its "south," or its "east" and its "west" are locked in adversarial
relationships.
Feminims
--General
-Perm
Perm do both
Higgins 13, University of Texas-Austin, Philosophy Professor, Winter 2013,
Post-Truth Pluralism: The Unlikely Political Wisdom of Friedrich Nietzche,
Kindle
Progressives are right that we live increasingly in a post-truth era, but
rather than rejecting it and pining nostalgically for a return to a more truthful time, we should learn to
better navigate it. Where the New York Times and Walter Cronkite were once viewed as arbiters of public truths,
today the Times competes with the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News with FOX News and MSNBC, in describing reality.
The diversity of
The Internet multiplies the perspectives and truths available for public consumption.
viewpoints opened up by new media is not going away and is likely to intensify.
This diversity of interpretations of reality is part of a longstanding trend. Democracy and
modernization have brought a proliferation of worldviews and
declining authority of traditional institutions to meanings . Citizens
have more freedom to create new interpretations of facts. This
proliferation of viewpoints makes the challenge of democratically
addressing contemporary problems more complex. One consequence
of all this is that our problems become more wicked and more
subject to conflicting meanings and agendas. We cant agree on the
nature of problems or their solutions because of fundamentally
unbridgeable values and worldviews . In attempting to reduce
political disagreement to black and white categories of fact and fiction,
progressives themselves uniquely ill-equipped to address our
current difficulties, or to advance liberal values in the culture. A new progressive
politics should have a different understanding of the truth than the one suggested by
the critics of conservative dishonesty. We should understand that human beings
make meaning and apprehend truth from radically different
standpoints and worldviews, and that our great wealth and freedom will likely lead to more, not
fewer, disagreements about the world. Nietzsche was no democrat, but the pluralism
he offers can be encouragement to todays political class , as well as the rest
of us, to become more self-aware of, and honest about, how our standpoint, values, and
power affect our determinations of what is true and what is false . In the post-
truth era, we should be able to articulate not one but many different
perspectives. Progressives seeking to govern and change society

cannot be free of bias, interests, and passions, but they should strive to be
aware of them so that they can adopt different eyes to see the world
from the standpoint of their fiercest opponents. Taking multiple
perspectives into account might alert us to more sites of possible
intervention and prime us for creative formulations of alternative
possibilities for concerted responses to our problems. Our era, in short,
need not be an obstacle to taking common action. We might see
todays divided expert class and fractions public not as temporary problems to
be solved by more reason, science, and truth, but rather as permanent features of our
developed democracy. We might even see this proliferation of belief
systems and worldviews as an opportunity for human development .
We can agree to disagree and still engage in pragmatic action in the
World.
AT Root Cause
Patriarchys not the root cause
Bell 6 (Duncan, senior lecturer Department of Politics and International
Studies @ Cambridge University, Beware of false prophets: biology, human
nature and the future of International Relations theory, International Affairs
82, 3 p. 493510)
Fukuyama, tireless promulgator of the end of history and now a member of the
Writing in Foreign Aff airs in 1998, Francis
Presidents Council on Bioethics, employed EP reasoning to argue for the central role in world
politics of masculine values, which are rooted in biology. His argument starts with the claim that male and
female chimps display asymmetric behaviour, with the males far more prone to violence and domination. Female chimps have relationships;
male chimps practice realpolitik. Moreover, the line from chimp to modern man is continuous and this has signifi cant consequences for
He argues that the world can be divided into two

international politics.46
spheres, an increasingly peaceful and cooperative feminized zone,

centred on the advanced democracies, and the brutal world outside this insulated space, where the stark realities
of power politics remain largely masculine. This bifurcation heralds dangers, as masculine policies are essential in
dealing with a masculine world: In anything but a totally feminized world, feminized policies could be a liability. Fukuyama concludes the
essay with the assertion that the form of politics best suited to human nature issurprise, surprisefree-market capitalist democracy, and
that other political forms, especially those promoted by feminists and socialists, do not correspond with our biological inheritance.47 Once
again the authority of science is invoked in order to naturalize a particular

political objective. This is a pattern that has been repeated across the history
of modern biology and remains potent to this day.48 It is worth noting in brief that
Fukuyamas argument is badly flawed even in its own terms. As anthropologist R.
Brian Ferguson states, Fukuyamas claims about the animal world
display a breathtaking leap over a mountain of contrary evidence .49

Furthermore, Joshua Goldstein concludes in the most detailed analysis of the
data on war and gender that although biological differences do play

a minor role, focusing so heavily on them is profoundly misleading.50 The
simplistic claims, crude stereotyping and casual use of evidence that
characterize Fukuyamas essay unfortunately recur throughout the growing literature on the biology of
international politics.
Relationships are complex and multiple types of feminism

disproves their argument
Crenshaw 2 (Carrie, PhD, Perspectives In Controversy: Selected Articles
from CAD, Scholar)
Feminism is not dead. It is alive and well in intercollegiate debate. Increasingly, students rely on feminist
authors to inform their analysis of resolutions. While I applaud these initial efforts to explore feminist thought, I am concerned that
such arguments only exemplify the general absence of sound causal reasoning in
debate rounds. Poor causal reasoning results from a debate practice that privileges empirical proof over rhetorical proof, fostering ignorance of
debate arguments about feminists

the subject matter being debated. To illustrate my point, I claim that
suffer from a reductionism that tends to marginalize the voices of significant feminist authors.
David Zarefsky made a persuasive case for the value of causal reasoning in intercollegiate debate as far back as 1979. He argued that
causal arguments are desirable for four reasons. First, causal analysis
increases the control of the arguer over events by promoting understanding of
them. Second, the use of causal reasoning increases rigor of analysis and fairness in the
decision-making process. Third, causal arguments promote understanding of the
philosophical paradox that presumably good people tolerate the existence of

evil. Finally, causal reasoning supplies good reasons for "commitments to policy
choices or to systems of belief which transcend whim, caprice, or the non-
reflexive "claims of immediacy" (117-9). Rhetorical proof plays an important role in the analysis of causal
relationships. This is true despite the common assumption that the identification of cause and effect relies solely upon empirical investigation.
For Zarefsky, there are three types of causal reasoning. The first type of causal reasoning describes the application of a covering law to
account for physical or material conditions that cause a resulting event This type of causal reasoning requires empirical proof prominent in
scientific investigation. A second type of causal reasoning requires the assignment of responsibility. Responsible human beings as agents
cause certain events to happen; that is, causation resides in human beings (107-08). A third type of causal claim explains the existence of a
causal relationship. It functions "to provide reasons to justify a belief that a causal connection exists" (108). The second and third types of
causal arguments rely on rhetorical proof, the provision of "good reasons" to substantiate arguments about human responsibility or
explanations for the existence of a causal relationship (108). I contend that the practice of intercollegiate debate privileges the first type of
causal analysis. It reduces questions of human motivation and explanation to a level of empiricism appropriate only for causal questions
concerning physical or material conditions. Arguments about feminism clearly illustrate this phenomenon. Substantive debates about
feminism usually take one of two forms. First, on the affirmative, debaters argue that some aspect of the resolution is a manifestation of
patriarchy. For example, given the spring 1992 resolution, "[rjesolved: That advertising degrades the quality of life," many affirmatives argued
that the portrayal of women as beautiful objects for men's consumption is a manifestation of patriarchy that results in tangible harms to
women such as rising rates of eating disorders. The fall 1992 topic, "(rjesolved: That the welfare system exacerbates the problems of the
urban poor in the United States," also had its share of patriarchy cases. Affirmatives typically argued that women's dependence upon a
patriarchal welfare system results in increasing rates of women's poverty. In addition to these concrete harms to individual women, most
affirmatives on both topics, desiring "big impacts," argued that the effects of patriarchy include nightmarish totalitarianism and/or nuclear
annihilation. On the negative, many debaters countered with arguments that the some aspect of the resolution in some way sustains or
energizes the feminist movement in resistance to patriarchal harms. For example, some negatives argued that sexist advertising provides an
impetus for the reinvigoration of the feminist movement and/or feminist consciousness, ultimately solving the threat of patriarchal nuclear
annihilation. likewise, debaters negating the welfare topic argued that the state of the welfare system is the key issue around which the
feminist movement is mobilizing or that the consequence of the welfare system - breakup of the patriarchal nuclear family -undermines
patriarchy as a whole.Such arguments seem to have two assumptions in common.

First, there is a single feminism. As a result, feminists are transformed into feminism. Debaters speak of feminism as
a single, monolithic, theoretical and pragmatic entity and feminists as women with identical m
otivations, methods, and goals. Second, these arguments assume that patriarchy is the single
or root cause of all forms of oppression. Patriarchy not only is responsible for sexism and the consequent
oppression of women, it also is the cause of totalitarianism, environmental degradation, nuclear war, racism, and capitalist exploitation.
These reductionist arguments reflect an unwillingness to debate about the

complexities of human motivation and explanation. They betray a reliance upon a framework of
proof that can explain only material conditions and physical realities through empirical quantification. The transformation of feminists to
feminism and the identification of patriarchy as the sole cause of all oppression is related in part to the current form of intercollegiate debate
practice. By "form," I refer to Kenneth Burke's notion of form, defined as the "creation of appetite in the mind of the auditor, and the adequate
satisfying of that appetite" (Counter-Statement 31). Though the framework for this understanding of form is found in literary and artistic
criticism, it is appropriate in this context; as Burke notes, literature can be "equipment for living" (Biilosophy 293). He also suggests that form
"is an arousing and fulfillment of desires. A work has form in so far as one part of it leads a reader to anticipate another part, to be gratified by
the sequence" (Counter-Statement 124). Burke observes that there are several aspects to the concept of form. One of these aspects,
conventional form, involves to some degree the appeal of form as form. Progressive, repetitive, and minor forms, may be effective even
though the reader has no awareness of their formality. But when a form appeals as form, we designate it as conventional form. Any form can
become conventional, and be sought for itself - whether it be as complex as the Greek tragedy or as compact as the sonnet (Counter-
Statement 126). These concepts help to explain debaters' continuing reluctance to employ rhetorical proof in arguments about causality.
Debaters practice the convention of poor causal reasoning as a result of judges' unexamined reliance
upon conventional form. Convention is the practice of arguing single-cause links to monolithic impacts that arises out of custom or usage.
Conventional form is the expectation of judges that an argument will take this form. Common practice or convention dictates that a case or
disadvantage with nefarious impacts causally related to a single link will "outweigh" opposing claims in the mind of the judge. In this sense,
Debaters practice the convention of establishing

debate arguments themselves are conventional.
single-cause relationships to large monolithic impacts in order to conform to audience

expectation. Debaters practice poor causal reasoning because they are rewarded for it by judges. The convention of arguing single-cause links
leads the judge to anticipate the certainty of the impact and to be gratified by the sequence. I suspect that the sequence is gratifying for
judges because it relieves us from the responsibility and difficulties of evaluating rhetorical proofs. We are caught between our responsibility to
evaluate rhetorical proofs and our reluctance to succumb to complete relativism and subjectivity. To take responsibility for evaluating rhetorical
when we abandon our responsibility

proof is to admit that not every question has an empirical answer. However,
to rhetorical proofs, we sacrifice our students' understanding of causal

reasoning. The sacrifice has consequences for our students' knowledge of
the subject matter they are debating. For example, when feminism is defined as a single entity, not as a
pluralized movement or theory, that single entity results in the identification of patriarchy as the sole
cause of oppression. The result is ignorance of the subject position of the

particular feminist author, for highlighting his or her subject position might draw attention to the incompleteness of the
causal relationship between link and impact Consequently, debaters do not challenge the basic
assumptions of such argumentation and ignorance of feminists is

perpetuated. Feminists are not feminism. The topics of feminist inquiry are many and varied, as are the philosophical approaches to
the study of these topics. Different authors have attempted categorization of various feminists in distinctive ways. For example, Alison Jaggar
argues that feminists can be divided into four categories: liberal feminism, marxist feminism, radical feminism, and socialist feminism. While
each of these feminists may share a common commitment to the improvement of women's situations, they differ from each other in very
important ways and reflect divergent philosophical assumptions that make them each unique. Linda Alcoff presents an entirely different
categorization of feminist theory based upon distinct understandings of the concept "woman," including cultural feminism and post-structural
feminism. Karen Offen utilizes a comparative historical approach to examine two distinct modes of historical argumentation or discourse that
have been used by women and their male allies on behalf of women's emancipation from male control in Western societies. These include
relational feminism and individualist feminism. Elaine Marks and Isabelle de Courtivron describe a whole category of French feminists that
contain many distinct versions of the feminist project by French authors. Women of color and third-world feminists have argued that even
these broad categorizations of the various feminism have neglected the contributions of non-white, non-Western feminists (see, for example,
hooks; Hull; Joseph and Lewis; Lorde; Moraga; Omolade; and Smith). In this literature, the very definition of feminism is contested. Some
feminists argue that "all feminists are united by a commitment to improving the situation of women" (Jaggar and Rothenberg xii), while others
have resisted the notion of a single definition of feminism, bell hooks observes, "a central problem within feminist discourse has been our
inability to either arrive at a consensus of opinion about what feminism is (or accept definitions) that could serve as points of unification"
The controversy over the very definition of feminism has political

(Feminist Theory 17).
implications. The power to define is the power both to include and exclude
people and ideas in and from that feminism . As a result, [bjourgeois white women interested in women's
rights issues have been satisfied with simple definitions for obvious reasons. Rhetorically placing themselves in the same social category as
oppressed women, they were not anxious to call attention to race and class privilege (hooks. Feminist Wieory 18). Debate arguments that
assume a singular conception of feminism include and empower the voices of race- and class-privileged women while excluding and silencing
when we examine the second

the voices of feminists marginalized by race and class status. This position becomes clearer
assumption of arguments about feminism in intercollegiate debate - patriarchy is the sole cause of oppression.
Important feminist thought has resisted this assumption for good reason.
Designating patriarchy as the sole cause of oppression allows the
subjugation of resistance to other forms of oppression like racism and
classism to the struggle against sexism. Such subjugation has the effect of
denigrating the legitimacy of resistance to racism and classism as struggles
of equal importance. "Within feminist movement in the West, this led to the assumption that
resisting patriarchal domination is a more legitimate feminist action than
resisting racism and other forms of domination " (hooks. Talking Back 19). The relegation of struggles
against racism and class exploitation to offspring status is not the only implication of the "sole cause" argument In addition,
identifying patriarchy as the single source of oppression obscures women's

perpetration of other forms of subjugation and domination, bell hooks argues that we should
not obscure the reality that women can and do participate in politics of domination, as perpetrators as well as victims - that we dominate,
that we are dominated.If focus on patriarchal domination masks this reality or becomes the means
by which women deflect attention from the real conditions and circumstances of our lives, then women cooperate in
suppressing and promoting false consciousness, inhibiting our capacity to

assume responsibility for transforming ourselves and society (hooks. Talking Back 20).
Characterizing patriarchy as the sole cause of oppression allows mainstream
feminists to abdicate responsibility for the exercise of class and race privilege .
It casts the struggle against class exploitation and racism as secondary concerns. Current debate practice promotes ignorance of these issues
because debaters appeal to conventional for m

, the expectation of judges that they will isolate a single link to a large impact Feminists
become feminism and patriarchy becomes the sole cause of all evil. Poor causal arguments arouse and fulfill the expectation of judges by
The result is either

allowing us to surrender our responsibility to evaluate rhetorical proof for complex causal relationships.
the mar-ginalization or colonization of certain feminist voices. Arguing feminism in debate

rounds risks trivializing feminists. Privileging the act of speaking about feminism over the
content of speech "often turns the voices and beings of non-white women
into commodity, spectacle" (hooks, Talking Back 14). Teaching sophisticated causal
reasoning enables our students to learn more concerning the subject matter
about which they argue. In this case, students would learn more about the
multiplicity of feminists instead of reproducing the marginalization of many
feminist voices in the debate itself. The content of the speech of feminists must be investigated to subvert the
colonization of exploited women. To do so, we must explore alternatives to the formal expectation of single-cause links to enormous impacts
for appropriation of the marginal voice threatens the very core of self-determination and free self-expression for exploited and oppressed
peoples. If the identified audience, those spoken to, is determined solely by ruling groups who control production and distribution, then it is
easy for the marginal voice striving for a hearing to allow what is said to be overdetermined by the needs of that majority group who appears
to be listening, to be tuned in (hooks, Talking Back 14). At this point, arguments about feminism in intercollegiate debate seem to be
overdetermined by the expectation of common practice, the "game" that we play in assuming there is such a thing as a direct and sole causal
link to a monolithic impact To play that game, we have gone along with the idea that there is a single feminism and the idea that patriarchal
impacts can account for all oppression. In making this critique, I am by no means discounting the importance of arguments about feminism in
intercollegiate debate. In fact, feminists contain the possibility of a transformational politic for two reasons. First, feminist concerns affect each
individual intimately. We are most likely to encounter patriarchal domination "in an ongoing way in everyday life. Unlike other forms of
domination, sexism directly shapes and determines relations of power in our private lives, in familiar social spaces..." (hooks. Talking Back 21).
Second, the methodology of feminism, consciousness-raising, contains within it the possibility of real societal transformation. "lE]ducation for
critical consciousness can be extended to include politicization of the self that focuses on creating understanding the ways sex, race, and class
together determine our individual lot and our collective experience" (hooks, Talking Back 24). Observing the incongruity between advocacy of
single-cause relationships and feminism does not discount the importance of feminists to individual or societal consciousness raising.
AT Experts Sexist
Using technical discourse strategically is key to solve the
K
Caprioli 4 (Mary, Dept. of Political Science @ the University of Tennessee,
PhD from the University of Connecticut, Feminist IR Theory and Quantitative
Methodology: A Critical Analysis, International Studies Review, Vol. 6, No. 2
(Jun., 2004), pp. 253-269)
We should learn from the research of feminist scholars to engage in a
dialogue that can be understood . Carol Cohn (1987), for example, found that one
could not be understood or taken seriously within the national security
arena without using a masculine-gendered language. In other words, a common language is
necessary to understand and be understood. This insight could be applied to feminist research within international relations. Why
not, as Charlotte Hooper (2001:10) suggests, make "strategic use of [expert jargon ] to
gain credibility for feminist arguments (or otherwise subvert it for feminist ends)." Little
justification exists for abandoning the liberal empiricists who reason
that "the problem of developing better knowledge lies not with the
scientific method itself but with the biases in the ways in which our
theories have been focused and developed" (Tickner 2001:13).
AT Deliberation Sexist
Deliberation doesnt exclude gendered analysis
Dahlberg 5 (Lincoln, The University of Queensland, Center for Critical and
Cultural Studies, Visiting Fellow, The Habermasian public sphere: Taking
difference seriously?, Theory and Society (2005) 34:111-126)
I believethis critique of power, transparency, and the subject is largely based upon a poor
characterization of Habermas position. There are three main misunderstandings that need to be
cleared up here, to do with power as negative, as able to be easily removed, and as able to be clearly identified. First, Habermas
does not define power as simply negative and as therefore needing to be

summarily removed from the public sphere. The public sphere norm calls for
coercion-free communication and not power-free communication .
Habermas emphasizes the positive power of communicative
interaction within the public sphere through which participants use words to do
things and make things happen.60 Communicative rationality draws on the force
of better argument to produce more democratic citizens, culture,
and societies. Subjects are indeed molded through this constituting
power, but their transformation is towards freedom and autonomy rather
than towards subjugation and normalization. As Jeffrey Alexander points out, to act
according to a norm is not the same as to be normalized .61 The public
sphere norm provides a structure through which critical reflection
on constraining or dominating social relations and possibilities for freedom
can take place . As Chambers argues, rational discourse here is about the endless questioning of
codes, the reasoned questioning of normalization.62 This is the very type of
questioning critics like Lyotard, Mouffe, and Villa are engaged in despite
claiming the normalizing and repressive power of communicative
rationality. These critics have yet to explain adequately how they escape
this performative contradiction, although they may not be too concerned to escape it.63 The form
of power that is to be excluded from discourse in the public sphere is
that which limits and disables democratic participation and leads to
communicative inequalities . Coercion and domination are (ideally)
excluded from the public sphere, which includes forms of domination
resulting from the maldistribution of material and authoritative resources
that lead to discursive inequalities . This emphasis on the ideal exclusion of coercion introduces the
second point of clarification, that the domination free public sphere is an idealization for the purposes of critique. Habermas is
more than aware of the fact that, as Nancy Fraser, Mouffe, and Young remind us, coercive forms of power, including
those that result from social inequality, can never be completely separated from the public
sphere.64 Claims that such power has been removed from any really-existing deliberative arena can only be made by ignoring or
hiding the operation of power. However, this does not mean that a reduction in
coercion and domination cannot be achieved. Indeed, this is precisely what a

democratic politics must do. To aid this project, the public sphere
conception sets a critical standard for evaluation of everyday
communication . Chambers puts this nicely: Criticism requires a normative
backdrop against which we criticize. Crit-icizing the ways power and domination play themselves out in
discourse presupposes a conception of discourse in which there is no [coercive] power and domination. In other words, to defend the position
that there is a meaningful difference between talking and fighting, persuasion and coercion, and by extension, reason and power involves
beginning with idealizations. That is, it involves drawing a picture of undominated discourse.65 However, this discussion of the idealizing
status of the norm does notanswer claims that it invokes a transparency theory of knowledge. Iwould argue that such claims not only fall prey
to another performa-tive contradiction of presupposing that the use of rational discourse can establish the impossibility of rational discourse
revealing truth and power but are also based on a poor reading of Habermas theory of communicative rationality. This is the third point of
In contrast to the metaphysics of presence, the differentiation

clarification.
of persusion from coercion in the public sphere does not posit a

naive theory of the transparency of power, and meaning more
generally. The public sphere conception as based upon communicative
rationality does not assume a Cartesian ( autonomous, disembodied,
decontextualized ) subject who can clearly distinguish between persuasion
and coercion, good and bad reasons, true and untrue claims, and then
wholly re-move themselves and their communications from such influence. For Habermas,
subjects are always situated within culture. The public sphere is
posited upon intersubjective rather than subject-centered
rationality. It is through the process of communicative rationality,
and not via a Cartesian subject, that manipulation, deception, poor
reasoning, and so on, are identified and removed, and by which
meanings can be understood and communicated. In other words, it is through
rational-critical communication that discourse moves away from
coercion or non-public reason towards greater rational communication and a stronger public
sphere. The circularity here is not a problem, as it may seem, but is in fact the very essence of democratization: throughthe practice of
democracy, democratic practice is advanced. This democratizing process can be further illustrated in the important and challenging case of
social inequalities. Democratic theorists (bothdeliberative and difference) generally agree that social inequalities al-ways lead to some degree
of inequalities in discourse. Thus, the ide-alized public sphere of full discursive inclusion and equality requires that social inequalities be
The idealization seems wholly

eliminated. Yet how is social inequality to befullyidentified,letaloneeliminated?
in-adequate given contemporary capitalist systems and associated

social inequality. However, it is in the very process of
argumentation, even if flawed, that the identification and critique of
social inequality, and thus of communicative inequality, is able to
develop. I ndeed, public sphere deliberation often comes into existence when and where people become passionate about social
injustice and publicly thematize problems of social inequality. Thus the negative power of social inequality as with other forms of coercion
This is not to say that subjects are

is brought to light and critique by the very discourse it is limiting.
merely effects of discourse, that there are no critical social agents acting in the process. It is not to
say that 125 subjects within discourse cannot themselves identify negative forms of power, cannot
reflexively monitor their own arguments, cannot rationally criticize
other positions, and so on. They can, and in practice do, despite the
instability of meaning . The point is that this reasoning and understanding is
(provisionally) achieved through the subjects situatedness in
discourse rather than via a pre-discursive abstract subject. As Kenneth Baynes argues, it is through discourse
that subjects achieve a degree of reflective distance (what we could call autonomy) from
their situations, enabling them to revise their conceptions of what is

valuable or worthy of pursuit,[and]to assess various courses of action with respect to those
ends. 66 Democratic discourse generates civic-oriented selves, inter-
subjective meanings and understandings, and democratic

agreements that can be seen as the basis of public sovereignty . How-ever,
the idea of communicatively produced agreements, which in the public sphere are known as public opinions, has also come under ex-tensive
criticism in terms of excluding difference, criticism that I wantto explore in the next section. The ends of discourse: Public opinion formation
The starting point of discourse is disagreement over problematic
validity claims. However, a certain amount of agreement, or at least
mutual understanding, is presupposed when interlocutors engage in
argumentation. All communication presupposes mutual
understanding on the linguistic terms used that interlocutors use the same terms in the same
way.67 Furthermore, in undertaking rational-critical discourse, according to Habermas formal pragmatic reconstruction,
interlocutors also presuppose the same formal conditions of

argumentation . These shared presuppositions enable rational-critical
discourse to be undertaken. However, as seen above, meaning is never fixed
and understanding is always partial. Understanding and agreement on
the use of linguistic terms and of what it means to be reasonable, reflexive, sincere, inclusive, non-coercive, etc. takes place
within discourse and is an ongoing political process .

AT Gender Monolithic
While gender has a large impact it isnt monolithic, nor
unified
Hooper 1 (Charlotte, University of Bristol research associate in politics,
Manly States: Masculinities, International Relations, and Gender Politics pp
45-46.)
Spike Peterson and Anne Sisson Runyan (1993), in their discussion of gendered dichotomies, appear to drop Lacanian psychoanalytic
discourse as an explanation for gendered dichotomies in favor of a more straightforwardly political account.14Gendered dichotomies, rather
than uniformly constructing gendered social relations through universal psychoanalytic mechanisms, are seen more ambiguously, as
playing a dual role. Where gendered dichotomies are used as an organizing principle of social life (such as in the gendered division of labor)
they help to construct gender differences and inequalities and thus are constitutive of social reality, but in positing a grid of polar opposites,
they also serve to obscure more complex relationships, commonalties, overlaps, and intermediate positions (Peterson and Runyan 1993, 24
25). Elaborating on this view, it can be argued that gendered dichotomies are in part ideological tools that mystify, masking more complex
social realities and reinforcing stereotypes. On one level, they do help to produce real gender differences and inequalities, when they are
used as organizing principles that have practical effects commensurate with the extent that they become embedded in institutional
practices, and through these, human bodies. They constitute one dimension in the triangular nexus out of which gender identities and the
institutional practices are not always

gender order are produced. But at the same time,
completely or unambiguously informed by such dichotomies, which

may then operate to obscure more complex relationships. It is a
mistake to see the language of gendered dichotomies as a unified
and totalizing discourse that dictates every aspect of social practice
to the extent that we are coherently produced as subjects in its
dualistic image. As well as the disruptions and discontinuities
engendered by the intersections and interjections of other
discourses (race, class, sexuality, and so on) there is always room
for evasion, reversal, resistance, and dissonance between rhetoric,
practice, and embodiment, as well as reproduction of the symbolic
order, as identities are negotiated in relation to all three dimensions,
in a variety of complex and changing circumstances. On the other hand, the symbolic
gender order does inform practice, and our subjectivities are produced in relation to it, so to dismiss it as performing only an ideological or
propagandistic role is also too simplistic.
--Alt Things
Prag
Alternative alone cant solve focus on tactics and
strategy key
Saloom 6 (Rachel, JD Univ of Georgia School of Law and M.A. in Middle
Eastern Studies from U of Chicago, Fall 2006, A Feminist Inquiry into
International Law and International Relations, 12 Roger Williams U. L. Rev.
159, Lexis)
Because patriarchy is embedded within society, it is no surprise that the theory and practice of both
Total critique, however,
international law and international relations is also patriarchal. 98
presents no method by which to challenge current hegemonic
practices. Feminist scholars have yet to provide a coherent way in
which total critique can be applied to change the nature of
international law and international relations. Some [*178] feminist scholars are
optimistic for the possibility of changing the way the current system is structured. For example, Whitworth
believes that "sites of resistance are always available to those who oppose the status quo." 99 Enloe
suggests that since the world of international politics has been made it can also be remade. 100 She posits
that every time a woman speaks out about how the government controls her, new theories are being
All of these theorists highlight the manner in which gender
made. 101
criticisms can destabilize traditional theories. They provide no
mechanism , however, for the actual implementation of their theories
into practice. While in the abstract, resistance to hegemonic paradigms seems like a promising
concept, gender theorists have made no attempt to make their resistance culminate in meaningful change.
The notion of rethinking traditional approaches to international law and
international relations does not go far enough in prescribing an
alternative theoretical basis for understanding the international
arena. Enloe's plea for women to speak out about international
politics does not go nearly far enough in explaining how those acts
could have the potential to actually change the practice of
international relations. Either women are already speaking out now,
and their voices alone are not an effective mechanism to challenge
the system, or women are not even speaking out about world politics currently. Obviously it is absurd
to assume that women remain silent about world politics. If that is the case, then one must question
women's ability to speak up, challenge, and change the system.
Alt AT Affirm Self
We have to extend politics beyond the realm of our
immediate experience and the confines of the debate
space---structural analysis key
Rob 14 (Carleton College, Robtheidealist, My Skinfolk Ain't All Kinfolk,
www.orchestratedpulse.com/2014/03/problem-identity-politics/)
identity politics
Some people look at these flaws and call for an end to identity politics, but I think thats a mistake. At its most basic level,
merely means political activity that caters to the interests of a

particular social group. In a certain sense, all politics are identity
politics. However, its one thing to intentionally form a group around
articulated interests; its another matter entirely when group
membership is socially imposed. Personal identities are socially
defined through a combination of systemic rewards/marginalization plus actual and/or
potential violence. We cant build politics from that foundation
because these socially imposed identities dont necessarily tell us
anything about someones political interests. Successful identity
politics requires shared interests, not shared personal identities . Im
not here to tell you that personal identity doesnt matter; we
rightfully point out that systemic power shapes peoples lives. Simply put, my
message is that personal identity is not the only thing that matters. We spend so much energy labeling
peopleprivileged/marginalized, oppressor/oppressedthat we
often neglect to build spaces that antagonize the systems that
cause our collective trauma . All You Blacks Want All the Same Things We assume that if a person is systemically marginalized,
then they must have a vested interest in dismantling that system. Yet, thats not always the case. Take Orville Lloyd Douglas, who last summer wrote an article in the
Guardian in which he admitted that he hates being Black. I can honestly say I hate being a black male I just dont fit into a neat category of the stereotypical views
people have of black men. I hate rap music, I hate most sports, and I like listening to rock music I have nothing in common with the archetypes about the black male I
resent being compared to young black males (or young people of any race) who are lazy, not disciplined, or delinquent. Orville Lloyd Douglas, Why I Hate Being a Black
membership in a marginalized group is no

Man As we can see from Douglas cry for help,
guarantee that a person can understand and effectively combat

systemic oppression. Yet, we seem to treat all marginalized voices as
equal, as if they are all insightful, as if there is no diversity of
thought, as ifin the case of race All you Blacks want all the same
things. Shared identity does not equal shared interests. John Ridley, the Oscar-winning
screenplay writer of 12 Years a Slave, is a good example. Hes written screenplays based on Jimi Hendrix, the L.A. riots, and other poignant moments and icons within Black
history. He wants to see more Black people in Hollywood and he has a long history of successfully incorporating Black and Brown characters into comic book stories and
franchises. However, in 2006, Ridley made waves with an essay in which he castigated Black people who did not live up to his standards; saying, Its time for ascended
blacks to wish niggers good luck. So I say this: Its time for ascended blacks to wish niggers good luck. Just as whites may be concerned with the good of all citizens but
dont travel their days worrying specifically about the well-being of hillbillies from Appalachia, we need to send niggers on their way. We need to start extolling the most
virtuous of ourselves. It is time to celebrate the New Black Americansthose who have sealed the Deal, who arent beholden to liberal indulgence any more than they are
to the disdain of the hard Right. It is time to praise blacks who are merely undeniable in their individuality and exemplary in their levels of achievement. The Manifesto of
Ascendancy for the Modern American Nigger While Ridley and I share cultural affinity, and we both want to see Black people doing well, shared cultural affinity and
common identity are not enough which recent history makes abundantly clear. Barack Obama continues to deport record numbers of Brown immigrants here at home,
Don Lemon, speaking in support of Bill OReilly,

while mercilessly bombing Brown folks abroad.
said that racism would be lessened if Black people pulled up their

pants and stopped littering. Last fall, 40% of Black U.S. Americans
supported airstrikes against Syria. My skinfolk aint all kinfolk, and the Left needs to catch up. NO MORE ALLIES John
Ridley, Barack Obama, myself, and Don Lemon are all Black males. We also have conflicting political positions and interests, but how can we decide which paths are valid if
Instead of learning to recognize how the

we only pay attention to personal identity?
overarching systems maintain their power and then attacking those

tools, we spend our energy finding an other to embody the
systemic marginalization and legitimize our spaces and ideals. In
some interracial spaces I feel like nothing more than an
interchangeable token whose only purpose is to legitimize the
politics of my White peers. If not me, then some other Black person would fill the slot. We use these
others as authorities on various issues, and we use concepts like
privilege to ensure that people stay in their lanes. People of color are the authorities on
race, while LGBTQ people are the authorities on gender and sexuality, and so forth and so on. Yet, experience is not the same
as expertise, and privilege doesnt automatically make you clueless .

As Ive discussed, these groups are not oriented around a singular set of
political ideals and practices. Furthermore, as we see in Andrea Smiths work, there are often
competing interests within these groups . We mistake essentialism
for intersectionality as we look for the ideal subjects to embody the
various forms of oppression; true intersectionality is a description of systemic power, not a call for diversity. If we
dont develop any substantive analysis of systemic power , then its
impossible to know what our interests are, and aligning with one
another according to shared interests is out of the question. In this
climate all that remains is the ally, which requires no real knowledge
or political effort, only the willingness to appear supportive of an
other. We cant build power that way. After having gathered to
oppose organized White supremacy at the University of North
Carolina, a group of organizers in Durham, North Carolina found that the Lefts
emphasis on personal identity and allyship was a major reason why
their efforts collapsed. They proposed that we adopt the practice of
forming alliances rather than identifying allies . (h/t NinjaBikeSlut) Much of the discourse around
being an ally seems to presume a relationship of one-sided support, with one person or group following anothers leadership. While there are certainly times where this
In an alliance, the two parties

makes sense, it is misleading to use the term ally to describe this relationship.
support each other while maintaining their own self-determination

and autonomy, and are bound together not by the relationship of
leader and follower but by a shared goal. In other words, one cannot
actually be the ally of a group or individual with whom one has no
political affinity and this means that one cannot be an ally to an
entire demographic group, like people of color, who do not share a
singular cohesive political or personal desire. The Divorce of Thought From Deed While
its vital for me to learn the politics and history of marginalized
experiences that differ from my own, listen to their voices, and respect their spaces and contributions its
also important for me to understand the ways in which these same
systems have shaped my own identity/history as well. Since we know that
oppression is systemic and multidimensional, then Im going to have to step outside
of personal experience and begin to develop political ideals and
practices that actually antagonize those systems . I have to
understand and articulate my interests, which will allow me to
operate from a position of strength and form political alliances that
advance those interests interests which speak to issues beyond
just my own immediate experience .
at: lesbian separatism alt
Alt AT Lesbian Separatism
The alt essentializes identity reproduces

heteronormativity that implicates every level of their
argument
Prasad 12 (Ajnesh, York University's Schulich School of Business PhD
candidate, Beyond analytical dichotomies, Human Relations, 65.5, Sage)
poststructuralism may be typified by what
A poststructuralist critique At the most rudimentary level,
Lyotard (1984) famously expressed as its incredulity towards

metanarratives (also see Alvesson and Deetz, 1999; Kilduff and Mehra, 1997), or what Fraser and Nicholson (1997) describe as grand theorizing of
social macrostructures. Akin to other critical traditions, it is explicitly historical, attuned to the cultural specificity of different societies and periods and . . . inflected by
temporality, with historically specific institutional categories (Fraser and Nicholson, 1997: 1434). The aim of the poststructuralist mandate is to critique metanarratives
and, from there, to define human consciousness and social existence through engagements with contextualized subjectivity (Agger, 1991).11 To appreciate this idea, it is
important to understand how metanarratives are problematically situated within, and are informed by, socially constructed identity binaries, be they along the fault lines of
poststructuralist
gender (e.g. Butler, 1990; Hird, 2000), race (e.g. Gilroy, 2000; Miles and Torres, 2007), or sexuality (e.g. Zita, 1994). Indeed,
critique, such as Derridas conjecture of difference (Mumby and Putnam, 1992), illustrates how the
preservation of the privileged identity (white, man,
heterosexual) is existentially dependent upon a corresponding
relegated identity (black, woman, homosexual) (see Tyler and Cohen, 2008); or, to posit it in
Butlerian (1991) phrasing, heterosexuality presumes the being of homosexuality. Working from the same current,
Harding (2003) extends this idea through consideration of the

central dyadic relationship in management; she notes that every individual in the
western workforce is identified as a worker or as a manager and that
the identity of the latter is wholly contingent upon the binary
existence of the former . Elsewhere, again assuming a poststructuralist position, Harding (2008: 44; emphasis in original) explains that
identities cannot be resolved into an essence or into a coherent
whole; rather, they are post hoc impositions of a seemingly unified
[label] upon a disparate and disconnected population. As such, the central aim of the
poststructuralist is to repudiate deterministic and binary logic by drawing attention to the discursive processes that culturally (re)produce social realities and the
dichotomous modes of thinking embedded within them (Butler, 1990; Calas, 1993). [T]he ways in which sex was put into Western discourse from the end of the 16th
century onwards, the proliferation of sex during the 18th century and the modern incitement to discuss sex in endless detail have simultaneously established
Tangentially related to the

heterosexuality as the unassailable norm and constituted other sexualities as abnormal.
Foucauldian reading of sexuality, Katz (2004) offers a genealogical

investigation into how heterosexuality was invented and came to be
ideologically defined from the late 19th-century onwards. Katz writes that because the concept of
heterosexuality is only one particular historical way of perceiving,
categorizing, and imagining the social relations of the sexes, it
ought to be studied with the purposeful aim to dislocate its socio-cultural
privilege as being the normal and the natural form of sexual
expression (p. 69). Given its socially manifest nature, Butler (1991, 1993) contends that heterosexuality is perpetually at risk and must continually
engage in a set of repetitive, or what she calls parodic, practices such as, heterosexual sex which functions to stringently affirm the hegemonic ideals of femininity
(passive) and masculinity (active). Incidentally, the very redundancy of these parodic practices function to consolidate the discursive authority and cultural stability of
sexual
heterosexuality (Butler, 1991; see also Butlers [1993] writing on performativity). A related stream of poststructuralist-inflected scholarship reveals how
identities that are predicated on ontological sexual difference

produce heteronormativity, which can be described as the the normative idealization of
heterosexuality (Hird, 2004: 27) or the centrality of heterosexual norms in social
relations (Pringle, 2008: S111). While feminists have long critiqued the tacit and the explicit claims of ontological sexual difference,
essentialist definitions of female and male continue to prevail in
popular culture and in certain academic disciplines (Frye, 1996).12 On this point, Hird (2004)
adopts a position in feminist science studies to develop a substantive critique into how the ontology of sexual difference is often rendered concrete in research propagated
The influence of ontological sexual

by the natural and particularly, the biological sciences (also see Martin, 1991).
difference within and outside of academia, lends credence to

Broadbridge and Hearns (2008: S39) recent observation that, [s]ex
and sex differences are still often naturalized as fixed, or almost
fixed, in biology. It is equally important to note, here, that the alchemy of ontological sexual
difference is wholly dependent upon the patriarchal conflation of
biological sex and cultural gender (Hird, 2004). As Pringle (2008: S112; also see Borgerson and Rehn, 2004)
notes, [g]ender [does] not avoid the oppositional duality embodied in
the concept of sex, but reflect[s] the interdependent relationship of

masculinity and femininity. This reflection pivots on genital determinism, which declares that males naturally embrace masculinity
while females naturally embrace femininity (Bornstein, 1994; Hird, 2000). This initial conflation of sex and gender leads to the conventional model of heterosexuality,
which dictates that a man will desire-to-be a male and will desire-for a female, while a woman will desire-to-be a female and will desire-for a male (Sinfield, 2002:
It is precisely these corresponding relationships whereby the

126).
heterosexual matrix is constructed (Butler, 1990). According to

Butler, this matrix serves as the grid of cultural intelligibility
through which bodies, gender, and desires are naturalized (see Ringrose, 2008:
511).13
at: performance alt
The alternative cant solve access but a focus on legalism does
Schwartz 9 (Joseph, Poli Sci Prof @ Temple, The Future of Democratic

Equality, Routledge, pg 64-5)
'Discursive' performance is not the sole manner by which individuals
deal with (and express) the material and cultural structural realities that
both empower and constrain individuals. For example. individuals cannot
readily "discursively perform" themselves out of their socio-
economic or class position. There is a certain materiality to poverty or to
being "bossed" that can't simply be "ironically" and "performatively"
transformed. Class relations are structural, as well as discursive. The greater
difficulty in forming unions in the United States- as compared to other advanced industrial democracies-
has much to do with American legal, ideological, and political constraints and
not simply with the relative inefficacy of the "performative,"
"counter-hegemonic" behavior of (fragmented) individuals. Even the "parodic"
possibilities of "gender" reversal are constrained by the
communities in which one resides. ls the "reversal" of "drag" a
viable public possibility in a violently homophobic community? Were
not the "performative" options of a Matthew Sheperd (extremely) more limited
than those of a gay or lesbian student at a "progressive" residential
liberal arts college (and unsafe-and even degrading and violent-social
spaces confront gay and lesbian people and women and students of
color in the most allegedly "cosmopolitan" of social spaces). Simply put,
distinct "social spaces" set differential constraints on
"performative" choices. Of course, how individuals express class, race, gender, and sexuality does, in part, involve
how we "perform" (or "racist") cultural and discursive "norms." Hence, the inevitable controversies over "authenticity" within racial, sexual,
and ethnic communities, as well as criticism of people taking on the mores of a class different from those who share their "place" in the labor
process, neighborhood, or income strata. But there are material constraints to performative
"choice": one can't "perform" one's way out of an under-funded
inner city school or out of being a laid-off auto worker with dim
prospects of finding a new job with comparable wages and benefits.
Traditional sociological theories of "structuration" provide greater
insight into how these individuals would deal with these social
dilemmas than do micro-level theories of the discursive
construction of subjectivity. To her credit, Wendy Brown is more concerned with issues of class and political
economy than are many post-structuralist political theorists. She expressly claims to bring class back into her political analysis and condemns
identity politics as a "phantasmagorical reflection of the 'middle-class' American dream." But there is little attention
in her work to developing a political strategy that could promise a structural and material
redistribution of power, rather than an alter- ation of how we think of
epistemology, discourse, and politics." While ideology and culture play a relatively autonomous role
in constituting subjectivity, both have a material structure that must be altered if society is to be democratized. Brown implies
radical social change does not as much involve democratizing
that
social structural relations as it does popularizing a radical

epistemological approach to discourse. Brown argues that if we will ourselves to "surrender epis-
temological foundations" and give up "specifically moral claims" we will all be able to engage in "the sheerly political: 'wars of position' and
amoral contests about the just and good in which truth is always grasped as coterminous with power, as always already power, as the voice of
power."""' Even if one resists asking whether democracy can rest on "amoral" principles, one can still ask whether Brown's Foucauldian
The post-structuralist
assertation that power and truth are co-terminous can distinguish between more or less democratic forms of power?
hyper- emphasis on "discourse" and the agonal construction of the self also overly devalues the
state as an arena for political reform. Brown's work makes a positive political contribution by warning
social movements about fetishizing the struggle for group rights within the law as potential minefields of "reversed" power/knowledge
formations. State regulation and technocratic control which claim to defend the interests of newly, legally- recognized identities may yield the
perverse consequence of "domesticating" the identity of the insurgent social group (e.g. state micro-management of the work place in
"comparable worth legislation," or enforcement of patriarchal values in regard to punitive workfare or "child support" regulation)?" Sometimes,
as Brown contends, new-found rights may enhance separation and alienation between and within individuals and groups, as well as constitute
Brown rejects the possibility (and

new forms of state regulation in the name of the impersonal subject. But
historical reality) that new "rights" can, in other contexts, contribute to human
emancipation by enhancing individual choice and freedom. To deny this is to
ignore the elective affinity between the struggle for "rights" and
struggles to achieve political equality for formerly subordinate
peoples. Not all new-found rights are "co-optative" and a "reinscribing of domination.""7 Nor will the conflict within the American
polity over how we should interpret and defend "rights" ever cease. One only has to witness
contemporary political con- conflict over "abortion rights," "voting rights," "gun
rights," etc. Rights are both politically contested and protective of certain
forms of human choice and agency. Rights do not "fix" identities as intransigently as
Brown and other post-structuralists claim. Do rights only serve, as Brown contends, to promote "the
discursive denial of historically layered and institutionally secured

bounds, by denying with words the effects of relatively wordless,
politically invisible, yet material constraints "?"" Patri- cia Williams and other
critical race theorists have argued that being included under the state's equal
protection law helped limit violence against people of color." Despite
legitimate fears about excessive state regulation of sexuality, would Brown
reject the use of state force to limit domestic violence? How does her
philosophical fear of the bureaucratic-regulatory powers of the state speak to the
experience of hundreds of thousands of women who have been spared

the "privatization'' of domestic violence by the extension of the rights
of state authority (e.g. the police) to act against violence within the
household? Are such practices solely evidence of the "reconstruction of domination by the regulation of the technocratic-
bureaucratic state"? Of course, state regulation of domestic violence may , in Brown's
language, produce a female subject "dependent upon the paternal state "
for protection. But is this not preferable to the prior form of paternal state
that let a man be the violent definer of "rights" in his home?

at: personal experience alt
They presume the purity of their experience in place of facts---we

must examine multiple perspectives
Conway 97 (philosophy, Penn State, Daniel, Nietzsche and the political,

135-6)
This preference is clearly political in nature , and Haraway makes no pretense of aspiring to epistemic
purity or foundational innocence. For Haraway, any epistemic privilege necessarily implies a
political (i.e., situated) preference . Her postmodern orientation elides the boundaries traditionally drawn between politics
All perspectives are partial, all

and epistemology, and thus renders otiose the ideal of epistemic purity.
standpoints situated It is absolutely crucial including those of feminist theorists. to Haraway's postmodern
that we acknowledge claims about situated knowledge as

feminist project her
themselves situated within the political agenda she sets for postmodern feminism;
feminist s must accept

theorist the self-referential
therefore and accommodate
implications of their own epistemic claims The political agenda of .
assigns to some) subjugated standpoints a political

postmodern feminism thus (
preference or priority. Haraway, for example, believes that some subjugated standpoints may be more immediately revealing, especially since
they have been discounted and excluded for so long. They may prove especially useful in coming to understand the political and psychological mechanisms whereby the patriarchy
discounts the radically situated knowledges of others while claiming for its own (situated) knowledge an illicit epistemic privilege: The standpoints of the subjugated ... are savvy to
modes of denial through repression, forgetting, and disappearing acts ways of being nowhere while claiming to sec comprehensively. The subjugated have a decent chance to be on
to the god-trick and all its dazzlingand, therefore, blindingilluminations.34 But these subjugated standpoints
do not afford an epistemically privileged view of the world,
feminist theorists
Haraway warns
independent of the political agendas they have established. Reprising elements of Nietzsche's psychological profile of the "slave" type,
against the serious danger of appropriating the vision of the

romanticizing and/or
less powerful while claiming to see from their positions. To see

from below is neither easily learned nor unproblematic , even if
"we" "naturally" inhabit the great underground terrain of
subjugated knowledges The positionings of the subjugated are .
not exempt from critical re-examination , decoding, deconstruction, and interpretation; that is, from both
The standpoints of the subjugated are not

semiological and hermeneutic modes of critical enquiry.
"innocent" positions A subjugated standpoint may shed new .35
light on the ways of an oppressor, but it in no way renders

superfluous the standpoint of the oppressor . Because neither
or redundant
standpoint fully comprises the other the aggregation of the two ,
would move both parties closer to a more objective (or a third party)
understanding of the world If some have political reasons for . feminists
disavowing this project of aggregation, or for adopting it

selectively, then they must pursue their political agenda at the
expense of the greater objectivity that they might otherwise have
gained .
at: negativity alt
Optimism and solidarity are our only hope---their pessimism accepts

the foundational premises of patriarchy/racism as its starting point
for politics
Hooks 96 (bell hooks 96, Killing Rage: Ending Racism, Google Books, 269-
272)
black Americans are succumbing to and
269More than ever before in our history,
internalizing the racist assumption that there can be no meaningful

bonds of intimacy between blacks and whites. It is fascinating to explore why it is that black
people trapped in the worst situation of racial oppres sionenslavementhad the foresight to see that it would be disempowering for them to
lose sight of the capacity of white people to transform themselves and divest of white supremacy, even as many black folks today who in no
way suffer such extreme racist oppression and exploitation are convinced that white people will not repudiate racism. Con temporary
black folks, like their white counterparts, have passively accepted

the internalization of white supremacist assumptions. Organized
white supremacists have always taught that there can never be trust
and intimacy between the superior white race and the inferior black
race. When black people internalize these sentiments, no resistance
to white supremacy is taking place; rather we become complicit in
spreading racist notions . It does not matter that so many black people feel white people will never repudiate racism
because of being daily assaulted by white denial and refusal of accountability. We must not allow the actions of white folks who blindly endorse
racism to determine the direction of our resistance. Like our white allies in struggle we must consistently keep the faith, by always sharing the
Of course
truth that 270white people can be anti-racist, that racism is not some immutable character flaw.
many white people are comfortable with a rhetoric of race that

suggests racism cannot be changed, that all white people are inherently racist simply
because they are born and raised in this society. Such misguided thinking socializes white
people both to remain ignorant of the way in which white supremacist attitudes are learned and to
assume a posture of learned helplessness as though they have no agencyno capacity to resist this thinking. Luckily we
have many autobiographies by white folks committed to anti-racist struggle that provide documentary testimony that
many of these individuals repudiated racism when they were children. Far from passively accepting It as inherent, they
instinctively felt it was wrong. Many of them witnessed bizarre acts of white racist aggression towards black folks in
everyday life and responded to the injustice of the situation. Sadly, in our times so many white folks are easily convinced
by racist whites and bLack folks who have internalized racism that they can never be really free of racism. These feelings
aso then obsc]re the reality of white privi lege. As long as white folks are taught to accept racism as natura] then they
do not have to see themselves as con sciously creating a racist society by their actions, by their political choices. This
means as well that they do not have to face the way in which acting in a racist manner ensures the maintenance of white
privilege. Indeed, denying their agency allows them to believe white privilege does not exist even as they daily exercise it.
If the young white woman who had been raped had chosen to hold all black males account able for what happened, she
would have been exercising white privilege and reinforcing the structure of racist thought which teaches that all black
people are alike. Unfortunately, 271so many white people are eager to believe racism cannot be changed because
internalizing that assumption downplays the issue of accountability. No responsibility need be taken for not changing
something fit is perceived as immutable. To accept racism as a system of domination that can be changed would demand
that everyone who sees him- or herself as embracing a vision of radai social equality would be required to assert anti-
racist habits of being. We know from histories both present and past that white people (and everyone else) who commit
themselves to living in anti-racist ways need to make sacrifices, to courageously endure the uncomfortable to challenge
Whites, people of color, and black folks are reluctant to
and change.
commit themselves fully and deeply to an anti-racist struggle that is ongoing
because there is such a pervasive feeling of hopelessnessa
conviction that nothing will ever change . How any of us can continue
to hold those feelings when we study the history of racism in this
society and see how much has changed makes no logical sense.
Clearly we have not gone far enough. In the late sixties, Martin Luther King posed the
we must collectively renew our
question Where do we go from here. To live in anti-racist society
commitment to a democratic vision of racial justice and equality.

Pursuing that vision we create a culture where beloved community
flourishes and is sustained. Those of us who know the joy of being with folks from all walks of life, all
races, who are fundamentalls anti-racist in their habits of being. need to give public testimony. Ve need to share not only
what we have experienced but the conditions of change that make such an experience possible. The interracial circle of
love that I know can happen because each individual present in it has made his or her own commitment to living an anti-
racist life and to furthering the struggle to end white supremacy 272 will become a reality for everyone only if those of us
who have created these communities share how they emerge in our lives and the strategies we use to sustain them. Our
devout commitment to building diverse communities is cen tral. These commitments to anti-racist living are just one
Like all
expression of who we are and what we share with one an other but they form the foundation of that sharing.
beloved communities we affirm our differences. It is this generous spirit of affirmation
that gives us the courage to challenge one another, to work through misunderstandings, especially those that have to do
In a beloved community solidarity and trust are
with race and racism.
grounded in profound commitment to a shared vision. Those of us who are
always anti-racist long for a world in which evezyone can form a beloved community where borders can be crossed and
cultural hybridity celebrated. Anyone can begin to make such a community by truly seeking to live in an anti-racist world.
If that longing guides our vision and our actions, the new culture will
be born and anti-racist communities of resis tance will emerge
everywhere. That is where we must go from here.
at: rage alt
The valorization of rage as a political leads to a vicious cycle of

repetitive violence
Wenning 9 (Mario, Phd., Assistant professor of philosophy @ the University

of Macau, The Return of Rage, Parrhesia No. 8 pg. 89-99)
The valorization of erotic emotions and virtues over thymotic ones is as old as philosophy itself. Aristotle
already insists that the virtuous person cultivates mildness of temper the even tempered person
confesses to be calm and not carried away by his feelings, but to be cross only in the way, at the things,
Compassion is introduced as an
and for the length of time that reason dictates. 15
antidote to revenge. The virtuous character does not lose the control
that is necessary to provide for a self-sufficient emotional economy,
which is the precondition for achieving a life that is marked by wisdom, even-temperedness, and justice.
Senecas influential work on rage, De ira, which was immensely influential for
Christian and humanist ethics, calls for a Stoic control of the
dangerous affect. The general suspicion against the destructive consequences of this aggressive
emotion is not limited to the European tradition. Confucius already warns his students
to let a sudden fit of anger make you forget the safety of your own
person or even that of your parents, is that not misguided
judgment? 16 Daoism and ZenBuddhism promote meditative practices and compassion to
overcome our fixation on the need of being angry with ourselves and the world surrounding us. More
recently, Martha Nussbaum argued that we should aim to
understand how to channel emotional development in the direction
of a more mature and inclusive and less ambivalent type of love. 17
According to Nussbaum, anger should at best operate as a tool of compassion. Acts of
punishment are then seen as merciful rather than vindictive because
they aim at the good of the victim. These representative examples illustrate that the
erotization of the psyche replaced what is regarded as archaic forms
of militancy that, it is contended, mistakenly suggest that honor, pride and
craving for recognition (and the rage that results from the violation
of these) has been considered to be more important than a concern
for justice, equality and compassion. We might think that the dislike of negative
emotions in general and potentially aggressive ones in particular results from an insight into the
Revenge, then, is undesirable because it
misfortunes these emotions bring about.
tends to be too costly in producing long term damages. Hegel, for
example, reminds us in the Philosophy of Right of the infinite chain of
violence , the economy of pay-back that results from blind

vengeance and selfadministered acts of justice. 18 The excesses of
rage can easily lead to tragic repetitions of an original act of
violence that might be impossible to get out of . Honor killings often lead to new
honor killings rather than the reestablishment of justice and the fight against terror breed more terrorists.
Utilize rage as a means to mobilize ati-surveillance movements---
targeted rage is key
Lesage 85 (Julia, in Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, ed. Nelson

and Grossberg,
http://pages.uoregon.edu/jlesage/Juliafolder/womensRage.html)
Feminism by itself is not the motor of change . Class, anti-imperialist, and antiracist struggles
demand our participation. Yet how, specifically, does women's consciousness change? How do women move into action? How does change
occur? What political strategies should feminists pursue? How, in our political work, can we constantly challenge sexual inequality when the
very social construction of gender oppresses women? In 1981 I visited Nicaragua with the goal of finding out how and why change occurred
there so quickly in women's lives. "The revolution has given us everything," I was told. "Before the revolution we were totally devalued. We
weren't supposed to have a vision beyond home and children." In fact, many Nicaraguan women first achieved a fully human identity within
the revolution. Now they are its most enthusiastic supporters. For example, they form over 50 percent of the popular militias, the mainstay of
Nicaragua's defense against United States-sponsored invasions from Honduras and Costa Rica. In the block committees, they have virtually
eliminated wife and child abuse. Yet in Nicaragua we still see maids, the double standard sexually, dissatisfaction in marriage, and inadequate
childcare. Furthermore, all the women I talked to defined their participation in the revolution in terms of an extremely idealized notion of
motherhood and could not understand the choice not to reproduce. I bring up this example of Nicaragua because Nicaraguan women are very
conscious of the power of their own revolutionary example. They know they have been influenced by the Vietnamese and Cuban revolutions
and are very much shaping how Salvadoran women militants are looking at women's role in the Salvadoran revolution. Because of the urgency
and violence of the situation, unity between men and women was and is necessary for their survival, but the women also want to combat, in
an organized and self-conscious way, specific aspects of male supremacy in the workplace, politics, and daily life. Both here and in Nicaragua,
women's daily conversation is about the politics of daily life. They talk to each other often, complaining about men and about managing the
domestic sphere. Women's talk also encompasses complaints about poor and unstable work conditions, and about the onerous double day.
However, here in the United States that conversation usually circulates pessimistically, if supportively, around the same themes and may even
serve to reconfirm women's stasis within these unpleasant situations. Here such conversation offers little sense of social change; yet in our
recent political history, feminists have used this preexisting social form--women's conversation in the domestic sphere--to create
consciousness-raising groups. But to what degree is consciousness raising sufficient to change women's behavior, including our self-
conception and our own colonized minds? We do not live in a revolutionary situation in the
United States. There is no leftist political organization here providing leadership and a cohesive strategy, and in particular the struggle
against women's oppression is not genuinely integrated into leftist activity and theory. Within such a context,
women need to work on another, intermediate level, both to shape our revolutionary
consciousness and to empower us to act on our own strategic demands . That is, we
need to promote self-conscious, collectively supported, and

politically clear articulations of our anger and rage. Furthermore, we must understand
the different structures behind different women's rage. Black women rage against poverty and racism at the same time that they rage against
sexism. Lesbians rage against heterosexual privilege, including their denial of civil rights. Nicaraguan women rage against invasions and the
aggressive intentions of the United States. If, in our political work, we know this anger and the structures that generate it, we can more
genuinely encounter each other and more extensively acknowledge each other's needs, class position, and specific form of oppression. If we
do not understand the unique social conditions shaping our sisters' rage, we run the risk of divisiveness, of fragmenting our potential solidarity.
Such mutual understanding of the different structures behind different women's anger is the precondition of our finding a way to work together
toward common goals. I think a lot about the phenomenon of the colonized mind. Everything that I am and want has been shaped within a
social process marked by male dominance and female submission. How can women come to understand and collectively attack this sexist
social order? We all face, and in various ways incorporate into ourselves, sexist representations, sexist modes of thought. Institutionally, such
representations are propagated throughout culture, law, medicine, education, and so on. All families come up against and are socially
measured by sexist concepts of what is "natural"--that is, the "natural" roles of mother, children, or the family as a whole. Of particular
concern to me is the fact that I have lived with a man for fifteen years while I acutely understand the degree to which heterosexuality itself is
socially constructed as sexist. That is, I love someone who has more social privilege than me, and he has that privilege because he is male. As
an institution, heterosexuality projects relations of dominance and submission, and it leads to the consequent devaluation of women because
of their sex. The institution of heterosexuality is the central shaping factor of many different social practices at many different levels--which
range, for example, from the dependence of the mass media on manipulating sexuality to the division of labor, the split between the public
and private spheres, and the relations of production under capitalism. Most painfully for women, heterosexuality is a major, a social and
psychological mode of organizing, generating, focusing, and institutionalizing desire, both men's and women's. Literally, I am wedded to my
own oppression. Furthermore, the very body of woman is not her own--it has been constructed by medicine, the law, visual culture, fashion,
her mother, her household tasks, her reproductive capacity, and what Ti-Grace Atkinson has called "the institution of sexual intercourse."
When I look in the mirror, I see my flaws; I evaluate the show I put on to others. How do I break through representations of the female body
and gain a more just representation of my body for and of myself? My social interactions are shaped by nonverbal conventions which we all
have learned unconsciously and which are, as it were, the glue of social life. As Nancy Henley describes it in Body Politics, women's nonverbal
language is characterized by shrinking, by taking up as little space as possible. Woman is accessible to be touched. When she speaks in a
mixed group, she is likely to be interrupted or not really listened to seriously, or she may be thought of as merely emotional. And it is clear
that not only does the voyeuristic male look shape most film practice, but this male gaze, with all its power, has a social analog in the way eye
contact functions to control and threaten women in public space, where women's freedom is constrained by the threat of rape. We need to
articulate these levels of oppression so as to arrive at a collective, shared awareness of these aspects of women's lives. We also need to
understand how we can and already do break through barriers between us. In our personal relations, we often overcome inequalities between
us and establish intimacy. Originally, within the women's movement we approached the task of coming together both personally and politically
through the strategy of the consciousness-raising group, where to articulate our experience as women itself became a collective,
transformative experience. But these groups were often composed mostly of middle-class women, sometimes predominantly young, straight,
single, and white. Now we need to think more clearly and theoretically about strategies for negotiating the very real power differences
between us. It is not so impossible. Parents do this with children, and vice versa; lovers deal with inequalities all the time. The aged want to be
in communion with the young, and third-world women have constantly extended themselves to their white sisters. However, when women
come together in spite of power differences among them, they feel anxiety and perhaps openly express previously suppressed hostility. Most
likely, such a coming together happens when women work together intensively on a mutual project so that there is time for trust to be
established. Yet as we seek mutually to articulate the oppression that constrains us, we have found few conceptual or social structures through
which we might authentically express our rage. Women's anger is pervasive, as pervasive as
our oppression, but it frequently lurks underground. If we added up all of women's
depression--all our compulsive smiling, ego-tending, and sacrifice; all our psychosomatic illness, and all our passivity--we could gauge our
In the sphere of cultural production there are few

rage's unarticulated, negative force.
dominant ideological forms that allow us even to think " women's

rage." As ideological constructs, these forms end up containing women. Women's rage is most often seen in the narratives that surround
us. For example: Classically, Medea killed her children because she was betrayed by their father. Now, reverse-slasher movies let the raped
woman pick up the gun and kill the male attacker. It is a similar posture of dead end vengeance. The news showed Patty Hearst standing in a
bank with a gun embodying that manufactured concept "terrorist," and then we saw her marrying her FBI bodyguard long after her comrades
went up in flames. In melodrama and film noir, as well as in pornography, women's anger is most commonly depicted through displacement
onto images of female insanity or perversity, often onto a grotesque, fearful parody of lesbianism. These displacements allow reference to and
masking of individual women's rage, and that masked rage is rarely collectively expressed by women or even fully felt. We have relatively few
expressions of women's authentic rage even in women's art. Often on the news we will see a pained expression of injustice or the exploitative
use of an image of a third- world woman's grief. Such images are manipulated purely for emotional effect without giving analysis or context.
Some great feminist writers and speakers such as Mary Wollstonecraft, Virginia Woolf, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Harriet Tubman have
provided models by which we can understand ourselves, but too often the very concept of "heroine" means that we hold up these women and
their capacity for angry self-expression as the exception rather than the rule. In Illinois, women chained
themselves together in the state house when it was clear that the ERA would not pass; the women
sought to express our collective anger at our legislators' cowardice and to do so in a conspicuous, public way. But actions such
as these often have little effect beyond their own time span. We
need to think beyond such forms to more socially effective ones. It is a
task open to all our creativity and skill--to tap our anger as a source of energy and to
focus it aesthetically and politically. We may have to combine images of anger with something else--say, images of how
women can construct the collectivity as a whole. It is here that, by their example, our third-world sisters have often taken the lead. Rosa Parks
refusing to sit in the back of the bus, Harriet Tubman leading slaves to the North, an Angolan mother in uniform carrying a baby and a rifle, a
Vietnamese farmer tilling and defending her land, Nicaraguan women in their block committees turning in wife abusers to the police--these
women can gain more for themselves than merely

images let us see that
negating the bad that exists. And it is in their constant need to attack both sexism and racism, as well as
poverty and imperialist aggression, that third-world feminists now make us all see much more clearly both the urgent need for and the
possibility of reconstructing the whole world on new terms. Artistically, emotionally, and politically women seem to need to glimpse
dialectically the transcendence of our struggle against sexism before we can fully express sexism's total negation, that is, our own just rage.
our suppressed rage feels so immense that the open

Sometimes
expression of it threatens to destroy us. So we often do not experience

anger directly and consciously, nor do we accurately aim our rage at
its appropriate target. To transcend negation and to build on it
means that we have to see what is beyond our rage . An example of such
transcendence was demonstrated by Nicaraguan mothers of "martyred" soldiers (those killed by U.S.-paid counterrevolutionaries) to Pope John
Paul II when he visited Managua in April 1983. They stood in the rows closest to the podium where the Pope spoke and they all bore large
photos of their dead children. As the events of the day unfolded, the women created an image that stirred the whole people, one that the Pope
could not go beyond or even adequately respond to. Here is what happened: The Pope spoke on and on to the gathered crowd about obeying
the hierarchy and not getting involved with the things of this world. In frustration and anger, the women began to shout, "We want peace," and
their chant was taken up by the 400,000 others there. The women's rage at personal loss was valorized by the Nicaraguan people as a whole,
as the grieving mother became a collective symbol of the demand for peace. The chant, "We want peace," referred simultaneously to national
sovereignty, anti-imperialism, religion, and family life. The women spoke for the whole. This brings me back to my original question about
women's political action in the United States today. One of the major areas of investigation and struggle in the women's movement has been
the sphere of daily life. This struggle, represented by an early women's movement phrase--"the personal is the political"--derives from
women's real material labor in the domestic sphere and in the sphere of social relations as a whole. Women have traditionally done the
psychological labor that keeps social relations going. In offices, in neighborhoods, at home, they often seek to make the social environment
safe and "better," or more pleasant. That such labor is invisible, particularly that it is ignored within leftist theory and practice, is one of the
more precise indices of women's oppression. And it is feminists' sensitivity to and analysis of social process that clarifies for them the sexism
on the Left. Often at a leftist conference or political meeting, many men continue to see women and women's concerns as "other," and they do
not look at what the Left could gain from feminist theory or from women's subcultural experience or from an analysis of women's labor.
Women who come to such an event have already made a commitment to learn and to contribute, so they make an effort to continue along
with the group as a whole but are impeded by sexist speakers' intellectual poverty (e.g., use of the generic "he"), macho debating style, and
distance from political activism. Furthermore, not only women feel this political invisibility at leftist events. When black labor and black
subcultural experience in the United States is not dealt with, nor is imperialism, or when racism is theoretically subsumed under the rubric of
"class oppression" and not accorded its specificity, then third-world participants face the same alienation. To demonstrate this process and
analyze what divides us, I will describe an incident that occurred at the Teaching Institute on Marxist Cultural Theory in June 1983. It is worth
discussing because it is the kind of incident that happens all too often among us on the Left. Early in that summer session, a coalition of
students and the two women faculty members, Gayatri Spivak and me, formed to present a protest statement to the faculty. It was read in
every class. Here is what it said: The Marxist-Feminist Caucus met on Friday June 17th and concluded that the "limits, frontiers and
boundaries" of Marxist cultural theory as articulated by the Teaching Institute excluded and silenced crucial issues of sexism, racism and other
forms of domination. We find ourselves reproducing in the classrooms of the Teaching Institute the very structures which are the object of our
critique. The Marxist-Feminist Caucus therefore proposes that each class set aside an hour weekly to discuss strategic silences and structural
exclusions. A Marxism that does not problematize issues of gender and race, or of class consciousness in its own ranks, cannot hope to be an
adequate tool for either social criticism or social transformation. The institute had a format of having famous Marxist intellectuals lecture,
specifically males with job security who have never incorporated a feminist analysis into their theoretical work. Both the format and the
content of their lectures enraged some of us, but not others. In a sense, writing a protest statement divided the school's participants between
the political ones and the consumers of Marxist theory. This is because critical theory itself has become a pathway for elitist advancement in
the humanities and social sciences in universities where these areas are facing huge cutbacks. And the canon of that critical theory is based
on Marx and Freud and their contemporary interpretants, Althusser and Lacan. Both at the Teaching Institute and at prestigious universities,
young academics could get their quick fix of Marxism, the knowledge of which could help greatly in their academic career. This is a capitalist
mode of consuming knowledge. Too many students, especially career- pressured graduate students, want only a well conceived lecture, a
digest of Marxist theory and social analysis, something that can be written in a notebook, taken home, and quoted from in a future paper or
journal article. Furthermore, we intellectuals fall into this capitalist competitive mode. We feel pressured inside ourselves to be the best.
Students are told to buy the best. All the faculty at the Teaching Institute felt that they could not make a mistake, that they had to read and
show they had read everything, that they had been challenged on their political practice, accused of being racist or sexist or undemocratic.
Our control over the classroom and studied theoretical polish became a kind of professional hysteria and worked against the collective building
of Marxist knowledge and theory that we have needed for more effective social change. Since the early 1970s women have come together in
meetings like these, in feminist seminars, caucuses, and workshops, partly in resistance to a certain macho leftist or academic style and partly
to build a new body of knowledge and feminist political practice. And we have been successful at doing this but it has meant double or triple
work for us. Feminist scholarship does not usually lead to academic promotion for a woman. The knowledge women produce is easily
marginalized, as was made painfully obvious at that summer school. Feminists and third-world students came to the Teaching Institute
knowing how much they needed Marxist theory. They understood that abolishing capitalism and imperialism was the precondition for
liberation. They came as political participants expecting to learn theoretical tools to use in fighting oppression. But sex and race were too often
ignored--I would say stupidly ignored--as social determinants in the theories presented about social change. (Beyond that, students felt
intimidated by name-dropping and teachers' and other students' failure to explain terms. They felt they had to give a polished rebuttal or a
cohesive "strategic intervention" before they could speak to refute a lecturer's point.) And when students raised issues of sexism or racism,
deflection became the all too frequent tactic used by teachers or some of the white male students in response. No wonder that women, with
their sex-role socialization, were often too intimidated to speak. This is a sad analysis, but not an infrequent one in academia. It speaks about
political theory and academic sexism and racism, and elitism and class privilege. The incident reveals much of what divides politically
progressive people in the United States. These differences must be acknowledged in depth if we are to work together politically in a coalition
form. In particular, I understand the texture of women's silence in a forum that demanded a highly rational and developed intervention. Many
of the women students at the Teaching Institute already produced feminist theory, but the intimidating nature of this kind of aggressive public
speaking made them seem like nonparticipants. And it often happens to me, too. I know that we watch and despair of our own colonized
psyches which hold us back in silence precisely when we would choose to be political actors, especially in a Marxist forum. What we have seen
in the 1970s and 1980s in North America and Europe is a supercession of political forms related to developments in radical consciousness.
Conditions have evolved in the United States that make it impossible to conceive of a revolutionary organizing strategy that does not embrace
a black and minority revolution and a feminist revolution. The lesson of the civil rights/black power movement was that blacks will organize
autonomously. Now it is the offspring of that movement, Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition, that has taken the lead in building an anti-
imperialist coalition that addresses the specific struggles and organizing forms of blacks, Latinos, women, and gays. Such a coalition relates to
the existence of the women's movement, the gay and lesbian movement, the anti-imperialist movement, by supporting these groups'
autonomous organizing and granting new respect, not by subsuming or controlling them. Furthermore, at this point in U.S. history, issues of
mass culture and mass communication have to be dealt with, so that minority figures such as Jesse Jackson or Harold Washington, Chicago's
black major, have developed an ongoing analysis about racism in the press. As a feminist who has worked both in the cultural sphere and in
anti-imperialist work, I have experienced this supercession of forms. In the early 1970s a politically active woman was either "on the Left" or
"in the independent women's movement." Some socialist feminists within leftist organizations formed caucuses to try to influence their
organizations. In the 1970s I chose to work mostly within the independent women's movement, especially in creating a women's studies
program at an urban university. In developing feminist media now within the women's movement, I find many of my sisters addressing broader
issues of imperialism, racism, class oppression, and the nuclear threat. Many of us are joining progressive coalitions around these issues.
Within these coalitions we must be able openly to declare, "I am a feminist and our feminist position represents the most advanced stand. You
men have to join us." Indeed, many men, often younger men, have. As feminists, we are the ones who are building a whole theoretical critique
of mass culture and mass communication; we are the ones who are learning how to appropriate all of culture in an oppositional way. And
because of our historical position in advanced capitalism, we are one of the first social movements to address cultural issues in such a
thorough and complex way. Many feminists are eager to participate in coalitions, the major political strategy for us in the 1 980s. In Chicago,
we saw the women's movement and the Left work to elect Harold Washington. In the San Francisco area, gays and lesbians have formed a
Central America support group. Both in the United States and abroad, the antinuclear movement contains within it all-women's affinity groups.
Latinos in various areas identify and organize as Puerto Rican or Mexican-American according to their ethnic origins and concentration, and
also unite in Central American solidarity work. This great diversity of sectoral organizing enriches all of us who are working for social change.
Some of the best aspects of current progressive organizing have, in fact, derived specifically from the development of the contemporary
women's movement. I mentioned the consciousness-raising groups earlier. I think the women's movement has introduced into political
discourse an open and direct critique of the macho style and political posturing of many male leaders. As feminist activists, we have created
among ourselves new forms of discussion and a creative, collective pursuit of knowledge--in contrast to an older, more aggressive, male
debating style. Particularly important for me, the women's movement has pursued and validated as politically important cultural and artistic
work. In Chicago, where I live, I experience a strong continuum and network among community-based artists and women in the art world. We
have built up intellectual ties between academic women and feminist film- and videomakers who have created an analysis of how sexuality is
manipulated in the visual culture that surrounds us. As a consequence, feminist film criticism has developed a new theoretical framework for
analyzing ideology and the mass media. In fact, I think that our building of a feminist cultural theory has made a key contribution to the Left
consider how unleashing our

and to revolutionary movements throughout the world. When I want to
anger might capacitate us to act for change, I reconsider Frantz Fanon's essay "Concerning
Violence" in The Wretched of the Earth. In that essay he describes decolonization, particularly the process by which the native sheds the
colonizer's values and the colonizer's ways. I understand that my black and Latina sisters in the United States experience
a rage against the economic and racial violence perpetrated every day against them; in a way that is similar to what Fanon describes:
this rage knows its resolution lies in a complete change of the economic order in which we live. At the same time, I must ask what
kind of rage it would be that would effectively contest women's

oppression--given all the levels at which gender inequality and women's oppression is articulated in social and personal life. What
Fanon describes to us is a specific historical moment at which mental colonization can be and is surpassed. As I look at women's mental
colonization, I see our internalized sense of powerlessness, our articulation into masochistic structures of desire, and our playing out of
personae that on the surface seem "passive," "self-defeating," "irrational," "hesitant," "receptively feminine," or even "crazy." Much of this
behavior stems from internalized and suppressed rage. Fanon describes such behavior in the colonized and posits active rage , the
violent response to violence, as its cure. What would the overturning of male supremacy and women's colonization mean to women? How
would it be accomplished? Fanon understands that a whole social structure and a new kind of person must come into being, and that those
with privilege know, fear, and resist this. His call to armed struggle, based on the very clear demarcations and abuses of power that the native
always sees, signals a survival struggle that does not characterize the war
between the sexes . As I read Fanon for what he can teach me about women's resistance to oppression in
nonrevolutionary society, I read him as a communist psychiatrist talking about how social movements can change the mentality of the
oppressed. When I ask about revolution for women now, minimally I see that our contestation cannot be conducted in the mode of nice girls, of
managing the egos of and patiently teaching those who oppress, which is a skill and duty we learned from our mothers in the domestic sphere.
Angry
If we do so, once again we will be placed in that very role of "helpmate" that we are trying to overcome.
contestation may take us the extra step needed to overcome our

own colonized behavior and tardy response. Let me now rewrite for you parts of Fanon's essay to show its power
when discussing the relation between psychological and social change. The distance between the
violence of colonization and its necessary response in armed

struggle, and the emotional rage I am referring to here in combating sexism,
marks the distance between the periphery and the center of international
capitalism. By using Fanon in this way, I do not wish to co-opt him for the women's movement but to learn from him, just as I learned from the
Nicaraguan women's courage and tenacity. If women must learn to be openly angry, we must learn to draw links between ourselves and those
who are more oppressed, to learn new methods of struggle and courageous response. Combating women's oppression as we know it is a
historical process: that is to say, it cannot become intelligible or clear to itself except in the exact measure that we can discern the movements
that give it historical form and content. Combating women's oppression is the meeting of two intrinsically opposed forces, which in fact owe
this originality to that sort of substantification that results from and is nourished by the social construction of gender. The husband is right
when he speaks of knowing "them" well--for it is men who perpetuate the function of wife. Men owe the reproduction of their bodies and
psyches to the family. Feminist revolution never takes place unnoticed, for it influences individuals and modifies them fundamentally. It
transforms passive femininity crushed with inessentiality into privileged agency under the floodlights of history. A new kind of woman brings a
new rhythm into existence with a new language and a new humanity; combating women's oppression means the veritable creation of new
women who become fully human by the same process by which they freed themselves. Feminists who decide to put their program into
practice and become its moving force are ready to be constantly enraged. They have collectively learned that this narrow world, strewn with
prohibitions, can only be called into question by absolute contestation. The sex-gender system is a world divided into compartments. And if we
examine closely this system of compartments, we will at last be able to reveal the lines of force it implies and to mark out the lines on which a
At the level of individuals, anger is a cleansing

nonoppressive society will be reorganized.
force. It frees the woman from her inferiority complex and from despair and inaction; it makes her fearless and restores her self-respect.
At this point I will stop citing from and reworking Fanon, deliberately at the point of
individual rage. Now is a time when we need to work in coalitions,

but we must be very honest about what divides us and what are the
preconditions we need before we can work together. I have made the decision to work
in leftist and feminist cultural work and in Latin American solidarity work. I think in all our strategies we must analyze the relation of that
strategy to feminist, antiracist, and anti- imperialist demands. Women comprise over half the population; any class issues in the United States
are intimately tied to the question of racism; we all live off the labor of workers, often underpaid women, in the Third World; and socialist
revolution is being waged very near us. Personally, I know that it is by my contact with Nicaraguan women, who insist that men and women
must struggle together for our mutual liberation, that I have been politically and emotionally renewed. The problems grow more acute. We
the women's movement must stop

know that the Right is racist, homophobic, and sexist. We in
turning our anger against each other and learn the most effective
ways to work together for social change. We can focus our anger
and harness it , but to do that we must clearly analyze cause and
effect. If theory accompanies anger, it will lead to effective solutions
to the problems at hand. We have great emotional and social power to unleash when we set loose our all too often
suppressed rage, but we may only feel free to do so when we know that we can use our anger in an astute and responsible way.
Their deployment of essentialism fails its rejected as a descriptive

theory and cant achieve political ends
Stone 4 (Alison, Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy

Lancaster University, Essentialism and Anti-Essentialism in Feminist
Philosophy, Journal of Moral Philosophy 1.2, 2004)
An objection immediately arises to this strategic essentialist position. Any political strategy is effective only inasmuch as it allows agents to recognize and intervene into
it seems reasonable to think that a

the real social events, processes and forces which make up the social field. But
strategy can be effective, in this sense, only insofar as it embodies

an accurate understanding of the character of social processes. This implies
that a strategy of affirming fictitious commonalities among women will fail to
facilitate effective action given a world where women do not really

have any common social characteristics or locations. Rather, such a
strategy appears destined to mislead women into fighting against
difficulties which are either non-existent or more likelyreally affect only some privileged subgroup of
women. This objection can be resisted, however, as it (implicitly) is by Denise Riley in Am I That Name? . Riley claims that it is compatible to
suggest that women dont existwhile maintaining a politics of

as if they existed since the world behaves as if the y unambiguously did. 15 In other words, for Riley, the fiction that women share a
common social experience is politically effective because the social world actually does treat women as if they comprise a unitary group. Riley accepts that women are not
this false idea informs and

a unitary group and that the socially prevalent idea that they are unified is false. Nevertheless,
organizes the practices and institutions that shape womens

experiences, so that thosevery differentexperiences become structured by essentialist assumptions. A strategy of
affirming fictitious commonalities therefore will be effective given
this world in which (false) descriptive essentialist assumptions
undergird womens social existence. Rileys argument has a problem, though: she cannot
consistently maintain both that womens social experience is fully
diverse and that this experience is uniformly structured by
essentialist assumptions. If essentialism informs and organizes the structures that shape womens social experience, then this
experience will be organized according to certain shared models and will acquire certain common patterns and features. More concretely,
the idea that women are a homogeneous group will structure social
institutions so that they position all women homogeneously, leading to (at least considerable areas of) shared
experience. Thus, Riley (and other strategic essentialists)may be right that essentialist constructions are socially influential, but they cannot, consistently
with this, also maintain that descriptive essentialism is false. Furthermore, it is not obviously true that any
uniform set of essentialist constructions informs all social

experience. These constructions may all identify women as a
homogeneous group, but they vary widely in their account of the context of
womens homogenous features. Consequently, these constructions will influence social structures in correspondingly varying
directions, against which no counter-affirmation of common experience can be expected to be effective Strategic essentialists, then, have attempted to resuscitate
this attempt proves

essentialism by arguing that it can take a merely political and non-descriptive form. But
unsuccessful, because one cannot defend essentialism on strategic

grounds without first showing that there is a homogeneous set of essentialist assumptions that exerts a coherent influence on womens social experience
which amounts to defending essentialism on descriptive grounds(as well). Advocates of essentialism therefore
need to show that it accurately describes social reality. Here, though, critics
can retort that essentialism is descriptively false , since women do not even share any common
mode of construction by essentialist discourses. Yet this retort reinstates the problem of anti-
essentialism: its paralysing effect on social criticism and political

activism. Strategic essentialism has not resolved this problem, for it
has not stably demarcated any merely political form of essentialism
from the descriptive essentialism which critics have plausibly condemned as false and oppressive.
Internet Centrism
2ac F/L
Framework the k must demonstrate a unique

opportunity cost to the plan that outweighs the
advantages weighing the AFF is vital to fair debate
anything else is infinitely regressive and should be
rejected since its too unpredictable and results in shady
shifting alts that destroy all aff offense
State actions key

Power and Jablonski 15 (Shawn M [Assistant Professor of
Communication at Georgia State University] and Michael [attorney and
presidential fellow in communication at Georgia State University]; The Real
Cyber War; University of Illinois Press; p. 198; kdf)
the private sector and technologists still depend on state
Despite the fury,
actions for long-term solutions to privacy online. While AOL, Apple,
Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, Yahoo! and others condemn undue
surveillance activities, their solution is to call for policy reform .60
Technologists have promised to try and beat the governments
invasive techniques, but even the best cryptographers in the world
agree that it will take a tremendous amount of human effort , and years of
work, to combat the NSAs surveillance programs. As Twitters former head of
cybersecurity Moxie Marlinspike explains, We all have a long ways to go, adding, [and] its going to take
all of us.61 Outraged governmentsfueled by their outraged publicsare calling for greater control over
While it is easy for many in the United
the international information flows, not less.
States and in parts of Europe to decry such perspectives as
government censorship, or a power grab by international institutions (see chapters 4 and 5),
the reality is that accepting some level of shared internet regulation
is a far superior option to an internet splintered along geographical
and national boundaries. This is exactly what will happen if current policies remain
unchanged. Amid an onslaught of rhetoric that highlights how new
technologies are changing societies and institutions around the
world, it may be helpful to look back to how states navigated similar
technological revolutions in the past, assess if and how those approaches worked, and
determine their relevance to the challenges todays ICTs present. The history of interstate
cooperation and rulemaking is, actually, neatly intertwined with
developments in international communication. The first two intergovernmental
organizations were created in order to coordinate the rules by which information flowed across national
borders. The International Telegraph Convention established the first organization in 1865. After the
invention and widespread adoption of radio technology, it was renamed the International
Telecommunications Union (ITU) to encompass all types of transnational telecommunication issues.
The 1NC forgot to read an impact or challenge the 1ACs
provisional conclusions --
Perm do both
Fish 14 (Adam; Beyond surveillance fridges and socialized power drills:
social media and the financialization of everyday life; Mar 29;
savageminds.org/2014/03/29/beyond-surveillance-fridges-and-socialized-
power-drills-social-media-and-the-financialization-of-everyday-life/; kdf)
Meanwhile, Jeremy Rifkin sees Morozovs Internet of Things not as a
horror of surveillance and ever-sharper financial practices, but as
the birth of a maker movement. When the net cost of production not just of digitized
information like music and movies but of physical objects approaches zero, he claims, capitalism
faces a fundamental challenge, one in which the winners will be found in the nonprofit
sector. All those networked fridges and 3D printers , he says, are enabling
a second economy to grow up alongside capitalist production, an
economy based on sharing of goods and information, where we live
partly beyond markets, in an increasingly interdependent global
commons. Well, which will it be, dental espionage or ride-sharing our way into a global village?
Weve gone out into the field to try to find out, by examining new companies whore
trying to combine big data and the sharing economy, and asking
hard questions of their managers and of the people whore turning
to them as alternatives to old-school consumerist products and services. In our project, Third
Party Dematerialization and Rematerialization of Capital, funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Councils Digital Economy Research In The Wild initiative, we are researching Zopa Limited, the
sort of financial innovator Morozov has in mind when he speaks of Silicon Valleys ability to disrupt Wall
Street with better data and better engineers. Zopa is a non-bank as regulation designed to
discourage upstarts and protect the market share of slow-to-innovate and too-big-to-fail firms limits the
use of the value-laden term bank a peer-to-peer lender. Zopa uses a proprietary algorithm to
evaluate credit risk, and then matches individual borrowers of relatively small sums with potential
investors of a bit of spare cash. Zopa claims that their highly stringent credit-evaluating algorithm, their
lack of legacy infrastructure, both buildings and IT, and their individual evaluation of potential borrowers
rather than trusting entirely to automated processes enable them to offer better rates to borrowers and
lenders than high street banks can bother with. Zopa is a successful financial firm with only one top
executive from the financial industry their risk analyst. With Big Data experts and social marketing
managers, Zopa explicitly applies Silicon Valley logics to a segment of what once was a UK high street
banking monopoly short to medium-term unsecured consumer lending and borrowing. Yet Zopa
neither deploys fleets of drones or the latest gimmicks of
gamification the techniques developed from the realization that well do nearly anything for
the quick hit of an endorphin rush from rewards as ephemeral as points or levels in a colorful game
While gamification is often claimed as the missing link
interface.
between financialization and social mediatization well do anything for
rewards, and we want all our friends to see our status, so well click to create the data for others to profit
from todays reality is remarkably more old-fashioned . The twin challenges of
social financialization are managing and marketing trust and risk. Once solely the province of banks, who
used neoclassical architecture, three-piece suits, and free toasters to convey social messages of high trust
and low risk, the largely dematerialized companies of social financialization necessarily use social media
and internet user interfaces to do the same job. The trend-surfers and hipsters of the world arent Zopas
clients: rather Zopa works to appeal to the newly financialized: older people with a bit of extra money who
are neither wealthy nor connected enough to be worth the time of innovation-challenged, blue-blooded UK
banks, and young families yet to see the recovery talked up on the newly-ubiquitous financial media.
Zopa designers see their job as creating an online presence that looks enough like a bank to convey
messages of trustworthiness and low risk, while simultaneously appealing to a demographic that feels
abandoned by banks in their oscillations between high risk/high return algorithm-driven trading and credit
It is in these
crunch unwillingness to lend to anyone who might actually have a need for funds.
everyday, slightly dowdy design choices that social financialization is
being built, in a process of connecting the dots between a lost age
of bricks-and-mortar rhetorics of trustworthiness a trustworthiness coupled
with incentives against too much financial literacy, too much desire to look behind the neoclassical facades
Morozovs all too likely future of trying
to interrogate actual banking practices and
to level up our gamified toothbrushes to lower our dental insurance
premiums. We need the cautionary tales of the dystopias were
building and the utopian visions of data power to the people, but
more, we need to know if our gateway drugs of social
financialization really are harmless hits and performance
enhancements, or whether they will lead inevitably to refrigerator madness. One thing we
suspect is true: we cant Just Say No.
Morozovs idea is wronghe fails to recognize technology

have biases
Davis 13Ron is the CEO of Tenacity, a health technology startup using
cutting-edge behavioral science to improve peoples lives and save
employers money. . He holds degrees from Harvard Law School, The
University of Oregon and George Fox University. As an employee of Fidelity
National Financial, he drove several successful strategic initiatives, was
widely known for his consulting and coaching program, and broke all local
sales records. (Morozov Is Wrong: Smart Technology Enhances Choice May
18, 2013 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ron-davis/morozov-is-wrong-smart-
te_b_2891165.html)//JLee
Morozov's rational actor famously performed center stage in
classical economic theory, which assumed that people maximize their
own well-being when making purchases. Ironically, though, he scolds
engineers for curtailing choice by offering consumers the choices they crave.
Rather than follow his own advice and provide unbiased information about smart
products, he imports his idiosyncratic ideas about choice, and labels
these products "bad," and suggests they make us dumb. They appeal to
"base instincts," as if Runkeeper users are baboons. By his own confused standards, his words "fall
Even Morozov's modest suggestion
somewhere between good smart and bad smart."
that BinCam should benchmark customer's recycling habits is a known
tactic for creating comparison and appealing to "base" instincts like people's pride and their desire to keep
Morozov fails to recognize that all technologies have
up with others. Perhaps
biases, as Rushkoff has argued. Guns and pillows can kill, but their bias toward doing
so differs exponentially. We can pick any kind of car to get to work - gas, diesel, electric--and
among hundreds of models, but "this sense of choice blinds us to the fundamental bias of the automobile
Morozov has strangely
toward distance, commuting, suburbs, and energy consumption."
singled out smart technology for criticism, though bias is common to
all products and at least smart technologies make many of their
nudges explicit. People buy them because they want to change their behavior. It's hard to say the
same for the biases that come with products like ramen and chips and fast food. People don't purchase
these with chronic disease and early death in mind, though unfortunately that's often part of the package.
Morozov misses the forest and then cuts down the wrong tress. This
doesn't mean all products are evil. But it seems that bias and base instincts are
unavoidable. Technologies frame our decisions. Marketers influence our choices by
bombarding us with messages that appeal to impulses like pride,
fear, sex, exclusivity and security. Animal urges - like starvation
avoidance, push us to overeat. City planning, or the lack thereof, constrains our choices
about where we live and how we travel. In other words, we are up against all kind of intentional and
unintentional forces that we didn't ask for, all of which conspire to curtail our autonomy. And, in rarer
Even libertarians have long acknowledged
cases, we should circumscribe choice.
that freedom should be limited when our actions harm others. This is
why we have a criminal code. Breathalyzers that keep drunks from driving should limit their liberty to
injure innocents, just as the threat of prison or an officer's pistol strongly encourages people to avoid
Morozov raises more
violent altercations. Appropriate autonomy is more than mere license.
serious concerns, like privacy and the possibility of people getting
forced to turn over information or engage with coercive technology .
But he offers nothing new here: these worries are widely shared and decent legislation can protect citizens
from overzealous technocrats and rapacious businesses .
More important, Morozov's
rubric for "good" and "bad" relies on discredited ideas about human
autonomy and choice, causing him to so wildly miss the mark that he
criticizes smart technology as autonomy-limiting, when it actually offers us the
chance to play a greater role in choosing our own destinies.
The expansion of the internet is comingmakes

Capitalism inevitablealt cannot do anything about it
Rifkin 14Jeremy is the author of The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The
Internet of Things, The Collaborative Commons, and The Eclipse of
Capitalism. He is an adviser to the European Union and to heads of state
around the world, and president of the Foundation on Economic Trends in
Washington, DC (THE ZERO MARGINAL COST SOCIETY THE INTERNET OF
THINGS, THE COLLABORATIVE COMMONS, AND THE ECLIPSE OF CAPITALISM
2014 http://digamo.free.fr/rifkin14.pdf pg. 62-63)//JLee
The enormous leap in productivity is possible because the emerging
Internet of Things is the first smart-infrastructure revolution in history:
one that will connect every machine, business, residence, and vehicle in an
intelligent network comprised of a Communications Internet, Energy Internet, and Logistics
Internet, all embedded in a single operating system. In the United States alone, 37 million
digital smart meters are now providing real-time information on electricity
use.9 Within ten years, every building in America and Europe, as well as
other countries around the world, will be equipped with smart meters. And every
devicethermostats, assembly lines, warehouse equipment, TVs, washing machines, and computerswill
have sensors connected to the smart meter and the Internet of Things platform. In 2007, there were 10
In 2013, that
million sensors connecting every type of human contrivance to the Internet of Things.
number was set to exceed 3.5 billion, and even more impressive, by 2030 it is
projected that 100 trillion sensors will connect to the IoT.10 Other sensing devices,
including aerial sensory technologies, software logs, radio frequency identification readers, and wireless
sensor networks, will assist in collecting Big Data on a wide range of subjects from the changing price of
electricity on the grid, to logistics traffic across supply chains, production flows on the assembly line,
As
services in the back and front office, as well as up-to-the-moment tracking of consumer activities.11
mentioned in chapter 1, the intelligent infrastructure, in turn, will feed a
continuous stream of Big Data to every business connected to the
network, which they can then process with advanced analytics to create
predictive algorithms and automated systems to improve their thermodynamic
efficiency, dramatically increase their productivity, and reduce their marginal costs across the
value chain to near zero. Cisco systems forecasts that by 2022, the Internet of Everything will
generate $14.4 trillion in cost savings and revenue.12 A General Electric study published in November
2012 concludes that the efficiency gains and productivity advances made possible by a smart industrial
every economic sector by 2025, impacting
Internet could resound across virtually
approximately one half of the global economy. Its when we look at each
industry, however, that we begin to understand the productive potential of establishing the first intelligent
infrastructure in history. For example, in just the aviation industry alone, a mere 1
percent improvement in fuel efficiency, brought about by using Big Data
analytics to more successfully route traffic, monitor equipment, and make
repairs, would generate savings of $30 billion over 15 years.1 3 The health-care
field is still another poignant example of the productive potential that comes with
being embedded in an Internet of Things. Health care accounted for
10 percent of global GDP, or $7.1 trillion in 2011, and 10 percent of the expenditures in the
sector are wasted from inefficiencies in the system, amounting to at least $731 billion per year.
Moreover, according to the GE study, 59
percent of the health-care inefficiencies,
or $429 billion, could be directly impacted by the deployment of an
industrial Internet. Big Data feedback, advanced analytics, predictive algorithms, and
automation 62 systems could cut the cost in the global health-care sector by 25 percent according to the
Just a 1 percent reduction in cost
GE study, for a savings of $100 billion per year.
would result in a savings of $4.2 billion per year, or $63 billion over a 15-year
period.14 Push these gains in efficiency from 1 percent, to 2 percent, to 5 percent, to
10 percent, in the aviation and health-care sectors and across every other sector, and the
magnitude of the economic change becomes readily apparent. The term Internet of Things was coined by
Kevin Ashton, one of the founders of the MIT Auto ID Center, back in 1995. In the years that followed, the
IoT languished, in part, because the cost of sensors and actuators embedded in things was still relatively
an 18 month period between 2012 and 2013, however, the cost
expensive. In
of radio-frequency identification (RFID) chips, which are used to monitor and track
things, plummeted by 40 percent. These tags now cost less than ten cents each.15
Moreover, the tags dont require a power source because they are able to transmit their data using the
energy from the radio signals that are probing them. The price of micro-
electromechanical systems (MEMS), including gyroscopes, accelerometers, and
pressure sensors, has also dropped by 80 to 90 percent in the past five years.16 The other
obstacle that slowed the deployment of the IoT has been the Internet protocol, IPv4 which allows only 4.3
billion unique addresses on the Internet (every device on the Internet must be assigned an Internet
protocol address). With most of the IP addresses already gobbled up by the
more than 2 billion people now connected to the Internet, few addresses
remain available to connect millions and eventually trillions of things to the Internet. Now, a new
Internet protocol version, IPv6, has been developed by the Internet
Engineering Task Force; it will expand the number of available addresses to a staggering 340
trillion trillion trillionmore than enough to accommodate the projected 2
trillion devices expected to be connected to the Internet in the next
ten years
Ilamophobia
2ac F/L

This argument is nothing more than a link of omission. It

is reductionist and essentialist to say the aff is
counterproductive because it leaves certain spying in
place. Their scorn of reformism is violent.
2. The



advocate.
Alt cant solve structural violence the attempt only

makes it worse
Perm do both. The alt and plan go in the same direction,

and the alt can complete the plans transformation or vice
versa. Starting point is irrelevant otherwise society
would coopt the alt.
Every level of this is so hopelessly vague that the alt

doesnt solve
Berger 14Associate Professor in International Security, PhD in Political
Science (Lars, 3/27/14, "The Muslims Are Coming! Islamophobia, Extremism
and the Domestic War on Terror, by Arun Kundnani", Times Higher Education:
World University Rankings,
https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/books/the-muslims-are-coming-
islamophobia-extremism-and-the-domestic-war-on-terror-by-arun-
kundnani/2012227.article)//twemchen
One of the central themes in Arun Kundnanis critique of what he describes as the
domestic war on terror in the UK and the US is the apparent neglect of, or even taboo
against, discussing the role played by the foreign policies of Western
governments in bringing about the horrific acts of violence
witnessed on the streets of London in July 2005 and May 2013. Kundnani, a US-based scholar
of terrorism, is adamant that what governments call extremism is to a large degree a product of their own wars.
However, there are a number of theoretical and methodological

problems with his account. Kundnani is right to highlight methodological concerns about existing
studies of Islamist radicalisation, many of which rely on a small number of cases and fail to include control groups of
people who share radical ideologies but nevertheless choose not to engage in political violence. But this is not a new
insight. Indeed, researchers across Europe have already published plenty of insightful critiques of the theoretical
Kundnani commits
assumptions and methodological approaches of the radicalisation literature. Worse,
the same mistakes when he presents no theoretical justification for

his choice of case studies, and fails to explain why the vast majority
of Muslims who disagree with the Western foreign policies he sees
as potential root causes have not become engaged in political
violence. If we look at public opinion polls from across the Muslim world, including Muslim communities in the West,
support for violence against Western civilians stands, on average, at between 5 and 10 per cent. But if Kundnanis
assertions are correct, this number should be much higher, given that in some Muslim countries, overwhelming majorities
THERE IS A DANGER THAT
of up to 90 per cent criticise the policies of the US and the West.
WESTERN GOVERNMENTS CAN END UP TELLING MUSLIMS WHAT THE
CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF ISLAM IS In fact, it is not perceptions of
US foreign policies with respect to Israel or Middle Eastern petroleum resources that shape
approval of terrorist violence against US civilians, but the rejection
of US culture and some of its most prominent manifestations, such
as freedom of expression. This finding may go against the conventional wisdom that Kundnani seems
to wish to repackage here as his own insights, but it is quite comprehensible in light of the groundbreaking analysis of
anti-Americanisms by scholars Peter Katzenstein and Robert Keohane, in which they differentiate between a view that
assesses US foreign policies on their own terms and a view that regards those same policies as reflecting the
fundamentally evil nature of US society. When he criticises the Islamophobia peddled by right-wing US and UK media and
politicians, Kundnani is more convincing, as is his argument that Western counterterrorism efforts, particularly in the US,
should pay greater attention to the more widespread threat of right-wing violence. He is also right to highlight the
inherently problematic nature of the attempts of various Western governments to meddle in the politics and discourses of
Muslim communities in the name of fighting terrorism. It is important to not turn a blind eye towards radical discourses
But there is a danger that
that can be used to justify political violence against civilians.
Western governments, in an attempt to address the cacophony of
voices typical of the decentralised, pluralistic religious discourses in
many (Sunni) Muslim communities around the world, can end up
telling Muslims what the correct interpretation of Islam is. But once
again, these are issues that have also already received considerable academic attention, with plenty of excellent analysis
ranging from peer-reviewed publications to countless undergraduate essays. In short, Kundnanis critique of hostility
towards Muslims by some Western media and politicians and of Western governments interaction with their Muslim
communities is convincing, although not wholly original. His highly ideological insistence on the link between Western
foreign policies and Islamist terrorism is neither.
This externally reentrenches violence their alternative is

coopted
Thus,



The law is effective in limiting itself


Word Counter K
The usage of the term Islamophobia is inappropriate,

undermines anti-semitism, causes homogenization and
essentialism, hinders freedom of expression, and
generalizes the concept of Islam based oppression
Lorente 10 (Javier Rosn Lorente, PhD. in Social Anthropology from the University of Granada and is
currently researcher at Casa rabe e Instituto Internacional de Estudios rabes y del Mundo Musulmn
(Spain). Discrepancies Around the Use of the Term Islamophobia , The Omar
Khayyam Center for Integrative Research in Utopia, Mysticism, and Science, HUMAN ARCHITECTURE:
JOURNAL OF THE SOCIOLOGY OF SELF-KNOWLEDGE, VIII, 2, FALL 2010, 115-128)//ASMITH
As mentioned above, there is another order of criticism or discrepancy toward

the term Islamophobia, which though fully linked to ethnic, religious and cultural aspects, is in
itself used as individual criticism over the use of this terminology. Such
is firstly the case of etymological/ terminological criticism. From this viewpoint, the terms anti-Muslim
racism, anti- Arab or even intolerance against Muslims 18 are
clearer than the term Islamophobia for various reasons. On the one
hand, use of the word phobia in the concept is not considered
appropriate, as it would imply the existence of a sort of mental
illness (phobia: obsessive aversion to someone or something and/or
compulsive irrational fear); on the other, the term Islamophobia is
not considered ideal, for there is no specific rejection of Islam as a
religion, but rather a rejection of Muslim individuals or collectives or
those defined as such. This kind of criticism even makes an analogy
between the word Islamophobia and the word anti-Semitism,
arguing that from a grammatical standpoint anti-Semitism should
signify a prejudice against Semitic peoples in general, even though
it is exclusively used to refer to hostility against the Jews. In this regard,
the grammatically incorrect Islamophobia would require the 150
years which the term anti-Semitism needed to become
grammatically acceptable, except that Jews recognize themselves
and are recognized as being a single ethnic group, contrary to the
case of Muslims. Parallel to this, inclusion of the word Islam in the word
Islamophobia raises another kind of discrepancy: based on an
undeniable question, the religious, racial, cultural and ethnic
diversity of the groups supposedly the object of Islamophobia, the
term Islamophobia homogenizes everything associated to Islam and
therefore to Muslims. In this homogenization process the diversity of communities
and individuals is essentialized, and distinct and differentiated
processes are eventually included in a same concept. It is held in
turn that widespread use of the term Islamophobia by distinct
communities may also essentialize internal plurality at local,
regional, national and international level. Other terms which
semantically attempt to approach the national particularities or
realities (besides the more extended anti-Arab anti-Muslim
racism) are becoming alternative though critical lines vis--vis
usage of the term Islamophobia. For example Islamfeindichkeit in
the German context literally means hostility to Islam , or its rejection, but not
phobia in the sense of fear, or maurofobia/morofobia in the Spanish case. Second,
we should look at criticism linked to the identity-building process which initially does not reject use of the term, but
does question the generalization and value of same, as well as its ability to describe the social reality in a non-
essentialized manner. This criticism is meant to show both the use and abuse of a terminology Islamophobiawhich we
ourselves have constructed. This identity-building presumes that the term Islamophobia is not put up in a one-way
manner addressed to Muslim communities and/or individuals, but rather that the prejudice we are dealing with is very
likely two-way. According to this thesis, the term Islamophobia is not complete, given that to understand it we should
delve into the contemporary public discussion regarding Islam and West, and also delimit the confusing inter-relational
debate being generated. From this point of view both sides have a tendency to essentialize from the Muslim and
Western standpoint both the Muslim population and the rest of the non- Muslim population. On the one hand there is
widespread social alarmism based on the threat of how Islam presents the Western world19, and on the other, how
from the West20 it is presented to Muslims. The simplification from the Wests viewpoint involves a number of prejudices
regarding many aspects associated to the world around Islam: to think that all (or most) Muslims are terrorists; to consider
widespread the degree of aggressiveness disseminated by news media with respect to Arab countries; to think that the
universal denial of human rights encompasses the whole Arab world; and to think that the billion Muslims, their social and
ethnic groups, are all the same. Likewise and bilaterally there is a process of essentialization by Muslims vis--vis the West
the a priori Muslim simplification of a comprehensive and uniform West, along with the stereotyped idea of a single
unitary and universal Muslim identity extended to all Muslims, their holy texts and their culture21. In this regard, before
the distinct processes of Western social and religious intolerance, processes whose tangible result is seen in conflicts
which reject the other and are in turn the root of Islamophobia, an endless number of responses to social exclusion have
been generated, such as signs of power loss and de-structuring of the bases of identitary thought, beyond the hardening
we encounter
of Western ideological postures and the root of the very concept of Islamophobia. Thirdly,
criticism or discrepancies which consider use of the term
Islamophobia to be unmerited, along with its respective symbolic
burden, as it hinders the freedom of expression of certain sectors
and/or social players. This debate initially emerged as criticism of the Runnymede Trust report. Those
who currently hold up the lack of freedom of expression to justify the insistence or imprecision of the term Islamophobia
make biased use of the sectors, Muslim or not: for example, the Mohammed caricatures controversy (2005), the film Fitna
(by Dutch far-right MP Geert Wilders) or the theatre play The Satanic Verses using the book of the same title by Salman
Rushdie, which opened in Germany on 30 March 2008, etc. These and other social players hold
that the charge of Islamophobia hampers their freedom of
expression. They ironically point to the freedom of expression
enjoyed by people who want to condemn or denounce discourses
and acts, such as the Islamophobia Award granted by the Islamic
Human Rights Commission, a British organization. On this point, we must note that
freedom of expression, albeit vital for democratic life, should not be deemed an absolute universal value . It should
be wielded within established legal frameworks and under the
appropriate ethical and legal responsibility of the different social
players involved. This means that Islamophobic speeches cannot be
justified through recourse to the protection of fundamental rights. 22
In fourth and last place we should take into account differences regarding the term Islamophobia in the framework of
ideological discourse. This criticism is grounded in the eagerness of researchers and/or academics to demonstrate that
Islamophobia exists in the society they are studying;
they go so far as to generalize and
make universal considerations with no criteria whatsoever regarding
both the phenomenon and the distinct readings associated to same.
This generalization causes the term Islamophobia to lose its original
meaning, distorting the observed reality. From this point of view criticism is addressed to
our inability to differentiate between discourse and practiceat the level of discourse not everything can or should be
This implies veiled criticism of how the term
called Islamophobia.
Islamophobia has grouped such a variety of forms of discourse and
acts, aiming to show that any act marked as Islamophobic proceeds
from a same ideological core23, which has distorted and/or lost its original meaning. This
criticism aims to show that indiscriminate use of this terminology is
not positive and that not all Islamophobic acts or incidents are
Islamophobia. To avoid this generalization, it holds that all the
observable and related nuances of acts marked as Islamophobic
must be studied in depth, as it would be wrong to have to choose
between Islamophobia or nothing. To that end, it proposes distinguishing, per national
specificity, between academic discussions about Islam and modernity; public debates about whether Islam recognizes the
principle of separation of church and state; the public clamour which essentializes Islam; and the forms of inciting hatred,
such as discourse associated to the death of Theo van Gogh, etc.
This is a pre-requisite to effectively challenging anti-

Muslim violence
Edvardsson 8 (Linda Edvardsson, Islamophobia Features of Islamophobia
and Strategies against it Malm University Department of International
Migration and Ethnic Relations IMER 91-120 Fall 2008 Master Thesis)
There is ultimately a need to address Islamophobia; both on a social
level and also within a legal discourse and this need have
descriptively been told by two imams alongside a theoretical
foundation. The imams have demonstrated that bad news and negative images are in fact causing more
disfavour than what everyday life might do. The media can therefore become a dual force in which negative images are
flourishing and being rooted, yet at the same time a constitution that can cause the opposite. This relationship is
depending on which news that is more favoured in that given time and/or place that one is referring to. In Sweden it has
been demonstrated through both the imams voices and a theoretical framework that Islamophobia is not so obvious and
a prominent feature in everyday life, rather, lies beneath the surface and are characterised in Swedish media. Yet, mental
and physical damage cannot be excluded.168 For instance, one of the imams stated that it is always a struggle to tell the
truth about Islam and also mentioned the segregation within Swedish labour market and housing. The imam also spoke of
the importance of what is prioritised by the police and other authorities and that this eventually decides if, how and when
Islamaphobia can be prevented and eliminated.169 Both the imams did not identify that Islamophobia is so apparent in
Sweden, in contrast to other countries. Yet underline that Islamophobia could have crucial effects on both Muslims and the
society in general. For instance, they both mention the incident with the Danish newspaper and medias role whereas
Muslims ought not to react against these kinds of things, instead work as good ambassadors or good employees.170 One
of the imams mentioned that there are differences between those acts against Islam itself and those acts that are against
the Muslims.171 Hitherto, this research mainly underlined the phobia against the religious practice rather than the ethnic
phobia; although, the need to address Islamophobia must maybe start with a separation between what we mean with the
In order to address more specifically the acts that is
concept Islamophobia.
carried out. Higher attention must therefore be drawn to if
Islamophobic acts are anticipated against ones ethnic or religious
belonging. Ergo a separation must maybe be realised, before
Islamophobia can be solved. In this manner, an extension of
Islamophobia such as, Muslimophobia might be plausible as it
depicts a phobia against ones ethnic belonging. This phobia might
reveal a fear or hostility against Muslim culture, countries, lifestyles,
traits etcetera. This extension of Islamophobia, Muslimophobia, can perhaps make
it easier to erase some misunderstandings thus easier being
decreased and grasped which methods that ought to be used more
specifically. After all, within the racialisation process it can be evident that the religion Islam and its various
It also portrays a discourse in

ethnic followers are categorised as one group and/or one identity.
which all groups become homogenous and static hence neglect
perspectives that sees ethnicity and culture as dynamic elements.
Strategies and efforts against Muslimophobia can therefore reduce influences and stereotypes caused by, for instance, the
essentialist view. This also emphasises the need to divide what the struggle is against more detailed. Then it
might be easier to solve those effects caused by Islamophobia and
implement new laws that react against it more effectively. After all, Karaman
revealed experiences where some situations had been hard to interpret as Islamophobia or a dangerous and reckless
game by some teenagers; as misunderstandings can easily cause more damage than good. However, clearly it has been
verified that there is a need to address Islamophobia both within the media, the labour market, housing, medical care,
schools and so forth. Most importantly, as the imams also declared, it is maybe time to embrace and highlight the positive
attributes of Islam and the Muslim population instead of always doing the opposite.
1ar AT Turns Counter Terrorism
Its not the root cause of terrorism Muslim terrorism pre-
dates CT
Rashi 14freelance journalist and writer for the Huffington Post (Tanjil,
3/16/14, "The Muslims are Coming!, by Arun Kundnani", Financial Times,
www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/af5ef4c6-aa15-11e3-8bd6-
00144feab7de.html)//twemchen
**edited for language
In truth, counterterrorism policies targeting Muslims are a legitimate

response to homegrown extremism, from the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby to the 366 (by one
count) British citizens waging jihad in Syria. Furthermore, the victims of the 2005 London bombings bear
witness to the reality of radicalism bred at home. At best,

Kundnanis argument is compelling in its dissection of governments
disproportional responses. He estimates the FBI has one counterterrorism agent per 94 Muslims in the
US, which approaches a Stasi-esque ratio of spies to citizens. He shows that authorities keep drawing spurious lists of
suspected radicals; one in the UK included almost 300 children under 15. A commonplace at the core of Kundnanis
critique is that radicalism is mainly the byproduct of western foreign policy. Religion
had nothing to
do with this, according to Kundnani, citing a conspirator in the London bombings. This
view is undermined by the existence of two generations of British
Muslims predating the war on terror men who fought in Afghanistan in the 1980s and in
Bosnia in the 1990s. The diminution of religions role in stoking radicalism is as
inaccurate as UK Labour politicians denial that wars in Iraq and Afghanistan acted even as recruiting sergeants.
Kundnani scrutinises responses to terrorism better than outlining its
causes. He probes the mutations of liberalism in the face of Islam ,
resulting in war on terror liberals for whom liberalism became an ideology of total war, from the UK Labour partys
interventionist foreign policy to Martin Amiss innumerate paranoia about Muslim birth rates. Liberals hold up the
Enlightenment, conservatives campaign to defend Judeo-Christian identity both banners explicitly excluding Muslims;
both groups inclined, Kundnani writes, to see terrorists motivated by fanaticism inherent to Islam. History
offers correctives to these narratives , demonstrating varieties of
Islam being as rooted in rationalism as the Enlightenment; the
Enlightenment being as tied to terror as Islam (the word terrorism itself was first
used during The Terror of the Enlightenment-inspired French revolution). The Muslims are Coming! lacks optimism but
there is every reason to believe Muslim might one day be suffixed to Judeo-Christian when describing the wests
culture and values. Note how one prominent French intellectual writes about Europes growing population of a certain
religious minority: All of them are born with raging fanaticism in their hearts. The author of these unenlightened
remarks? Voltaire. His subject? The Jews.
1ar AT Turns War
Structural violence doesnt escalate
Hinde 2k Robert Hinde and Lea Pulkkinnen, Cambridge psychology
professor and University of Jyvskyl psychology professor, 2000, DRAFT
Background Paper for Working Group 1: HUMAN AGGRESSIVENESS AND WAR,
50th Pugwash Conference On Science and World Affairs: "Eliminating the
Causes of War" Queens' College, Cambridge,
http://www.pugwash.org/reports/pac/pac256/WG1draft1.htm
People are capable of perpetrating the most terrible acts of violence on their fellows. From before recorded history
humans have killed humans, and violence is potentially present in every society. There is no escaping the fact that the
capacity to develop a propensity for violence is part of human nature. But that does not mean that aggression is
inevitable: temporary anger need not give rise to persistent hostility, and hostility need not
give rise to acts of aggression. And people also have the capacity to care for the needs of others, and are capable
of acts of great altruism and self-sacrifice. A subsidiary aim of this workshop is to identify the factors that make aggressive
Some degree of conflict of interest is
tendencies predominate over the cooperative and compassionate ones.
often present in relationships between individuals, in the relations between groups of individuals
within states, and in the relations between states: we are concerned with the factors that
make such conflicts escalate into violence. The answer to that question depends critically on the context.
While there may be some factors in common, the bases of individual aggressiveness are
very different from those involved in mob violence, and they differ yet again from the factors
influencing the bomb-aimer pressing the button in a large scale international war. In considering
whether acts which harm others are a consequence of the aggressive motivation of individuals, it is essential to recognise
the diversity of such acts, which include interactions between individuals, violence between groups, and wars of the WW2
type. We shall see that, with increasing social complexity, individual aggressiveness becomes progressively less
important, but other aspects of human nature come to contribute to group phenomena. Although research on human
violence has focussed too often on the importance of one factor or another, it is essential to remember that
violence always has multiple causes, and the interactions between the causal
factors remain largely unexplored.
Neech
2ac F/L

Perm do both ressentiment may often be destructive,

but it is necessary for a baseline of social justice
Soloman 94 (Robert Soloman 94, Philosophy @ UT Austin, Nietzsche,
Genealogy, Morality p. 123-124)
Nietzsche separates what he calls justice from the reactive emotions, defending justice as a rare and unusually noble
we
sentiment while attacking such emotions as resentment for their impotence. This is no less questionable. But
need not therefore disagree when he objects to the abuse of justice
as a faade for the defense of ones own interests, whether in the
name of rights or equality and we need not endorse the
consequent leveling effect of enforced modernity . In the name of
justice, for example, one may adopt an egalitarian standpoint, but
look only in one direction. The French bourgeoisie during the French
Revolution only looked up at the aristocrats they wanted to replace,
but they never looked down at the rest of the third estate who
were much worse off. The hard question is whether there is any neutral social position (other than our
position as outside observers) that would provide the proper standpoint for making such evaluations. Justice
always begins as situated with the self and its personal passions:
but it need not therefore be selfish, and resentment need not be
petty or opposed to a noble sense of generosity and
compassion . Indeed, given that we are not Nietzsches fantasized
Ubermenschen, wholly satisfied and in charge of our world, it is
hard to even imagine what justice and for that matter morality
would be without resentment and the modicum of selfishness that
makes it possible . Perhaps Duhring was right: the home of justice is to be sought in the sphere of the
reactive feelings.
Ressentiment is productiveinseparable for some

freedom and their crusade against it links just as much
Dolger 10, Brock University, "In Praise of Ressentiment: Or, How I Learned
to Stop Worrying and Love Glenn Beck", APSA 2010 Annual Meeting Paper,
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1642232&download=yes
In closing I would suggest that my praise of ressentiment is also in
After Ressentiment
line with the more deliberatively conceived multiculturalism of the Left than is the
current puritanical disdain. As Monique Deveaux argues, it is a failure of political
imagination when we fixate on liberal principles as preconditions lo multicultural dialogue, and in particular
it is necessary to move toward a deeper level of intercultural respect rather than mere toleration (Deveaux
2000).10 But if it is appropriate to go beyond simply tolerating non- liberal peoples abroad and in
immigrant communities, if we must go beyond toleration to do justice to the rich tradition of cultural
pluralism, then perhaps we can also open our hearts and minds to the possibility that the ressentiment-
suffused need to be heard out as well. Perhapsrather than demonizing ressentiment
as a toxin to politics, as the worst of the worst for subjects whom we
purport to free, we must accept that ressentiment is for many
inseparable from their conception of their own freedom. Perhaps rather
than pitying these poor fools, in ways that we would never pity a plural wife in the global
South, we should ponder whether ressentiment as a precondition of
subjectivity is as much a gift as a curse. And are we so sure, after all, we
late Nietzscheans, that our crusade against ressentiment is not itself
suffused with ressentiment? Is not itself fully in the grips of it? How would we
know if it were or werent? Perhaps we are, in our own way, as spiteful, vain,
petty, weak, subjected, enraged against the past, capitalized, consumerized, unfree, as those we
purport to want to free from the chains of slave morality. Perhaps it is ourselves that we
need to give a break to, that we need to get over, when we first look to purge the other of ressentiment.
Perhaps we all swim in this current, perhaps we are all
Ressentiments children, and perhaps that is OK even to the extreme
of the using ressentiment unconsciously in the effort to rid the world
of ressentiment. Though just in saying so I wouldnt expect that to do much to overturn
Ressentiments reign. No, she is far too puissant for that. But we do not need to rage
against the weakness in others because we fear the dependence and
weakness in ourselves. As Vetlesen puts it, defending Amery: Against Nietzsche,
who despised victims because he saw them as weak, as losers in lifes
struggles, Amery upholds the dignity of having been forced by
circumstances beyond ones control into that position , thus reminding
Nietzsche that as humans we are essentially relational beings, dependent, not
self-sufficient. In hailing the strong and despising the weak , in denying that
vulnerability is a basic ineluctably given human condition, a condition from which not only the role of
Nietzsche fails to be the
victim springs but that of the morally responsible agent too,
provocateur he loves to believe he is: He sides with the complacent
majority and so helps reinforce the existential and moral loneliness
felt by Amery, the individual victim who speaks up precisely in that capacity (Vetlesen 2006, 43). Perhaps
we can begin to see how we have been using the weak, the viewers of Glenn
Beck and others, as the targets for our need to find blameworthy agents.
And that too is fine. The trouble comes when we think weve gone beyond
Ressentiment when in fact were just listening to her whisperings
without realizing it. We think that we can well and truly look down
on the Rush Limbaughs, these destroyers of civilization, because they are possessed
by something that we are above. And far be it from me to suggest that we should not
resent, should not blame; I merely suggest we direct our blame toward more
useful ends than where it is currently located.
Suffering isnt inevitable
Eagen 4Jennifer Philisophical interests September 9
http://home.earthlink.net/~jeagan/id3.html
Suffering is the theme of two of my published papers, which both examine the question of how philosophy should respond to
suffering. Suffering is a mode of living one's body that usually takes into account the ontic features that impact the body. Social and
political events are often the cause of suffering, even if the event is painted as natural (example, famine, cancer whose causes are
usually greater than just natural). Suffering is often where the body and the social-liguistic order that Foucault talks about meet. Many
of the examples that Foucault talks about are examples of suffering, even though he dispassionately displays it without showing the
many of
effects of the individual consciousness. Maybe Foucault with a touch more phenomenology is what I'm after. Also,
the cases of oppression and human rights violations that I deal with in my
teaching are examples of suffering to greater or lesser degrees. One challenge that I
face as I continue to try to define suffering is how to give an account of suffering and what constitutes suffering. Will the criteria be
subjective or objective? Is suffering relative (say between the West and the developing world)? Can we legitimately compare the
suffering of different individuals or groups? All good questions. I could argue along with Adorno that suffering is not
natural nor is it a permanent feature of the human condition , but is
primarily caused by social and political events and conditions . However, I might want
to argue something like there are some seemingly permanent features of this social-
political landscape that cause everyone to suffer, but to different degrees
(e.g., gender). I'm looking forward to exploring this further.
AT Extinction
Ressentiment doesnt cause extinction
Meltzer 2, and Gil Richard Musolf, profs of sociology at Central Michigan
University, Resentment and Ressentiment, Sociological Inquiry, V72 N2,
Spring, 240-55
Given this negative characterizationa prevailing evaluationof ressentiment, it is not surprising to learn that Sartre
(1965, p. 14) describes those who experience the emotion as individuals who establish their human personality as a
perpetual negation. Augmenting the negative view of this emotion is a widely held view among scholars that both
resentment and ressentiment tend to be base, dastardly emotions resorted to by thin-skinned individuals and seekers
after excuses for failure, that these emotions are often felt irrationally, on occasions in which one has not been morally
wronged. Thus, Solomon (1995) refers to a vindictive emotion, frequently a personal, petty, disproportionate reaction to
a slight; Ortony, Clore, and Collins (1988) write of a distasteful emotion; and Adam Smith [1759] (1969) designates a
disagreeable passion.7 On the other hand, Solomon (1994), elsewhere, takes a more positive view
ofressentiment, pointing out that it often entails compassion for others in the
same situation, and its implicit sense of injustice may lead to
corrective action; thus, ressentiment can be seen as an expression
of the socially responsible insistence of the community on justice
and justification (p. 124). Similarly, Haber (1991) argues that resentment can
be a form of personal protest that expresses regard for oneself, for
others, and for the normative order (p. 48). Moreover, Haber (1991, p. 82) holds that a
display of resentment may serve as an instrument of individual or
social change. In fact, the historian Hippolyte Taine (cited in Jameson 1976, p.
131) sought to explain revolutions in terms of underlying
ressentiment, and Jameson (1976) contends that this emotion is the very content of revolutions. In the same
vein, various scholars have asserted that the individual of ressentiment is a potential revolutionary (Vaneigem 1979, p.
9) and that our revolutionaries are men and women of resentment(Solomon
1995, p. 266).8 Thus, Merton (1957, p. 155) maintains that organized rebellion may draw
upon a vast reservoir of the resentful and discontented as
institutional dislocations become acute. In the light of such characterizations, the role of
the political agitator is readily recognized as that of raising consciousness of unjust treatment (where such consciousness
is absent), inducing ressentiment (where the emotion is absent), and organizing resistance to the recurrence or
continuation of unjust treatment. Moreover, Folger (1987) claims that revolutionary ideologies can help to create
ressentiment. That ressentiment can be used to initiate (and

sustain) revolution argues against the more passiveand
contemptuousconceptions held by Nietzsche , Scheler, and their many followers.
Narcissism
2ac F/L

Link turn the plan ruptures the fantasy that US

intervention is universally appropriate in issues like the
drug war
Psychos too clinical to explain IR


the theoretical oversight. The key thing is this. Lacan's notion of traversing the fantasy
This leads him
elision of the distinction between the (subjective) Ego Ideal and the (objective) Symbolic Order.
type of change that can only mean equating politics with violent
We have seen

But
in one world- creating moment? And can they be legitimately asked
Perm do both staring with the wrong choice is key ---

creates the conditions for future change --- the
juxtaposition of the aff and alternative is uniquely
important
Re 12 --- writer, philosopher and historian (Jonathan, Less Than Nothing by
Slavoj iek review, http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/jun/27/less-
than-nothing-slavoj-zizek-review?newsfeed=true)//trepka
Of course he relies on a formula: to be iekian is to hold that Freudian psychoanalysis is essentially correct, and that its
implications are absolutely revolutionary. But iek's Freud is not everyone's. Old-fashioned Freudians believe that we
have masses of juicy secrets locked up inside us, unacknowledged by our well-ordered rational consciousness and
for Lacan before him, Freud's great insight
clamouring to be set free. For iek, however, as
was that everything about us our vaunted rationality as much as
our unavowable impulses is soaked with craziness and ambivalence
all the way through. "The first choice has to be the wrong choice ," as
iek says in his monumental new book, because "the wrong choice creates the
conditions for the right choice". There is no such thing as being
wholly in the right, or wholly in the wrong; and this principle applies
to politics as much as to personal life. Politics, as iek understands it, is a rare and splendid
thing: no actions are genuinely political unless they are revolutionary, and revolution is not revolution unless it institutes
"true change" the kind of comprehensive makeover that "sets its own standards" and "can only be measured by criteria
that result from it". Genuine revolutionaries are not interested in operating on "the enemy's turf", haggling over various
strategies for satisfying pre-existing needs or securing pre-existing rights: they want to break completely with the past
and create "an opening for the truly New". Authentic revolutions have often been betrayed, but as far as iek is
concerned, they are never misconceived.
Their theorys unfalsifiable

sequence=1)
trial.

skills
The idea that being nice to everyone will solve all our
problems is utopian nonsense our threats are real lying
would get our authors fired

bureaucratic-
security crises, because of peoples fears, are especially ripe opportunities to grab largesse. (Ibid., 182) Thus,





Preemption
2ac F/L
<Perm do the CP they cant PIC because this wasnt

part of the advocacy we defend the plan and need only
answer impact turns to its outcomes. Other parts of the
1AC can be rejected as you vote aff to endorse the plan.
Thats key to solve infinite regression and is consistent
with the 1NCs performative contradictions.>
No link the 1AC included a defense of its representaitons

thats not preemption
Inevitable the aff is always a preempt to the status quo
They link too the 1NC preempted the 2AC no link

argument
Psychoanalysis
Notes
framework this 1nc is really framework dependent but if you manage to weigh the affirmative, its
hard to win
2 parts
--our discussion good because it affects the world even if this is about
sustaining desires, that doesnt mean it doesnt work the fantasy still gets
people to do things and you can change it
--they cheated the negative will spend a bunch of time articulating what
ground the affirmative gets, which lets you justify a bunch of args
question the theory

--this is an epistemological objection to psycho carl popper came up w
falsifiability this isnt really applicable, but we have great ev and its worth
saying
--negative teams should say that falsifiability is an impossible standard
--math and physics arent falsifiable
--the affirmative response to these things is that your standard
isnt that high were not saying that there has to be a controlled experiment
just that it has to be externally verifiable
--if youre right, it takes out the link, impact, and alt
--combine this with offense like robinson
challenge the alt

--for some affs this makes no sense
--think about what it means for this to happen in real life and also in debate
--overconformity only works if you get the joke
the three orders of language

--symbolic is the social structure that informs communication and who we are
--the imaginary is how we invest in those things including how you think of
your body/yourself
--analogy the symbolic is like an equation with variables and the
imaginary is the numbers you choose
--the real when the symbolic fails
--sometimes things happen that words cant describe events that are
outside of human control
lack
--baby gets pooped out
--the baby doesnt think of itself outside the world it thinks the world exists
to serve it theres a weak/no separation between the thing and the world
--eventually, it wants something, and someone says no for instance, the
baby wants the boob, and someone says no
--suddenly, the baby realizes that the world has agency
--the mirror stage allows the baby to enter into the symbolic allowing the
baby to be interpreted by others but the drawback is that youre now
separate from the world, and the world is no longer obligated to the baby
realizing that the baby is not the world causes the baby to lose its association
with the world
--thats the lack
--we try to fill the lack thats desire
--but no thing will fill the lack only the drive to get the thing is enjoyable
--the death drive is the drive to fill the lack which always defeats itself
whatever thing you want at the time is something called the petit objet A
the little object A
2ac F/L

Link turn the plan ruptures the fantasy by

acknowledging the failure of the drug war the alt might
eventually cause the state to own up to its lie, but we fiat
that the state own up to it
Lacanian politics are too pessimistic --- too theoretical,

precludes action and reinforces the worst aspects of the
status quo
Robinson 5 --- PhD in political theory at the University of Nottingham (Andrew,
The Political Theory of Constitutive Lack: A Critique, Project Muse)//trepka
Conclusion: The constitutive lack of radicalism in Lacanian politics There is more than an accidental relationship between
the mythical operation of the concept of "constitutive lack" and Lacanians' conservative and pragmatist politics. Myth is a
way of reducing thought to the present: the isolated signs which are included in the mythical gesture are thereby attached
On an analytical level, Lacanian theory can be very
to extra-historical abstractions.
"radical", unscrupulously exposing the underlying relations and assumptions concealed beneath officially-
sanctioned discourse. This radicalism, however, never translates into political
conclusions : as shown above, a radical rejection of anti-"crime" rhetoric

turns into an endorsement of punishment, and a radical critique of
neo-liberalism turns into a pragmatist endorsement of structural
adjustment. It is as if there is a magical barrier between theory and
politics which insulates the latter from the former. One should recall a remark once
made by Wilhelm Reich: 'You plead for happiness in life, but security means more to you'133. Lacanians have a "radical"
As long as they are
theory oriented towards happiness, but politically, their primary concern is security.
engaged in politically ineffectual critique, Lacanians will denounce
and criticize the social system, but once it comes to practical
problems , the "order not to think" becomes operative. This "magic" barrier is
the alibi function of myth. The short-circuit between specific instances and
high-level abstractions is politically consequential. A present evil
can be denounced and overthrown if located in an analysis with a
"middle level", but Lacanian theory tends in practice to add an
"always" which prevents change . At the very most, such change cannot affect the basic matrix
posited by Lacanian theory, because this is assumed to operate above history. In this way, Lacanian theory operates as an
alibi: it offers a little bit of theoretical radicalism to inoculate the system against the threat posed by a lot of politicized
radicalism134. In Laclau and Mouffe's version, this takes the classic Barthesian form: " yes,
liberal
democracy involves violent exclusions, but what is this compared to
the desert of the real outside it?" The Zizekian version is more complex: "yes, there can be a
revolution, but after the revolution, one must return to the pragmatic tasks of the present". A good example is provided in
one of Zizek's texts. The author presents an excellent analysis of a Kafkaesque incident in the former Yugoslavia where
the state gives a soldier a direct, compulsory order to take a voluntary oath - in other words, attempts to compel consent.
He then ruins the impact of this example by insisting that there is always such a moment of "forced choice", and that one
should not attempt to escape it lest one end up in psychosis or totalitarianism135. The political function
of Lacanian theory is to preclude critique by encoding the present
as myth. There is a danger of a stultifying conservatism arising from within Lacanian political theory, echoing
the 'terrifying conservatism' Deleuze suggests is active in any reduction of history to negativity136.
The addition of an "always" to contemporary evils amounts to a
" pessimism of the will ", or a " repressive reduction of thought to the
present". Stavrakakis, for instance, claims that attempts to find causes and
thereby to solve problems are always fantasmatic1 37, while Zizek
states that an object which is perceived as blocking something does
nothing but materialize the already-operative constitutive lack 138. While
this does not strictly entail the necessity of a conservative attitude to the possibility of any specific reform, it
creates a danger of discursive slippage and hostility to "utopianism"

which could have conservative consequences . Even if Lacanians believe in
surplus/contingent as well as constitutive lack, there are no standards for distinguishing the two. If one cannot tell which
social blockages result from constitutive lack and which are contingent, how can one know they are not all of the latter
type? And even if constitutive lack exists, Lacanian theory runs a risk of "misdiagnoses" which have a neophobe or even
reactionary effect.
To take an imagined example, a Lacanian living in France
in 1788 would probably conclude that democracy is a utopian
fantasmatic ideal and would settle for a pragmatic reinterpretation
of the ancien regime. Laclau and Mouffe's hostility to workers'
councils and Zizek's insistence on the need for a state and a Party 139
exemplify this neophobe tendency. The pervasive negativity and
cynicism of Lacanian theory offers little basis for constructive activity .
Instead of radical transformation, one is left with a pragmatics of
"containment" which involves a conservative de-problematization of
the worst aspects of the status quo. The inactivity it counsels would
make its claims a self-fulfilling prophecy by acting as a barrier to
transformative activity. To conclude, the political theory of "constitutive lack" does not hold together as
an analytical project and falls short of its radical claims as a theoretical and political one. It relies on central concepts
which are constructed through the operation of a mythical discourse in the Barthesian sense, with the result that it is
unable to offer sufficient openness to engage with complex issues. If political theory is to make use of poststructuralist
conceptions of contingency, it would do better to look to the examples provided by Deleuze and Guattari, whose
the idea of "constitutive lack"
conception of contingency is active and affirmative. In contrast,
turns Lacanian theory into something its most vocal proponent, Zizek, claims to attack: a
" plague of fantasies".
Psychos too clinical to explain IR


We have seen

But

important
Psychos made up
sequence=1)
trial.
Extinction outweighs
a) Forecloses future improvement turns the alt and
forfeits all lifes intrinsic value
b) Turns suffering extinction is the failure of human
efforts to preserve the integrity of creation
c) Moral obligation to preserve earth for future
generations
No scapegoating
Gollwitzer 4 --- University of Trier, Germany (Mario, Do Normative
Transgressions Affect Punitive Judgments? An Empirical Test of the
Psychoanalytic Scapegoat Hypothesis, SagePub)//trepka
DISCUSSION The psychoanalytic scapegoat hypothesis implies (a) that
individuals who are guilty of violating a law or norm tend to impose
harsher punitive judgments on comparable wrongdoers than nonguilty
individuals and (b) that transgressors punitiveness should be amplified by
the subjectively perceived decision conflict. A new alternative hypothesis

was derived from research on blame avoidance and empathy: If individuals
were really fundamentally concerned with avoiding self-ascriptions of blame by applying defensive attributions (Shaver,
transgressors should impose more lenient

1970, 1985), then it follows that
punishment on comparable offenders, especially under

circumstances of similarity. Although the blame-avoidance hypothesis
directly contradicts the implications of the scapegoat hypothesis, both
effects might be present depending on situationspecific or person-specific factors. If these factors are not controlled for,
the paradoxical situation could occur that the two effects cancel each other out (Schmitt et al., 2003). Among the most
theoretically plausible of such person-specific factors is authoritarianism. This variable is expected to moderate the
transgression-punitiveness relation. In other words: The scapegoat effect is expected to occur among high authoritarians,
The data presented here
whereas the leniency effect should occur among low authoritarians.
largely support the blame-avoidance motivation account: Punitive

judgment scores were higher among nontransgressors, regarding
both vignette transgressions in immoral temptation situations and
actually committed transgressions reported by participants. This
effect was consistent across all six criminal cases in both vignette and actual
transgressions. Furthermore, compared with a baseline measure of punitive judgments, the present results suggest that
it is not a harshness bias on the side of the nontransgressors that causes this effect but rather, a mildness bias on the side
of the transgressors. Although this finding is a clear corroboration for the blame-avoidance hypothesis, one could argue
transgressors simply do not care about the norm they
(a) that
transgress and (b) that transgression decision and punitiveness share a
common cause, that is, the moral reprehensibility of the deed . The
first explanation implies that conflict scores do not differ between
transgressors and nontransgressors. This is, however, not the case, because conflict scores
wereexcept for the moonlighter scenarioconsistently higher among transgressors than among nontransgressors. The
suggestion that transgressors mildness bias was simply due to their recklessness can therefore be ruled out. The second
explanation would result in the argument that the relation between transgression decision and punitive judgments is
spurious, because they can both be traced back to the same cause, that is, the moral evaluation of the deed. The
mediation effect of moral evaluation was not significant in the present analyses: The effect sizes of transgression
decisions on punitive judgments remained largely unaffected by entering moral evaluation scores as a covariate. This
finding contradicts the alternative hypothesis that moral evaluation was the common cause for transgression decisions as
we
well as for punitive judgments. Besides investigating the main effect of transgression decision on punitiveness,
tested whether the subjectively experienced decision conflict in a
dilemma situation affects punitive judgments among transgressors.
Although the size of this correlation was consistently positive in sign across the six scenarios, it was not
statistically deviant from 0. Thus, this particular finding cannot be
used as an argument for or against the scapegoat hypothesis. Taking
authoritarianism as a possible moderator variable into account was a further attempt to demonstrate scapegoating effects
in a subpopulation where they appear to be most likely to occur. The negative sign of the three-way interaction regression
coefficient shows that this was not the case. One might think of the possibility that this three-way interaction did not
emerge because authoritarianism and transgression decisions were confounded. This would be a reasonable interpretation
because authoritarianism implies conventionalism, which means refraining from committing something unlawful because
it is unlawful (Adorno et al., 1950). Therefore, it could be that individuals high in authoritarianism principally do not give in
to immoral temptations. Contrary to this speculation, however, transgression decisions in each of the six vignettes were
correlated only weakly with authoritarianism (.05 < r < .12, average r = .04). Thus, nontransgressors are not
the present study presents both weak
automatically high authoritarians. Taken together,
and strong results. The major aim was to test the psychoanalytic
scapegoat hypothesis against an alternative hypothesis based on a
blame-avoidance motivation. Concerning the main effect of transgression on punitive judgments,
the results strongly support the blame-avoidance hypothesis. Concerning
the effect of transgressors decision conflict on punitive judgments, however, the results support neither the scapegoat
nor the blame-avoidance motivation hypothesis. One could think of other empirical
accesses to the effect of decision conflicts. For example, the subjective quality of
experienced decision conflicts in tempting situations might have trait-like qualities: Individuals might consistently differ in
the way they perceive and solve moral decision conflicts and in the amount of unease connected to these decision
conflicts. These interindividual differences could be assessed and tested as predictors for punitive judgments. Second,
moral conflicts may be better captured by assessing them on a more idiosyncratic level. Participants could be interviewed
about temptation situations in which they recall having experienced a strong decision conflict; subsequently, their punitive
judgments could be assessed in an adaptively constructed criminal case vignette that resembles this particular
temptation. Finally, a possible conflict- punitiveness relation might be moderated by other variables than authoritarianism.
Because fear of an Idbreakthrough is considered the crucial motor
of scapegoating by Freud (1923/1990), trait anxiety appears to be a
suitable moderator variable. It is remarkable that a prominent theoretical account such as the
psychoanalytic scapegoat hypothesis, which is discussed among principal penological
theories in standard textbooks on legal studies (e.g., Gppinger, 1997; Kaiser, 1996; Schwind, 2002), has never
received the empirical attention that it might deserve. The present

study was a first attempt to test specifically derived implications of
the scapegoat hypothesis. It seems that although the process of scapegoating and its psychodynamic
roots, as conceptualized in psychoanalytic writings, is not testable as such, its implications can be incorporated into
contemporary accounts of punitiveness and retributive justice. If these implications repeatedly fail to receive empirical
backup, the scapegoat hypothesis should be at least reformulated, or dismissed .
Perm do the alt their severance stuff is a manifestation

of their desire for a perfect discursive space which links
to the kritik
AT Death Drive
No death drive
Carel 6 Havi Carel is a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of the
West of England. (Life and Death in Freud and Heidegger)
The notion of the death drive is on the one hand too wide, explaining all
types of aggression as well as the putative urge towards complete
rest. This leads the notion to be economically incoherent, as will be discussed in
the next section. But a prior point must be examined: are all types of aggression the same ? Freud
suggests a positive answer, but as a psychological taxonomy this approach seems to erase
important differences. For example, if both sadism and masochism stem

from the same aggressive source, should they be classified as
belonging to the same group? Should they be clinically approached in
a similar fashion? The answer to both these questions seems to be no. The problems and symptoms characterising sadism
are very different from the ones characterising masochism, as is their treatment. Another example, group aggression
and individual aggression: should we attempt to describe or treat

the two as belonging to the same cluster? Again, the answer seems to be negative. As to
the second point, one could justifiably ask: what does the death drive mean? Because it is so general, the
notion of the death drive is vague. The death drive cannot explain a
given situation because it itself becomes meaningful only as a
collection of situations. On Freud's account, any behaviour meriting the
adjective 'aggressive' arises from the death drive . If we take a certain set of aggressive
behaviours, say, sadistic ones, the death drive would come to signify this set. If we take another set of masochistic behaviours, the death drive
the significance of the notion seems entirely

would mean this set. As it stands,
dependent on the observed phenomenon. If Freud were never to

meet any masochists, would his notion of the death drive exclude
masochism? Any science relying on observation and empirical data relics on this data and should be willing, in principle, to modify
and update its concepts in accordance with new empirical observations. The opening paragraph of Instincts and Their Vicissitudes describes
this process. We have often heard it maintained that sciences should be built up on clear and sharply defined basic concepts. In actual fact no
science, not even the most exact, begins with such definitions. The true beginning of scientific activity consists rather in describing
phenomena and then in proceeding to group, classify and correlate them. Even at the stage of description it is not possible to avoid applying
certain abstract ideas to the material in hand, ideas derived from somewhere or other but certainly not from the new observations alone [...].
They must at first necessarily possess some degree of indefiniteness; there can be no question of any clear delimitation of their content. So
long as they remain in this condition, we come to an understanding about their meaning by making repeated references to the material of
observation from which they appear to have been derived, but upon which, in fact, they have been imposed <SK 14:1U;GW 10:210). This
There is no
seems to be a sophisticated, fruitfully flexible approach. But in the case of the death drive, it seems to be too flexible.
initial restriction on the type of behaviour that could be classified as

aggressive or as lowering tension. Hence we find sadism and
masochism, passive-aggressive and substance-induced aggression,
aggression displayed in group situation and aggressive fantasy, all
tied to the death drive as their source. By analogy, any behaviour
that leads to discharge of energy or lowering of tension would be in
accordance with the Nirvana principle. One way of responding to this issue is by applying the term
'aggression* purely descriptively. Karli, for example, proposes the following definition: aggression means, "threatening or striking at the
physical or psychic integrity of another living being" (Karli, 1991, p. 10). He sees the danger in the shift from using aggression descriptively to
attributing to it an explanatory and causal role.When accorded a causal role, aggression is

reified and becomes a natural entity, a danger that can be avoided by using the term strictly
descriptively. This suggestion makes a lot of sense, but it would be unacceptable for Freud. For he is proposing a metaphysical
view, which cannot be taken to be purely descriptive, because it is

embedded in a physicalist view of the drives as elements connecting
body and psyche, and is meant to have an explanatory and causal
role in the explanation of behaviour. Although Freud would reject the purely descriptive use of the
concept of aggression, this suggestion will be useful when we discuss the reconstruction of the death drive. As to the third point, it seems that
the explanatory value of the death drive is not satisfactory . Because of the two
problems set out above - the excessive promiscuity of the notion of aggression and the fact that it irons significant differences between the
The concept as presented by Freud does allow too much in and lumps
various phenomena its explanatory value is limited
together behaviours and tendencies whose differences are

significant. In this sense, those rejecting the death drive as an unhelpful
speculation are justified in their criticism.
AT Science Bad
Their critique of science is reductionist and wrong
Pinker 13 (Steven [Professor of psychology @ Harvard]; Science Is Not
Your Enemy: An impassioned plea to neglected novelists, embattled
professors, and tenure-less historians; Aug 6;
http://www.newrepublic.com/node/114127/print; kdf)
Scientism, in this good sense, is not the belief that members of the
occupational guild called science are particularly wise or noble. On the contrary, the
defining practices of science, including open debate, peer review, and double-blind methods, are explicitly
designed to circumvent the errors and sins to which scientists, being human, are
vulnerable. Scientism does not mean that all current scientific hypotheses are true; most new ones are not, since the cycle of
conjecture and refutation is the lifeblood of science. It is not an imperialistic drive to occupy the
humanities; the promise of science is to enrich and diversify the

intellectual tools of humanistic scholarship, not to obliterate them. And it is not the dogma that
physical stuff is the only thing that exists. Scientists themselves are immersed in the ethereal medium of information, including the truths of
science is of a
mathematics, the logic of their theories, and the values that guide their enterprise. In this conception,
piece with philosophy, reason, and Enlightenment humanism. It is

distinguished by an explicit commitment to two ideals, and it is these that scientism seeks to export to the rest of intellectual life. The first is
that the world is intelligible. The phenomena we experience may be explained by principles that are more general than the phenomena
themselves. These principles may in turn be explained by more fundamental principles, and so on. In making sense of our world, there should
The commitment to
be few occasions in which we are forced to concede It just is or Its magic or Because I said so.
intelligibility is not a matter of brute faith, but gradually validates

itself as more and more of the world becomes explicable in scientific
terms. The processes of life, for example, used to be attributed to a mysterious lan vital; now we know they are powered by chemical
and physical reactions among complex molecules. Demonizers of scientism often confuse
intelligibility with a sin called reductionism. But to explain a complex happening in terms of
deeper principles is not to discard its richness. No sane thinker would try to explain World War I in the language of physics, chemistry, and
biology as opposed to the more perspicuous language of the perceptions and goals of leaders in 1914 Europe. At the same time, a curious
person can legitimately ask why human minds are apt to have such perceptions and goals, including the tribalism, overconfidence, and sense
of honor that fell into a deadly combination at that historical moment. The second ideal is that the acquisition of knowledge is hard. The world
. Most
does not go out of its way to reveal its workings, and even if it did, our minds are prone to illusions, fallacies, and super- stitions
of the traditional causes of belieffaith, revelation, dogma, authority, charisma, conventional wisdom, the
invigorating glow of subjective certaintyare generators of error and should be dismissed
as sources of knowledge. To understand the world, we must cultivate work-

arounds for our cognitive limitations, including skepticism, open debate, formal
precision, and empirical tests, often requiring feats of ingenuity. Any movement that calls itself scientific but fails to nurture opportunities for
the falsification of its own beliefs (most obviously when it murders or imprisons the people who disagree with it) is not a scientific movement.
Alt AT Overidentify
Overidentification replicates our impacts ask yourself
what does the alt look like? a mass immigrant
deportation? satirical ethnic cleansing? equipping
border patrol agents with tactical nukes? the
enforcement CP? theres a point at which their cynical
politics goes too far which is uniquely pernicious in
immigration surveillance debates, which are
underdeveloped and in which new intellectual
developments entrench academic heuristics
Kalhan 14 Associate Professor of Law, Drexel University. A.B., Brown
University; M.P.P.M., Yale School of Management; J.D., Yale Law School (Anil,
IMMIGRATION SURVEILLANCE, 74 Md. L. Rev. 1)//BB
immigration surveillance demands more attention to forms of structural

Finally,
oversight.Because of the necessarily opaque manner in which database

systems and automated decisionmaking mechanisms often function -
and the ways in which multiple actors are involved in their operation over extended periods of time - oversight of
these systems can be particularly difficult in the context of individual cases. 319 This is
undoubtedly more true in the immigration enforcement system , which has
traditionally been ill-equipped to supervise investigatory practices .
320 Given the limitations in the ability of individual redress mechanisms to fully ensure proper oversight of database
systems, these systems raise the stakes in making sure that structural oversight mechanisms operate effectively. 321
Especially as immigration surveillance integrates the institutions of immigration control with each other and with the
institutions of other domains, the blurred lines of accountability among different institutions make accountability difficult;
the implementation of automated immigration surveillance initiatives only blurs those lines further. 322 [78] VI.
Technology, as Erin Murphy has explained, "alters - rather than just
Conclusion
mechanizes - the relationship between the individual and the state."
323 With the introduction of new surveillance and dataveillance technologies, the traditional relationships between
individuals and the institutions of immigration control are being reconfigured in fundamental ways for both noncitizens
And yet, compared to other aspects of the expansion of immigration enforcement, these
and U.S. citizens alike.
shifts in migration and mobility surveillance have garnered
exceedingly little attention, analysis, or concern - even as vigorous debates about
surveillance and dataveillance by public and private institutions have emerged in other settings. These shifts have not
simply contributed to a regime of mass enforcement, in which hundreds of thousands of noncitizens have faced detention
the evolution of immigration enforcement
and deportation. More fundamentally,
institutions, practices, and meanings has also contributed to a more
basic transformation of the nature of immigration governance - with
implications for noncitizens and U.S. citizens alike . By recounting and analyzing
this transformation and its consequences, this Article highlights the need
for scholars, advocates, policymakers, and other observers to devote greater
attention and scrutiny to the onset of the immigration surveillance
state and its rapid integration into the broader national surveillance
state.
Alt AT Zizek
Zizeks alternative is full of holes --- its blatant ignorance
of history and mindless embrace of violence make it
politically worthless
Gray 2012 --- Emeritus Professor of European Thought at the London School
of Economics (John, The Violent Visions of Slavoj iek,
Marxand
With its
The
iek celebrates
Seriously, he thinks the Holocaust is not only okay, but
didnt go far enough
at: psycho k at: freud
Freuds a fraud
Dufresne 15, social and cultural theorist best-known for his work on
Sigmund Freud and the history of psychoanalysis, Professor of Philosophy at
Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ontario and the author of multiple books
about Freud and psychoanalysis, (Todd, January 2015, 235. DR. TODD
DUFRESNE ON FREUDS LOOMING SHADOW OF DECEPTION,
http://www.skeptiko.com/235-todd-dufresne-freud-deception/)//kap
Whats emerged in the last
Can you take us through the evolution of this Freud scholarship?
20 or 30 years in terms of who Freud really was? Whats the story
behind these murmurs we hear in the background that maybe Freud
wasnt all he was cracked up to be. Dr. Todd Dufresne: Thats a good question. Ill back
up just for one second and say this first to get into that: for myself, because I was interested in
deconstruction, what happened to me is when I looked at Freud I realized that the work of deconstruction
and psychoanalysis was not actually very good. So ironically I ended up being somebody that was
interested in deconstruction but became a specialist in Freud. My first self-authored book, Tales From the
Freudian Crypt, that you mentioned ends essentially before I started doing my own thing with a critique of
Derrida on deconstruction. What I was left with was realizing the limitations of deconstruction and stuck
with an area of study that I in fact never had any intention of being a specialist in, which is Freudian
psychoanalysis. Im very unusual, I suppose, because I came to psychoanalysis not because I was in
analysis or I particularly liked it. Just purely because I was curious about it. To follow up on the rest of your
question, the evolution of Freud scholarship, one of the things that really struck me pretty quickly was I got
lucky in some ways. I was a TA for a guy named Paul Rosen, whos a major Freud scholar and he was the
main Freud scholar at York University. Hes one of the main biographers of Freud in the world. He has since
passed away. I happened to be set up with him to be his TA, which made sense given my interests. What I
in the field of psychoanalysis there are certain texts
quickly realized is that
and certain thinkers that are verboten. Theyre not allowed, right? And certain
kinds of thinkers that are not looked upon very well . Rosen was one of these
people. My great luck is that I worked with a guy that was already kind of a heretic in psychoanalysis. I
was immediately struck by how politicized the field was and how if
you simply read somebody like Rosens work or many other scholars
who have been on a list of heretics, you realize that theres lots of
great work out there that many people simply wont read because it
is somehow its been blacklisted one way or another. What I had to realize is
that I had to find my own way. And that the field of criticism in the last 30-40 years was made possible by
people like Paul Rosen, Henri Ellenberger, a great historian, as well. At the other end of that youll find
Frank Coffey, a great philosopher who has since passed away as well and in the 90s somebody like
Frederick Crews, who is an English professor from Berkeley, since retired. These people had to have a
certain amount of courage to go against everyday convictions about Freud and psychoanalysis because,
like I said, certain criticisms of Freud and certain viewpoints of Freud were just not indulged at all. So for
The field was already opened up by
me, I didnt have to be brave in some ways.
these people who suffered the consequences of their heresy , I suppose.
Rosen, who started off as a darling of the psychoanalytic field and became a heretic, he really suffered
personally at the hands of institutional psychoanalysis. He would have wanted to be accepted in some
way, I think. For me, of course, I had no illusions. I never cared to be accepted by them and I also had no
problem reading works that people wouldnt read. Alex Tsakiris: Before we talk past that too much, give
people a sense for this criticism. There are layers of criticism and the way youre saying it I think people
might get the impression that theres a little tussle over how this should be interpreted or that should be
interpreted when in fact the real historical touch-points that we have paint just a horrible picture of Freud
of someone whos really a complete fraud. Who manufactures evidence in order to support his theories,
that copies without attribution other peoples work or at least he promotes himself as being this original
great genius when hes really stood on the shoulders of all these other people. I mean, the history of it
beyond just critiquing theory is just stunning for people who havent fully encountered it. The other side of
that that I really want you to get into to support that is how we know this information was really held under
lock and key and protected under the tightest controls for so long. Then its gradually pried loose. So give
people a sense for that. Dr. Todd Dufresne: Theres so much to say I hardly know where to begin. In some
ways, from my perspective, what really happened was Ernest Jones came out with this three-volume
biography in 1953, 1955, 1957, Sigmund Freud: Life and Work. Then he died. Basically you have
everything after the Jones biography, which is an official biography of psychoanalysis, as kind of a
response to this official biography. What happens is that people start becoming more and more critical of
psychoanalysis. For me, Rosen is one of the first figures in this regard and its around 1967 when he
publishes a book called, Brother Animal, in which he reveals that one of Freuds earlier followers committed
Freud was very unmoved by this
suicide. I guess the radical side of this is that
followers plight. He was a sycophant like half the people
surrounding Freud, and Freud rebuffed him in various ways and the
guy committed suicide. Okay, thats horrible but not entirely surprising in some ways. But
deeper and more radical than that, Rosen exposed that during two periods in the 1920s Freud
analyzed his own daughter, Anna, and thats what really got him into
trouble. Thats kind of the beginning of this movement to reassess
the fundamental myths of psychoanalysis or the things we didnt
know were myths but certainly we now know are myths. I call it
really the beginning of critical Freud studies. I take it to be a post-Jones
movement, roughly from the mid-60s through to the late 1990s and maybe going on today, as well. I see
it as like the whole purpose of scholarship and Freud studies is to move to critical Freud studies. Now how
did it happen? Its really amazing. One of the untold stories of psychoanalytic studies or Freud studies, as
its usually called, is that one of the reasons theres so much misinformation is that the vast majority of
books published and that appear under the library heading of BF173 to BF175 roughlygo to any library
much of the
and youll find all the Freud books there. Most of this work is vanity publishing. So
field is run by psychoanalysts who have positions of authority. They
start their own book publishers. They start their own journals. Pretty
soon they have an authority in the marketplace of ideas so its very,
very hard to actually find in the thousands of books published on
Freud anything that actually tells the truth. Its a hard thing for somebody to free
themselves from many, many misconceptions about Freud. You mentioned a couple of them. Freud
manufactured evidence. One of the things thats not well-appreciated is how Freud
went out of his way to manipulate the reception of his own work , right?
He wrote his own histories, first of all. Many times he revised his own histories and
sometimes there are discrepancies with his own histories. He was always trying to
spin his history in advance because Freud always perceived himself
as an historically important person, so he proceeded accordingly . He
destroyed some of his correspondence. He would destroy some of his process notes that he used to create
his famous case studies, of which there really is only four that he wrote, all of which are failures, by the
way. He destroyed the notes and these were important cases. Youd think
youd keep them but he destroyed them. He tried to get his famous letters with Wilhelm Fliess destroyed
So Freud was always interested
but Marie Bonaparte preserved them against his wishes.
in manipulating the reception of his work and he was largely
successful in many ways. People have generally believed what he said.
Freud fabricated evidence-- but his cult following
refuses to accept his invalidity
Alex Tsakiris: Can we stop right there? One of the things I always like to do when we get into these
could get
discussions with people and I have just a very superficial understanding of this stuffyou
into it in much greater detail. I always stop at this point and say,
What would that look like in modern academic standards? Just
what we already know there. What would that look like if any
intellectual, academic figure of our time was known to have done
those things? I cant imagine but that they would be completely
ostracized as just the beginning of it. Theyd be a complete joke. Dr.
Todd Dufresne: The problem is, Alex, thats theres hardly any modern equivalent to
Freud . What Freud got away with for so long, which is essentially
passing off incomplete results or fraudulent results as the truth I can
give you some examples as we get into it later. He did all of the things you said he did. He
manufactured evidence and even the evidence that he had, he may
have felt legitimately and honestly is so shot-through with
epistemological problems because theres the contamination of
results by the expectations he had on the patients. We know this is called
suggestion, right? And undue influence. One of the things thats
interesting about Freud is that he was a scientist and as a scientist
he had followers. These followers routinely referred to his major
works like The Interpretation of Dreams as their bibles. So were
already in Freuds life in the presence of a kind of cult or church or
something thats not scientific. This guy was a trained neurologist, right? He asked some
legitimate questions. He explored these questions but at some point
ambition took over and he fudged the results in many ways like
youre saying. What should happen with Freud is the minute people see that he
fudged the results in a number of ways that are absolutely clear
theres no questionwell, anybody that has any fair-mindedness
would say that everything that follows from these results is
therefore questionable. But thats not what happens with Freud, and thats because were
in the presence of a belief system, like a religion, so people dont
want to question it. Anything like this today, youd lose tenure.
Youd lose your job. When this happens people fall into disgrace.
But Freud has never really seriously fallen into disgrace. One of the things
thats happened which is amazing to me because Im somebody who works in the humanities is that part
of the blame belongs to people in the humanities and social sciences that dont really care about science,
or in some ways truth, not to be too general about it. They dont care that maybe he fudged the results;
theyre just interested in this as a hermeneutic system, a way of interpreting the world. So this is
the place we get, where people are really non-skeptical about Freud
and they dont want to hear it, you know? They do not want to hear
it. And thats my colleagues, Im afraid.
2ac One Off F/L
Discussing policy allows us to learn the language of power

and enables agency
policy simulations

synopsis below.
Lacanian politics are too pessimistic --- too theoretical,
precludes action and reinforces the worst aspects of the
status quo
Robinson 5 --- PhD in political theory at the University of Nottingham (Andrew,
The Political Theory of Constitutive Lack: A Critique, Project Muse)//trepka
Conclusion: The constitutive lack of radicalism in Lacanian politics There is more than an accidental relationship between
the mythical operation of the concept of "constitutive lack" and Lacanians' conservative and pragmatist politics. Myth is a
way of reducing thought to the present: the isolated signs which are included in the mythical gesture are thereby attached
On an analytical level, Lacanian theory can be very
to extra-historical abstractions.
"radical", unscrupulously exposing the underlying relations and assumptions concealed beneath officially-
sanctioned discourse. This radicalism, however, never translates into political
conclusions : as shown above, a radical rejection of anti-"crime" rhetoric

turns into an endorsement of punishment, and a radical critique of
neo-liberalism turns into a pragmatist endorsement of structural
adjustment. It is as if there is a magical barrier between theory and
politics which insulates the latter from the former. One should recall a remark once
made by Wilhelm Reich: 'You plead for happiness in life, but security means more to you'133. Lacanians have a "radical"
As long as they are
theory oriented towards happiness, but politically, their primary concern is security.
engaged in politically ineffectual critique, Lacanians will denounce
and criticize the social system, but once it comes to practical
problems , the "order not to think" becomes operative. This "magic" barrier is
the alibi function of myth. The short-circuit between specific instances and
high-level abstractions is politically consequential. A present evil
can be denounced and overthrown if located in an analysis with a
"middle level", but Lacanian theory tends in practice to add an
"always" which prevents change . At the very most, such change cannot affect the basic matrix
posited by Lacanian theory, because this is assumed to operate above history. In this way, Lacanian theory operates as an
alibi: it offers a little bit of theoretical radicalism to inoculate the system against the threat posed by a lot of politicized
radicalism134. In Laclau and Mouffe's version, this takes the classic Barthesian form: " yes,
liberal
democracy involves violent exclusions, but what is this compared to
the desert of the real outside it?" The Zizekian version is more complex: "yes, there can be a
revolution, but after the revolution, one must return to the pragmatic tasks of the present". A good example is provided in
one of Zizek's texts. The author presents an excellent analysis of a Kafkaesque incident in the former Yugoslavia where
the state gives a soldier a direct, compulsory order to take a voluntary oath - in other words, attempts to compel consent.
He then ruins the impact of this example by insisting that there is always such a moment of "forced choice", and that one
should not attempt to escape it lest one end up in psychosis or totalitarianism135. The political function
of Lacanian theory is to preclude critique by encoding the present
as myth. There is a danger of a stultifying conservatism arising from within Lacanian political theory, echoing
the 'terrifying conservatism' Deleuze suggests is active in any reduction of history to negativity136.
The addition of an "always" to contemporary evils amounts to a
" pessimism of the will ", or a " repressive reduction of thought to the
present". Stavrakakis, for instance, claims that attempts to find causes and
thereby to solve problems are always fantasmatic1 37, while Zizek
states that an object which is perceived as blocking something does
nothing but materialize the already-operative constitutive lack 138. While
this does not strictly entail the necessity of a conservative attitude to the possibility of any specific reform, it
creates a danger of discursive slippage and hostility to "utopianism"

which could have conservative consequences . Even if Lacanians believe in
surplus/contingent as well as constitutive lack, there are no standards for distinguishing the two. If one cannot tell which
social blockages result from constitutive lack and which are contingent, how can one know they are not all of the latter
type? And even if constitutive lack exists, Lacanian theory runs a risk of "misdiagnoses" which have a neophobe or even
reactionary effect.
To take an imagined example, a Lacanian living in France
in 1788 would probably conclude that democracy is a utopian
fantasmatic ideal and would settle for a pragmatic reinterpretation
of the ancien regime. Laclau and Mouffe's hostility to workers'
councils and Zizek's insistence on the need for a state and a Party 139
exemplify this neophobe tendency. The pervasive negativity and
cynicism of Lacanian theory offers little basis for constructive activity .
Instead of radical transformation, one is left with a pragmatics of
"containment" which involves a conservative de-problematization of
the worst aspects of the status quo. The inactivity it counsels would
make its claims a self-fulfilling prophecy by acting as a barrier to
transformative activity. To conclude, the political theory of "constitutive lack" does not hold together as
an analytical project and falls short of its radical claims as a theoretical and political one. It relies on central concepts
which are constructed through the operation of a mythical discourse in the Barthesian sense, with the result that it is
unable to offer sufficient openness to engage with complex issues. If political theory is to make use of poststructuralist
conceptions of contingency, it would do better to look to the examples provided by Deleuze and Guattari, whose
the idea of "constitutive lack"
conception of contingency is active and affirmative. In contrast,
turns Lacanian theory into something its most vocal proponent, Zizek, claims to attack: a
" plague of fantasies".
Psychoanalysis cant explain international relations the

move from the clinic to the macro-sphere is too great
obviously not everyone shares the exact same fantasies
and theres no mechanism to actualize change

We have seen

But
Link turn the plan ruptures the fantasy by
acknowledging the failure of the drug war the alt might
eventually cause the state to own up to its lie, but we fiat
that the state own up to it
No scapegoating
Gollwitzer 4 --- University of Trier, Germany (Mario, Do Normative
Transgressions Affect Punitive Judgments? An Empirical Test of the
Psychoanalytic Scapegoat Hypothesis, SagePub)//trepka
DISCUSSION The psychoanalytic scapegoat hypothesis implies (a) that
individuals who are guilty of violating a law or norm tend to impose
harsher punitive judgments on comparable wrongdoers than nonguilty
individuals and (b) that transgressors punitiveness should be amplified by
the subjectively perceived decision conflict. A new alternative hypothesis

was derived from research on blame avoidance and empathy: If individuals
were really fundamentally concerned with avoiding self-ascriptions of blame by applying defensive attributions (Shaver,
transgressors should impose more lenient

1970, 1985), then it follows that
punishment on comparable offenders, especially under

circumstances of similarity. Although the blame-avoidance hypothesis
directly contradicts the implications of the scapegoat hypothesis, both
effects might be present depending on situationspecific or person-specific factors. If these factors are not controlled for,
the paradoxical situation could occur that the two effects cancel each other out (Schmitt et al., 2003). Among the most
theoretically plausible of such person-specific factors is authoritarianism. This variable is expected to moderate the
transgression-punitiveness relation. In other words: The scapegoat effect is expected to occur among high authoritarians,
The data presented here
whereas the leniency effect should occur among low authoritarians.
largely support the blame-avoidance motivation account: Punitive

judgment scores were higher among nontransgressors, regarding
both vignette transgressions in immoral temptation situations and
actually committed transgressions reported by participants. This
effect was consistent across all six criminal cases in both vignette and actual
transgressions. Furthermore, compared with a baseline measure of punitive judgments, the present results suggest that
it is not a harshness bias on the side of the nontransgressors that causes this effect but rather, a mildness bias on the side
of the transgressors. Although this finding is a clear corroboration for the blame-avoidance hypothesis, one could argue
transgressors simply do not care about the norm they
(a) that
transgress and (b) that transgression decision and punitiveness share a
common cause, that is, the moral reprehensibility of the deed . The
first explanation implies that conflict scores do not differ between
transgressors and nontransgressors. This is, however, not the case, because conflict scores
wereexcept for the moonlighter scenarioconsistently higher among transgressors than among nontransgressors. The
suggestion that transgressors mildness bias was simply due to their recklessness can therefore be ruled out. The second
explanation would result in the argument that the relation between transgression decision and punitive judgments is
spurious, because they can both be traced back to the same cause, that is, the moral evaluation of the deed. The
mediation effect of moral evaluation was not significant in the present analyses: The effect sizes of transgression
decisions on punitive judgments remained largely unaffected by entering moral evaluation scores as a covariate. This
finding contradicts the alternative hypothesis that moral evaluation was the common cause for transgression decisions as
we
well as for punitive judgments. Besides investigating the main effect of transgression decision on punitiveness,
tested whether the subjectively experienced decision conflict in a
dilemma situation affects punitive judgments among transgressors.
Although the size of this correlation was consistently positive in sign across the six scenarios, it was not
statistically deviant from 0. Thus, this particular finding cannot be
used as an argument for or against the scapegoat hypothesis. Taking
authoritarianism as a possible moderator variable into account was a further attempt to demonstrate scapegoating effects
in a subpopulation where they appear to be most likely to occur. The negative sign of the three-way interaction regression
coefficient shows that this was not the case. One might think of the possibility that this three-way interaction did not
emerge because authoritarianism and transgression decisions were confounded. This would be a reasonable interpretation
because authoritarianism implies conventionalism, which means refraining from committing something unlawful because
it is unlawful (Adorno et al., 1950). Therefore, it could be that individuals high in authoritarianism principally do not give in
to immoral temptations. Contrary to this speculation, however, transgression decisions in each of the six vignettes were
correlated only weakly with authoritarianism (.05 < r < .12, average r = .04). Thus, nontransgressors are not
the present study presents both weak
automatically high authoritarians. Taken together,
and strong results. The major aim was to test the psychoanalytic
scapegoat hypothesis against an alternative hypothesis based on a
blame-avoidance motivation. Concerning the main effect of transgression on punitive judgments,
the results strongly support the blame-avoidance hypothesis. Concerning
the effect of transgressors decision conflict on punitive judgments, however, the results support neither the scapegoat
nor the blame-avoidance motivation hypothesis. One could think of other empirical
accesses to the effect of decision conflicts. For example, the subjective quality of
experienced decision conflicts in tempting situations might have trait-like qualities: Individuals might consistently differ in
the way they perceive and solve moral decision conflicts and in the amount of unease connected to these decision
conflicts. These interindividual differences could be assessed and tested as predictors for punitive judgments. Second,
moral conflicts may be better captured by assessing them on a more idiosyncratic level. Participants could be interviewed
about temptation situations in which they recall having experienced a strong decision conflict; subsequently, their punitive
judgments could be assessed in an adaptively constructed criminal case vignette that resembles this particular
temptation. Finally, a possible conflict- punitiveness relation might be moderated by other variables than authoritarianism.
Because fear of an Idbreakthrough is considered the crucial motor
of scapegoating by Freud (1923/1990), trait anxiety appears to be a
suitable moderator variable. It is remarkable that a prominent theoretical account such as the
psychoanalytic scapegoat hypothesis, which is discussed among principal penological
theories in standard textbooks on legal studies (e.g., Gppinger, 1997; Kaiser, 1996; Schwind, 2002), has never
received the empirical attention that it might deserve. The present

study was a first attempt to test specifically derived implications of
the scapegoat hypothesis. It seems that although the process of scapegoating and its psychodynamic
roots, as conceptualized in psychoanalytic writings, is not testable as such, its implications can be incorporated into
contemporary accounts of punitiveness and retributive justice. If these implications repeatedly fail to receive empirical
backup, the scapegoat hypothesis should be at least reformulated, or dismissed .
Or it causes more violence

Thus,


skills

important

something.
we might live for

und
Psychoanalysis is not verifiable continual contradictions

and no base criteria
sequence=1)
trial.
Our datas better than yours


bureaucratic-





No death drive
Carel 6 Havi Carel is a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of the
West of England. (Life and Death in Freud and Heidegger)
The notion of the death drive is on the one hand too wide, explaining all
types of aggression as well as the putative urge towards complete
rest. This leads the notion to be economically incoherent, as will be discussed in
the next section. But a prior point must be examined: are all types of aggression the same ? Freud
suggests a positive answer, but as a psychological taxonomy this approach seems to erase
important differences. For example, if both sadism and masochism stem
from the same aggressive source, should they be classified as
belonging to the same group? Should they be clinically approached in
a similar fashion? The answer to both these questions seems to be no. The problems and symptoms characterising sadism
are very different from the ones characterising masochism, as is their treatment. Another example, group aggression
and individual aggression: should we attempt to describe or treat

the two as belonging to the same cluster? Again, the answer seems to be negative. As to
the second point, one could justifiably ask: what does the death drive mean? Because it is so general, the
notion of the death drive is vague. The death drive cannot explain a
given situation because it itself becomes meaningful only as a
collection of situations. On Freud's account, any behaviour meriting the
adjective 'aggressive' arises from the death drive . If we take a certain set of aggressive
behaviours, say, sadistic ones, the death drive would come to signify this set. If we take another set of masochistic behaviours, the death drive
the significance of the notion seems entirely

would mean this set. As it stands,
dependent on the observed phenomenon. If Freud were never to

meet any masochists, would his notion of the death drive exclude
masochism? Any science relying on observation and empirical data relics on this data and should be willing, in principle, to modify
and update its concepts in accordance with new empirical observations. The opening paragraph of Instincts and Their Vicissitudes describes
this process. We have often heard it maintained that sciences should be built up on clear and sharply defined basic concepts. In actual fact no
science, not even the most exact, begins with such definitions. The true beginning of scientific activity consists rather in describing
phenomena and then in proceeding to group, classify and correlate them. Even at the stage of description it is not possible to avoid applying
certain abstract ideas to the material in hand, ideas derived from somewhere or other but certainly not from the new observations alone [...].
They must at first necessarily possess some degree of indefiniteness; there can be no question of any clear delimitation of their content. So
long as they remain in this condition, we come to an understanding about their meaning by making repeated references to the material of
observation from which they appear to have been derived, but upon which, in fact, they have been imposed <SK 14:1U;GW 10:210). This
There is no
seems to be a sophisticated, fruitfully flexible approach. But in the case of the death drive, it seems to be too flexible.
initial restriction on the type of behaviour that could be classified as

aggressive or as lowering tension. Hence we find sadism and
masochism, passive-aggressive and substance-induced aggression,
aggression displayed in group situation and aggressive fantasy, all
tied to the death drive as their source. By analogy, any behaviour
that leads to discharge of energy or lowering of tension would be in
accordance with the Nirvana principle. One way of responding to this issue is by applying the term
'aggression* purely descriptively. Karli, for example, proposes the following definition: aggression means, "threatening or striking at the
physical or psychic integrity of another living being" (Karli, 1991, p. 10). He sees the danger in the shift from using aggression descriptively to
attributing to it an explanatory and causal role.When accorded a causal role, aggression is

reified and becomes a natural entity, a danger that can be avoided by using the term strictly
descriptively. This suggestion makes a lot of sense, but it would be unacceptable for Freud. For he is proposing a metaphysical
view, which cannot be taken to be purely descriptive, because it is

embedded in a physicalist view of the drives as elements connecting
body and psyche, and is meant to have an explanatory and causal
role in the explanation of behaviour. Although Freud would reject the purely descriptive use of the
concept of aggression, this suggestion will be useful when we discuss the reconstruction of the death drive. As to the third point, it seems that
the explanatory value of the death drive is not satisfactory . Because of the two
problems set out above - the excessive promiscuity of the notion of aggression and the fact that it irons significant differences between the
The concept as presented by Freud does allow too much in and lumps
various phenomena its explanatory value is limited
together behaviours and tendencies whose differences are

significant. In this sense, those rejecting the death drive as an unhelpful
speculation are justified in their criticism.
Perm do the alt their severance stuff is a manifestation
of their desire for a perfect discursive space which links
to the kritik
AT Freud
Freuds a fraud
Whats emerged in the last
Can you take us through the evolution of this Freud scholarship?
20 or 30 years in terms of who Freud really was? Whats the story
behind these murmurs we hear in the background that maybe Freud
wasnt all he was cracked up to be. Dr. Todd Dufresne: Thats a good question. Ill back
up just for one second and say this first to get into that: for myself, because I was interested in
deconstruction, what happened to me is when I looked at Freud I realized that the work of deconstruction
and psychoanalysis was not actually very good. So ironically I ended up being somebody that was
interested in deconstruction but became a specialist in Freud. My first self-authored book, Tales From the
Freudian Crypt, that you mentioned ends essentially before I started doing my own thing with a critique of
Derrida on deconstruction. What I was left with was realizing the limitations of deconstruction and stuck
with an area of study that I in fact never had any intention of being a specialist in, which is Freudian
psychoanalysis. Im very unusual, I suppose, because I came to psychoanalysis not because I was in
analysis or I particularly liked it. Just purely because I was curious about it. To follow up on the rest of your
question, the evolution of Freud scholarship, one of the things that really struck me pretty quickly was I got
lucky in some ways. I was a TA for a guy named Paul Rosen, whos a major Freud scholar and he was the
main Freud scholar at York University. Hes one of the main biographers of Freud in the world. He has since
passed away. I happened to be set up with him to be his TA, which made sense given my interests. What I
in the field of psychoanalysis there are certain texts
quickly realized is that
and certain thinkers that are verboten. Theyre not allowed, right? And certain
kinds of thinkers that are not looked upon very well . Rosen was one of these
people. My great luck is that I worked with a guy that was already kind of a heretic in psychoanalysis. I
was immediately struck by how politicized the field was and how if
you simply read somebody like Rosens work or many other scholars
who have been on a list of heretics, you realize that theres lots of
great work out there that many people simply wont read because it
is somehow its been blacklisted one way or another. What I had to realize is
that I had to find my own way. And that the field of criticism in the last 30-40 years was made possible by
people like Paul Rosen, Henri Ellenberger, a great historian, as well. At the other end of that youll find
Frank Coffey, a great philosopher who has since passed away as well and in the 90s somebody like
Frederick Crews, who is an English professor from Berkeley, since retired. These people had to have a
certain amount of courage to go against everyday convictions about Freud and psychoanalysis because,
like I said, certain criticisms of Freud and certain viewpoints of Freud were just not indulged at all. So for
The field was already opened up by
me, I didnt have to be brave in some ways.
these people who suffered the consequences of their heresy , I suppose.
Rosen, who started off as a darling of the psychoanalytic field and became a heretic, he really suffered
personally at the hands of institutional psychoanalysis. He would have wanted to be accepted in some
way, I think. For me, of course, I had no illusions. I never cared to be accepted by them and I also had no
problem reading works that people wouldnt read. Alex Tsakiris: Before we talk past that too much, give
people a sense for this criticism. There are layers of criticism and the way youre saying it I think people
might get the impression that theres a little tussle over how this should be interpreted or that should be
interpreted when in fact the real historical touch-points that we have paint just a horrible picture of Freud
of someone whos really a complete fraud. Who manufactures evidence in order to support his theories,
that copies without attribution other peoples work or at least he promotes himself as being this original
great genius when hes really stood on the shoulders of all these other people. I mean, the history of it
beyond just critiquing theory is just stunning for people who havent fully encountered it. The other side of
that that I really want you to get into to support that is how we know this information was really held under
lock and key and protected under the tightest controls for so long. Then its gradually pried loose. So give
people a sense for that. Dr. Todd Dufresne: Theres so much to say I hardly know where to begin. In some
ways, from my perspective, what really happened was Ernest Jones came out with this three-volume
biography in 1953, 1955, 1957, Sigmund Freud: Life and Work. Then he died. Basically you have
everything after the Jones biography, which is an official biography of psychoanalysis, as kind of a
response to this official biography. What happens is that people start becoming more and more critical of
psychoanalysis. For me, Rosen is one of the first figures in this regard and its around 1967 when he
publishes a book called, Brother Animal, in which he reveals that one of Freuds earlier followers committed
Freud was very unmoved by this
suicide. I guess the radical side of this is that
followers plight. He was a sycophant like half the people
surrounding Freud, and Freud rebuffed him in various ways and the
guy committed suicide. Okay, thats horrible but not entirely surprising in some ways. But
deeper and more radical than that, Rosen exposed that during two periods in the 1920s Freud
analyzed his own daughter, Anna, and thats what really got him into
trouble. Thats kind of the beginning of this movement to reassess
the fundamental myths of psychoanalysis or the things we didnt
know were myths but certainly we now know are myths. I call it
really the beginning of critical Freud studies. I take it to be a post-Jones
movement, roughly from the mid-60s through to the late 1990s and maybe going on today, as well. I see
it as like the whole purpose of scholarship and Freud studies is to move to critical Freud studies. Now how
did it happen? Its really amazing. One of the untold stories of psychoanalytic studies or Freud studies, as
its usually called, is that one of the reasons theres so much misinformation is that the vast majority of
books published and that appear under the library heading of BF173 to BF175 roughlygo to any library
much of the
and youll find all the Freud books there. Most of this work is vanity publishing. So
field is run by psychoanalysts who have positions of authority. They
start their own book publishers. They start their own journals. Pretty
soon they have an authority in the marketplace of ideas so its very,
very hard to actually find in the thousands of books published on
Freud anything that actually tells the truth. Its a hard thing for somebody to free
themselves from many, many misconceptions about Freud. You mentioned a couple of them. Freud
manufactured evidence. One of the things thats not well-appreciated is how Freud
went out of his way to manipulate the reception of his own work , right?
He wrote his own histories, first of all. Many times he revised his own histories and
sometimes there are discrepancies with his own histories. He was always trying to
spin his history in advance because Freud always perceived himself
as an historically important person, so he proceeded accordingly . He
destroyed some of his correspondence. He would destroy some of his process notes that he used to create
his famous case studies, of which there really is only four that he wrote, all of which are failures, by the
way. He destroyed the notes and these were important cases. Youd think
youd keep them but he destroyed them. He tried to get his famous letters with Wilhelm Fliess destroyed
So Freud was always interested
but Marie Bonaparte preserved them against his wishes.
in manipulating the reception of his work and he was largely
successful in many ways. People have generally believed what he said.
Freud fabricated evidence-- but his cult following

refuses to accept his invalidity
Alex Tsakiris: Can we stop right there? One of the things I always like to do when we get into these
could get
discussions with people and I have just a very superficial understanding of this stuffyou
into it in much greater detail. I always stop at this point and say,
What would that look like in modern academic standards? Just
what we already know there. What would that look like if any
intellectual, academic figure of our time was known to have done
those things? I cant imagine but that they would be completely
ostracized as just the beginning of it. Theyd be a complete joke. Dr.
Todd Dufresne: The problem is, Alex, thats theres hardly any modern equivalent to
Freud . What Freud got away with for so long, which is essentially
passing off incomplete results or fraudulent results as the truth I can
give you some examples as we get into it later. He did all of the things you said he did. He
manufactured evidence and even the evidence that he had, he may
have felt legitimately and honestly is so shot-through with
epistemological problems because theres the contamination of
results by the expectations he had on the patients. We know this is called
suggestion, right? And undue influence. One of the things thats
interesting about Freud is that he was a scientist and as a scientist
he had followers. These followers routinely referred to his major
works like The Interpretation of Dreams as their bibles. So were
already in Freuds life in the presence of a kind of cult or church or
something thats not scientific. This guy was a trained neurologist, right? He asked some
legitimate questions. He explored these questions but at some point
ambition took over and he fudged the results in many ways like
youre saying. What should happen with Freud is the minute people see that he
fudged the results in a number of ways that are absolutely clear
theres no questionwell, anybody that has any fair-mindedness
would say that everything that follows from these results is
therefore questionable. But thats not what happens with Freud, and thats because were
in the presence of a belief system, like a religion, so people dont
want to question it. Anything like this today, youd lose tenure.
Youd lose your job. When this happens people fall into disgrace.
But Freud has never really seriously fallen into disgrace. One of the things
thats happened which is amazing to me because Im somebody who works in the humanities is that part
of the blame belongs to people in the humanities and social sciences that dont really care about science,
or in some ways truth, not to be too general about it. They dont care that maybe he fudged the results;
So this is
theyre just interested in this as a hermeneutic system, a way of interpreting the world.
the place we get, where people are really non-skeptical about Freud
and they dont want to hear it, you know? They do not want to hear
it. And thats my colleagues, Im afraid.
AT Science Bad
Their critique of science is reductionist and wrong

science is of a
piece with philosophy, reason, and Enlightenment humanism . It is

The commitment to

intelligibility with a sin called reductionism . But to explain a complex happening in terms of
. Most
does not go out of its way to reveal its workings, and even if it did, our minds are prone to illusions, fallacies, and super- stitions

at: psycho k at: mcgowan alt
Alt AT McGowan
Overidentification replicates our impacts ask yourself
what does the alt look like? a mass immigrant
deportation? satirical ethnic cleansing? equipping
border patrol agents with tactical nukes? the
enforcement CP? theres a point at which their cynical
politics goes too far which is uniquely pernicious in
immigration surveillance debates, which are
underdeveloped and in which new intellectual
developments entrench academic heuristics
Kalhan 14 Associate Professor of Law, Drexel University. A.B., Brown
University; M.P.P.M., Yale School of Management; J.D., Yale Law School (Anil,
IMMIGRATION SURVEILLANCE, 74 Md. L. Rev. 1)//BB
immigration surveillance demands more attention to forms of structural

Finally,
oversight.Because of the necessarily opaque manner in which database

systems and automated decisionmaking mechanisms often function -
and the ways in which multiple actors are involved in their operation over extended periods of time - oversight of
these systems can be particularly difficult in the context of individual cases. 319 This is
undoubtedly more true in the immigration enforcement system , which has
traditionally been ill-equipped to supervise investigatory practices .
320 Given the limitations in the ability of individual redress mechanisms to fully ensure proper oversight of database
systems, these systems raise the stakes in making sure that structural oversight mechanisms operate effectively. 321
Especially as immigration surveillance integrates the institutions of immigration control with each other and with the
institutions of other domains, the blurred lines of accountability among different institutions make accountability difficult;
the implementation of automated immigration surveillance initiatives only blurs those lines further. 322 [78] VI.
Technology, as Erin Murphy has explained, "alters - rather than just
Conclusion
mechanizes - the relationship between the individual and the state."
323 With the introduction of new surveillance and dataveillance technologies, the traditional relationships between
individuals and the institutions of immigration control are being reconfigured in fundamental ways for both noncitizens
And yet, compared to other aspects of the expansion of immigration enforcement, these
and U.S. citizens alike.
shifts in migration and mobility surveillance have garnered
exceedingly little attention, analysis, or concern - even as vigorous debates about
surveillance and dataveillance by public and private institutions have emerged in other settings. These shifts have not
simply contributed to a regime of mass enforcement, in which hundreds of thousands of noncitizens have faced detention
the evolution of immigration enforcement
and deportation. More fundamentally,
institutions, practices, and meanings has also contributed to a more
basic transformation of the nature of immigration governance - with
implications for noncitizens and U.S. citizens alike . By recounting and analyzing
this transformation and its consequences, this Article highlights the need
for scholars, advocates, policymakers, and other observers to devote greater
attention and scrutiny to the onset of the immigration surveillance
state and its rapid integration into the broader national surveillance
state.
Alt AT Zizek
Zizeks alternative is full of holes --- its blatant ignorance
of history and mindless embrace of violence make it
politically worthless
Gray 2012 --- Emeritus Professor of European Thought at the London School
of Economics (John, The Violent Visions of Slavoj iek,
Marxand
With its
The
iek celebrates
Seriously, he thinks the Holocaust is not only okay, but
didnt go far enough
1ar EXT No IR
Their insistence that they describe IR links to the k
Rosen-Carole 10 Visiting Professor in the Philosophy Department at
Bard College (Adam, Menu Cards in Time of famine: on Psychoanalysis and
Politics, The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 2010 Volume LXXIX, No. 1)//RZ
The second approach to the problem has to do with psychoanalytic contributions to political theory that
An
avoid Freuds methodological individualism, but nevertheless run into the same problem.
expanding trend in social criticism involves a tendency to discuss
the death or aggressive drives, fantasy formations, traumas, projective identifications,
defensive repudiations, and other such psychic phenomena of collective
subjects as if such subjects were ontologically discrete and
determinate . Take the following passage from iek (1993) as symptomatic of the
trend I have in mind: In Eastern Europe, the West seeks for its own lost origins, its own lost original
experience of democratic invention. In other words, Eastern Europe functions for the West as its Ego-
Ideal (Ich-Ideal): the point from which [the] West sees itself in a likable, idealized form, as worthy of love.
The real object of fascination for the West is thus the gaze, namely the supposedly naive gaze by means of
which Eastern Europe stares back at the West, fascinated by its democracy. [p. 201, italics in original] Also,
we might think here of the innumerable discussions of Americas
death drive as propelling the recent invasions in the Middle East , or
of the ways in which the motivation for the Persian Gulf Wars of the 1990s was a collective attempt to
kick the Vietnam War Syndrome that is, to solidify a national sense of power and prominence in the
recognitive regard of the international communityor of the psychoanalytic speculations concerning the
psychodynamics of various nations involved in the Cold War (here, of course, I have in mind Segals [1997]
or of the collective racist fantasies and paranoiac traits that
work),
organize various nation-statess domestic and foreign policies .7 Here
are some further examples from iek, who, as a result of his popularity, might be said to function as a
barometer of incipient trends: What is therefore at stake in ethnic tensions is always the possession of
the national Thing. We always impute to the other [ethnic group, race, nation, etc.] an excessive
enjoyment: he wants to steal our enjoyment (by ruining our way of life) and/or he has access to some
secret, perverse enjoyment. [1993, pp. 202-203] Beneath the derision for the new Eastern European
postCommunist states, it is easy to discern the contours of the wounded narcissism of the European great
nations. [2004, p. 27, italics added] There is in fact something of a neurotic symptom in the Middle
Eastern conflicteveryone recognizes the way to get rid of the obstacle, yet nonetheless, no one wants to
remove it, as if there is some kind of pathological libidinal profit gained by persisting in the deadlock.
[2004, p. 39, italics added] If there was ever a passionate attachment to the lost object, a refusal to
come to terms with its loss, it is the Jewish attachment to their land and Jerusalem . . . . When the Jews lost
their land and elevated it into the mythical lost object, Jerusalem became much more than a piece of
land . . . . It becomes the stand-in for . . . all that we miss in our earthly lives. [2004, p. 41] Rather than
this type of
explore collective subjects through analyses of their individual members,
psychoanalytically inclined engagement with politics treats a
collective subject (a nation, a region, an ethnic group, etc.) as if it were simply
amenable to explanation , and perhaps even to intervention , in a manner
identical to an individual psyche in a therapeutic context . But if the
transpositions of psychoanalytic concepts into political theory are
epistemically questionable , as I believe they are,8 the question is: why are they
so prevalent? Perhaps the psychoanalytic interpretation of collective
subjects (nations, regions, etc.), or even the psychoanalytic interpretation of powerful political figures,
registers a certain anxiety regarding political impotence and
provokes a fantasy that, to an extent, pacifies and modifies
defends againstthat anxiety. Perhaps such engagements, which are
increasingly prevalent in these days of excruciating political alienation, operate within
a fantasmatic frame wherein the anxiety of political exclusion and
castrationthat is, anxieties pertaining to a sense of oneself as politically
inefficacious, a non-agent in most relevant sensesis both registered and mitigated
by the fantasmatic satisfaction of imagining oneself interpretively
intervening in the lives of political figures or collective political
subjects with the efficacy of a clinically successful psychoanalytic
interpretation. To risk a hypothesis: as alienation from political efficacy increases and becomes
more palpable, as our sense of ourselves as political agents diminishes, fantasies of interpretive
intervention abound. Within such fantasy frames, one approaches a powerful political figure (or collective
subject) as if s/he were on the couch, open and amenable to ones interpretation.9 One approaches such
a powerful political figure or ethnic group or nation as if s/he (or it) desired ones interpretations and
acknowledged her/his suffering, at least implicitly, by her/his very involvement in the scene of analysis. Or
if such fantasies also provide for the satisfaction of sadistic desires
provoked by political frustration and castration (a sense of oneself as politically
voiceless, moot, uninvolved, irrelevant), as they very well might, then ones place within the
fantasy might be that of the all-powerful analyst, the sujet suppos savoir, the
analyst presumptively in control of her-/himself and her/his emotions, etc. Here the analyst becomes the
one who directs and organizes the analytic encounter, who commands psychoanalytic knowledge, who
knows the analysand inside and out, to whom the analysand must speak, upon whom the analysand
depends, who is in a position of having something to offer, whose adviceeven if not directly heeded
cannot but make some sort of impact, and in the face of whom the analysand is quite vulnerable, who is
thus powerful, in control . . . perhaps the very figure whom the psychoanalytically inclined interpreter
(1) a sense of political
fears. 9 Minimally, what I want to underscore here is that
alienation may be registered and fantasmatically mitigated by
treating political subjects, individual or collective, as if they were on the
couch; and (2) expectations concerning the expository and
therapeutic efficacy of psychoanalytic interpretations of political
subjects may be conditioned by such a fantasy .
1ar EXT Not Science
Its not reproducible
Sadovnikov 7 professor of philosophy at York University (Slava, Escape
from Reason: Labels as Arguments and Theories, Dialogue, September 2007,
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0012217300002249 //DBI
The way McLaughlin shows the rosy prospects of psychoanalytical social theory boils down to this: there
are people who labour at it. He reports on Neil Smelsers lifelong elaborations of psychoanalytical
sociology, which prescribed the use of Freudian theories. Then he presents a powerful psychoanalytical
theory of creativity of Michael Farrell, commenting on how the theorist usefully utilizes
psychoanalytic insights, though McLaughlin does not specify them. He correctly expects that
I might not view his examples as scientific. Their problems begin well before that. First, due to their
informative emptiness, or tautological character, all they amount to is
rewordings of everyday assumptions . Second, due to their vagueness
these accounts are compatible with any outcomes ; in other words, they lack
explanatory and predictive power . The proposed ideas are too
inarticulate to subject to intersubjective criticism , and to call them
empirical or scientific theories would be , no matter how comforting, a gross misuse
of words. On the constructive side, a psychoanalytic theorist may be challenged to unambiguously
formulate her suppositions and specify conditions of their disproof, to leave out what we already well know
and smooth out internal inconsistencies, and revise the theories in view of easily available counter-
examples and competing accounts. Only after having done this can one present candidate theories to
public criticism and thus make them part of science, and fruitfully discuss their further refinements.
Another suggestion is not to label them powerful theories, classics, or anything else before their real
That criticism and disagreement are indispensable for
scrutiny begins.
science is not a Popperian orthodoxy, although Popper does champion this idea; it
is the pivot of the tradition (which we owe to the Greeks) which identifies rationalism with criticism. 4
McLaughlin ostensibly bows to the critical tradition but does not put it to use. Instead of critical evaluation
of the theories in question he writes of compelling case, powerful analytic model, and useful
conceptual tool. On the methodological side of the issue, we should inquire into the mode of thinking
common to Fromm and all adherents of confirmationism. The trick consists in mere replacement of familiar
words with new, more peculiar ones; customary expressions are substituted by instrumental intimacy,
Since the new, funnier, and pseudo-
collaborative circles, and idealization of a self-object.
theoretical tag does the job of naming just as well, it shows how things
work. The new labels in the cases criticized here do not add anything to our
knowledge; nor do they explain. We have seen Fromm routinely abuse this technique. The
vacuity of Fromms explanations by character type was the central point in my analysis of Escape, yet
McLaughlin conveniently ignores it and, like Fromm, uses the method of labelling as somehow supporting
his cause. The widely popular practice of mistaking new labels for explanations has been exposed by many
methodologists in the history of philosophy, but probably the most famous example of such critique comes
from Molire. In the now often-quoted passage, his character delivers a vacuous explanation of opiums
property to induce sleep by renaming the property with an offhand Latinism, virtus dormitiva. The satire
acutely points not only at the impostor doctors hiding his lack of knowledge behind foreign words, but also
at the emptiness of his alleged explanation. (Pseudo-theoretical literature is boring precisely because of its
dormitive virtue, its shuffling of labels without rewarding inquiring minds.) Let me review notable
criticisms of this approach in the twentieth century by Hempel, Homans, and Weber leaving aside their
forerunners. This problem was discussed in the famous debate between William Dray and Carl Hempel.
social scientists
Dray argues, contra the nomological account of explanation, that historians and
often try to answer the question, What is this phenomenon? by giving an
explanation-by-concept (Dray 1959, p. 403). A series of events may be better
understood if we call it a social revolution ; or the appropriate tag may be found in the
expressions reform, collaboration, class struggle, progress, etc.; or, to take
Fromms suggestions, we may call familiar motives and actions
sadomasochistic, and any political choice save the Marxist escape from freedom. Hempel
agrees with Dray that such concepts may be explanatory, but they are so only if the
chosen labels or classificatory tags refer to some uniformities, or are based on nomic analogies. In other
if it states or implies some established regularity
words, our new label has explanatory force
For example, you travel to a foreign country and, strolling along the
(Hempel 1970, pp. 453-57).
street, see a boisterous crowd. Your guide may explain the crowd with one of several terms: that
it is the local soccer teams fans celebrating its victory, or it is a local religious festival, or a teachers
strike, etc. The labels applied here celebration,
festival, strike have explanatory
value, because we know that things they refer to usually manifest themselves
in noisy or unruly mass gatherings. If, on the other hand, by way of explaining the
boisterous crowd the guide had invoked some hidden social or psychological forces, or used
expressions such as embodiment, mode of production, de-centring,
simulacra, otherness, etc., its causes would remain obscure . If she had
referred to psychoanalytic character types (say, Fromms authoritarian, anal, or
necrophiliac types), the explanation would not make much sense either . Nothing
prevents us nevertheless from unconditionally attaching all these labels to any event. The mistake
McLaughlin and confirmationists persistently make is in thinking that labelling social
phenomena alone does theoretical and explanatory work.5 George Homans
observed the prevalence of this trick some decades ago: Much modern sociological
theory seems to us to possess every virtue except that of explaining

anything. . . . The theorist shoves various aspects of behavior into
his pigeonholes, cries Ah-ha! and leaves it at that . Like magicians in
all times and places, the theorist thinks he controls phenomena if he is
able to give them names, particularly names of his own invention .
(1974, pp. 10-11)
Psychoanalysis is a bunk science --- its untestable,

produces contradictory analyses, and cant make
predictions
Beystehner 13 --- J.D. from University of Georgia (Kristen M, Psychoanalysis: Freud's
Revolutionary Approach to Human Personality,
http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/beystehner.html)//trepka
Storr (1981) insists, "Onlya few fundamentalist psychoanalysts of an old-fashioned kind

think that Freud was a scientist or that psychoanalysis was or could be a scientific
enterprise," and that, "...to understand persons cannot be a scientific enterprise" (p. 260). Although many
psychoanalysts themselves would undoubtedly consider psychoanalysis to be a science, many critics would disagree.
Popper, by far one of psychoanalysis' most well-known critics and a strong critic of Grunbaum, insists that psychoanalysis
psychoanalysis' "so-called
cannot be considered a science because it is not falsifiable. He claims that
predictions are not predictions of overt behavior but of hidden
psychological states. This is why they are so untestable " (Popper, 1986, p.
254). Popper (1986) claims that only when individuals are not neurotic is it possible to empirically determine if prospective
psychoanalysis has often
patients are currently neurotic (p. 254). Popper (1986) asserts that
maintained that every individual is neurotic to some degree due to the fact
that everyone has suffered and repressed a trauma at one point or another in his or her life (p. 255). However, this
concept of ubiquitous repression is impossible to test because there
is no overt behavioral method of doing so (p. 254). Other critics claim that
psychoanalysis cannot be considered a science due to its lack of
predictions. Psychoanalysts, critics maintain, state that certain childhood
experiences, such as abuse or molestation, produce certain outcomes or states of neurosis.
To take this idea one step further, one should be able to predict that
if children experience abuse, for instance, they will become
characterized by certain personality traits. In addition, this concept would theoretically
work in reverse. For instance, if individuals are observed in a particular neurotic state, one should be able to predict that
neither of these predictions can be
they had this or that childhood experience. However,
made with any accuracy (Colby, 1960, p. 55). Additional critics insist that psychoanalysis is not a
science because of the lack of interpretive rules or regulations. Colby (1960) contends that critics of psychoanalysis have
difficulties with the idea that "there are no clear, intersubjectively shared lines of reasoning between theories and
observations" (p. 54). For instance, one psychoanalyst will observe one phenomenon
and interpret it one way, whereas another psychoanalyst will
observe the same phenomenon and interpret it in a completely
different way that is contradictory to the first psychoanalyst's
interpretation (Colby, 1960, p. 54). Colby (1960) concludes that if analysts themselves
cannot concur that a certain observation is an example of a certain
theory, then the regulations that govern psychoanalytic
interpretation are undependable (p. 55). Eysenck (1986) maintains:Zizhave always taken it for
granted that the obvious failure of Freudian therapy to significantly improve on spontaneous remission or placebo
treatment is the clearest proof we have of the inadequacy of Freudian
theory, closely followed by the success of alternative methods of
treatment, such as behavior therapy. (p. 236) Whereas critics, such as Popper (1986), insist that Freud's theories
cannot be falsified and therefore are not scientific, Eysenck claims that because Freud's theories can be falsified, they are
Grnbaum (1986) concurs with Eysenck that Freud's theory is falsifiable
scientific.
and therefore scientific, but he goes one step further and claims
that Freud's theory of psychoanalysis has been proven wrong and is
simply bad science.
Psychoanalysis is not inductive or empirical its more

religious than scientific
Holowchak 12 professor philosophy Rider University (M. Andrew, When
Freud (Almost) Met Chaplin: The Science behind Freud's Especially Simple,
Transparent Case", Perspectives on Science, MIT Press Journals, Spring 2012,
Vol. 20, No. 1, Pages 44-74, Project Muse)//RZ
Elsewhere, I have addressed (Holowchak, forthcoming) the difficulties of certainty in analytic therapy, both from the perspective of individual constructions a therapist
makes to assure him that each construction is correct and that his overall etiological assessment is correct. I noted that Freud made special use of a jigsaw-puzzle analogy
and disclosed three needed conditions for assuring correctness of any construction and correctness of etiological assessment: the intelligibility, fittingness, and
correspondence conditions. A construction must be intelligible (i.e., meaningful), all of the elements of a construction must t together tightly like puzzle pieces, and the
construction must match the (screen) memory of the patient. The puzzle analogy, I argued, seems prima facie plausible, but on close analysis it is casuistical, because
jigsaw puzzles are unlike constructions in key respects. The conclusion at which I arriveda conclusion I believe Freud himself embraced in mature writings on clinical
theory and one which does not show psychoanalytic therapy to be nothing but boshis that there can be no such thing as certainty in analytic therapy. Yet here I wish to
say more. The fittingness condition, I suspect, cannot be met with any degree of reliability. If all three conditions are jointly sufficient for the correctness of any construction
too much turns on

or end-of-the-day analytic assessment, as I believe they are, then certainty is out of the question. Overall,
coherence and the problem of patients being led by suggestion in a

manner that matches the theoretical orientation of a therapist for Freud, that
being Oedipus-rootedis magnified. In short, Freuds clinical therapy seems more top-down
than bottom-up. Theory drives its data . Still, Freud consistently maintained in publications and letters that
system-building in the manner of a philosophical or religious Weltanschauung was not his aim. For instance, in a letter to Putnam (8 July 1915), Freud intimates that he qua
scientist is uninterested in any sort of methodological synthesis of psychoanalytic material. For the time being, psycho-analysis is compatible with various
Weltanschauungen, he begins humbly and concessively. But has it yet spoken its last word? For my part I have never been concerned with any comprehensive synthesis,
One can only wonder

but invariably with certainty alone. And it is worth sacrificing everything to the latter (Freud et al. 1961).24
whether Freud is being deceitful or deceptive. Overall, Freuds forays

into group-psychology issues, early human history, and
metapsychological speculation betray a preoccupation with system-
building. In integrating biology into psychoanalysis through
metapsychological analysis, Freud was system-building i.e., essaying to
give psychoanalysis extraordinary explanatory power and scope in the
manner of Newtonian dynamics. There is one element of system-
building, characteristic of philosophical systems more than religions,
that is an integral part of science consistency a needed ingredient of a scientific theory
and scientific explanation. Unlike philosophical systems, presumably built top-down, Freudian psychoanalysis is said to be data-driven and bottom-up. Following his
commitment to Positivism and his inference of the sexual etiology of hysteria from 18 observed cases in Aetiology of Hysteria (1896, S.E., III: 198, 220),
Freudian psychotherapy is seemingly based on eliminative induction

of the Baconian/Millian sort, which strives both to seek confirmatory evidence for a hypothesis and rule out others through disclosure of disconfirmatory evidencei.e.,
Greenwood challenges Freuds presumed

evidence inconsistent with competing hypotheses. John
eliminative inductivism. He suggests that [Freud] treated

consistency with the empirical data as providing sufficient
confirmation of psychoanalytic theory and ignored those
alternative causal hypotheses that the canons of eliminative
induction mandate. Greenwood, adding spice to Poppers condemnation, says that Freud behaved like a
Popperian nave inductivist, in that he seldom took seriously and often ignored alternative explanations. Thus, the
question for Greenwood is not whether Freudian psychoanalysis, narrowly construed as a method for treating patients, workshe thinks it is unquestionably effective if
only because of the placebo effectbut whether Freudian psychoanalysis as a method for treating patients works because of Freudian theory (1996, pp. 6078).
Greenwood leaves good reason to be doubtful. Greenwoods concern is Freuds clinical work, but if
psychoanalysis has a broader application, as I have argued it does,
then Greenwoods suspicions are more fully confirmed. For instance, of his notion of the
killing of the primal father and general account of human prehistory, called a Just So Story by an unkind critic, Freud writes, [B]ut I think it is creditable to such a
hypothesis if it proves able to bring coherence and understanding into more and more new regions (1921, S.E., XVIII: 122). Execrating the sort of explanations given by
Freud must be talking about the scientific status of the

Weltanschauungen,
killing-of-the-primal-father hypothesis, yet he clearly is not using

eliminative induction here. Moreover, saying something is creditable is
not to offer sufficient confirmation of its truth. Freud is appealing to
coherence here and nothing more . Freud is system-building. Seeing
psychoanalysis rooted in clinical data, Freud must be arguing for
veridicality by appealing to coherence through consistency with
those data. Yet we have already seen that the data are likely to be
highly unreliable , so coherence with them amounts to foofaraw. With what are we left? The Freudian
psychoanalytic theoretical system seems to be standing alone and it is,
according to Freuds account of Weltanschauungen, as much of a
house of cards as he says is any philosophical or religious system,
which can do nothing empirically to rule out or, at least, make implausible
other possible explanationsan important part of eliminative
inductivism.
It ignores larger social forces
LaBier 10, PhD in psychology, psychoanalytic therapist, and Director of the
Center for Progressive Development in Washington, D.C., (Douglas, 10/28/10,
Why Psychotherapists Fail To Help People Today,
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-resilience/201010/why-
psychotherapists-fail-help-people-today)//kap
Many people who enter psychotherapy today aren't helped at all.

Some end up more troubled than when they began treatment . And
ironically, some therapists are examples of the kinds of problems they're trying to treat. In this post I
explain why that is and how to become a more informed consumer when considering
psychotherapy. The popularity of the TV show "In Treatment (link is external)" is one indicator that
there's a large, market for psychotherapy, today. Despite the decline of the more orthodox psychoanalytic
treatment - the kind that Daphne Merkin described in a recent New York Times article (link is
external)about her years in treatment - people continue to seek competent professional help for dealing
with and resolving the enormous emotional challenges and conflicts that impact so many lives in current
times. Beyond healing, they want to grow their capacity for healthy relationships and successful lives.
Many skilled and competent therapists are out there. (I use term "therapist" to describe psychologists,
psychiatrists and clinical social workers - professionally trained and licensed practitioners.) Moreover,
research shows that psychotherapy can be very effective. Either alone, or sometimes in combination with
the judicious use of medication. Yet so often practitioners don't help people very
much. Some struggle for years in therapy with one practitioner after another, and never seem to make
any progress. Others resolve some conflicts, but then are hit with others that hadn't been addressed. I
see three reasons for this situation. One is rooted in the kind of
people therapists tend to be today. Their personal values, social
attitudes and how they relate to conventional norms and behavior
contrast in several ways with those of the "pioneers" from Freud's era.
That contrast impedes effective help . Then there are the kinds of
problems that people experience. They've evolved over the decades ,
but especially since 9-11 and the near-depression that began in the fall of 2008. But many
therapists aren't in synch with the impact of that shift. They fail to
understand how 21st Century conditions impact emotional lives and
conflicts . Many are clueless about how life in today's world interweaves with the dysfunctions or
family conflicts that patients bring with them into their adult lives. The third reason is the
therapists' vision of the goals of treatment; what a healthy outcome
or resolution of conflicts should look like, and how to get there.
Many remain stuck within an older model - helping patients better
manage, cope with or adjust to change and traumas; build resilience
and restore equilibrium. But that's no longer possible: Our new
environment is one of "non-equilibrium" and unpredictability . That
creates new emotional and life challenges across the board -- for intimate relationships, careers and for
engaging with a changing society - the "remix" that America is now becoming. The Psychotherapist - Past
The early analysts were pioneers, adventurous explores of
and Present
uncharted terrain. They were trying to uncover how human personality and unconscious
passions evolve within people to create symptoms and dysfunctions. They courageously risked their
careers when they called attention to the impact of repressed sexuality. Aside from the accuracy of early
theories about the causes of emotional disturbance, the practitioners' aim was to reduce suffering. They
wanted to help people develop more love, reason and independence - albeit within the context of the
norms of their era that they, themselves, accepted. Moreover, most were well-read in
literature, history and culture, more so than today's practitioners. That gave them a broad outlook
and perspective on life. For example, Freud's writings are filled with references from Shakespeare, Goethe
and other great works of literature, drama and mythology. He drew on their themes, plots and character
portrayals to help illuminate and understand the motives and moral dilemmas underlying his patients'
Most contemporaries and followers of Freud possessed
emotional problems.
a radical spirit. They wanted to uncover the truth beneath patient's symptoms; see beneath the
surface. They shared the view that successful treatment was based on a love of the truth; that is,
emotional reality. And that it must preclude any kind of sham, deception or illusion. Of course, Freud and
his contemporaries interpreted their patients' problems in many ways that were flawed. They made
assumptions about psychological health that were part of the prevailing values and norms of post-
Victorian, early-20th Century society - a largely patriarchal culture. For example, most assumed that a
normal, successful life derived from being well-adjusted to those norms. Nevertheless , their spirit
of truth-seeking, rooted in broad understanding of human culture,
literature and history, has become lost . Today's practitioners tend to
be technicians, looking for the right technique that will treat the
patient's symptoms. Many tend to be cautious, often disengaged
and detached people in their manner and interactions with patients.
They are largely ignorant of philosophical, religious , cultural and
socio-economic forces that shape people's psychological
development , especially those in non-Western societies. And yet, all of
those forces in all parts of the globe profoundly impact how and why we learn to think and behave as we
do. Much current world conflict reflects those differences that define what we think in "normal" or
Many therapists today simply assume that adjusting to
"disturbed."
prevailing values and norms reflects psychological health. Now that's
desirable for those whose conflicts have disabled them from minimally successful functioning. But it misses
the mark for those whose conflicts are linked with their successful adaptation to begin with. The therapist
then fails to explore their patients' definition of "success" - how it's shaped their career and life goals, their
conflicts and disappointments. Some therapists will spend inordinate time ferreting out tiny truths about
the patient's family and childhood, without figuring out which have relevance to the person's conflicts
today, and which don't. They may ignore the impact of trade-offs and
compromises patients made as they created their sexual and
intimate relationship patterns Overall, today's practitioners tend to share in, rather than
critique and examine, the social norms, values and anxieties of today's world. Too often, they
uncritically accept good functioning per se, and conventional values
like power-seeking, as psychologically healthy. This blinds them from recognizing
that "normal" adjustment can mask repressed feelings of self-betrayal, self-criticism, and the desire to be
freer, more alive. All of those longings can conflict with or oppose parental expectations or the pressures
from social class membership. Emotional Conflicts In Today's World People's problems have
evolved . Up through World War II and into the 1950s-early 60s symptoms that were more typical of
Freud's time -- hysteria or specific phobias, for example - diminished. People wanted help for fitting in with
the apparent paths to success and happiness and for dealing with conflicts that interfered with or limited
it. Therapy often addressed things like guilt, inhibition, the need for approval, and dealing with the conflicts
Desires or longings that deviated
generated by defined, rigid roles for men and women.
too much from the prevailing norms were troublesome and created
conflicts, often unconscious. The popular TV show "Mad Men (link is external)" is a good
portrayal of conflicts of that era, especially issues of identity, longing for an authentic self and gender
roles. At the same time, the men enjoyed the surface appearance of power and control. And women chafed
against the limits imposed by gender roles, as the women's movement began to arise. The period of social
upheaval of the late 60s and 70s created more openly conscious conflict and struggle for many people.
The theme, here, was seeking more freedom from oppressive relationships and social constraints. Some
therapists were able to address these issues in helpful ways. But others were bound by
their own uncritical embrace of the very norms their patients wanted
help to free themselves from. Partly because of that disconnect, many
psychotherapy patients were attracted to the vision of personal
development offered by the rising "new age" movement, although its gurus
generally lacked any depth of understanding about emotional conflicts or psychological development.
Then, from the 1980s to about 2000 more men and women sought help to create more personally fulfilling,
engaged relationships, and more personal meaning from their work. The costs and limits of success (link is
external) became visible in patients who wanted help to create greater work-life "balance" while
preserving their relationships and their upward climb in their careers. Dealing with the emotional fallout of
the dot-com bubble burst added another dimension to these stresses. During this period of greater
fulfillment-seeking, more people turned to spiritual development as a companion to or substitute for
traditional therapy, especially via older traditions like Buddhism and other Eastern practices. And now, in
emotional conflicts spring more from the psychological
the current era,
impact of our nonlinear, unpredictable, highly interconnected world .
For example, financial and career uncertainties. Changing practices in romantic/sexual relationships.
Facing one's responsibilities to fellow inhabitants of the planet, and for sustaining the planet for future
generations. The psychological impact of these issues interacts with the legacy of family conflicts and their
dysfunctions that people carry with them into the adult world. It's a new universe of potential pain and
confusion that people are now struggling with.
1ar EXT Not Science AT Clinical
It fails clinically
Ellis 2, PhD in psychology, has written books on the harmfulness of
psychoanalysis, (Albert, revised in 2002, Chapter 5: Psychoanalysis in Theory
and Practice: Is Psychoanalysis Harmful from the book Psychiatric Opinion,
http://studysites.sagepub.com/personalitytheoriesstudy/05/resources2.htm)//
kap
Many articles and books have been written which purport to show
that psychoanalysis is an ineffective form of psychotherapy . Behavior
therapists, existentialists, physical scientists, rational philosophers, Marxists, and many other kinds of
thinkers have held that psychoanalytic therapy rests on unverified
assumptions and that it is largely a waste of time. Relatively few critics,
however, have objectively pointed out some of the actual harm that may
occur if an individual enters classical psychoanalysis or even
undergoes intensive psychoanalytic psychotherapy. To give and to document
all the main reasons why virtually any form of truly psychoanalytic therapy is frequently injurious to clients
would take a sizable book; and someday I may write it. For the present ,
let me briefly and
inadequately outline some ways in which analysis does more harm
than good. SIDETRACKING Probably the greatest harm that psychoanalysis
does is its tendency to sidetrack clients from what they had better
do to improve and to give them a good excuse not to work hard at
helping themselves. What disturbed people preferably should do is fairly simple (although it is
not at all easy); namely, to understand precisely what are the self-defeating irrational ideas they firmly
believe and to vigorously contradict them, both verbally and actively. Thus one of the main senseless
notions they usually hold is, Unless I am remarkably competent and popular, and unless I am superior to
They can strongly contradict this
others, I am rather worthless as an individual.
philosophy by asking themselves, Why am I no good just because many of my performances are
poor? Where is the evidence that I cannot accept myself if others do not like me? How is my self-
they can actively work against
acceptance really dependent on external criteria? And
their self-defeating attitudes by performing, even when they may
not do very well; by risking social disapproval when they want to
achieve a desired goal; and by experimenting with potentially
enjoyable pursuits in spite of the possibilities of failure and
rejection. Psychoanalysis sidetracks health-seeking individuals
verbally by encouraging them to concentrate on innumerable
irrelevant events and ideas: such as what happened during their early years, how they
came to have an Oedipus complex, the pernicious influence of their unloving parents, what are the
meanings of their dreams, how all-important are their relations with the analyst, how much they now
unconsciously hate their mates, etc. These may all be interesting pieces of information about clients. But
they not only do not reveal, they often seriously obscure, their basic irrational philosophies that originally
caused, and that still instigate, their dysfunctional feelings and behaviors. Being mainly diagnostic and
psychodynamic, analysis is practically allergic to philosophy, and therefore often never gets around to the
basic ideological assumptions and value systems with which humans largely create their symptoms. To
psychoanalysis is essentially a talky, passive,
make matters much worse,
insight-seeking process which encourages clients mainly to lie on
their spine or sit on their behinds in order to get better. Sensible
unorthodox analysts frequently supplement this passive procedure by giving advice, directing the clients to
do something, helping them change their environment, etc.; but they do so against psychoanalytic theory,
which stoutly insists that they do otherwise. Meanwhile, the poor analysands, who probably have
remained disturbed for most of their lives largely because they will not get off their asses and take risk
after risk, are firmly encouraged, by the analytic procedure and by the non-directive behavior of the
have the excuse that they
analyst, to continue their avoidant behavior. They now, moreover,
are actively trying to help themselves by being analyzed; but this ,
of course, is a delusion if anything like classical procedures are being followed; and they
consequently tend to become more passive, and possibly even more disturbed,
than before. DEPENDENCY Most clients are overly dependent individuals who are afraid to think and act for
Psychoanalysis is usually a
themselves and to risk being criticized for making mistakes.
process that greatly fosters dependency. The sessions are often several times a
week; they continue for a period of years; the analyst frequently forbids the clients to make any major
changes in their life during treatment a positive transference between the analyst and analysand is usually
the clients are constantly brainwashed into accepting
encouraged;
analytic interpretations, even when they seem to have a far-fetched
relationship to the facts of their lives; and in analytic group therapy, a family-like
setting is often deliberately fostered and maintained. While many forms of therapy also abet the clients
being dependent on the therapist, classical analysis is surely one of the worst, and psychoanalytically-
oriented psychotherapy one of the second-worst modes, in this respect. Several activity-directed forms of
therapy, on the other hand such as assertivenesstraining therapy, rational emotive behavior therapy,
and structured therapy urge clients, as soon as feasible, into independent action and teach them how to
t hink clearly for themselves. EMPHASIS ON FEELINGS Because it heavily emphasizes free association,
dream analysis, and the involvement of the client and therapist in transference and counter-transference
psychoanalysis inevitably puts a premium on the expression of
relations,
feelings rather than the changing of these feelings and the self -
defeating philosophies behind them. A good deal of the improvement in analytic
therapy seems to come from clients feeling better, as a result of catharsis and abreaction, and because
This tendency of clients to
they believe that the analyst really understands and likes them.
feel better, however, frequently sabotages their potentiality to
get better. Thus, the analysand who is terribly depressed about his
being refused a job and who gets these feelings off his chest in an
individual or a group session will often come away relieved, and feel that at least his analyst (or the group)
heard him out, that someone really cares for him, and that maybe hes not such a worthless slob after all.
Unfortunately, in getting himself to feel good, he forgets to inquire about the self-defeating beliefs he
told himself that maintain his depression: namely, If this employer who interviewed me today doesnt like
me, probably no employer will; and if I cant get a very good job like this one, that proves that Im
The expressive, cathartic-
incompetent and that I dont really deserve anything good in life.
abreactive method that is such a common part of analysis doesnt
encourage this client to stop and think about his philosophic
premises; instead, it enables him to feel good at least
momentarily in spite of the fact that he strongly retains these
same premises, and in spite of the fact that he will almost certainly
depress himself, because of his holding them, again and again. In the
expression of hostility that psychoanalysis encourages, the situation is even worse. Starting with the
assumption that it is bad for the client to feel hostile and to hold in her hostile feelings which is a fairly
sensible assumption, since there is empirical evidence to support it psychoanalysts usually derive from
this view another, and rather false, assumption: that the expression of hostile feelings will release and cure
basic hostility. Nothing of the sort is probably true; in fact, just the opposite frequently happens. The
individual who, in analytic sessions, is encouraged to express her hatred for her mother, husband, or boss
may well end up by becoming still more hostile, acting in an overtly nasty fashion to this other person,
Expression of hostility,
engendering return hostility, and then becoming still more irate.
moreover, is one of the best psychological cop-outs . By convincing herself that
other people are awful and that they deserve to be hated, the client can easily ignore her own maladaptive
behavior and self-loathing and can nicely avoid doing anything to look into her own heart and to change
her irrational thinking and her dysfunctional feelings and acts. One of the main functions of an effective
therapist, moreover, is to help the client minimize or eliminate her hostility (while keeping her dislike of
unfortunate events and nasty people, so that she can do something to solve her problems connected with
them). Psychoanalysis, because it falsely believes that present hostility stems from past occurrences
(rather than largely from the individuals philosophic attitude toward and consequent interpretations about
those occurrences), has almost no method of getting at the main sources of hatred and eradicating them.
By failing to show the client how to change her anger-creating views and by encouraging her to become
more hostile in many instances, it tends to harm probably the majority of analytic clients (or should we say
victims?). BOLSTERS CONFORMISM The main reasons why many human beings feel sufficiently disturbed
to come for therapy are their misleading beliefs that they need the love and approval of others, that they
cant possibly be happy at all when they are alone, and that unless they are successful they are no
psychoanalysis is essentially non-philosophic, and
damned good. Because
because it does not show clients how to distinguish clearly between
their wanting and their needing to be approved and successful , most
analysands wind up, at best, by becoming better adapted to the popularity-and achievement-demanding
culture in which they live rather than becoming persons in their own right who give themselves permission
to think and to enjoy themselves in unconforming ways. Psychoanalysis basically teaches the client, Since
your parents were overly-critical and therefore made you hate yourself, and since you are able to see that
I, your analyst, uncritically accepts you in spite of your poor behavior, you can now accept yourself. And
also: Since you have been achieving on a low level because you were afraid to compete with your father
or your brother, and I have helped you gain insight into this reason for your doing poorly, you can now
compete successfully with practically anyone, and make the million dollars you always wanted to make.
What psychoanalysis fails to teach the individual is: You can always unqualifiedly
accept yourself even if I, your analyst, do not particularly like you, because your value to yourself rests on
your existence, on your being, and not on how much anyone approves you. And: There are several
reasons why succeeding at vocational or avocational activities is usually advantageous; but you dont have
to be outstanding, ultrasuccessful, or noble in order to accept yourself. Because analysis is
largely concerned with historical events in peoples lives rather than their ideological
reactions to these events; because it encourages passivity and dependency; because it over-emphasizes
the personal relationship between the analyst and analysand for these and other reasons it often
encourages clients to be more successful conformers rather than evergrowing, courageously
experimenting, relatively culture-free persons. The analyst himself, rigidly-bound as he often is by the
orthodox rules of the therapeutic game he is playing, and selfcondemned by following these rules to be a
non-assertive, undaring individual himself, tends to set a bad example for the client and to encourage her
or him to be a reactor rather than an actor in the drama that we call life. STRENGTHENS IRRATIONALITY
Clients basic problems often stem from assuming irrational premises and making illogical deductions from
these premises. If they are to be helped with their basic disturbance, they had better learn to question
their assumptions and think more logically and discriminate more clearly about the various things that
happen to them and the attitudes they take toward these happenings. In particular, theyd better realize
that their preferences or desires are not truly needs or demands and that just because it would be better if
something occurred, this is no reason why it absolutelyshould, ought, or must occur. Instead of helping
psychoanalysis provides them with
clients with this kind of realistic and logical analysis,
many unverified premises and irrationalities of its own. It usually insists that
they must be disturbed because of past events in their lives, that they need to be loved and have to be-
come angry when thwarted, that they must have years of intensive analysis in order to change
significantly, that they must get into and finally work through an intense transference relationship with
their analyst, etc. All these assumptions as is the case with most psychoanalytic hypotheses are
either dubious or false; and analysands are given additional irrationalities to cope with over and above
their handicapping crooked thinking with which they come to therapy. In innumerable instances, they
become so obsessed with their analytic nonsense that psychoanalysis becomes their religious creed and
their be-all and end-all for existing; and though it may somewhat divert them from the nonsense with
which they first came to therapy, it does not really eliminate it but at best covers it up with this new
Rather than becoming less suggestible
psychoanalytic mode of positive thinking.
and more of a critical thinker through analysis, they frequently
become worse in these respects. ABSORBS AND SABOTAGES HEALTH POTENTIALS When
clients come for psychoanalysis, they are usually reasonably young and have considerable potential for
achieving mental health, even though they are now disturbed. Psychoanalysis, particularly in its classical
modes, is such a long-winded, time-consuming, expensive process that it often takes many of the best
years of clients lives and prevents them from using these years productively. To make matters much
worse, analytic therapy leads in most instances to such abysmally poor results that analysands are often
highly discouraged, are convinced that practically all the time and money they spent for analysis is
wasted, that there is no possibility of their ever changing and that theyd better avoid all other types of
psychotherapy for the rest of their lives and adjust themselves, as best they may, to living with their
disturbances. An untold number of ex-analysands have become utterly disillusioned with all psychological
treatment because they wrongly believe that psychoanalysis is psychotherapy, and that if they received
such poor results from being analyzed nothing else could possible work for them. If the facts in this regard
could ever be known, it is likely to be found that analysis harms more people in this way than in any of the
other many ways in which it is deleterious. The number of people in the United States alone who feel that
they cannot afford any more therapy because they fruitlessly spent many thousands of dollars in
psychoanalysis is probably considerable. WRONG THERAPEUTIC GOALS The two main functions of
psychotherapy, when it is sanely done, are: (1) to show clients how they can significantly change their
disordered thinking, emoting, and behaving and (2) to help them, once they are no longer severely
disturbed, to lead a more creative, fulfilling, growing existence. Instead of these two goals, psychoanalysis
largely follows a third one: to help people understand or gain insight into themselves and particularly to
understand the history of their disturbances. Humans in contradistinction to the analytic assumptions
do not usually modify their basic thoughts and behaviors by insight into their past, by relating to a
therapist, or even by understanding their present irrational assumptions and conflicting value systems.
They change mainly by work and efort. They consequently had better be helped to use their insights
which usually means, to concretely understand what they are believing and assuming right now, in the
present, and to actively challenge and question these self-defeating beliefs and assumptions until they
finally change them. They also had better be helped to act, to experiment, to accept discomforts, and to
force themselves to do many things of which they are irrationally afraid, so that their actions effectively
depropagandize them to give up their dysfunctional beliefs. Psychoanalytic therapy, instead of
devoting much time to encouraging and teaching clients to dispute and act against their self-defeating
takes them up the garden path into all kinds
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors,
of irrelevant (though sometimes accurate) in-sights, which gives them a lovely excuse to cop
Out from doing the work, the practice, the effort, the self-deprivation by which alone they are likely truly to
change their basic self-sabotaging philosophies of life. Even if it were a good method of psychological
analysis (which it actually is not), it is an execrable method of synthesis. It does not notably help people
make themselves whole again; and it particularly does not show them how to live more fulfillingly when
they have, to some degree, stopped needlessly upsetting themselves. Because it implicitly and explicitly
encourages people to remain pretty much the way they are, though perhaps to get a better understanding
of themselves (and often to construct better defenses so that they can live more efficiently with their
irrational assumptions about themselves and others), it frequently does more harm, by stopping them from
really making a concerted attack on their fundamental disturbances, than the good that well might come
to them if they received a non-analytic form of psychotherapy or even if they resolutely tried to help
themselves by reading, talking to others, and by doing some hard thinking. CONCLUSION
Psychoanalysis in general and classical analysis in particular are
mistaken in their assumptions about why human beings become
emotionally disturbed and what can and should be done to help
them become less anxious and hostile. Consequently, analytic therapy
largely wastes considerable time teaching clients often-mistaken
theories about themselves and others. Although these theories are frequently highly
interesting and diverting, they at best may help the client to feel better rather than to get better. The one
thing that analysis usually insures is that analysands will not understand the philosophic core of their
disturbance-creating tendencies and consequently will not work and practice, in both a verbal-theoretical
and active-motor way, to change their basic assumptions about themselves and the world and thereby
ameliorate their symptoms and make themselves less disturbable. Although ostensibly an intensive and
analysis is actually an exceptionally superficial,
ultra-depth-centered form of psychotherapy,
palliative form of treatment. Because it deludes clients that they are truly getting better by
following its rules and because it dissuades them from doing the difficult reorganizing of their underlying
philosophical assumptions, psychoanalysis usually (though, of course, not always) does
more harm than good and is contraindicated in the majority of
instances in which it is actually used.
1ar EXT Unfalsifiable
Pyschoanalysis is non-falsifiable hindsight thinking
Samuels 93 Training Analyst Society of Analytical Psychology and
Science Associate American Academy of Psychoanalysis (Andrew, Free
Associations, The mirror and the hammer: depth psychology and political
transformation, Vol. 3D, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing) DJ
The paper is about the depth psychology of political processes, focusing on processes of political change. It is a contribution to the
longstanding ambition of depth psychology to develop a form of political and cultural analysis that will, in Freud's words, 'under-stand the
riddles of the world'. It has to be admitted that there is an equally longstanding reluctance in the non-psychological community to accept the
many and varied ideas and suggestions concerning political matters that have been offered by analysts of all persuasions. I do not believe
There is something offensive above reductive

this can all be put down to resistance.
interpretations of complex socio-political problems in exclusively

psychological terms. The tendency to panpsychism on the part of some depth psychologists has
led me to wonder if an adequate methodology and ethos actually exists with which to
make an engagement of depth psychology with the public sphere possible . By
'politics' I mean the arrangements within a culture for the organization and distribution
of power, especially economic power, and the way in which power is deployed to maintain the survival and enhance the quality of
human life. Economic and political power includes control of processes of information and representation as well as the use of physical force
and possession of vital resources such as land, food and water. On a more personal level, political power reflects the ability to choose freely
'Politics' refers to the interplay between the

whether to act and what action to take in a given situation.
personal and public dimensions of power. That is, there is an articulation between public, economic power
and power as expressed on the personal, private level. This articulation is demonstrated in family organization, gender and race relations, and
in religious and artistic assumptions as they affect the life of individuals. (I have also tried to be consistent in my use of the terms 'culture',
'society' and 'collective'.)' Here is an example of the difficulty with psychological rcduc-tionism to which I am referring. At a conference 1
attended in London in 1990, a distinguished psychoanalyst referred to the revolutionary students in Paris in 1968 as 'functioning as a
regressive group'. Now, for a large group of students to be said to regress, there must be, in the speaker's mind, some sort of normative
developmental starting point for them to regress to. The social group is supposed to have a babyhood, as it were. Similarly, the speaker must
have had in mind the possibility of a healthier, progressive group process what a more mature group of revolutionary students would have
complex social and political phenomena do not conform to the

looked like. But
individualistic, chronological, moralistic, pathologizing framework that is often

imported. The problem stems from treating the entire culture , or large chunks of it, as if
it were an individual or, worse, as if it were a baby . Psychoanalysts project a
version of personality development couched in judgemental terms onto a
collective cultural and political process. If we look in this manner for pathology in
the culture, we will surely find it. As we are looking with a psychological
theory in mind, then, lo and behold, the theory will explain the pathology , but
this is a retrospective prophecy (to use a phrase of Freud's), twenty-twenty hindsight. In
this psychoanalytic tautologizing there is really nothing much to get excited about. Too
much psychological writing on the culture, my own included, has suffered from this kind of smug 'correctness' when the 'material' proves the
theoretical point. Of course it does! If we are interested in envy or greed, then we will find envy or greed in capitalistic organization. If we set
out to demonstrate the presence of archetypal patterns, such as projection of the shadow, in geopolitical relations, then, without a doubt, they
will seem to leap out at us. We influence what we analyse and so psychological reflection on culture and politics needs to be muted- there is
not so much 'aha!' as one hoped.
1ar EXT Robinson
Focusing on lack cant solve politics
Thomassen 4, Department of Government, University of Essex, 4 (Dr Lasse,
LACANIAN POLITICAL THEORY: A REPLY TO ROBINSON, BJPIR: 2004 VOL 6,
P558-561)//trepka
In the May 2004 issue of this Journal, Andrew Robinson (2004) reviewed recent books by Alain Badiou, Judith Butler,
Ernesto Laclau, SlavojZizek, Chantal Mouffe and Yannis Stavrakakis under the heading The politics of lack. Robinson
a post-structuralist conception of politics oriented by a notion
argues that
of constitutive lack and inspired by Lacanian psychoanalysis is
fundamentally misguided. This approach to politics and political theory is guided by the idea that
identity is constituted around a fundamental lack at the heart of the subject, and that identity is constituted through the
There are three basic
identification with external objects, thus temporarily filling the lack.
problems with this approach to politics, according to Robinson. First, as it
relies on an abstract ontology, it is unable to properly engage with
concrete politics, and the study of politics is reduced to the
subsumption of empirical cases to pregiven ontological categories,
which the former merely exemplify. Second, the kind of radical democratic theory
emerging from the lack/Lacanian approach is only radical in name,
but in fact uncritical of existing liberal democracy. Finally, this approach
is conservative and nihilistic, according to Robinson, because it refuses the
possibility of progress.
Alt fails psychoanalysis cannot be the basis for political

change
Sharpe 10, lecturer, philosophy and psychoanalytic studies, and Goucher,
senior lecturer, literary and psychoanalytic studies Deakin University, 10
(Matthew and Geoff, iek and Politics: An Introduction, p. 182 185, Figure
1.5 included)
Can we bring some order to this host of criticisms? It is remarkable that, for all the criticisms of ieks political
ieks political position might
Romanticism, no one has argued that the ultra- extremism of
reflect his untenable attempt to shape his model for political action
on the curative final moment in clinical psychoanalysis. The differences
between these two realms, listed in Figure 5.1, are nearly too many and too great to
restate which has perhaps caused the theoretical oversight. The key thing is this.
Lacans notion of traversing the fantasy involves the radical transformation
of peoples subjective structure: a refounding of their most elementary
beliefs about themselves, the world, and sexual difference. This is undertaken in the security of
the clinic, on the basis of the analysands voluntary desire to overcome their inhibitions, symptoms and anxieties.
As a clinical and existential process, it has its own independent importance and authenticity. The analysands,
in transforming their subjective world, change the way they regard the objective , shared
social reality outside the clinic. But they do not transform the world. The political
relevance of the clinic can only be (a) as a supporting moment in ideology critique or (b) as a fully- fl
edged model of politics, provided that the political subject and its social object are ultimately identical. Option (b), ieks
option, rests on the idea, not only of a subject who becomes who he is only through his (mis)
whose traversal of the fantasy is
recognition of the objective sociopolitical order, but
immediately identical with his transformation of the sociopolitical
system or Other. Hence, according to iek, we can analyse the institutional embodiments of this Other using
psychoanalytic categories. In Chapter 4, we saw ieks resulting elision of the distinction between the (subjective) Ego
This leads him to analyse our entire culture
Ideal and the (objective) Symbolic Order.
as a single subjectobject, whose perverse (or perhaps even psychotic) structure is expressed in
every manifestation of contemporary life. ieks decisive political- theoretic errors, one substantive and the other
The substantive problem is to equate any
methodological, are different (see Figure 5.1)
political change worth the name with the total change of the subjectobject that is,
today, global capitalism. This is a type of change that can only mean equating politics with violent regime change, and
ultimately embracing dictatorial government, as iek now frankly avows (IDLC 41219). We have seen that the ultra-
the theoretical Left and the wider politics,
political form of ieks criticism of everyone else,
is thatno one is sufficiently radical for him even, we will discover, Chairman Mao. We now
see that this is because ieks model of politics proper is modelled on a pre-
analogy with the total transformation of a subjects entire subjective structure, at
critical
the end of the talking cure. For what could the concrete consequences of this governing analogy be? We
have seen that iek equates the individual fantasy with the collective identity of
an entire people. The social fantasy, he says, structures the regimes inherent transgressions: at once
subjects habitual ways of living the letter of the law, and the regimes myths of origin and of identity. If political
action is modelled on the Lacanian cure, it must involve the
complete traversal in Hegels terms, the abstract versus the determinate negation of all these
lived myths, practices and habits. Politics must involve the periodic founding of entire new subjectobjects.
Providing the model for this set of ideas, the fi rst iekian political subject was Schellings divided God, who gave birth to
can the political
the entire Symbolic Order before the beginning of time (IDLC 153; OB 1448). But
theorist reasonably hope or expect that subjects will simply give up on all
their inherited ways, myths and beliefs, all in one world- creating moment? And can
they be legitimately asked or expected to, on the basis of a set of ideals whose legitimacy they will only retrospectively
see, after they have acceded to the Great Leap Forward? And if they do not for iek laments that today
subjects are politically disengaged in unprecedented ways what means can the theorist and
his allies use to move them to do so?
Psychoanalytic critique causes passivity and destroys

political struggle
Gordon 1, psychotherapist living and working in London, Race & Class,
2001, v. 42, n. 4, p. 30-1
The postmodernists' problem is that they cannot live with disappointment. All the tragedies of the
political project of emancipation -- the evils of Stalinism in particular -- are seen as the inevitable
product of men and women trying to create a better society. But, rather than engage in a critical
assessment of how, for instance, radical political movements go wrong, they discard the
emancipatory project and impulse itself. The postmodernists, as Sivanandan puts it, blame modernity
for having failed them: `the intellectuals and academics have fled into discourse and deconstruction
and representation -- as though to interpret the world is more important than to change it , as
though changing the interpretation is all we could do in a changing world'.58 To justify their flight from a
politics holding out the prospect of radical change through self-activity, the disappointed intellectuals
find abundant intellectual alibis for themselves in the very work they champion, including, in Cohen's
case, psychoanalysis. What Marshall Berman says of Foucault seems true also of psychoanalysis; that it
offers à world-historical alibi' for the passivity and helplessness felt by many in the 1970s, and that
it has nothing but contempt for those naive enough to imagine that it might be possible for modern
humankind to be free. At every turn for such theorists, as Berman argues, whether in sexuality,
politics, even our imagination, we are nothing but prisoners: there is no freedom in Foucault's world,
because his language forms a seamless web, a cage far more airtight than anything Weber ever dreamed
of, into which no life can break . . . There is no point in trying to resist the oppressions and injustices of
modern life, since even our dreams of freedom only add more links to our chains; however, once we grasp
the futility of it all, at least we can relax.59 Cohen's political defeatism and his conviction in the
explanatory power of his new faith of psychoanalysis lead him to be contemptuous and dismissive of
any attempt at political solidarity or collective action . For him, `communities' are always ìmagined',
which, in his view, means based on fantasy, while different forms of working-class organisation, from the
craft fraternity to the revolutionary group, are dismissed as `fantasies of self-sufficient combination'.60 In
the idea that people might come together, think together, analyse together and act
this scenario,
together as rational beings is impossible. The idea of a genuine community of equals becomes a pure
fantasy, a `symbolic retrieval' of something that never existed in the first place: `Community is a magical
device for conjuring something apparently solidary out of the thin air of modern times, a mechanism of re-
enchantment.' As for history, it is always false, since `We are always dealing with invented traditions.'61
Now, this is not only nonsense, but dangerous nonsense at that. Is history àlways false'? Did the
Judeocide happen or did it not? And did not some people even try to resist it? Did slavery exist or did it
not, and did not people resist that too and, ultimately, bring it to an end? And are communities
always ìmagined'? Or, as Sivanandan states, are they beaten out on the smithy of a people's collective
struggle? Furthermore, all attempts to legislate against ideology are bound to fail because they
have to adopt `technologies of surveillance and control identical to those used by the state' . Note
here the Foucauldian language to set up the notion that all `surveillance' is bad. But is it? No society can
function without surveillance of some kind. The point, surely, is that there should be a public
conversation about such moves and that those responsible for implementing them be at all times
accountable. To equate, as Cohen does, a council poster about `Stamping out racism' with Orwell's
horrendous prophecy in 1984 of a boot stamping on a human face is ludicrous and insulting. (Orwell's
image was intensely personal and destructive; the other is about the need to challenge not individuals,
but a collective evil.) Cohen reveals himself to be deeply ambivalent about punitive action against racists,
as though punishment or other firm action against them (or anyone else transgressing agreed social or
legal norms) precluded ùnderstanding' or even help through psychotherapy. It is indeed a strange kind of
ànti-racism' that portrays active racists as the `victims', those who are in need of `help'. But this is where
Cohen's argument ends up. In their move from politics to the academy and the world of `discourse', the
postmodernists may have simply exchanged one grand narrative, historical materialism, for
another, psychoanalysis.62 For psychoanalysis is a grand narrative, par excellence . It is a theory
that seeks to account for the world and which recognises few limits on its explanatory potential. And the
claimed radicalism of psychoanalysis, in the hands of the postmodernists at least, is not a
radicalism at all but a prescription for a politics of quietism, fatalism and defeat . Those wanting to
change the world, not just to interpret it, need to look elsewhere.
1ar EXT Perm Do Both
Meyers 6/16/14 --- Masters of Public and International Law candidate,
University of Melbourne (Zach, Autonomy as a Fantasy, Taylor and Francis Online)//trepka
there remains
This article seeks to understand why, despite its deconstruction by a range of critical theorists,
a stubborn reliance on the concept of autonomy to justify privacy
law, even among post-structuralists. It seeks to explain the connection between privacy and autonomy through
psychoanalytic theory (particularly the work of Jacques Lacan). This article suggests that psychoanalytic
theory can help explain why autonomy is a necessary but unachievable
fantasy, and that laws purpose is to support this fantasy by
allowing individuals to defer confronting it as a fantasy. Using the example
of Australian data protection law, this article suggests that the law facilitates an economy of personal
information, which imbues personal information with value and enables
individuals to attempt to practise autonomy by controlling the

disclosure and use of their personal information. But the law provides only
imperfect control. It therefore provides an explanation for why complete autonomy cannot be achieved. In this way,
privacy law functions as a means to manage anxiety. The article

concludes by suggesting that data protection laws can and should
recognise this role, and offers some tentative views on how
psychoanalytic work can and should inform future law reform in this area. If recent
proposals for reform are any indication, the justification for privacy law in Australia is
increasingly about protecting individual autonomy: ensuring that
individuals do not lose control over what others may do with
[ their] personal data .1 This focus has developed despite the concept of autonomy increasingly coming
under critique by scholars writing from a range of perspectives, though each with the objective of deconstructing the
autonomous, Cartesian subject that privacy laws are presumed to protect.2 Clearly, these critiques have not yet disrupted
the unsettled intuitions3 that interlink autonomy and privacy. These stubborn intuitions are particularly interesting from
an Australian perspective, given that most federal law reform in this area historically has been progressed with very
different justifications, 4 which are less about autonomy than communal interests such as economic growth and national
security. 5 Equally interesting is that, in the United States, autonomy has been used to justify non-intervention in
management of personal information by the private sector.6 Even in Australia, the emphasis on autonomy comes almost
as a cover to the erosion of the protection of personal data in other areas. 7 Autonomy is a theme that seems to resonate
with popular understandings of privacy, even if it can be deployed selectively and for divergent purposes. This article
seeks to explain the connection between privacy and autonomy through psychoanalytic theory (particularly the work of
Jacques Lacan). Its thesis is that autonomy is a necessary but unachievable

fantasy , and that privacy laws purpose is to support this fantasy by allowing individuals to defer confronting it as a
fantasy. Writing from Australia (which has to date been reluctant to protect privacy rights through the common law, and
the article applies Lacans work to Australian data
which lacks a statutory tort of privacy),8
protection laws, particularly the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).9 The article ultimately suggests that we
should acknowledge privacy laws role in supporting the fantasy of
autonomy, and tentatively suggests ways in which it could better
support this fantasy. The article proceeds in the following way. The first section provides a brief summary
of the role of autonomy in privacy theory to date in particular, the traditional justification of privacy as protecting
autonomy, the recent post-structuralist critiques of autonomy, and the way these critiques have been
applied to reconceptualise privacy laws . The article then demonstrates how tenets of
Lacans psychoanalytic theory explain why, despite the comprehensive deconstruction of autonomy by post-structuralist
legal theorists, autonomy remains a necessary fantasy . The third section applies this
understanding to data protection laws. The final section makes some tentative suggestions about how a better
understanding of the psychological needs fulfilled by privacy laws can and should inform future law reform in this area.
Specifically, data protection laws are good
Meyers 6/16/14 --- Masters of Public and International Law candidate,
University of Melbourne (Zach, Autonomy as a Fantasy, Taylor and Francis Online)//trepka
Linguistic systems structure identity and cannot represent the infants unstructured existence, the omnipotence it has
linguistic systems are entirely constituted by divisions,
lost69 after all,
which cannot express wholeness except through further divisions.
Indeed, Lacan sees the metaphoric significance the infant associates with the reel, the treatment of objects as signifiers
for something else, as the first mark of the subject.70 The mirror stage (that is, the creation of a sense of self) involves
the law, is therefore useful
the repression of this wholeness. The social order, like language or
precisely because it enables a person to both purport to be

confronting a loss, while always deferring it , leaving the reel (or the
repressed loss) suspended between, and requiring the constant
repetition of, fort and da. The pleasure for which the infant is searching in the fort-da game is
therefore a way to overcome the castration to exceed the boundary of the cot that reminds of the absent mother, and to
The game results in
manage the loss of omnipotence, which existed prior to the mirror stage.
pleasure from the infants attempt to transgress the boundaries of
the self, the (social) law governing the boundaries of identity. But
this pleasure is combined with pain (what Lacan refers to as a
joissance), because all that can be achieved through the game is a
substitute for that omnipotence, in the form of an imagined sense of autonomy. Each return of
the reel to the infant functions as a reminder that the infant is still not whole in the sense it was prior to entering the
social realm. The reel itself, in this game, means nothing it is simply an object that supports and explains the individuals
existing desire,71 an object that is imagined and treated by the individual as offering the potential to overcome its
Desire in Data Protection Laws Collectively,
structured and split self of identity.
these aspects of Lacans reinterpretations of the game provide a
compelling explanation of individuals concern with their personal
information, in the context of data protection laws . In particular, Lacans work
draws a distinction between the concepts of the (small O) other and (big O) Other. iek, in his description of Lacans
work, describes the Other as the framework underlying interaction with others, the symbolic order that we enter into
that already assumes our complicity in the fantasy of autonomy: When we speak (or listen, for that matter), we never
merely interact with others; our speech activity is grounded on our accepting and relying on a complex network of rules
and other kinds of presuppositions. 72
1ar AT Death Drive
Death drive theory has psychology wrong
Pinker 11 (Steven [Professor of Psychology @ Harvard; two time Pulitzer
finalist]; The Better angels of our nature: why violence has declined; pp.xxv;
kdf)
Many people implicitly believe in the Hydraulic
Five Inner Demons (chapter 8).
Theory of Violence: that humans harbor an inner drive toward
aggression (a death instinct or thirst for blood), which builds up
inside us and must periodically be discharged. Nothing could be
further from a contemporary scientific understanding of the
psychology of violence.Aggression is not a single motive , let alone a mounting
urge. It is the output of several psychological systems that differ in
their environmental triggers, their internal logic, their neurobiological basis, and their social
distribution. Chapter 8 is devoted to explaining five of them. Predatory or instrumental violence is simply violence
deployed as a practical means to an end. Dominance is the urge for authority, prestige, glory, and power, whether it takes
the form of macho posturing among individuals or contests for supremacy among racial, ethnic, religious, or national
groups. Revenge fuels the moralistic urge toward retribution, punishment, and justice. Sadism is pleasure taken in
another's suffering. And ideology is a shared belief system, usually involving a vision of utopia, that justifies unlimited
violence in pursuit of unlimited good.
Accepting the death drive is badit dissolves all potential

for community
RHIZOMATICK 12 (I am a Belgian philosophy student from Leuven
university, A POLITICS OF THE DEATH DRIVE, Sep 22,
http://rhizomatick.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/a-politics-of-the-death-drive/)
Can we then just do away with repression and lead lives under the
sign of the death drive? No, this would perpetuate the violence of
the trauma of nature. The breaking of community in the
disintegration of meaning cannot be completed, but remains to-
come. This disintegration is always a scream and a scream is a scream-to-someone. The scream adresses itself to
someone (this someone is more exactly an anyone, since we dont care whom exactly is adressed). The scream
presupposes a broken community, but a community nonetheless. We
cannot perform the scream (death drive) nor hear it (the uncanny)
without standing in community. We can make this more concrete with Waiting for Godot by
Samuel Beckett. While the protagonists await death (in the form of Godot, the utopia they dream of), they await it
together. While the play is an allegory for the loss of communication and the breaking of community ,
it is also
the appearance of a community in this breaking, a communication of
communication itself (the scream speaks the speaking). The result of this politics of
the death drive is a baseless community, a community without
anything in-common, without a shared culture.
Puar
2ac F/L
Vote aff if they win solves the whole kritik better for two
reasons:
1. If subjectivity is bad, dont reward the neg team

because they made negative arguments decouple their
subjectivity from the ballot
2. If theyre suicide bombers, then their symbolic gesture

of sacrifice is hollow and inauthentic without their
willingness to give up

Perm do both using subjectivity strategically solves

best
Egginton 12 [William, Andrew W Mellon Professor in the Humanities at
John Hopkins University, "Affective Disorder", Volume 40, Number 4, Winter,
muse.jhu.edu/journals/diacritics/v040/40.4.egginton.html]
a great appeal of Deleuzian affect theory has been its
As we have seen,
promise of a kind of short circuit between experience and bodies that
bypasses subjectivity and its attendant limitations63 the ego, ethnocentrism, gender bias,
the list goes ontouching on an implicit ethical dividend, insofar as subjective capture seems
counterproductive to real engagement with otherness in almost any form. But as we've also seen, the
same [End Page 36] early modern attempts to ground ethics in experience that so influenced Deleuze
reveal in striking detail how the limits of subjectivity cleave to the problem of ethics at its very core. In
not only does it seem impossible to link the transmission of affect
fact,
to an ethical project without the mediation of subjectivity,
subjectivity and its inherent auto-alienation may well be intrinsic to
affective experience. At its best, the turn to affect has reminded
theorists of communication in all its forms , from the political to the psychological
to the literary, that when humans communicate they do so through their
bodies, and that the affective dimension of this embodied communication often exceeds the grasp and
dominion of cognitive processes. But as often occurs with intellectual trends,
the enthusiasts of affect have at times overstated their case ,
asserting a promise for their theoretical endeavors that not only
exceeds their possibilities, but also undermines the very real
pertinence of neurological studies of affect to vital questions in
philosophy, psychology, and the study of literature, art, and culture. It behooves us,
in the end, not to consider affect as an opponent to subjectivity, but
instead to understand how deeply related the two are . "I feel, therefore I
am,"64 wrote the Cuban novelist and theorist Alejo Carpentier in the context of his El recurso del mtodo
(Recourse of Method), a novel whose rationale from the title onward is a parody and response to Cartesian
thought; to which one can only note how even this most basic expression of the primordial kinship
between feeling and being seems sutured, at its core, to that solitary vowel that marks the subject's
feeling minimal exclusion from the surrounding world. [End Page 37]
Affective politics fail to spill up or influence politics

exteriority/#]
mobilisation . Yet, referring back to Fishers article, it is where this affective orientation is inscribed
into the social circuits of musical use and sonorous production that it perhaps
much as its composition. As little of the Grime and Dancehall that Fisher and Dan Hancox catalogued towards a playlist of
the riots and uprisings expresses in explicitly linguistic and lyrical content the sentiments of political activism, it is in the use of music and
Where music is
sound as a carrier of affects at the point of both playback and composition that its importance lies.2
deployed as a more affective than symbolic force in resistance, its

significance becomes obscure and ambiguous from the perspective and
expectations of symbolic coherence. This noted lack of coherence and
communicable message marks , as Fisher points out, a certain exhaustion of
recognised channels of musical resistance : the protest song seems worn
out, lacklustre, its own disempowerment, apparent obsolescence and
displacement in pop culture a symptom compounding the apathy and
estrangement that has characterised much of the still fairly recent
discourse on youth and `political engagement.
number saved
Ascribing violence to metaphysical concepts like the

liberal subject is essentialist and wrong---ontology does
not determine politics
To contend that only an anti-foundationalist, anti-realist epistemology
can sustain democracy is to argue precisely for a foundational
metaphysical grounding for the democratic project. It is to contend
that ones epistemology determines ones politics . Hence, Brown and Butler
both spoke at a spring 1998 academic conference at the University of California at Santa Cruz where some
attributed reactionary and left cultural conservatism to belief in reactionary foundationalist
humanism42 Post-structuralism cannot escape its own essentialist conception of identity. For example,
Butler contends in Feminist Contentions that democratic feminists must embrace the post-structuralist
non-definability of woman as best suited to open democratic constitution of what it is to be a
woman.43 But this is itself a closed position and runs counter to the practices of many democratic
feminist activists who have tried to develop a pluralist, yet collective identity around the shared
experiences of being a woman in a patriarchal society (of course, realizing that working-class women and
women of color experience patriarchy in some ways that are distinct from the patriarchy experienced by
has
middle-class white women). One query that post-structuralist theorists might ask themselves:
there ever existed a mass social movement that defined its primary
ethical values as being those of instability and flux ? Certainly many
sexual politics activists are cognizant of the fluid nature of sexuality and sexual and gender identity. But
only a small (disproportionately university educated) segment of the womens and
gay and lesbian movement would subscribe to (or even be aware of) the core
principles of post-structuralist anti-essentialist epistemology. Nor
would they be agnostic as to whether the state should protect their
rights to express their sexuality. Post-structuralist theorists cannot avoid justificatory
arguments for why some identities should be considered open and democratic and others exclusionary and
anti-democratic. That is, how could post-structuralist political theorists argue that Nazi or Klan ethics are
antithetical to a democratic societyand that a democratic society can rightfully ban certain forms of
agonal (e.g. harassing forms of behavior against minorities) struggle on the part of such anti-democratic
groups. A politics of radical democratic pluralism cannot be securely
grounded by a whole-hearted epistemological critique of

enlightenment rationality. For implicit to any radical democratic
project is a belief in the equal moral worth of persons ; to embrace
such a position renders one at least a critical defender of enlightenment
values of equality and justice, even if one rejects enlightenment metaphysics and
believes that such values are often embraced by non-Western cultures. Of course, democratic
norms are developed by political practice and struggle rather than
by abstract philosophical argument . But this is a sociological and historical reality
rather than a trumping philosophical proof. Liberal democratic publics rarely ground their
politics in coherent ontologies and epistemologies ; and even among trained
philosophers there is no necessary connection between ones
metaphysics and ones politics . There have, are, and will be Kantian
conservatives (Nozick), liberals (Rawls), and radicals (Joshua Cohen; Sosuan Okin);
teleologists, left, center, and right (Michael Sandel, Alasdair McIntyre, or Leo Strauss);
anti-universalist feminists (Judith Butler, Wendy Brown) and quasi-universalist,
Habermasian feminists (Seyla Benhabib, Nancy Fraser). Post-structuralists try
to read off from an epistemology or ontology a politics; such attempts
simply replace enlightenment meta-narratives with postmodern
(allegedly anti-) meta-narratives. Such efforts represent an idealist version of the
materialist effortwhich post-structuralists explicitly condemnto read social
consciousness off the structural position of the agent. A democratic
political theory must offer both a theory of social structure and of the social agents capable of building
such a society. In exchanging the gods of Weber and Marx for Nietzsche and Heidegger (or their epigones
Foucault and Derrida), post-structuralist theory has abandoned the
institutional analysis of social theory for the idealism of abstract
philosophy .
Life has intrinsic value preservation is an a priori goal

Kacou 8 WHY EVEN MIND? On The A Priori Value Of Life, Cosmos and
History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, Vol 4, No 1-2 (2008)
cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/92/184
that manner of finding things good that is in pleasure can certainly not exist
Furthermore,
in any world without consciousness (i.e., without life, as we now understand the word)
slight analogies put aside. In fact, we can begin to develop a more sophisticated definition of the concept
of pleasure, in the broadest possible sense of the word, as follows: it is the common psychological
element in all psychological experience of goodness (be it in joy, admiration, or whatever else).
In this sense, pleasure can always be pictured to mediate all awareness or perception or judgment of
goodness: there is pleasure in all consciousness of things good; pleasure is the
common element of all conscious satisfaction . In short, it is simply the very
experience of liking things, or the liking of experience, in general. In this sense, pleasure is,
not only uniquely characteristic of life but also, the core expression of goodness in lifethe most
general sign or phenomenon for favorable conscious valuation, in other words. This does
not mean that good is absolutely synonymous with pleasantwhat we value may well
go beyond pleasure. (The fact that we value things needs not be reduced to the experience of liking
things.) However, what we value beyond pleasure remains a matter of speculation or
theory. Moreover, we note that a variety of things that may seem otherwise unrelated are correlated with
pleasuresome more strongly than others. In other words, there are many things the
experience of which we like. For example: the admiration of others; sex; or rock-paper-
scissors. But, again, what they are is irrelevant in an inquiry on a priori value
what gives us pleasure is a matter for empirical investigation. Thus, we can see now that, in general,
something primitively valuable is attainable in livingthat is, pleasure itself. And it
seems equally clear that we have a priori logical reason to pay attention to the world in
any world where pleasure exists. Moreover, we can now also articulate a foundation for a
security interest in our life: since the good of pleasure can be found in living (to the extent
pleasure remains attainable),[17] and only in living , therefore, a priori , life ought to be
continuously (and indefinitely) pursued at least for the sake of preserving the
possibility of finding that good.However, this platitude about the value that can be found in life turns out to be,
at this point, insufficient for our purposes. It seems to amount to very little more than recognizing that our subjective
life has some objective value . For what difference is

desire for life in and of itself shows that
there between saying, living is unique in benefiting something I value (namely, my

pleasure); therefore, I should desire to go on living, and saying, I have a unique desire
to go on living; therefore I should have a desire to go on living, whereas the latter proposition
immediately seems senseless? In other words, life gives me pleasure, says little more than, I like life. Thus, we
seem to have arrived at the conclusion that the fact that we already have some
( subjective) desire for life shows life to have some ( objective) value . But, if that
is the most we can say, then it seems our enterprise of justification was quite superficial, and the subjective/objective
distinction was uselessfor all we have really done is highlight the correspondence between value and desire. Perhaps,
our inquiry should be a bit more complex.
Prefer studies and empirics --- their critique is

reductionist
science is of a
piece with philosophy, reason, and Enlightenment humanism. It is

The commitment to

intelligibility with a sin called reductionism. But to explain a complex happening in terms of
does not go out of its way to reveal its workings, and even if it did, our minds are prone to illusions, fallacies, and super- stitions . Most

Group their kritiks of liberal humanismyou should

embrace a radical liberalismliberal ideals are not
monolithic, but instead leave room for inclusionary and
radical projects
It doesnt. The historic domination of conservative
this the externalist answer):
and political barriers (organizational difficulties) will of course remain.
interests)
Their indicts are logically incoherentwe can use the

masters tools to dismantle the masters housemake
them provide specific indicts against our radical vision of
liberalism
They cant solve the root cause their essentialism

entrenches war
We turn structural violence

AT Terrorism Link
Necropolitics is wrong and its basically the same as
biopolitics
Mitropoulos 5, a graduate of La Trobe Universitys Department of
Sociology and Anthropology. She currently writes on border policing. She has
been published on several occasions "Necropolitics" October 16,
http://archive.blogsome.com/2005/10/16/necropolitics-war/
Mbembe concludes the essay by arguing that the concept
of biopolitics might be better replaced with necropolitics, and he discusses
suicide bombings at some length, in a pretty interesting way. But I am not sure I would follow him there
They dont seem to me
with respect to the question of bios versus necros.
distinguishable. The nexus between life and death politics is surely
complicated not only by the right to life (and the politics that attend it), but also
by the reorganisation of so-called health and welfare policies, pharmacapitalism and its geopolitics, the
proprietisation of genes, and so on. But, maybe more than that, I would be inclined to think the following
(the transition between the territorial state to a mobile war machine, as Mbembe puts it)through a more
detailed discussion of the why and how of so-called failed states in relation to their inability to give effect
to the control over populations (and not simply resources). He talks about the erosion of their ability to
its left open
control, but theres no discussion of what it was that eroded this. In that sense,
to characterise this erosion in terms not of peoples struggles but of
processes that occur above their heads as it were. Thereby reducing
them to objects of the war machines movements, but not capable of
movement themselves.
No impact
AT Homonationalism
Homonationalism provides a simplistic account of
relationship between tolerance and violence---specific
analysis of material structures and institutions is
necessary to solve
Ritchie 14 [Jason, Assistant Professor of Anthropology at Florida International
University, Pinkwashing, Homonationalism, and IsraelPalestine: The
Conceits of Queer Theory and the Politics of the Ordinary, Antipode, 3 Jun
2014]
My argument is not , of course, that racism does not exist in many

contemporary contextsincluding IsraelPalestinenor I am arguing that
tolerance of homosexuals has not, in many of those contexts,
been marshaled to provide cover for the imposition of violence
against racialized others (eg the Israeli occupation). My argument, instead , is that the
popularity of the concept of homonationalism owes much to its
oversimplifications. Power, in this framework, is reducible to racism,
understood in a universalizing manner that allows the critic
and racism is
to avoid the messy work of [locating] the meanings of race and
racism within particular fields of discourse [and articulating their
meanings] to the social relations in concrete socio-historical
contexts (Solomos and Back 1995:415). I have utilized the metaphor of the
checkpoint to demonstrate what I believe to be a more empirically
convincing and politically engaged account of the everyday violence
queer Palestinians face. Focusing on the checkpoint requires one to
locate the racist violence of the Israeli state in a specific time and
place, structured by identifiable social and political processes and
inhabited by actual human beings who embody multiple subject
positions that differently inflect the ways in which they encounter those processes and one another.
Such a strategy will do little to challenge the monopolization of queer spaces in North American and
European cities by racist neocons like Michael Lucas, nor will it provide a convenient mechanism for radical
activistsor theoretically sophisticated academicsto validate their queer credentials. But if queers who
live in other places have some value beyond serving as grist for North American and European queers to
homonationalism's
consolidate a properly radical subjectivity and mitigate their privilege,
activist criticsand its theoristsmight consider resisting the impulse to
homogenize this or that queer as the victim or the victor and work
instead to develop a nuanced framework for building coalitions to
fight rather than platforms on which to fight aboutthe complex
and unpredictable ways space is organized, difference is enforced, and some
bodies in some places are allowed to move more freely than others.
1ar EXT State Good
Assimilation arguments are wrong---struggles for legal
reform radically challenge the concept of liberalism and
civil society for everyone
Brenkman 2 [John, Distinguished Professor of English and Comparative
Literature at the CUNY and Baruch College, Narrative, Vol. 10, No. 2, p. 188-
189]
Innovation is a crucial concept for understanding the gay and lesbian
movement, which emerged from within civil society as citizens who were stigmatized and often
criminalized for their sexual lives created new forms of association, transformed
their own lifeworld, and organized a political offensive on behalf of
political and social reforms. There was an innovation of rights and
freedoms, and what I have called innovations in sociality . Contrary to the
liberal interpretation of liberal rights and freedoms, I do not think that gays and
lesbians have merely sought their place at the table. Their struggle
has radically altered the scope and meaning of the liberal rights and
freedoms they sought, first and foremost by making them include sexuality, sexual practices,
and the shape of household and family. Where the movement has succeeded in
changing the laws of the state, it has also opened up new
possibilities within civil society . To take an obvious example, wherever it
becomes unlawful to deny housing to individuals because they are
gay, there is set in motion a transformation of the everyday life of
neighborhoods, including the lives of heterosexuals and their
children. [End Page 188] Within civil society, this is a work of
enlightenment, however uneven and fraught and frequently
dangerous. It is not a reaffirmation of the symbolic and structural
underpinnings of homophobia; on the contrary, it is a challenge to
homophobia and a volatilizing of social relations within the
nonpolitical realm.
Legal control over subjectivity is inevitable but so are

strategic demands on the lawradical queer anti-statist
politics are possible within the law
Campbell 13, faculty member in the Program in Composition, Literacy,
Pedagogy, and Rhetoric at the University of Pittsburgh, JUDICIAL RHETORIC
AND RADICAL POLITICS: SEXUALITY, RACE, AND THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT,
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/45352/Peter_Campbell.
pdf?sequence=1
Butler seems to miss an important point.
Butfollowing MatsudaI think that
Given the material force of the fantasy of legal sovereignty in the
margins, at the point[s] where power is completely invested in
its real and effective practices, 31 I argue that resistance to the idea
of legal sovereignty must not preclude what Cathy Cohen might call a
practical32 understanding of the presently inevitable reality of the
sovereign rhetorical operations of the law. The political project of
resistance to the performative sovereignty of judicial rhetoric in the
United States must not deny (as Matsuda and Richard Delgado said in 1987
to the crits of Critical Legal Studies) the need to construct strategically
informed and tactically sound responses to those formal

structures of law that already act as and with the material power of
sovereign authority authority over the constraints that legal forms
of subjectivity already impose on personhood.33 As Butler herself
acknowledges in 2004,34 the absolute critique of legal sovereign
performatives does not adequately consider how the effects of the
fantasy of legal sovereignty are most often (and most often most
terribly) felt by those who have actually seen and felt the falsity
of the liberal promise35 of the U.S. judiciary as a shield against
domination. My experience of the law has occurred through my own participation in and observation of judicial
sovereigntyboth from a majoritarian perspective. I teach argumentation in a prison, a setting that emphasizes the
paradoxical and simultaneous vitality and uselessness of rhetorical and argumentative interaction with those persons
charged with enforcing the reasoned justification of judicial decision through coercive violence. In our present democratic
state of laws, the production of legitimacy for judicial sovereignty through argument, and the production of legitimacy
through force, work together in explicit and mutually supportive fashion. More happily, I was recently invited by two
friends to officiate their wedding, at a ceremony in Rehoboth, Massachusetts. I agreed, and asked whether I should
purchase an ordination online, so that I could legally perform the ceremony. There was no need Massachusetts is
unusual among U.S. states in maintaining a category of officiant called a solemnizer. Any person, with little qualification,
can apply to be a solemnizer. The dichotomy between the republican style36 of the application process, and the
quotidian ease with which I was granted the certificate made me think about the sovereign performative37 that I would
stage in Rehoboth. The I do statement in a marriage ceremony is one of Austins core examples38 of an illocutionary
performative, an utterance which has a certain force in the saying of it,39 but this example itself performs an
interesting elision of the role of a state representative in a civil marriage ceremony. In Rehoboth, my friends would not be
married until I pronounced them so publicly. That pronouncement would of course require other performative statements
(I do) from my friends as a pre-requisite to its validity.40 But on the date and in the location specified by the
solemnization certificate, I had, as a feature of the designation solemnizer bestowed on me by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, absolute power over whether they would be married or noton that date and in that location. In the
narrow context of the two possible realities of my friends becoming married or not on that day and in that location, my
role was to exercise the sovereign performative power of the Commonwealth as its judge-like representative. But in that
exercise, I would also be performing two arguments: one for the sovereign legitimacy (and successful performativity)41 of
my utterances and the illegitimacy of any others; and one for the value and significance of married as a position of legal
subjectivity in Massachusetts and the United States. I bring up this example to emphasize the specifically illocutionary
power of the judicial rhetorical constitution of subjects before law. Austin describes illocution as in saying x I was doing y
or I did y,42 but judicial illocution might more accurately be described as in saying x I did x. When I said that these
people were married, I made them married. The statement and the doing were one and the same .
If a judge
sentences a person to death, she does not depress the needle; the
pronouncement of sentence is an illocutionary act in the first sense (x and
y). But in pronouncing the sentence, the judge does redefine the convicted
(of a death-eligible crime) persons subjectivity before law from
convicted and/or criminal and/or felon and/or murderer and/or traitor to, more primarily,
condemned. This is an illocutionary act in the second sense (x and x). If a judge
rules that it is unconstitutional to require a trans* persons passport to list
their gender contrary to that persons self-understanding, 43 this is a
perlocutionary act (where the utterance effectively causes something to
happen)44 in that the ruling enables the person who is trans* to change the
official designation of their gender. But it is also an x and x illocutionary act in the context
of the petitioners subjectivity before law the utterance of the ruling has
changed their self-understanding of their own identity from not real to
real in the eyes of the law. This would be even more evident if the ruling did not merely realize the
truth of a trans* persons self-understanding as male or female, but went so far as to create, in the moment of the
utterance itself, a legally recognized trans* identity category. All of these examples are performatives enabled by the
fantasy of the sovereign location of power in law. When asked, I considered (given my own views on marriage as an
institution) declining to perform the ceremonyeven in Massachusetts, whose marriage laws mean that the sexual
orientation identity of the two people I married cannot be discerned from this story. I understood that my performative and
the discourse of the ceremony surrounding it would contribute in a small way to the sovereign power of the state over
human relational and sexual legitimacy. But this refusal would not have made the present sovereignty of the state over
the determination of legally legitimate and illegitimate forms of relation any less inevitable . Petitions to the
law are inevitable ; they will be made, often by people with no other
recourse to save their life, or to preserve their life's basic quality. As
Butler demonstrates, any such petition will have performative effect .
I do not offer this brief critique of Butlers theory of sovereign performatives to dispute the facticity of
politics of resistance to the
her arguments. I begin this project with the stipulation that
sovereign performative must include actions of resistance to
statist law itselfthat is, the specific articulation of opposition,
within progressive social movements, to strategies that privilege
appeals for help from judges . But these politics must also acknowledge
that those who undertake such strategies do not always do so
without knowledge of the sovereign performative function of their
actionsrecourse to the law does not always or even usually
imagine the law as neutral.45 These radical politics must also be undertaken with
knowledge of the effects of the petitions to law-as-sovereign that will inevitably
be made and particularly with knowledge of the effects that flow

from the (also performative and also inevitable) judicial rhetorical responses to
these inevitable petitions. Austin teaches us that it is in the nature of performatives to
not always work, and to produce effects in excess of their explicit ones. The judicial rhetorical constitution
of subject and abject forms of being-in-relation to law operates through legal performatives that contain
the possibilities for their own future infelicity.46 My project is an attempt to explore some future
possibilities for the counter-sovereign articulation of subjectivity before U.S. lawpossibilities that are both
foreclosed and engendered in the argumentative justifications for judicial decisions. Specifically, I examine
some key Supreme Court cases relating to sexual practice, race in education policy, and marriage. I
perform a legal rhetorical criticism of critic-constructed meta-texts47 that form argumentative
frameworks through which judges apply various legal doctrines to questions of sexual, racial, educational,
and relational freedom. Following Perelman, I understand judicial argument to be the explanatory
justifications offered for judges authoritative interpretive application of legal doctrine to problems of public
concernproblems that have been framed as legal, either by jurists themselves, petitioners to the courts,
In the United States, judicial arguments about constitutional
or both.
interpretation have the privileged function of delimiting the grounds
on which the authority of all other statist legal argument is based .
Given the overwhelming salience of constitutional legal discourse in
U.S. everyday life ,48 this means that the judicial rhetoric of
constitutional law plays a significant role in delimiting the grounds
on which a person can base their claimliterally49 to existence and
legitimacy in the U.S. polity. 50 Jurists arguments from and about the
Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution in particular perform a final arbitration
function in the ongoing and generally contentious process of the
statist determination of what forms of racialized queer identity and
relation will be eligible for recognized and legitimated status in U.S.
public life . In this dissertation, I focus on the Fourteenth Amendmentdue process and equal
protectionrhetoric of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. I read this rhetoric in terms of
argumentative possibilities for queer
genealogies of precedent, or the
subjectivity before law that are brought into being by the doctrinal
frameworks Kennedy and other judicial rhetors use in a given opinion. Each
chapter offers a case study of opinions in several Federal and Supreme Court cases that are foundational
to Kennedys development of a new constitutional jurisprudence of substantive due process and equality. I
demonstrate that this jurisprudence is both productive of and violent to possibilities for practical and
These interactions,
strategic sexually progressive51 interactions with U.S. constitutional law.
despite their practical or strategic formulation , can be undertaken
and/or framed in terms of anti-statist and institutional radical queer
political goals . Possibilities for the success of such radical framing of practical interaction are
partially delimited in the argumentative choice of U.S. judicial opinions.
Ascribing violence to abstract conceptions of the subject

is wrong
Fraser 95, False Antitheses: A Response to Seyla Benhabib and Judith
Butler, Ch 3 in Feminist Contentions: A Philosophical Exchange, p 68, google
books
This brings me to the second set of claims implicit in Butler's post- structuralist account of subjectivity
normative, as opposed to ontological , claims. Such claims arise, first, in relation to the social practices through which subjects are constituted. Here Butler follows
insists that subjects are

Foucault in claiming that practices of subiectivation are also practices of subjection. Like him, she
constituted through exclusion; some people are authorized to speak authorita- tively because others are silenced. Thus, in
Butler's view, the constitution of a class of authorized subiects entails "the
creation of a domain of deauthorized subjects, pre-subjects, figures of

abjection , populations erased from view." But is it really the case
that no one can become the subject of speech without others' being
silenced? Are there no counterexamples? Where such exclusions do
exist, are they all bad? Are they all equally bad? Can we distinguish
legitimate from illegitimate exclusions, better from worse practices
Of subiectivation? Is subject-authorization inherently a zero-sum
game? Or does it only become one in oppressive societies? Can we
overcome or at least ameliorate the asymmetries in current practices Of
subjectivation? Can we construct practices, institutions, and forms
of life in which the empowerment Of some does not entail the
disempowerment Of others? If not, what is the point Of feminist struggle? Butler offers no
help in thinking about these issues. Nor can she, I submit, so long as she fails to integrate critical-theoretical considerations into her poststructuralist Foucauldian
framework. That framework, I have argued elsewhere, is structurally incapable of providing satlsfactory answers to the normative questions it unfailingly solicits.13 It
needs modification and supplementation, therefore, in order to be fully adequate to the feminist project. In addition to her claims about the social practices of subiectiva-
tion, Butler also makes normative claims about the relative merits of different theories of subjectivity. She claims that some such theories are "politically insidious,"
whereas others are progressive or emancipatory. On the insidious side is the view of subjectivity as possessing an ontologically intact reflexivity that is not an effect of
Is it really ?
cultural processes of subjectivation. This view, according to Butler, is a "ruse of power" and an "instrument Of cultural imperialism."
There is no denying that foundationalist theories of subjectivity

have often functioned as instruments of cultural imperialism. But is
that due to conceptual necessity or historical contingency? In fact, there
are cases where such theories have had emancipatory effects
witness the French Revolution and the appropriation Of its
foundationalist view of subjectivity by the Haitian "Black Jacobin,
Toussaint de I 'Ouverture.14 These examples show that it is not possi-
ble to deduce a single, univocal political valence from a theory of
subjectivity . Such theories, too, are bits of cultural discourse whose meanings are subject to "resignification. How, then, should we resolve the
Benhabib-Butler dispute over "the death of man"? I conclude that Butler is right in maintaining that a culturally constructed subject can also be a critical subject, but that
the terms in which she formulates the point give rise to difficulties. Specifically, "resignification" is not an adequate substitute for "critique, since it surrenders the
normative moment. Likewise, the view that subiectivation necessarily entails subjection precludes normative distinctions between better and worse subjectivating
Finally, the view that foundationalist theories of subjectivity are in-

practices.
herently oppressive is historically disconfirmed , and it is conceptually incompatible with a

contextualist theory of meaning. The upshot, then, is that feminists need to develop an alternative conceptualization of the subject, one that integrates Butler's
poststructuralist emphasis on construction with Benhabib's critical-theoretical stress on critique.
Queer Art of Failure
2ac AT Halberstam K
Their offense is super reductionist

To contend that only an anti-foundationalist, anti-realist epistemology
can sustain democracy is to argue precisely for a foundational
metaphysical grounding for the democratic project. It is to contend
that ones epistemology determines ones politics . Hence, Brown and Butler
both spoke at a spring 1998 academic conference at the University of California at Santa Cruz where some
attributed reactionary and left cultural conservatism to belief in reactionary foundationalist
humanism42 Post-structuralism cannot escape its own essentialist conception of identity. For example,
Butler contends in Feminist Contentions that democratic feminists must embrace the post-structuralist
non-definability of woman as best suited to open democratic constitution of what it is to be a
woman.43 But this is itself a closed position and runs counter to the practices of many democratic
feminist activists who have tried to develop a pluralist, yet collective identity around the shared
experiences of being a woman in a patriarchal society (of course, realizing that working-class women and
women of color experience patriarchy in some ways that are distinct from the patriarchy experienced by
has
middle-class white women). One query that post-structuralist theorists might ask themselves:
there ever existed a mass social movement that defined its primary
ethical values as being those of instability and flux ? Certainly many
sexual politics activists are cognizant of the fluid nature of sexuality and sexual and gender identity. But
only a small (disproportionately university educated) segment of the womens and
gay and lesbian movement would subscribe to (or even be aware of) the core
principles of post-structuralist anti-essentialist epistemology. Nor
would they be agnostic as to whether the state should protect their
rights to express their sexuality. Post-structuralist theorists cannot avoid justificatory
arguments for why some identities should be considered open and democratic and others exclusionary and
anti-democratic. That is, how could post-structuralist political theorists argue that Nazi or Klan ethics are
antithetical to a democratic societyand that a democratic society can rightfully ban certain forms of
agonal (e.g. harassing forms of behavior against minorities) struggle on the part of such anti-democratic
groups. A politics of radical democratic pluralism cannot be securely
grounded by a whole-hearted epistemological critique of

enlightenment rationality. For implicit to any radical democratic
project is a belief in the equal moral worth of persons ; to embrace
such a position renders one at least a critical defender of enlightenment
values of equality and justice, even if one rejects enlightenment metaphysics and
believes that such values are often embraced by non-Western cultures. Of course, democratic
norms are developed by political practice and struggle rather than
by abstract philosophical argument . But this is a sociological and historical reality
rather than a trumping philosophical proof. Liberal democratic publics rarely ground their
politics in coherent ontologies and epistemologies ; and even among trained
philosophers there is no necessary connection between ones
metaphysics and ones politics . There have, are, and will be Kantian
conservatives (Nozick), liberals (Rawls), and radicals (Joshua Cohen; Sosuan Okin);
teleologists, left, center, and right (Michael Sandel, Alasdair McIntyre, or Leo Strauss);
anti-universalist feminists (Judith Butler, Wendy Brown) and quasi-universalist,
Habermasian feminists (Seyla Benhabib, Nancy Fraser). Post-structuralists try to
read off from an epistemology or ontology a politics; such attempts simply
replace enlightenment meta-narratives with postmodern (allegedly anti-)
meta-narratives. Such efforts represent an idealist version of the materialist
effortwhich post-structuralists explicitly condemnto read social consciousness off
the structural position of the agent. A democratic political theory must offer both a
theory of social structure and of the social agents capable of building such a society. In exchanging the
post-
gods of Weber and Marx for Nietzsche and Heidegger (or their epigones Foucault and Derrida),
structuralist theory has abandoned the institutional analysis of
social theory for the idealism of abstract philosophy .
No endless violence
we ought
sense.
We turn structural violence

They cant solve the root cause their essentialism

entrenches war
Group their kritiks of liberal humanismyou should

embrace a radical liberalismliberal ideals are not
monolithic, but instead leave room for inclusionary and
radical projects
It doesnt. The historic domination of conservative
this the externalist answer):
interests) and political barriers (organizational difficulties) will of course remain.
Their indicts are logically incoherentwe can use the

masters tools to dismantle the masters housemake
them provide specific indicts against our radical vision of
liberalism
1ar EX Doesnt Cause Violence
Liberal universalism doesnt explain global violence
their impact is ahistorical
Teschke 11 - Department of International Relations, School of Global Studies,
University of Sussex, Brighton, UK (Benno, Fatal attraction: a critique of Carl
Schmitts international political and legal theory International Theory (2011),
3:2, 179227, doi:10.1017/S175297191100011X
For at the centre of the heterodox partly post-structuralist, partly realist neo-Schmittian analysis stands
the conclusion of The Nomos: the thesis of a structural and continuous relation between liberalism and
violence (Mouffe 2005, 2007; Odysseos 2007). It suggests that, in sharp contrast to the liberal-
cosmopolitan programme of perpetual peace, the geographical expansion of liberal modernity was
accompanied by the intensification and de-formalization of war in the international construction of liberal
constitutional states of law and the production of liberal subjectivities as rights-bearing individuals.
Liberal world-ordering proceeds via the conduit of wars for
humanity, leading to Schmitts spaceless universalism. In this perspective, a
straight line is drawn from WWI to the War on Terror to verify Schmitts long-
term prognostic of the 20th century as the age of neutralizations and de-politicizations (Schmitt 1993).
But this attempt to read the history of 20th century international relations in terms of a
succession of confrontations between the carriernations of liberal modernity and the criminalized foes at
seems unable to comprehend the complexities and
its outer margins
specificities of liberal world-ordering, then and now. For in the cases of Wilhelmine,
Weimar and fascist Germany, the assumption that their conflicts with the Anglo- American liberal-capitalist
heartland were grounded in an antagonism between liberal modernity and a recalcitrant Germany outside
its geographical and conceptual lines runs counter to the historical evidence. For this reading presupposes
that late-Wilhelmine Germany was not already substantially penetrated by capitalism and fully
incorporated into the capitalist world economy, posing the question of whether the causes of WWI lay in
the capitalist dynamics of inter-imperial rivalry (Blackbourn and Eley 1984), or in processes of belated and
incomplete liberal capitalist development, due to the survival of re-feudalized elites in the German state
classes and the marriage between rye and iron (Wehler 1997). It also assumes that the late-Weimar and
early Nazi turn towards the construction of an autarchic German regionalism Mitteleuropa or Groraum
was not deeply influenced by the international ramifications of the 1929 Great Depression, but premised
on a purely political existentialist assertion of German national identity. Against a reading of the early
20th century conflicts between the liberal West and Germany as wars for humanity between an
expanding liberal modernity and its political exterior, there is more evidence to suggest that these
confrontations were interstate conflicts within the crisis-ridden and nationally uneven capitalist project of
modernity. Similar objections and caveats to the binary opposition between the Western discourse of
how can this optic
liberal humanity against non-liberal foes apply to the more recent period. For
explain that the liberal West coexisted (and keeps coexisting) with a large
number of pliant authoritarian client-regimes (Mubaraks Egypt, Suhartos
Indonesia, Pahlavis Iran, Fahds Saudi-Arabia, even Gaddafis pre-intervention Libya, to name but a few),
which were and are actively managed and supported by the West as
antiliberal Schmittian states of emergency, with concerns for liberal
subjectivities and Human Rights secondary to the strategic interests of
political and geopolitical stability and economic access? Even in the more obvious cases of Afghanistan,
Iraq, and, now, Libya, the idea that Western intervention has to be conceived as an encounter between the
liberal project and a series of foes outside its sphere seems to rely on a denial of their antecedent histories
as geopolitically and socially contested state-building projects in pro-Western fashion, deeply co-
determined by long histories of Western anti-liberal colonial and post-colonial legacies. If these states (or
social forces within them) turn against their imperial masters, the conventional policy expression is
blowback. And as the Schmittian analytical vocabulary does not include a conception of human
agency and social forces only friend/ enemy groupings and collective political entities governed by
lacks the categories of analysis to comprehend the
executive decision it also
social dynamics that drive the struggles around sovereign power and
the eventual overcoming, for example, of Tunisian and Egyptian states of
emergency without US-led wars for humanity. Similarly, it seems unlikely
that the generic idea of liberal world-ordering and the production of liberal
subjectivities can actually explain why Western intervention seems
improbable in some cases (e.g. Bahrain, Qatar, Yemen or Syria) and more likely in
others (e.g. Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya). Liberal world-ordering consists of differential
strategies of building, coordinating, and drawing liberal and anti-liberal states into the Western orbit, and
overtly or covertly intervening and refashioning them once they step out of line. These are conflicts within
The generic Schmittian
a world, which seem to push the term liberalism beyond its original meaning.
idea of a liberal spaceless universalism sits uncomfortably with the
realities of maintaining an America-supervised informal empire, which has
to manage a persisting interstate system in diverse and case-
specific ways. But it is this persistence of a worldwide system of states, which encase national
particularities, which renders challenges to American supremacy possible in the first place.
Liberalism solves violence reform key

Bowie and Simon 8 - *professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota.
Until his retirement in 2009 he was Elmer L Andersen Chair of Corporate
Responsibility and served in the departments of strategic management and
of philosophy AND ** (Norman and Robert, The Individual and the Political
Order: An Introduction to Social and Political Philosophy, p. 199-202)
Implicit in much of the work of Young is a concern that Native
Americans, African Americans, and women have been marginalized
in modern liberal democratic societies and that impartiality is in some way the cause
of the marginalization. Even if the marginalization claim is partially true, we doubt that the
liberal emphasis on impartiality leads to viewing all problems from
one perspective, that of the dominant. Impartiality properly applied
requires each of us to consider the viewpoint of others and to give
no special weight to our own. Moreover, impartiality need not lead to simplistic and highly
abstract rules. Liberal impartiality, as Brian Barry has argued, is a second-order notion requiring that the
major rules governing the political order be reasonable for all to accept, but it does not require that the
rules themselves be simple or few in number.24 On our view, especially complex political issues
sometimes may need to be resolved by suitably constrained democratic procedures that allow for the play
of a variety of perspectives in mutual dialogue. So where does that leave us? We think that the feminists
are right to point out the failures of liberal theory in the real world. Despite the claims of impartiality, great
injustice still exists in the world, and it is statistically correct to say that injustice falls disproportionately on
certain groups. However, liberals need not be convinced that this failure results from any errors of logic in
Where violations of human rights or
the rights-based theory of the democratic state.
justice occur, liberals should remain committed to corrective action .
Feminist theories have sensitized much of our society to potential blind spots, but they have not shown
that rights-based theories of the democratic state are fundamentally flawed. Indeed, if Benhabib is right,
Many "postliberal"
and we think she is, feminism itself needs a rights-based ethical theory.25
thinkers tend to condemn or reject liberal attempts to ground
political argument on impartial, neutral, or relatively objective
grounds because they believe that such notions presuppose a
"god's-eye view" or a neutral perspective of impartiality and objectivity that humans cannot
attain. Of course, we agree that the language of neutrality, impartiality,
and objectivity can be misused as a cover for self-seeking, especially (but not only) by
those in power. And of course we realize that political claims regarding the attributes of the just state arc-
not scientific claims. However, there is widespread agreement that the
function of the state is to preserve order, limit conflict, and assist its
citizens as they seek fulfillment in their lives and that the state
should do so justly. We believe that the liberal democratic state is best
able to achieve those goals. In the absence of a liberal state, here is what
worries us. Unless there are acceptable points of view from which reason can proceed, impartial ground
rules acceptable to all parties, it is hard to see how people on any side of a dispute can persuade those
who disagree with them. What worries liberals is that if there are no preconditions on
discussion and no human rights that are specifiable in advance, then there is the danger that
individuals will be unjustly treated. The rights theorist believes that some things should
be off the table, such as racism, if justice is to prevail. And a democracy should be
constrained by rights. Otherwise a religious fundamentalist majority
could elect to become a theocracy that would run roughshod over
individual rights . The early twenty-first century provides vivid
pictures of what happens in a fundamentalist theocracy, like that of
the Taliban . Accordingly, although liberal theory is far from perfect, and
forceful objections have been brought against many of its key assumptions, such objections, we have
The liberal democratic state, we have argued, provides
argued, are far from decisive.
protections for the individual that can be abandoned only at our
great peril.
Security
2ac F/L

Discussing policy allows us to learn the language of power

and enables agency
policy simulations

synopsis below.
advocate and its functionally condo because it changes
their advocacy mid-round reject the team
One speech act doesnt cause securitization its an

ongoing process
The alt causes more violence
Thus,


Perms and things
Judge choice reps arent outcomes endorse the plan by

picking other justifications
No impact
we ought
sense.
Threat con isnt sufficient to cause war
Kaufman 9, Prof Poli Sci and IR U Delaware, Narratives and Symbols in
Violent Mobilization: The Palestinian-Israeli Case, Security Studies 18:3, p.
433
Even when hostile narratives, group fears, and opportunity are strongly
present, war occurs only if these factors are harnessed . Ethnic
narratives and fears must combine to create significant ethnic hostility
among mass publics. Politicians must also seize the opportunity to
manipulate that hostility , evoking hostile narratives and symbols to gain or hold
power by riding a wave of chauvinist mobilization . Such mobilization is often spurred
by prominent events (for example, episodes of violence) that increase feelings of hostility and make
chauvinist appeals seem timely. If the other group also mobilizes and if each sides felt security needs
threaten the security of the other side, the result is a security dilemma spiral of rising fear, hostility, and
this symbolist theory is that symbolist logic
mutual threat that results in violence. A virtue of
explains why ethnic peace is more common than ethnonationalist
war. Even if hostile narratives, fears, and opportunity exist, severe
violence usually can still be avoided if ethnic elites skillfully define group
needs in moderate ways and collaborate across group lines to prevent
violence: this is consociationalism.17 War is likely only if hostile narratives, fears, and opportunity spur
hostile attitudes, chauvinist mobilization, and a security dilemma.
World improving most recent ev

Wyne 3/16 [Ali, researcher at Harvard Universitys Belfer Center for
Science and International Affairs http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-wyne/the-
world-is-becoming-saf_b_6878664.html]
There are plenty of reasons to despair about the state of the world: ISIL's depredations in the Middle East, Boko Haram's
atrocities in Nigeria, and Russia's slow-drip incursion into Ukraine are just a few. These phenomena are more distressing
when one considers that they're occurring against the backdrop of an eroding postwar order. Contrary to the oft-heard
the world is becoming more dangerous -- or, according to some observers, has never been more
refrain, though, that
has actually never been safer. Steven Pinker and Andrew Mack recently
dangerous -- it
documented the declines in global rates of homicide, violence against
women, genocide, and war, among other categories. We're also becoming
more prosperous. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, real global GDP more than
tripled between 1970 and 2010, and real global GDP per capita nearly doubled. Last
month the Economist reported that the percent of the world's population living in "abject
poverty" fell from 36 in 1990 to 18 in 2010 (translating to about 900 million

people who escaped that condition ). Finally, we're living longer, better lives.
The University of Washington's Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation
found that "global life expectancy increased by 5.8 years for men and
6.6 years for women" between 1990 and 2013. According to the United Nations,
moreover, the mortality rate for children under five fell from 90 per thousand births to
46 during that same period, while the percent of the world's population that is "clinically
malnourished" fell more than seven points. It's no accident the world is becoming safer, wealthier
and healthier: there are extraordinary people around the world who're trying to make it better. Too often, though, their
names remain unknown; their contributions, unacknowledged. "What's Working" is a crucial platform for spotlighting
the ingenuity of our
them. When the news of the day feels overwhelming, I take comfort in three facts. First,
minds has always scaled with the magnitude of our calling . There's no
reason to believe it won't continue doing so. Second, we're pushing forward the frontiers
of possibility every second, far more rapidly than we can comprehend. Before coming to MIT, I believed
certain problems were simply too hard for human beings to address. In
retrospect, though, my skepticism simply reflected my failure of imagination . I now
assume that once a problem has been identified, folks will eventually solve it or
find a way to manage it. The tipping point for me came six years ago, when MIT News ran an article
discussing a new project Professor Angela Belcher and a few of her colleagues had undertaken. "For the first time," it
explained, "MIT researchers have shown they can genetically engineer viruses to build both the positively and negatively
If we can figure out how to make batteries from
charged ends of a lithium-ion battery."
viruses -- I never imagined I'd see those two words in the same sentence, and I still can't get my head around the idea
-- what can't we do ? Third, no matter what problem keeps you up at night, there
are brilliant, passionate people around the world who're working on it . You
may not hear about them amid the daily barrage of depressing
headlines, but they're easy to find if you want to find them. Among the extraordinary individuals I've met, spoken
to over e-mail, or reconnected with in recent months: Ruzwana Bashir, the cofounder and CEO of Peek, who's using her
own experience of sexual abuse to help other victims find their voices; Pardis Sabeti, a professor of organismic and
evolutionary biology at Harvard, who's developing treatments to fight Ebola; Donald Sadoway, a professor of materials
chemistry at MIT, whose work on liquid-metal batteries could revolutionize electricity storage; Shiza Shahid, the cofounder
of the Malala Fund, who's working to give young women around the world a chance at an education; and Wes Moore,
author of The Other Wes Moore and The Work, who cofounded BridgeEdU to help at-risk youth in Baltimore graduate from
There's an enormous amount of work to be done -- slowing the course of climate
college.
but
change, feeding a growing population and resettling tens of millions of refugees, to name but a few challenges --
dwelling on everything that's wrong and fretting about everything that
could go wrong won't help. Let's spend less time lamenting the state
of the world and more time supporting those who're making it
better.
Vague alts are a voter for deterrence forces the aff to

start the alt debate in the 1AR moots the 2AC and
causes irrevocable strat skew <and makes floating piks
inevitable> -- and makes condo inevitable because of
shifting alts
Our authors arent lying otherwise theyd get fired


bureaucratic-





Anxiety good
Finally, if
Fear need

skills
Even if its a little exaggerated, debating and acting on

the threat is important
Lewis 14 (James Andrew [senior fellow and director of the Strategic
Technologies Program at CSIS]; Underestimating Risk in the Surveillance
Debate; Dec;
http://csis.org/files/publication/141209_Lewis_UnderestimatingRisk_Web.pdf;
kdf)
The phrase terrorism is overused, and the threat of terrorist
attack is easily exaggerated , but that does not mean this threat it is
nonexistent . Groups and individuals still plan to attack American citizens
There
and the citizens of allied countries. The dilemma in assessing risk is that it is discontinuous.
can be long periods where no activity is apparent, only to have the
apparent calm explode in an attack. The constant, low-level activity in
planning and preparation in Western countries is not apparent to the
public, nor is it easy to identify the moment that discontent turns into action. There is general
agreement that as terrorists splinter into regional groups, the risk of attack increases. Certainly, the threat
to Europe from militants returning from Syria points to increased risk for U.S. allies. The messy U.S.
withdrawal from Iraq and (soon) Afghanistan contributes to an increase in risk.24 European authorities
have increased surveillance and arrests of suspected militants as the Syrian conflict lures hundreds of
Europeans. Spanish counterterrorism police say they have broken up more terrorist cells than in any other
European country in the last three years.25 The chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence,
who is better placed than most members of Congress to assess risk, said in June 2014 that the level of
terrorist activity was higher than he had ever seen it.26 If the United States overreacted in response to
A simple
September 11, it now risks overreacting to the leaks with potentially fatal consequences.
assessment of the risk of attack by jihadis would take into account a
resurgent Taliban, the power of lslamist groups in North Africa, the
continued existence of Shabaab in Somalia, and the appearance of a
powerful new force, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Al Qaeda, previously the
leading threat, has splintered into independent groups that make it a less
coordinated force but more difficult target. On the positive side, the United
States, working with allies and friends, appears to have contained or eliminated
jihadi groups in Southeast Asia. Many of these groups seek to use adherents in Europe
and the United States for manpower and funding. A Florida teenager was a suicide bomber in Syria and Al
Hamas and
Shabaab has in the past drawn upon the Somali population in the United States.
Hezbollah have achieved quasi-statehood status, and Hamas has
supporters in the United States. Iran, which supports the two groups, has advanced
capabilities to launch attacks and routinely attacked U.S. forces in Iraq. The United Kingdom faces
problems from several hundred potential terrorists within its large Pakistani population, and there are
potential attackers in other Western European nations, including Germany, Spain, and the Scandinavian
countries. France, with its large Muslim population faces the most serious challenge and is experiencing a
wave of troubling anti-Semitic attacks that suggest both popular support for extremism and a decline in
control by security forces. The chief difference between now and the situation
before 9/11 is that all of these countries have put in place much
more robust surveillance systems, nationally and in cooperation with others,
including the United States , to detect and prevent potential attacks .
Another difference is that the failure of U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and the opportunities created
by the Arab Spring have opened a new front for jihadi groups that makes their primary focus regional.
Western targets still remain of interest, but are more likely to face attacks from domestic sympathizers.
This could change if the well-resourced ISIS is frustrated in its efforts to establish a new Caliphate and
turns its focus to the West. In addition, the al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen (al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula)
The incidence of attacks in the
continues to regularly plan attacks against U.S. targets. 27
United States or Europe is very low, but we do not have good data
on the number of planned attacks that did not come to fruition . This
includes not just attacks that were detected and stopped, but also
attacks where the jihadis were discouraged and did not initiate an
operation or press an attack to its conclusion because of operational
difficulties . T hese attacks are the threat that mass surveillance was
created to prevent . The needed reduction in public anti-terror measures without increasing the
chances of successful attack is contingent upon maintaining the capability provided by communications
surveillance to detect, predict, and prevent attacks. Our opponents have not given up;
neither should we
Some threats are objective defer to expert judgments

the alternative fails
Cole 12 professor of law at Georgetown (David, Confronting the Wizard of
Oz: National Security, Expertise, and Secrecy, 44 Conn. L. Rev. 1617,
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub)
Rana notes that in the early days of the republic, every able-bodied man had to serve in the militia,
whereas today only a small (and largely disadvantaged) portion of society serves in the military.11 But
serving in the militia and making decisions about national security are two different matters. The early
days of the Republic were at least as dominated by elites as today. Rana points to no evidence that
decisions about foreign affairs were any more democratic then than now. And, of course, the nation as a
whole was far less democratic, as the majority of its inhabitants could not vote at all.12 Rather than
moving away from a golden age of democratic decision-making, it seems more likely that we have simply
to the extent
replaced one group of elites (the aristocracy) with another (the experts). Second,
that there has been an epistemological shift with respect to national
security, it seems likely that it is at least in some measure a response to objective
conditions, not just an ideological development. If so, its not clear that
we can solve the problem merely by thinking differently about
national security. The world has, in fact, become more
interconnected and dangerous than it was when the Constitution was drafted. At our
founding, the oceans were a significant buffer against attacks, weapons were primitive, and travel over
long distances was extremely arduous and costly. The attacks of September 11, 2001, or anything like
them, would have been inconceivable in the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries. Small groups of non-state
actors can now inflict the kinds of attacks that once were the exclusive province of states. But because
such actors do not have the governance responsibilities that states have, they are less susceptible to
The Internet makes information about dangerous weapons
deterrence.
and civil vulnerabilities far more readily available , airplane travel
dramatically increases the potential range of a hostile actor, and it is
not impossible that terrorists could obtain and use nuclear,
biological, or chemical weapons.13 The knowledge necessary to monitor nuclear
weapons, respond to cyber warfare, develop technological defenses to technological threats, and gather
The problem is not just how we think about
intelligence is increasingly specialized.
security threats; it is also at least in part objectively based . Third, deference
to expertise is not always an error ; sometimes it is a rational response to
complexity . Expertise is generally developed by devoting substantial
time and attention to a particular set of problems . We cannot
possibly be experts in everything that concerns us. So I defer to my son on the
remote control, to my wife on directions (and so much else), to the plumber on my leaky faucet, to the
electrician when the wiring starts to fail, to my doctor on my back problems, and to my mutual fund
manager on investments. I could develop more expertise in some of these areas, but that would mean less
time teaching, raising a family, writing, swimming, and listening to music. The same is true, in greater or
lesser degrees, for all of us. And it is true at the level of the national community, not only for national
security, but for all sorts of matters. We defer to the Environmental Protection Agency on environmental
matters, to the Federal Reserve Board on monetary policy, to the Department of Agriculture on how best to
support farming, and to the Federal Aviation Administration and the Transportation Security Administration
on how best to make air travel safe.Specialization is not something unique to national security. It
is a rational response to an increasingly complex world in which we
cannot possibly spend the time necessary to gain mastery over all
that affects our daily lives. If our increasing deference to experts on
national security issues is in part the result of objective
circumstances, in part a rational response to complexity, and not necessarily less elitist than
earlier times, then it is not enough to think differently about the issue. We may
indeed need to question the extent to which we rely on experts, but surely there is a role for
expertise when it comes to assessing threats to critical infrastructure,
devising ways to counter those threats, and deploying technology to secure us from
technologys threats. As challenging as it may be to adjust our epistemological framework, it seems likely
even if we were able to sheer away all the unjustified deference
that
to expertise, we would still need to rely in substantial measure on
experts. The issue, in other words, is not whether to rely on experts, but how to do so in a way that
nonetheless retains some measure of self-government. The need for specialists need not preclude
democratic decision-making. Consider, for example, the model of adjudication. Trials involving products
liability, antitrust, patents, and a wide range of other issues typically rely heavily on experts.14 But
critically, the decision is not left to the experts. The decision rests with the jury or judge, neither of whom
purports to be an expert. Experts testify, but do so in a way that allows for adversarial testing and requires
them to explain their conclusions to laypersons, who render judgment informed, but not determined, by
the expert testimony.
Threat deflations more likely

Schweller 4 professor of political science at Ohio State (Randall,
Unanswered Threats A Neoclassical Realist Theory of Underbalancing
International Security, JSTOR)
Despite the historical frequency of underbalancing, little has been written on the subject. Indeed, Geoffrey
Blainey's memorable observation that for "every thousand pages published on the causes of wars there is
less than one page directly on the causes of peace" could have been made with equal veracity about
Library shelves are filled
overreactions to threats as opposed to underreactions to them.92
with books on the causes and dangers of exaggerating threats, ranging from
studies of domestic politics to bureaucratic politics, to political psychology, to organization theory. By
comparison, there have been few studies at any level of analysis or from any theoretical
perspective that directly explain why states have with some, if not equal,
regularity underestimated dangers to their survival. There may be some

cognitive or normative bias at work here. Consider, for instance, that there is a commonly used word,
paranoia, for the unwarranted fear that people are, |in some way, "out to get you" or are planning to do
one harm. I suspect that just asmany people are afflicted with the opposite
psychosis : the delusion that everyone loves you when, in fact, they do not even like
you. Yet, we do not have a familiar word for this phenomenon. Indeed, I am unaware of any word that
describes this pathology (hubris and overconfidence come close, but they plainly define something other
than what I have described). That noted, international relations theory does have a frequently used phrase
for the pathology of states' underestimation of threats to their survival, the so-called Munich analogy. The
term is used, however, in a disparaging way by theorists to ridicule those who employ it. The central claim
is that the naivete associated with Munich and the outbreak of World War II has become an overused and
inappropriate analogy because few leaders are as evil and un- appeasable as Adolf Hitler. Thus, the
analogy either mistakenly causes leaders to adopt hawkish and overly competitive policies or is
deliberately used by leaders to justify such policies and mislead the public. A more compelling explanation
for the paucity of studies on underreactions to threats, however, is the tendency of theories to reflect
contemporary issues as well as the desire of theorists and journals to provide society with policy- relevant
theories that may help resolve or manage urgent security problems. Thus, born in the atomic age with its
security studies has naturally
new balance of terror and an ongoing Cold War, the field of
produced theories of and prescriptions for national security that have had little to say about
and are, in fact, heavily biased against warnings ofthe dangers of underreacting
to or underestimating threats. After all, the nuclear revolution was not about overkill but, as
Thomas Schelling pointed out, speed of kill and mutual kill.93 Given the apocalyptic consequences of
miscalculation, accidents, or inadvertent nuclear war, small wonder that theorists were more concerned
about overreacting to threats than underresponding to them. At a time when all of humankind could be
wiped out in less than twenty-five minutes, theorists may be excused for stressing the benefits of caution
under conditions of uncertainty and erring on the side of inferring from ambiguous actions overly benign
assessments of the opponent's intentions. The overwhelming fear was that a crisis "might unleash forces
of an essentially military nature that overwhelm the political process and bring on a war that nobody
wants. Many important conclusions about the risk of nuclear war, and thus about the political meaning of
nuclear forces, rest on this fundamental idea."94 Now that the Cold War is over, we can begin to redress
these biases in the literature. In that spirit, I have offered a domestic politics model to explain why
threatened states often fail to adjust in a prudent and coherent way to dangerous changes in their
strategic environment. The model fits nicely with recent realist studies on imperial under- and overstretch.
Specifically, it is consistent with Fareed Zakaria's analysis of U.S. foreign policy from 1865 to 1889, when,
he claims, the United States had the national power and opportunity to expand but failed to do so because
it lacked sufficient state power (i.e., the state was weak relative to society).95 Zakaria claims that the
United States did not take advantage of opportunities in its environment to expand because it lacked the
institutional state strength to harness resources from society that were needed to do so. I am making a
states are
similar argument with respect to balancing rather than expansion: incoherent, fragmented
unwilling and unable to balance against potentially dangerous
threats because elites view the domestic risks as too high, and they
are unable to mobilize the required resources from a divided society.
The arguments presented here also suggest that elite fragmentation and disagreement within a
competitive political process, which Jack Snyder cites as an explanation for overexpansionist policies, are
more likely to produce underbalancing than overbalancing behavior among threatened incoherent
states.96 This is becausea balancing strategy carries certain political costs
and risks with few, if any, compensating short-term political gains, and
because the strategic environment is always somewhat uncertain. Consequently, logrolling
among fragmented elites within threatened states is more likely to
generate overly cautious responses to threats than overreactions to them. This
dynamic captures the underreaction of democratic states to the rise of Nazi Germany during the interwar
period.97 In addition to elite fragmentation, I have suggested some basic domestic-level variables that
regularly intervene to thwart balance of power predictions.
Neither the plan nor the alt spill over debates
competitive nature ensures no coalitions form
Ritter 13 JD U Texas Law, B.A. cum laude Trinity University, 13 (Michael
J., OVERCOMING THE FICTION OF SOCIAL CHANGE THROUGH DEBATE:
WHATS TO LEARN FROM 2PACS CHANGES?, National Journal of Speech and
Debate, Vol. 2, Issue 1)
The fiction of social change through debate abuses the winloss structure of
debate and permits debaters to otherize, demonize , dehumanize, and exclude
opponents. The winloss structure of debate rounds requires a judge to vote
for one side or the other, as judges generally cannot give a double win. This precludes the
possibility of compromise on any major position in the debate when the resolution of the
position would determine the ultimate issue of which team did the better debating. Thus, the fiction of
social change through debate encourages debaters to construct narratives of
good versus evil in which the other team is representative of some evil that
threatens to bring about our destruction if it is endorsed (e.g. capitalism). The team relying on the
fiction of social change through debate then paints themselves as agents of the good,
and gives the judge a George W. Bush-like option: Youre either with us or
youreagainst us. The fiction of social change through debatelike Bushs rhetorical fear tactics
and creation of a false, polarizing, and exclusionary dichotomy to justify all parts of
the War on Terror enables the otherization , demonization, dehumanization, and
exclusion of the opposing team. When the unfairness of this tactic is brought to lightparticularly in
egregious situations when a team is arguing that the other team should lose because of their skin color
all can see that the debate centers on personal attacks against opposing debaters.
This causes tensions between debaters that frequently result in debaters losing interest or quitting. By
alienating and excluding members of the competitive interscholastic debate community for the purpose of
winning a debate, it also makes the reaching of any compromise outside of the debatethe only place
where compromise is possiblemuch less likely. By bringing the social issue into a debate round, debaters
impede out-ofround progress on the resolution of social issues within and outside the debate community
by prompting backlash.
AT Counter Terrorism Foucault Link
No link not our counter-terror we dont endorse violent
drone strikes, we endorse financial tracking which is
much less violent
AT Soft Power Foucault Link
No link the thesis of the aff is that intervention is bad military
overstretch will make the impact impossible anyway multilateral
institutions are much more successful
AT Jabri
Jabris wrong
243]
peace is revealed to be perpetual war (Reid, 2006: 18). Perhaps the most radical abstract
framing of global war is that of Giorgio Agamben. In his seminal work Homo Sacer,
he reframed Foucaults understanding of biopower in terms of the totalizing control over bare life, arguing
that the exemplary places of modern biopolitics [were] the concentration camp and the structure of the
great totalitarian states of the twentieth century (Agamben, 1998: 4; see also Chandler, 2009a).
Agambens view of liberal power is that of the concentration camp writ globally, where we are all merely
objects of power, we are all virtually homines sacri (Agamben, 1998: 115). In focusing on biopower as a
means of critiquing universalist policy discourses of global security,
assumed from the outset. In effect, the critical aspect is merely in the reproduction of the
framework of Foucault that liberal discourses can be deconstructed as an exercise of regulatory power.
Without deconstructing the dominant framings of global security threats, critical theorists are in danger of
reproducing Foucaults framework of biopower as an ahistorical abstraction. Foucault (2007: 1) himself
stated that his analysis of biopower was not in any way a general theory of what power is. It is not a part
or even the start of such a theory, merely the study of the effects of liberal governance practices, which
posit as their goal the interests of society the population rather than government. In his recent attempt
at a ground-clearing critique of Foucauldian international relations theorizing, Jan Selby (2007) poses the
question of the problem of the translation of Foucault from a domestic to an international context. He
argues that recasting the international sphere in terms of global liberal regimes of regulation is an
accidental product of this move. This fails to appreciate the fact that many critical theorists appear to be
drawn to Foucault precisely because drawing on his work enables them to critique the international order
in these terms. Ironically, this Foucauldian critique of global wars has little to do with Foucaults
understanding or concerns, which revolved around extending Marxs critique of the freedoms of liberal
modernity. In effect, the post-Foucauldians have a different goal: they desire to understand and to critique
war and military intervention as a product of the regulatory coercive nature of liberalism. This project owes
much to the work of Agamben and his focus on the regulation of bare life, where the concentration camp,
the totalitarian state and (by extension) Guantnamo Bay are held to constitute a moral and political
indictment of liberalism (Agamben, 1998: 4). In these critical frameworks, global war
is understood as the exercise of global aspirations for control, no
longer mediated by the interstate competition that was central to traditional
realist framings of international relations. This less-mediated framework
understands the interests and instrumental techniques of power in
global terms. As power becomes understood in globalized terms , it
becomes increasingly abstracted from any analysis of contemporary
social relations : viewed in terms of neoliberal governance, liberal
power or biopolitical domination. In this context, global war
becomes little more than a metaphor for the operation of power.
This war is a global one because, without clearly demarcated political subjects, the
unmediated operation of regulatory power is held to construct a
world that becomes, literally, one large concentration camp
(Agamben, 1998: 171) where instrumental techniques of power can be exercised regardless of
frameworks of rights or international law (Agamben, 2005: 87). For Julian Reid (2006: 124), the
global war on terror can be understood as an inevitable response
to any forms of life that exist outside and are therefore
threatening to liberal modernity, revealing liberal modernity itself
to be ultimately a terrorising project arraigned against the vitality
of life itself. For Jabri, and other Foucauldian critics, the liberal peace can only
mean unending war to pacify, discipline and reconstruct the liberal subject:
AT Biopower
No impact
today, Rose believes that bio-politics has become generally less dangerous in recent times than
even in the early part of the last century. At that time, biopolitics
was linked to the project of the expanding national state in his opinion. In
disciplinary-pastoral society, bio-politics involved a process of social selection
of those characteristics thought useful to the nationalist project .
Hence, according to Rose, "once each life has a value which may be calculated, and some lives have less
value than others, such a politics has the obligation to exercise this judgement in the name of the race or
the nation" (2001: 3). Disciplinary-pastoral biopolitics sets itself the task of eliminating "differences coded
as defects", and in pursuit of this goal the most horrible programs of eugenics, forced sterilization, and
outright extermination, were enacted (ibid.: 3). If Rose is more optimistic about bio-politics in 'advanced
heterogeneous, domain with a national culture, a national population, a national destiny, co-extensive with
a national territory and the powers of a national political government" no longer serves as premises of
state policy (ibid.: 5). Drawing on a sequential reading of Foucault's theory of the governmentalization of
the territorial state, the primary institution of
the state here, Rose claims that
enclosure, has become subject to fragmentation along a number of
lines. National culture has given way to cultural pluralism; national
identity has been overshadowed by a diverse cluster of
identifications, many of them transcending the national territory on which they take place, while
the same pluralization has affected the once singular conception of community (ibid.: 5). Under these
bio-political programmes of the molar enclosure
conditions, Rose argues, the
known as the nation-state have fallen into disrepute and have been
all but abandoned.
AT V2L
Seeking to change the world is a celebration of life not a
negation
May 5, prof @ Clemson. To change the world, to celebrate life, Philosophy
& Social Criticism 2005 Vol 31 nos 56 pp. 517531
Andthat is why, in the end, there can be no such thing as a sad
revolutionary. To seek to change the world is to offer a new form of
life-celebration . It is to articulate a fresh way of being, which is at once a
way of seeing, thinking, acting, and being acted upon. It is to fold Being once again upon itself, this time at
a new point, to see what that might yield. There is, as Foucault often reminds us, no guarantee that this
In a complex world with which we are
fold will not itself turn out to contain the intolerable.
inescapably entwined, a world we cannot view from above or outside, there is no certainty
about the results of our experiments. Our politics are constructed from the
same vulnerability that is the stuff of our art and our daily practices. But to refuse to
experiment is to resign oneself to the intolerable; it is to abandon
both the struggle to change the world and the opportunity to
celebrate living within it. And to seek one aspect without the other
life-celebration without world-changing , world-changing without life-
celebration is to refuse to acknowledge the chiasm of body and
world that is the wellspring of both.
AT Structural Violence
War turns it
work of researchers and educators coming to the field from the perspective of negative
peace too easily forget that the prevention of a nuclear confrontation of
global dimensions is the prerequisite for all other peace research, education,
and action . Unless such a confrontation can be avoided there will be no
world left in which to build positive peace. Moreover, the blanket
condemnation of all such negative peace oriented research, education or
action as a reactionary attempt to support and reinforce the status quo is
doctrinaire. Conflict theory and resolution, disarmament studies, studies of the international system
and of international organizations, and integration studies are in themselves neutral. They do not
intrinsically support either the status quo or revolutionary efforts to change or overthrow it. Rather they
offer a body of knowledge which can be used for either purpose or for some purpose in between .
It is
much more logical for those who understand peace as positive peace to
integrate this knowledge into their own framework and to utilize it in
achieving their own purposes. A balanced peace studies program should therefore
offer the student exposure to the questions and concerns which occupy those who view the field
essentially from the point of view of negative peace.
They cant solve and they cause more war

If major interstate war is predominantly a product of a synergy between a potential nondemocratic
what is the role
aggressor and an absence of effective deterrence,
of the many traditional "causes" of war? Past, and many contemporary, theories of
war have focused on the role of specific disputes between nations, ethnic and
religious differences, arms races, poverty or social injustice, competition for resources, incidents and
accidents, greed, fear, and perceptions of "honor," or many other such factors. Such factors may well play
a role in motivating aggression or in serving as a means for generating fear and manipulating public
while some of these may have more potential to
opinion. The reality, however, is that
contribute to war than others, there may well be an infinite set of
motivating factors, or human wants, motivating aggression. It is not
conflict," as though Hutus and Tutsis had begun to slaughter each other through spontaneous combustion,
distracted our attention from the reality that a nondemocratic Hutu regime had carefully planned and
Certainly if we
orchestrated a genocide against Rwandan Tutsis as well as its Hutu opponents.I1
were able to press a button and end poverty, racism, religious
intolerance, injustice, and endless disputes, we would want to do
so. Indeed, democratic governments must remain committed to
policies that will produce a better world by all measures of human
progress . The broader achievement of democracy and the rule of law
will itself assist in this progress. No one, however, has yet been able to
demonstrate the kind of robust correlation with any of these
"traditional" causes of war as is reflected in the "democratic
peace." Further, given the difficulties in overcoming many of these
social problems , an approach to war exclusively dependent on their
solution may be to doom us to war for generations to come.
1ar EXT Threat Deflation
Threats are underestimated the alts complacency is
dangerous
Mazurak 12 [The lies of Micah Zenko and Michael Cohen, Zbigniew
defense analyst with 6 years of experience in the field, specializing in the
defense budget, nuclear weapons strategy, and missile defense. B.A. and
M.A. degrees in history. PhD candidate, author of the In Defense of US
Defense Spending authored over 50 defense-issues-related articles,
http://zbigniewmazurak.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/the-lies-of-micah-zenko-
and-michael-cohen/]
Below is a list of the articles and posts I have written to date on outside websites:
In two related articles, extreme leftists Micah Zenko and Michael Cohen have falsely
claimed that the US is Super Secure; that the world is remarkably secure; that the
threats to the US are being vastly exaggerated; that an overly militarized foreign
policy has not made the US safer; and that Washington needs a policy that reflects that. Moreover,
they falsely claim that US officials and national security experts
chronically exaggerate foreign threats. All of their claims are utter
garbage . Lets start with their fallacious claims about threats being exaggerated. The truth is
that American officials, commentators, and individual citizens have a habit of routinely
UNDERESTIMATING foreign threats. They were underestimated in the
late 1940s, as the Russians were believed to be too backward and
primitive to be able to field a jet fighter, and as a result, American pilots were being
slaughtered en masse in the early stages of the Korean War by the MiG-15. The US had
nothing to fight with against it until F-86s were delivered in numbers. The US continued to underestimate
the Russians capabilities, and as a result, the US was surprised by the Russians advantage in space
capabilities, demonstrated by the launch of the first satellite, first animal in space, and first man in space.
The US underestimated Soviet capabilities in the 1970s, and as a
result, the Soviet Union achieved an overall military advantage over the West
by the end of the decade. From 1974 to 1985, it was producing 3.5
times more weapons of every category than the US was. In the 1980s, Ronald
Reagan unveiled the vast disparity between the USSR and the US. Americas vast
underestimation of Soviet capabilities was proven after 1991 when,
in 1992, American inspectors discovered that the former USSR had left
Russia with an arsenal of 40,000 nuclear warheads twice as many as
the CIA had estimated. Currently, the US is , and has been for years, vastly
underestimating the capabilities of its enemies , including China, Russia, and
Iran. In fact, the DOD has downplayed Russias bomber exercises and
intrusions into US airspace and has denied that a Russian Akula class
submarine has been prowling the Gulf of Mexico, and has routinely and
vastly underestimating Chinese military capabilities for many years
solely to appease China and obtain invitations for visits to Beijing, and to mollify the
benign China school of thought. This years DOD report on China s
military capabilities doesnt just vastly underestimate them, it leaves entire big issues and
entire parts of Chinas military buildup unmentioned completely. It says
nothing of Chinas great underground network of tunnels and bunkers for nuclear warheads and BMs,
The
Chinas BMD system development, or Chinas supplying of ballistic missile TELs to North Korea.
fact is that the US, including US officials and national security experts,
routinely UNDERESTIMATE the threats America is facing. As for the
accusation that the US has an overly militarized foreign policy,
that is also manifestly untrue . The Obama Administrations foreign policy has been very
civilian and pacifist, and the US has never had a militarized foreign policy. The Obama Admin has been
appeasing Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela since its first day in office, tolerating their
provocations, armament, and aggressions. It has adopted a hands-off approach to these countries. It has
been using diplomacy and only diplomacy to mollify them, in pathetic, naive attempts to appease them. It
has never seriously considered, let alone threatened, the use of force towards Iran or North Korea.
Zenkos and Cohens claims that the world is super secure from
Americas standpoint is probably the most ridiculous and laughable
of all, because it was made at a time when the world is, as JCS Chairman
Martin Dempsey has pointed out, the most dangerous in his lifetime, and
indeed the most dangerous since World War II. China is arming at an alarming rate ,
increasing its military budget by double digits every year for the last 22
years, acquiring large quantities of weapons that can keep the US
military out of entire combat theaters, and behaving ever more
aggressively towards other Pacific Rim countries. Russia is rearming
with huge weapon orders, numerous missile tests, bomber exercises,
intrusions into US airspace, and numerous nuclear weapon usage
threats. Iran is speeding towards a nuclear weapon. North Korea
already has a dozen of them, and has received ICBMs whose TELs (if not the missiles
themselves) were produced in China. Venezuela is arming itself with advanced Russian conventional
weapons while allowing Iran to build an IRBM base on its soil. And yet, these two anti-defense hacks claim
that the world is super secure from the US standpoint. Their two articles are utterly ridiculous, and the
Council on Foreign Relations has utterly discredited itself by publishing their screeds in its Foreign Affairs
bimonthly. In FAs pages, Paul D. Miller has ably countered Zenkos and Cohens claims. But he has not
stated the fact that the overseas threats hes listed, and other threats to US interests, are dangers to
America just as much as they threaten Americas allies. Millers argument is essentially that these regimes,
as well as terrorist groups, threaten Americas allies and thus the US. Unmentioned is the fact that these
regimes and terrorist groups pose a threat to America itself first and foremost. Thus, Miller correctly
accuses Zenko and Cohen of narrowing down the definition of a threat to something that threatens US
citizens bodily, but he does not mention that China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea do threaten US citizens
bodily whether they be in the US or abroad and, with the temporary exception of Iran, pose a grave
threat to the US homeland. Iran will, too, once it acquires an ICBM, which US intel says it will do by 2015.
No, threats to America are not being vastly exaggerated. They are
being vastly UNDERESTIMATED . And that will bring about disastrous
results for the US, because intellectual disarmament always
precedes actual disarmament.
1ar EXT No Endless War
Cant mobilize support
Mandelbaum 11 (Michael Mandelbaum, A. Herter Professor of American
Foreign Policy, the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies,
Johns Hopkins University, Washington DC; and Director, Project on East-West
Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, CFR 90th Anniversary Series on
Renewing America: American Power and Profligacy, Jan 2011)
http://www.cfr.org/publication/23828/cfr_90th_anniversary_series_on_renewin
g_america.html?cid=rss-fullfeed-cfr_90th_anniversary_series_on-
011811&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:
+cfr_main+(CFR.org+-+Main+Site+Feed
HAASS: Michael, I think I know the answer to this question, but let me ask you anyhow, which is, the last 10 years of
American foreign policy has been dominated by two extremely expensive interventions, one in Iraq, one now in
Afghanistan. Will this sort of pressure both accelerate the end, particularly of Afghanistan? But, more important, will this
now -- is this the end of that phase of what we might call "discretionary American
interventions?" Is this basically over? MANDELBAUM: Let's call them wars of choice. (Laughter.) HAASS: I was
trying to be uncharacteristically self-effacing here. But clearly it didn't hold. Okay. MANDELBAUM: I think it is ,
Richard. And I think that this period really goes back two decades. I think the wars or the
interventions in Somalia, in Bosnia, in Kosovo, in Haiti belong with the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq,
although they were undertaken by different administrations for different reasons, and had different costs. But all of them
ended up in the protracted, unexpected, unwanted and expensive
task of nation building. Nation building has never been popular. The
country has never liked it. It likes it even less now. And I think we're not
going to do it again. We're not going to do it because there won't be enough money.
We're not going to do it because there will be other demands on the public purse . We
won't do it because we'll be busy enough doing the things that I think ought to be done in foreign policy. And we won't
do it because it will be clear to politicians that the range of legitimate
choices that they have in foreign policy will have narrowed and will
exclude interventions of that kind. So I believe and I say in the book that the last -- the first
two post-Cold War decades can be seen as a single unit. And that unit has come to an end.
1ar EXT No Spillover
Reps arent key and dont cause violence
Rodwell 5 (PhD candidate, Manchester Met. (Jonathan, Trendy But Empty:
A Response to Richard Jackson,
http://www.49thparallel.bham.ac.uk/back/issue15/rodwell1.htm)
In this response I wish to argue that the Post-Structuralanalysis put forward by Richard
Jackson is inadequate when trying to understand American Politics and
Foreign Policy. The key point is that this is an issue of methodology and theory. I do not wish
to argue that language is not important, in the current political scene (or indeed any
political era) that would be unrealistic. One cannot help but be convinced that the creation of
identity, of defining ones self (or one nation, or societies self) in opposition to an
other does indeed take place. Masses of written and aural evidence collated by Jackson
clearly demonstrates that there is a discursive pattern surrounding post 9/11 U.S. politics and society.
[i] Moreover as expressed at the start of this paper it is a political pattern and logic that this language
is useful for politicians, especially when able to marginalise other perspectives. Nothing illustrates this
clearer than the fact George W. Bush won re-election, for whatever the reasons he did win, it is
undeniable that at the very least the war in Iraq, though arguable far from a success, at the absolute
minimum did not damage his campaign. Additionally it is surely not stretching credibility to argue Bush
performance and rhetoric during the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks also strengthened his
position. However, having said that, the problem is Jacksons own theoretical underpinning,
his own justification for the importance of language. If he was merely proposing that the understanding
of language as one of many causal factors is important that would be fine. But he is not. The
framework of his argument means the ONLY thing we
epistemological and theoretical
should look at is language and this is the problem.[ii] Rather than being a fairly
simple, but nonetheless valid, argument, because of the theoretical justification it actually becomes an
almost nonsensical. My response is roughly laid out in four parts. Firstly I will argue that such
methodology, in isolation, is fundamentally reductionist with a theoretical underpinning that does not
conceal this simplicity. Secondly, that a strict use of post-structural discourse analysis results in an
epistemological cul-de-sac in which the writer cannot actually say anything. Moreover the reader has
no reason to accept anything that has been written. The result is at best an explanation that remains
as equally valid as any other possible interpretation and at worse a work that retains no critical force
whatsoever. Thirdly, possible arguments in response to this charge; that such approaches provide a
more acceptable explanation than others are, in effect, both a tacit acceptance of the poverty of force
within the approach and of the complete lack of understanding of the identifiable effects of the real
world around us; thus highlighting the contradictions within post-structural claims to be moving beyond
traditional causality, re-affirming that rather than pursuing a post-structural approach we should
continue to employ the traditional methodologies within History, Politics and International Relations.
Finally as a consequence of these limitations I will argue that the post-structural call for intertextuals
must be practiced rather than merely preached and that an understanding and utilisation of all possible
theoretical approaches must be maintained if academic writing is to remain useful rather than self-
contained and narrative. Ultimately I conclude that whilst undeniably of some value post-structural
approaches are at best a footnote in our understanding . The first major problem then is that
historiographically discourse analysis is so capacious as to be largely of
little use. The process of inscription identity, of discourse development is not
given any political or historical context, it is argued that it just works, is simply a
universal phenomenon. It is history that explains everything and
therefore actually explains nothing. To be specific if the U.S. and every
other nation is continually reproducing identities through othering it is
a constant and universal phenomenon that fails to help us understand at all why
one result of the othering turned out one way and differently at
another time. For example, how could one explain how the process
resulted in the 2003 invasion of Iraq but didnt produce a similar
invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 when that country (and by the logic
of the Regan administrations discourse) the West was threatened
by the Evil Empire. By the logical of discourse analysis in both cases
these policies were the result of politicians being able to discipline and
control the political agenda to produce the outcomes. So why were the
outcomes not the same? To reiterate the point how do we explain that the
language of the War on Terror actually managed to result in the eventual
Afghan invasion in 2002? Surely it is impossible to explain how George W.
Bush was able to convince his people (and incidentally the U.N and Nato) to
support a war in Afghanistan without referring to a simple fact outside
of the discourse; the fact that a known terrorist in Afghanistan
actually admitted to the murder of thousands of people on the 11h of
Sepetember 2001. The point is that if the discursive othering of an alien
people or group is what really gave the U.S. the opportunity to persue the
war in Afghanistan one must surly wonder why Afghanistan. Why not
North Korea? Or Scotland? If the discourse is so powerfully useful in its
own right why could it not have happened anywhere at any time and
more often? Why could the British government not have been able
to justify an armed invasion and regime change in Northern Ireland
throughout the terrorist violence of the 1980s? Surely they could have just
employed the same discursive trickery as George W. Bush? Jackson is absolutely right when
he points out that the actuall threat posed by Afghanistan or Iraq today may
have been thoroughly misguided and conflated and that there must be more to
explain why those wars were enacted at that time. Unfortunately that explanation
cannot simply come from the result of inscripting identity and

discourse . On top of this there is the clear problem that the consequences of the
discursive othering are not necessarily what Jackson would seem to identify. This
is a problem consistent through David Campbells original work on which Jacksons approach is
based[iii]. David Campbell argued for a linguistic process that always results in an other being
marginalized or has the potential for demonisation[iv]. At the same time Jackson, building upon this,
maintains without qualification that the systematic and institutionalised abuse of Iraqi prisoners first
exposed in April 2004 is a direct consequence of the language used by senior administration officials:
conceiving of terrorist suspects as evil, inhuman and faceless enemies of freedom creates an
The only problem is that
atmosphere where abuses become normalised and tolerated[v].
differentiation does not actually necessarily produce dislike
the process of
or antagonism. In the 1940s and 50s even subjected to the language of
the Red Scare its obvious not all Americans came to see the Soviets
as an other of their nightmares. And in Iraq the abuses of Iraqi prisoners are
isolated cases, it is not the case that the U.S. militarily summarily abuses prisoners as a result of
language. Surely the massive protest against the war, even in the U.S. itself, is
also a self evident example that the language of evil and inhumanity does
not necessarily produce an outcome that marginalises or demonises an
other. Indeed one of the points of discourse is that we are continually differentiating ourselves
from all others around us without this necessarily leading us to hate fear or abuse anyone.[vi]
Consequently, the clear fear of the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War, and the abuses at
Abu Ghirab are unusual cases. To understand what is going on we must ask how far can the process of
inscripting identity really go towards explaining them? As a result at best all discourse analysis
provides us with is a set of universals and a heuristic model.
Right to Look
2ac F/L
Framework --- they have to prove the plan is bad --- thats
vital to fair and educational engagement --- anything else
is unlimited and self-serving --- voter for fairness and
education
Permutation --- do the plan and endorse the alts model of

surveillance --- the 1AC doesnt take a stance on the
geneology of surveillance or how it operates in society, it
just says the aff is one instance of surveillance that is bad
--- even if they win a link, incorporating that perspective
into surveillance studies is independently valuable and
part of a larger structure
Lyon 6 [David Lyon, Queen's Research Chair in the Sociology Department
and Director of the Surveillance Project at Queen's University, Kingston,
Ontario, Canada, Theorizing surveillance, Pg. 1-2]
The field of 'surveillance studies' has grown rapidly over the past
two decades, spurred by both rapid developments in governance
and new technologies on the one hand, and fresh initiatives in
theoretical explanation on the other. While surveillance practices are
as old as human history, they took some rather specific forms in the
modern world, becoming routine and systematic, based especially on
individuation and on bureaucratic organization (Dandeker 1990). From the last
part of the twentieth century onwards, it became clear that new technologies would be implicated
decisively in surveillance processes, as computer-based systems augmented older paper file and face-to-
At the same time, the work of Michel
face modes (Marx 1988; Rule 1974).
Foucault stimulated new approaches to understanding surveillance.
His book, Discipline and Punish (1979), was central to the new debates,
even though surveillance appeared as a theme in several of
Foucault's works. The panopticon concept has caught the
imagination of many researchers, for better or worse. The prison
architecture invented by the Bentham brothers but elaborated by
Jeremy Bentham became the crucial 'diagram' for Foucault's work on
surveillance. Interestingly, it encapsulated both an emphasis on self-
discipline as the archetypical modern mode, supplanting previous
coercive and brutal methods, and a focus on the classificatory
schemes by which sovereign power would locate and differentiate
treatment of the variety of prisoners. Whether these two approaches are ever brought
together in Foucault's work is unclear; the more recent work of Agamben suggests not (Agamben 1998).
However, while Foucault prompted a new 'panopticism' in theorizing surveillance, others quickly claimed
that his work was flawed (e.g. Ignatieff 1977) or that one had to go beyond Foucault to understand
contemporary electronic technology-dependent surveillance (Webster and Robins 1986; Zuboff 1988). I
the more stringent and rigorous the panoptic
commence with a conundrum:
regime, the more it generates active resistance, whereas the more
soft and subtle the panoptic strategies, the more it produces the
desired docile bodies. But that is only a starting point, still within
the panoptic frame. My comments move, secondly, to the range of theories available, whether
inside the panoptic frame or not, and the possibilities for dialogue and mutual learning presented if we
bring together the classical and the cultural, the critical and the post-structuralist. The even larger frame
behind these is the realm of metatheory. Surveillance theories are also situated
within these debates and are inevitably informed by them. They
relate to history , humanity and, yes, to life itself. All these
comments serve as entry points into a lively debate about
'theorizing surveillance' represented by the authors of this book, to
whose ideas I offer trailers or previews in the final part.

Thus,
materialist constructivist epistemology accounts for this by predicting that it is not possible for symbol-
All symbolic movement has a trajectory,
using animals to exist in a symbolic void.
and if you have not imagined a potentially realizable alternative for
that trajectory to take, then what people will leap into is biological
reveals itself to be critical, so it is worth pondering sources of that failure. The rhetoric of
the kill in social theory in the past half century has repeatedly reduced to the leap into a void because
the symbolized alternative that the context of the twentieth century otherwise predispositionally offers is
to the binary opposite of capitalism, i.e., communism. That rhetorical option, however, has been foreclosed
The hard
by the historical discrediting of the readily imagined forms of communism (e.g., iek9).
work to invent better alternatives is not as dramatically enticing as
the story of the kill: such labor is piecemeal , intellectually difficult ,
requires multi-disciplinary understandings, and perhaps requires more
creativity than the typical academic theorist can muster. In the
absence of a viable alternative, the appeals to Radical Revolution
seem to have been sustained by the emotional zing of the kill, in many
cases amped up by the appeal of autonomy and manliness (iek uses the former term and deploys the
ethos of the latter). But if one does not provide a viable vision that offers a
reasonable chance of leaving most people better off than they are now, then Fox News has a
better offering (you'll be free and you'll get rich!). A revolution posited as a void
cannot succeed as a horizon of history, other than as constant local
scale violent actions, perhaps connected by shifting networks we call terrorists. This analysis
of the geo-political situation, of the onto-epistemological character of language, and of the limitations of
the dominant horizon of social change indicates that the focal project for progressive
Left Academics should now include the hard labor to produce
alternative visions that appear materially feasible .
The aff is a disad to the alt --- outweighs

should save as many priceless objects as possible ? Even if two do
each is priceless ; thus, I have good reason to save as many as I can .
No impact --- no explanatory power

Goldstein, 1 - Professor of International Relations at American University
(Joshua S., War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice
Versa, pp.411-412)//gingE
I began this book hoping to contribute in some way to a deeper understanding of war an understanding
that would improve the chances of someday achieving real peace, by deleting war from our human
repertoire. In following the thread of gender running through war, I found
the deeper understanding I had hoped for a multidisciplinary and multilevel engagement with the
Yet I became somewhat more pessimistic about how quickly or
subject.
easily war may end. The war system emerges, from the evidence in
this book, as relatively ubiquitous and robust . Efforts to change
this system must overcome several dilemmas mentioned in this
book. First, peace activists face a dilemma in thinking about causes of war and working for peace.
Many peace scholars and activists support the approach, if you want peace, work for justice. Then, if
one believes that sexism contributes to war, one can work for gender justice specifically (perhaps among
others) in order to pursue peace. This approach brings strategic allies to the peace movement (women,
labor, minorities), but rests on the assumption that injustices cause war. The evidence in this book
War is not a product of
suggests that causality runs at least as strongly the other way.
capitalism , imperialism , gender , innate aggression , or any other
single cause , although all of these influence wars outbreaks and
outcomes. Rather, war has in part fueled and sustained these and
other injustices . So, if you want peace, work for peace. Indeed, if
you want justice (gender and others), work for peace . Causality does
not run just upward through the levels of analysis, from types of individuals, societies, and governments up
to war. It runs downward too. Enloe suggests that changes in attitudes towards war and the
military may be the most important way to reverse womens oppression. The dilemma is that peace
work focused on justice brings to the peace movement energy, allies, and moral grounding, yet, in light of
this books evidence, the emphasis on injustice as the main cause of war
seems to be empirically inadequate.
Structural violence decreasing now

Goklany 9Worked with federal and state governments, think tanks, and the private sector for over 35 years. Worked with
IPCC before its inception as an author, delegate and reviewer. Negotiated UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Managed the
emissions trading program for the EPA. Julian Simon Fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center, visiting fellow at AEI, winner of
the Julian Simon Prize and Award. PhD, MS, electrical engineering, MSU. B.Tech in electrical engineering, Indian Institute of Tech. (Indur, Have
increases in population, affluence and technology worsened human and environmental well-being? 2009,
http://www.ejsd.org/docs/HAVE_INCREASES_IN_POPULATION_AFFLUENCE_AND_TECHNOLOGY_WORSENED_HUMAN_AND_ENVIRONMENTAL_WEL
L-BEING.pdf)
Although global population is no longer growing exponentially, it has quadrupled since 1900. Concurrently, affluence (or GDP per
capita) has sextupled, global economic product (a measure of aggregate consumption) has increased 23-fold and carbon dioxide has increased over 15-fold
But contrary to Neo- Malthusian fears, average

(Maddison 2003; GGDC 2008; World Bank 2008a; Marland et al. 2007).4
human well-being, measured by any objective indicator, has never been higher. Food
supplies, Malthus original concern, are up worldwide. Global food supplies per capita increased from 2,254 Cals/day in 1961 to
2,810 in 2003 (FAOSTAT 2008). This helped reduce hunger and malnutrition
worldwide. The proportion of the population in the developing world,
suffering from chronic hunger declined from 37 percent to 17 percent
between 196971 and 20012003 despite an 87 percent population increase (Goklany 2007a; FAO 2006). The
reduction in hunger and malnutrition, along with improvements in basic

hygiene, improved access to safer water and sanitation, broad
adoption of vaccinations, antibiotics, pasteurization and other public
health measures, helped reduce mortality and increase life
expectancies . These improvements first became evident in todays developed countries in the mid- to late-1800s and started to spread in
earnest to developing countries from the 1950s. The infant mortality rate in developing countries was 180 per
1,000 live births in the early 1950s; today it is 57. Consequently, global life expectancy, perhaps the single
most important measure of human well-being, increased from 31 years in 1900 to 47 years in the early 1950s to 67 years
today (Goklany 2007a). Globally, average annual per capita incomes tripled since 1950. The
proportion of the worlds population outside of high-income OECD

countries living in absolute poverty (average consumption of less than $1 per day in 1985 International dollars
fell from 84 percent in 1820 to 40 percent in 1981 to 20 percent in 2007
adjusted for purchasing power parity),
(Goklany 2007a; WRI 2008; World Bank 2007). Equally important, the world is more literate and better
educated. Child labor in low income countries declined from 30 to 18

percent between 1960 and 2003. In most countries, people are freer politically, economically
and socially to pursue their goals as they see fit. More people choose
their own rulers, and have freedom of expression. They are more
likely to live under rule of law, and less likely to be arbitrarily
deprived of life, limb and property. Social and professional mobility
has never been greater. It is easier to transcend the bonds of caste,
place, gender, and other accidents of birth in the lottery of life. People work fewer hours, and
have more money and better health to enjoy their leisure time (Goklany
2007a). Figure 3 summarizes the U.S. experience over the 20th century with respect to growth of population, affluence, material, fossil fuel energy and chemical
consumption, and life expectancy. It indicates that population has multiplied 3.7-fold; income, 6.9-fold; carbon dioxide emissions, 8.5-fold; material use, 26.5-fold;
life expectancy increased from 47 years to 77

and organic chemical use, 101-fold. Yet its
years and infant mortality (not shown) declined from over 100 per 1,000 live births to 7 per 1,000. It is
also important to note that not only are people living longer, they
are healthier. The disability rate for seniors declined 28 percent between 1982 and
2004/2005 and, despite better diagnostic tools, major diseases (e.g., cancer, and heart and respiratory diseases) occur 811
years later now than a century ago (Fogel 2003; Manton et al. 2006). If similar figures could be constructed for other countries, most would indicate
qualitatively similar trends, especially after 1950, except Sub-Saharan Africa and the erstwhile members of the Soviet Union. In the latter two cases, life expectancy,
which had increased following World War II, declined after the late 1980s to the early 2000s, possibly due poor economic performance compounded, especially in
Sub-Saharan Africa, by AIDS, resurgence of malaria, and tuberculosis due mainly to poor governance (breakdown of public health services) and other manmade
there are signs of a turnaround,

causes (Goklany 2007a, pp.6669, pp.178181, and references therein). However,
perhaps related to increased economic growth since the early 2000s, although this could, of course, be a
temporary blip (Goklany 2007a; World Bank 2008a). Notably, in most areas of the world, the healthadjusted life expectancy (HALE), that is, life expectancy adjusted
downward for the severity and length of time spent by the average individual in a less-than-healthy condition, is greater now than the unadjusted life expectancy was
30 years ago. HALE for the China and India in 2002, for instance, were 64.1 and 53.5 years, which exceeded their unadjusted life expectancy of 63.2 and 50.7 years
both life expectancy

in 19701975 (WRI 2008). Figure 4, based on cross country data, indicates that contrary to Neo-Malthusian fears,
and infant mortality improve with the level of affluence (economic development)
and time, a surrogate for technological change (Goklany 2007a). Other indicators of human well-being
that improve over time and as affluence rises are: access to safe water and sanitation (see below), literacy, level of education,
food supplies per capita, and the prevalence of malnutrition (Goklany 2007a, 2007b).
No risk of endless warfare

Gray 7Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies and Professor of International Relations and Strategic Studies at
the University of Reading, graduate of the Universities of Manchester and Oxford, Founder and Senior Associate to the
National Institute for Public Policy, formerly with the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the Hudson Institute
(Colin, July, The Implications of Preemptive and Preventive War Doctrines: A
Reconsideration, http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/ssi10561/ssi10561.pdf)
7. A policy that favors preventive warfare expresses a futile quest for absolute security. It could do so. Most controversial policies contain
In the hands of a paranoid or boundlessly ambitious political leader,

within them the possibility of misuse.
prevention could be a policy for endless warfare . However, the American

political system, with its checks and balances, was designed explicitly for the
purpose of constraining the executive from excessive folly. Both the Vietnam and
the contemporary Iraqi experiences reveal clearly that although the conduct of
war is an executive prerogative, in practice that authority is disciplined by public attitudes. Clausewitz made this
point superbly with his designation of the passion, the sentiments, of the people as a vital component of his trinitarian theory of war. 51 It is
true to claim that power can be, and indeed is often, abused, both personally and nationally. It is possible that a state could acquire a taste for
the apparent swift decisiveness of preventive warfare and overuse the option. One might argue that the easy success achieved against Taliban
Afghanistan in 2001, provided fuel for the urge to seek a similarly rapid success against Saddam Husseins Iraq. In other words, the delights of
military success can be habit forming. On balance, claim seven is not persuasive, though it certainly contains a germ of truth. A country with
unmatched wealth and power, unused to physical insecurity at homenotwithstanding 42 years of nuclear danger, and a high level of gun
we ought not to endorse the
crimeis vulnerable to demands for policies that supposedly can restore security. But
argument that the United States should eschew the preventive war option because it
could lead to a futile, endless search for absolute security. One might as well
argue that the United States should adopt a defense policy and develop capabilities shaped strictly for homeland security approached
in a narrowly geographical sense. Since a president might misuse a military instrument that
had a global reach, why not deny the White House even the possibility of
such misuse? In other words, constrain policy ends by limiting policys
military means. This argument has circulated for many decades and, it must be admitted, it does have a certain elementary
logic. It is the opinion of this enquiry, however, that the claim that a policy which includes the
preventive option might lead to a search for total security is not at all
convincing. Of course, folly in high places is always possible, which is one of the many reasons why popular democracy is the
superior form of government. It would be absurd to permit the fear of a futile and
dangerous quest for absolute security to preclude prevention as a policy

option. Despite its absurdity, this rhetorical charge against prevention is a
stock favorite among preventions critics. It should be recognized and
dismissed for what it is, a debating point with little pragmatic merit. And
strategy, though not always policy, must be nothing if not pragmatic.
Suffering Reps
2ac F/L
Affect is useless
exteriority/#]
mobilisation . Yet, referring back to Fishers article, it is where this affective orientation is inscribed
into the social circuits of musical use and sonorous production that it perhaps
much as its composition. As little of the Grime and Dancehall that Fisher and Dan Hancox catalogued towards a playlist of
the riots and uprisings expresses in explicitly linguistic and lyrical content the sentiments of political activism, it is in the use of music and
Where music is
sound as a carrier of affects at the point of both playback and composition that its importance lies.2
deployed as a more affective than symbolic force in resistance, its

significance becomes obscure and ambiguous from the perspective and
expectations of symbolic coherence. This noted lack of coherence and
communicable message marks , as Fisher points out, a certain exhaustion of
recognised channels of musical resistance : the protest song seems worn
out, lacklustre, its own disempowerment, apparent obsolescence and
displacement in pop culture a symptom compounding the apathy and
estrangement that has characterised much of the still fairly recent
discourse on youth and `political engagement.
Affect of suffering motivates compassion

Perhaps, then,
degree or another,


Suffering reps cause action
Finally, if
Fear need

Terror Talk
2ac F/L

Perm do both
Our impacts are true Al Qaedas asking lone wolves to

strike airports and providing bomb-making instructions
lack of screening means they can infiltrate the airport
workforce and launch a WMD attack ISIS has obtained
easily concealable thermite weapons thats Brown,
McCaul, and Biles all from this year these studies are
epistemologically valid
Boyle 8, School of International Relations, University of St. Andrews, and
John Horgan, International Center for the Study of Terrorism, Department of
Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, April 2008, A Case Against
Critical Terrorism Studies, Critical Studies On Terrorism, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 51-
64
Jackson (2007c) calls for the development of an explicitly CTS on the basis of what he argues preceded it, dubbed
Orthodox Terrorism Studies. The latter, he suggests, is characterized by: (1) its poor methods and theories, (2) its state
centricity, (3) its problemsolving orientation, and (4) its institutional and intellectual links to state security projects.
Jackson argues that the major defining characteristic of CTS, on the other hand, should be a skeptical attitude towards
accepted terrorism knowledge. An implicit presumption from this is that terrorism
scholars have laboured for all of these years without being aware that their
area of study has an implicit bias, as well as definitional and methodological
problems. In fact, terrorism scholars are not only well aware of these problems,
but also have provided their own searching critiques of the field at various points during the last
few decades (e.g. Silke 1996, Crenshaw 1998, Gordon 1999, Horgan 2005, esp. ch. 2, Understanding Terrorism). Some
of those scholars most associated with the critique of empiricism implied in Orthodox Terrorism Studies have
also engaged in deeply critical examinations of the nature of sources,
methods, and data in the study of terrorism. For example, Jackson (2007a) regularly cites the
handbook produced by Schmid and Jongman (1988) to support his claims that theoretical progress has been
limited. But this fact was well recognized by the authors; indeed, in the introduction of the second edition they point
out that they have not revised their chapter on theories of terrorism from the first edition, because the failure to
address persistent conceptual and data problems has undermined progress in the field. The point of their
handbook was to sharpen and make more comprehensive the result of research on terrorism, not to glide over its
Silkes (2004) volume on
methodological and definitional failings (Schmid and Jongman 1988, p. xiv). Similarly,
the state of the field of terrorism research performed a similar function ,
A non-
highlighting the shortcomings of the field, in particular the lack of rigorous primary data collection.
reflective community of scholars does not produce such scathing indictments
of its own work.
Their kritik is too little, too late root causality is not

reverse causality Al Qaeda and ISIS are already
radicalized a discursive shift wont dissuade them try
or die for complete solutions
The alts language to describe terror causes more

terrorism
Murdock 5 [Deroy, nationally syndicated columnist for Scipps-Howard
News, Terrorism and the English Language, 3-9,
http://www.heritage.org/research/homelanddefense/hl867.cfm]
within a week, some incredibly detached language emerged to describe what
Yet
happened on 9/11. Consider this message that Verizon left in my voice mail box on September 19:
"During this time of crisis, we are asking all customers to review and delete all current and saved
messages that are not essential," a nameless female announcer stated. "This request is necessary due to
extensive damage that was recently sustained in the World Trade Center district." Time of crisis? Did a
tidal wave cause the "recently sustained" wreckage in Manhattan? Similarly, a company called Tullet &
The use of the
Tokyo Liberty referred to "the disaster that has hit New York and Washington."
passive voice in these and similar instances suggested that the World Trade
Center and Pentagon were smashed by unguided, perhaps natural, forces. Kinko's
was even more elliptical. Shortly after the massacre, the photocopying company placed in its stores some
very colorful posters with the Stars and Stripes superimposed upon an outline of the lower 48 states. The
graphic also included this regrettable caption: "The Kinko's family extends our condolences and
sympathies to all Americans who have been affected by the circumstances in New York City, Washington,
D.C., and Pennsylvania." Circumstances? That word describes an electrical blackout, not terrorist
bloodshed. Likewise, I kept hearing that people "died" in the Twin Towers or at the Pentagon. No, people
"die" in hospitals, often surrounded by their loved ones while doctors and nurses offer aid and comfort. The
innocent people at the World Trade Center, the Defense Department, and that field in Shanksville,
Pennsylvania, were killed in a carefully choreographed act of mass murder. A Terrorist By Any Other Name
The more this passive, weak, euphemistic language appeared as the war on terrorism
began, the more I thought it was vital to pay close attention to the words, symbols,
and images that govern this new and urgent conflict. The civilized world
today faces the most anti-Semitic enemy since Adolf Hitler and Josef Goebbels
committed suicide in Berlin nearly 60 years ago. Militant Islam is the most bloodthirsty
ideology since the Khmer Rouge eliminated one-third of Cambodia's people.
The big difference, of course, is that Pol Pot had the good manners to keep his killing fields within his own
borders, as awful as that was. Islamo-fascism is a worldwide phenomenon that already has touched this
country and many of our allies. Yet Muslim extremists rarely have armies we can see, fighter jets we can
knock from the sky, or an easily identifiable headquarters, such as the Reichs Chancellery of the 1940s or
the Kremlin of the Cold War. While basketball players and their fans battle each other on TV, actresses
suffer wardrobe malfunctions, and rap singers scream sweet nothings in our ears, it is very easy to
forget that Islamic extremists plot daily to end all of that and more by killing as many of us
as possible. Language can lull Americans to sleep in this new war , or it can
keep us on the offensive and our enemies off balance . Here are a few suggestions to
keep Americans alert to the dangers Islamic terrorism poses to this country: September 11 was an
attack--not just a series of coincidental strokes and heart failures that wiped out so many victims at
once. Victims of terrorism do not "die," nor are they "lost." They are killed, murdered, or
slaughtered. We should be specific about the number of people terrorists kill .
"Three thousand" killed on 9/11 sounds like an amorphous blob. The actual number--2,977--
forces us to look at these people as individuals with faces, stories, and loved
ones who miss them very much. The precise figures are: 2,749 killed at the World Trade
Center, 184 at the Pentagon, and 44 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Likewise, the Bali disco bombings killed
202 people, mainly Australians. The Madrid train bombings killed 191 men, women, and children.
Somehow, a total of 191 people killed by al-Qaeda's pals seems more ominous and concrete than a
smoothly rounded 200. Terrorists do not simply "threaten" us, nor is homeland security supposed to shield
Americans from "future attacks." All of this is true, but it is more persuasive if we acknowledge what these
people have done and hope to do once more--wipe us out. Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-WI),
chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said this on NBC Nightly News last Sunday: "We need to
tighten up our drivers' license provisions and our immigration laws so that terrorists cannot take
advantage of the present system to kill thousands of Americans again." That is a perfect sound bite. There
is no vague talk about "the terrorist threat" or "stopping further attacks." Sensenbrenner concisely
explained exactly what is at risk, and what needs to be thwarted--no more killing of Americans by the
thousands again. Quote Islamo-fascist leaders to remind people of their true intentions. President George
W. Bush, Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner, or Deroy Murdock can talk about how deadly militant
Islam is and how seriously we should take this gravely dangerous ideology. Far more persuasive, however,
is to let these extremists do the talking. However, their words are nowhere as commonly known as they
should be. For instance, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri said in their 1998 declaration of war on
the United States: "The ruling to kill all Americans and their allies--civilian and military--is an individual
duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it." The late Iranian dictator,
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, put it this way in 1980: "Our struggle is not about land or water.... It is about
bringing, by force if necessary, the whole of mankind onto the right path." Ever the comedian, he said this
in 1986: "Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be
put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no
jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in
whatever is serious." Asked what he would say to the loved ones of the 202 people killed in the October
2002 Bali nightclub bombings, Abu Bakar Bashir, leader of Indonesia's radical Jemaah Islamiyah, replied,
"My message to the families is, please convert to Islam as soon as possible." The phrase "weapons of mass
destruction" (WMD) has been pounded into meaninglessness. It has been repeated ad infinitum. Fairly or
unfairly, the absence of warehouses full of anthrax and nerve gas in Iraq has made the whole idea of
"WMD" sound synonymous with "L-I-E." America's enemies do not plot the "mass destruction" of empty
office buildings or abandoned parking structures. Conversely, they want to see packed office buildings
ablaze as their inhabitants scream for mercy. That is why I use the terms "weapons of mass death" and
"weapons of mass murder." When speaking about those who are killed by terrorists, be specific, name
them, and tell us about them. Humanize these individuals. They are more than just statistics or stick
figures. I have written 18 articles and produced a Web page, HUSSEINandTERROR.com, to demonstrate
that Saddam Hussein did have ties to terrorism. (By the way, I call him "Saddam Hussein" or "Hussein." I
never call him "Saddam" any more than I call Joseph Stalin "Joseph" or Adolf Hitler "Adolf." "Saddam" has a
cute, one-name ring to it, like Cher, Gallagher, Liberace, or Sting. Saddam Hussein does not deserve such
a term of endearment.) To show that Saddam Hussein's support of terrorism cost American lives, I remind
people about the aid and comfort he gave to terrorism master Abu Nidal. Among Abu Nidal's victims in the
1985 bombing of Rome's airport was John Buonocore, a 20-year-old exchange student from Delaware.
Palestinian terrorists fatally shot Buonocore in the back as he checked in for his flight. He was heading
home after Christmas to celebrate his father's 50th birthday. In another example, those killed by
Palestinian homicide bombers subsidized by Saddam Hussein were not all Israeli, which would have been
unacceptable enough. Among the 12 or more Americans killed by those Baathist-funded murderers was
Abigail Litle, the 14-year-old daughter of a Baptist minister. She was blown away aboard a bus in Haifa on
March 5, 2003. Her killer's family got a check for $25,000 courtesy of Saddam Hussein as a bonus for their
Americans must
son's "martyrdom." Is all of this designed to press emotional buttons? You bet it is.
remain committed--intellectually and emotionally--to this struggle. There are many ways to
engage the American people. No one should hesitate to remind Americans that
terrorism kills our countrymen--at home and abroad--and that those whom militant Islam
demolishes include promising young people with bright futures, big smiles, and,
now, six feet of soil between them and their dreams. Finally, who are we fighting?
Militants? Martyrs? Insurgents? Melinda Bowman of Brief Hill, Pennsylvania, wrote this in a November 24
letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal: "And, by the way, what is all this ìnsurgent' nonsense? These
people kidnap, behead, dismember and disembowel. They are terrorists." Nicely and accurately put,
Ms. Bowman. Is this a war on terror, per se? A war on terrorism? Or is it really a war on Islamo-fascism? It is
really the latter, and we should say so. Jim Guirard runs the TrueSpeak Institute in Washington, D.C. He has
thought long and hard about terrorism and the English language. He informed me Tuesday--to my horror--
that three years into the war on terrorism, the State Department and the CIA have yet to produce a
glossary of the Arabic-language words that Middle Eastern terrorists use, as well as the antonyms for those
words. Such a "Thesaurus of Terrorism" would help us linguistically to turn the war on terrorism upside
down. Why, for instance, do we inadvertently praise our enemies by agreeing that they fight a jihad or
"holy war?" Why not correctly describe them as soldiers in a hirabah or "unholy war?" A Weapon at the
ReadyIn closing, I would say that America and the rest of civilization can and must win this new twilight
struggle against these bloodthirsty cavemen. We can and we will crush them through espionage, high-tech
Here at home, we can and will vanquish
force, statecraft, and public diplomacy overseas.
them through eternal vigilance. One of our chief weapons should be
something readily available to each and every one of us--the English
language.
Terror representations are key to counterterrorism

legitimation requirements are perhaps particularly pressing in the
These
arenas of terrorism and counterterrorism, which are fundamentally
communicative and symbolic enterprises (Hoffman, 2006; Kydd and Walter, 2006).
Terrorism is open-air theater, seeking to attract large audiences
through spectacular displays (Jenkins, 1975: 16). Counterterrorism does not always need
equally large audiences, and the spectacular is often ineffective (Bueno de Mesquita, 2007). But
counterterrorism is equally theater. If terrorists avidly seek
publicity for their causes and adopt methods designed to signal
their resolve, so too must the terror-fighting state be centrally
concerned with what messages it sends to what audiences. Thomas
Schelling (1966: 142) observed that force could be an expressive bit of repartee [which] took mainly
the form of deeds, not words. But deeds accompanied by words are that much more expressive, and
there is a good reason that leaders devote effort to molding that interpretive context.
Best studies prove counter-terror is effective

Price 12 - major in the U.S. Army and former Assistant Professor of Social
Sciences at the U.S. Military Academy (Bryan, Targeting Top Terrorists
International Security, Spring, http://shakes31471.typepad.com/files/how-
leadership-decapitation-contributes-to-counterterrorism.pdf)
leadership decapitation significantly increases the mortality
I argue that
rate of terrorist groups, even after controlling for other factors.
Using an original databasethe largest and most comprehensive of
its kind I analyzed the effects of leadership decapitation on the
mortality rate of 207 terrorist groups from 1970 to 2008. The analysis differs
from previous quantitative studies because it evaluates the effects
of decapitation on the duration of terrorist groups as opposed to the
number, frequency, or lethality of attacks after a group experiences leadership
decapitation.15 In doing so, it challenges the conventional wisdom regarding
terrorist group duration and addresses some of the most pressing questions about the effectiveness of
decapitation. For example, does it matter whether a terrorist group leader is killed versus captured? Does the size,
ideology, or age of the group increase its susceptibility to organizational death? In addition to answering these questions,
this study illustrates the importance of evaluating the long-term
effects of counterterrorism policies in conjunction with the short-
term metrics more commonly used today.The article is structured as follows. First, I survey
the literature on leadership decapitation and show why new metrics are needed to accurately evaluate its effectiveness. I
then use concepts from leadership studies, organizational ecology, and terrorism to provide a theoretical explanation for
terrorist groups have
why terrorist groups are particularly susceptible to decapitation tactics. I argue that
unique organizational characteristics that amplify the importance of
their top leaders and make leadership succession more difficul t. After
discussing the data limitations inherent in terrorism research, I identify the covariates most likely to influence terrorist
group duration and then explain how I estimated them. Following a review of the main findings, I conclude with some
thoughts on the possible implications of bin Ladens death for al-Qaida and recommendations for policymakers.
The representational threat of terrorism is real and needs

an equal response
Attacks on civilians are often weighted with symbolism : the World
Trade Center was targeted on 11 September 2001 precisely because it
symbolized Americas cultural and economic power. Terrorists are
simultaneously highly strategic and culturally sensitive. This is not
accidental: terrorists most effectively further their ends when they are attuned to the power of symbols.
The literature, however, has less often recognized that, in this theater, there is a dialogue taking place
on-stage, between terrorist and counterterrorist players. The latter may have superior material resources
stand outside culture. Complementing military,
at their disposal, but they cannot
economic, and political measures, state leaders wage a rhetorical
campaign that not only legitimates these approaches, but has a
logic and effect of its own. This article has focused on ethnonational insurgency, but its
insights travel to the dominant concern of recent years transnational Islamist terrorism. The basic
purpose counterterrorism is shared across national and transnational contexts: to help
of
nurture an environment in which moderate co-ethnics (or Muslims), often
themselves voicing nationalist (or Islamist) goals, can offer a credible alternative to
extremists, leading to the latters eventual delegitimation (Krebs, 2008).
This articles analytical framework regarding the representational politics of counterterrorism also
remains relevant to transnational terrorists, whatever their religious, ideological, or communal coloration.
The two questions that structure Table 1 Are the violent actors represented as having a political
agenda? Are they represented as potentially legitimate interlocutors? can be answered in either the
affirmative or the negative, even if the terrorists are not national citizens and are therefore
unquestionably Other. While this is obviously true of the first question, since Others often pursue
recognizably political agendas in international politics, it may not be as self-evident of the second, as one
might assume that clearly-drawn lines between Self and Other prevent the former from offering even the
prospect of legitimacy to the latter. We do not see processes of identity construction as establishing
impermeable boundaries, even in the international arena. The history of foreign relations and we here
cast our subject intentionally as foreign relations is marked by continual bargaining with Others.
Implicit in such negotiations, at least when they are conducted
publicly and must be legitimated, is that the parties, notwithstanding their abiding
differences, share enough to make conversation possible. Identity is nested, and there is
always a conceivable basis for the discovery of sufficient higher-
order commonality. In other words, Self and Other are always potentially
liminal, and thus even foreign terrorists may be represented as
legitimate interlocutors.
Responding to threats is necessary the alternative is

isolationist pacifism
Schweller 4 Randall, Professor of Political Science @ The OSU,
Unanswered threats: political constraints on the balance of power, Google
Book
Balancing behavior requires the existence of a strong consensus among elites that an external threat
exists and must be checked by either arms or allies or both. As the proximate causal variable in the
model, elite consensus is the most necessary of necessary causes of balancing behavior. Thus, when
there is no elite consensus, the prediction is either unbalancing or some other nonbalancing policy
option. Developing such a consensus is difficult, however, because balancing, unlike expansion, is not
a behavior motivated by the search for gains and profit. It is instead a strategy that entails
significant costs in human and material resources that could be directed toward
domestic programs and investment rather than national defense. In addition, when
alliances are formed, the state must sacrifice some measure of its autonomy in foreign
and military policy to its allies. In the absence of a clear majority of elites in favor of a
balancing strategy, therefore, an alternative policy, and not necessarily a coherent one, will
prevail. This is because a weak grand strategy can be supported for many different
reasons (e.g., pacifism, isolationism, pro-enemy sympathies, collective security, a belief in
conciliation, etc.). Consequently, appeasement and other forms of underbalancing will tend
to triumph in the absence of a determined and broad political consensus to
balance simply because these policies represent the path of least domestic resistance
and can appeal to a broad range of interests along the political spectrum . Thus,
underreacting to threats, unlike an effective balancing strategy, does not require overwhelming,
united, and coherent support from elites and masses; it is a default strategy.
advocate and its functionally condo because it changes
their advocacy mid-round reject the team
One speech act doesnt cause securitization its an

ongoing process
No endless warfare
we ought
sense.
Critical terror studies fail

Jones and Smith 9 - * University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia AND
** King's College, University of London, London, UK (David and M.L.R.,We're
All Terrorists Now: Criticalor HypocriticalStudies on Terrorism?, Studies
in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 32, Issue 4 April 2009 , pages 292 302,
Taylor and Francis)
The journal, in other words, is not intended, as one might assume, to evaluate critically those state or non-
the journal's ambition is
state actors that might have recourse to terrorism as a strategy. Instead,
to deconstruct what it views as the ambiguity of the word terror, its
manipulation by ostensibly liberal democratic state actors, and the complicity
of orthodox terrorism studies in this authoritarian enterprise. Exposing the
deficiencies in any field of study is, of course, a legitimate scholarly exercise, but what the symposium
introducing the new volume announces questions both the research agenda and academic integrity of
journals like Studies in Conflict and Terrorism and those who contribute to them. Do these claims, one
might wonder, have any substance? Significantly, the original proposal circulated by the publisher
Routledge and one of the editors, Richard Jackson, suggested some uncertainty concerning the
preferred title of the journal. Critical Studies on Terrorism appeared last on a list where the first choice was
Review of Terror Studies. Evidently, the concision of a review fails to capture the critical perspective the
journal promotes. Criticism, then, is central to the new journal's philosophy and the adjective connotes a
distinct ideological and, as shall be seen, far from pluralist and inclusive purpose. So, one might ask, what
exactly does a critical approach to terrorism involve? What it Means to be Critical The editors and
contributors explore what it means to be critical in detail, repetition, and opacity, along with an
excessive fondness for italics, in the editorial symposium that introduces the first issue, and in a number of
subsequent articles. The editors inform us that the study of terrorism is a growth industry, observing with
a mixture of envy and disapproval that literally thousands of new books and articles on terrorism are
published every year (pp. l-2). In adding to this literature the editors premise the need for yet another
journal on their resistance to what currently constitutes scholarship in the field of terrorism study and its
allegedly uncritical acceptance of the Western democratic state's security perspective. Indeed, to be
critical requires a radical reversal of what the journal assumes to be the typical perception of terrorism and
the methodology of terrorism research. To focus on the strategies practiced by non-state actors that
feature under the conventional denotation terror is, for the critical theorist, misplaced. As the
symposium explains,
acts of clandestine non-state terrorism are committed by a
tiny number of individuals and result in between a few hundred and a few
thousand casualties per year over the entire world (original italics) (p. 1). The United
States's and its allies' preoccupation with terrorism is, therefore, out of proportion to its effects. 1 At the
same time, the more pervasive and repressive terror practiced by the state has been silenced from public
The complicity of terrorism studies with the
and academic discourse (p. 1).
increasingly authoritarian demands of Western, liberal state and media
practice, together with the moral and political blindness of established
terrorism analysts to this relationship forms the journal's overriding
assumption and one that its core contributors repeat ad nauseam. Thus, Michael Stohl, in his
contribution Old Myths, New Fantasies and the Enduring Realities of Terrorism (pp. 5-16), not only
discovers ten myths informing the understanding of terrorism, but also finds that these myths reflect a
state centric security focus, where analysts rarely consider the violence perpetrated by the state (p.
5). He complains that the press have become too close to government over the matter. Somewhat
contradictorily Stohl subsequently asserts that media reporting is central to terrorism and counter-
terrorism as political action, that media reportage provides the oxygen of terrorism, and that politicians
consider journalists to be the terrorist's best friend (p. 7). Stohl further compounds this incoherence,
claiming that the media are far more likely to focus on the destructive actions, rather than on
grievances or the social conditions that breed [terrorism]to present episodic rather than thematic
stories (p. 7). He argues that terror attacks between 1968 and 1980 were scarcely reported in the United
States, and that reporters do not delve deeply into the sources of conflict (p. 8). All of this is quite
contentious, with no direct evidence produced to support such statements. The media is after all a very
broad term, and to assume that it is monolithic is to replace criticism with conspiracy theory. Moreover,
even if it were true that the media always serves as a government propaganda agency, then by Stohl's
own logic, terrorism as a method of political communication is clearly futile as no rational actor would
engage in a campaign doomed to be endlessly misreported. Nevertheless, the notion that an
inherent pro-state bias vitiates terrorism studies pervades the critical
position. Anthony Burke, in The End of Terrorism Studies (pp. 37-49), asserts that established analysts
like Bruce Hoffman specifically exclude states as possible perpetrators of terror. Consequently, the
emergence of critical terrorism studies may signal the end of a particular kind of traditionally state-
focused and directed 'problem-solving' terrorism studiesat least in terms of its ability to assume that its
categories and commitments are immune from challenge and correspond to a stable picture of reality (p.
42). Elsewhere, Adrian Guelke, in Great Whites, Paedophiles and Terrorists: The Need for Critical Thinking
in a New Era of Terror (pp. 17-25), considers British government-induced media scare-mongering to
have legitimated an authoritarian approach to the purported new era of terror (pp. 22-23). Meanwhile,
Joseba Zulaika and William A. Douglass, in The Terrorist Subject: Terrorist Studies and the Absent
Subjectivity (pp. 27-36), find the War on Terror constitutes the single, all embracing paradigm of
analysis where the critical voice is not allowed to ask: what is the reality itself? (original italics) (pp. 28-
29). The construction of this condition, they further reveal, if somewhat abstrusely, reflects an abstract
desire that demands terror as an ever-present threat (p. 31). In order to sustain this fabrication:
Terrorism experts and commentators function as realist policemen; and not very smart ones at that,
who while gazing at the evidence are unable to read the paradoxical logic of the desire that fuels it,
Booth, in The Human Faces of Terror:
whereby lack turns toexcess (original italics) (p. 32). Finally, Ken
Reflections in a Cracked Looking Glass (pp. 65-79), reiterates Richard Jackson's contention
that state terrorism is a much more serious problem than non-state
terrorism (p. 76). Yet, one searches in vain in these articles for evidence to
support the ubiquitous assertion of state bias: assuming this bias in
conventional terrorism analysis as a fact seemingly does not require a
corresponding concern with evidence of this fact, merely its continual
reiteration by conceptual fiat. A critical perspective dispenses not only with
terrorism studies but also with the norms of accepted scholarship. Asserting what
needs to be demonstrated commits, of course, the elementary logical fallacy petitio principii. But critical
theory apparently emancipates (to use its favorite verb) its practitioners from the
confines of logic, reason, and the usual standards of academic inquiry. Alleging
a constitutive weakness in established scholarship without the necessity of providing proof to support it,
The unproved state centricity of
therefore, appears to define the critical posture.
terrorism studies serves as a platform for further unsubstantiated accusations
about the state of the discipline. Jackson and his fellow editors, along with later
claims by Zulaika and Douglass, and Booth, again assert that orthodox analysts rarely
bother to interview or engage with those involved in 'terrorist' activity (p. 2)
or spend any time on the ground in the areas most affected by conflict (p. 74). Given that Booth and
Jackson spend most of their time on the ground in Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, not a notably terror rich
environment if we discount the operations of Meibion Glyndwr who would as a matter of principle avoid
pob sais like Jackson and Booth, this seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. It also overlooks the
fact that Studies in Conflict and Terrorism first advertised the problem of talking to terrorists in 2001 and
has gone to great lengths to rectify this lacuna, if it is one, regularly publishing articles by analysts with
first-hand experience of groups like the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah. A consequence of
avoiding primary research, it is further alleged, leads conventional analysts uncritically to apply
psychological and problem-solving approaches to their object of study. This propensity, Booth maintains,
occasions another unrecognized weakness in traditional terrorism research, namely, an inability to engage
with the particular dynamics of the political world (p. 70). Analogously, Stohl claims that the US and
English [sic] media exhibit a tendency to psychologize terrorist acts, which reduces structural and
political problems into issues of individual pathology (p. 7). Preoccupied with this problem-solving,
psychopathologizing methodology, terrorism analysts have lost the capacity to reflect on both their
practice and their research ethics. By contrast, the critical approach is not only self-reflective, but also and,
for good measure, self-reflexive. In fact, the editors and a number of the journal's contributors use these
terms interchangeably, treating a reflection and a reflex as synonyms (p. 2). A cursory encounter with the
Shorter Oxford Dictionary would reveal that they are not. Despite this linguistically challenged
misidentification, reflexivity is made to do a lot of work in the critical idiom. Reflexivity, the editors
inform us, requires a capacity to challenge dominant knowledge and understandings, is sensitive to the
politics of labelling is transparent about its own values and political standpoints, adheres to a set of
responsible research ethics, and is committed to a broadly defined notion of emancipation (p. 2). This
covers a range of not very obviously related but critically approved virtues. Let us examine what reflexivity
involves as Stohl, Guelke, Zulaika and Douglass, Burke, and Booth explore, somewhat repetitively, its
to challenge dominant knowledge and
implications. Reflexive or Defective? Firstly,
understanding and retain sensitivity to labels leads inevitably to a fixation
with language, discourse, the ambiguity of the noun, terror, and its political
use and abuse. Terrorism, Booth enlightens the reader unremarkably, is a politically loaded term (p.
72). Meanwhile, Zulaika and Douglass consider terror the dominant tropic [sic] space in contemporary
political and journalistic discourse (p. 30). Faced with the serious challenge (Booth p. 72) and pejorative
connotation that the noun conveys, critical terrorologists turn to deconstruction and bring the full force of
postmodern obscurantism to bear on its use. Thus the editors proclaim that terrorism is one of the most
powerful signifiers in contemporary discourse. There is, moreover, a yawning gap between the 'terrorism'
signifier and the actual acts signified (p. 1). [V]irtually all of this activity, the editors pronounce ex
cathedra, refers to the response to acts of political violence not the violence itself (original italics) (p. 1).
Here again they offer no evidence for this curious assertion and assume, it would seem, all conventional
terrorism studies address issues of homeland security. In keeping with this critical orthodoxy that he has
done much to define, Anthony Burke also asserts the instability (and thoroughly politicized nature) of the
unifying master-terms of our field: 'terror' and 'terrorism' (p. 38). To address this he contends that a
critical stance requires us to keep this radical instability and inherent politicization of the concept of
terrorism at the forefront of its analysis. Indeed, without a conscious reflexivity about the most basic
definition of the object, our discourse will not be critical at all (p. 38). More particularly, drawing on a
jargon-infused amalgam of Michel Foucault's identification of a relationship between power and knowledge,
the neo-Marxist Frankfurt School's critique of democratic false consciousness, mixed with the
existentialism of the Third Reich's favorite philosopher, Martin Heidegger, Burke questions the question.
This intellectual potpourri apparently enables the critical theorist to question the ontological status of a
'problem' before any attempt to map out, study or resolve it (p. 38). Interestingly, Burke, Booth, and the
symposistahood deny that there might be objective data about violence or that a properly focused
strategic study of terrorism would not include any prescriptive goodness or rightness of action. While a
strategic theorist or a skeptical social scientist might claim to consider only the complex relational
situation that involves as well as the actions, the attitude of human beings to them, the critical theorist's
The critical approach to language and
radical questioning of language denies this possibility.
its deconstruction of an otherwise useful, if imperfect, political vocabulary
has been the source of much confusion and inconsequentiality in the practice
of the social sciences. It dates from the relativist pall that French radical post structural
philosophers like Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, Foucault, and Jacques Derrida, cast over the social and
historical sciences in order to demonstrate that social and political knowledge depended on and
underpinned power relations that permeated the landscape of the social and reinforced the liberal
This radical assault on the possibility of either neutral fact or
democratic state.
value ultimately functions unfalsifiably, and as a substitute for philosophy,
social science, and a real theory of language. The problem with the critical approach is
that, as the Australian philosopher John Anderson demonstrated, to achieve a genuine study one must
either investigate the facts that are talked about or the fact that they are talked about in a certain way.
More precisely, as J.L. Mackie explains, if we concentrate on the uses of language we fall between these
two stools, and we are in danger of taking our discoveries about manners of speaking as answers to
questions about what is there.2 Indeed,in so far as an account of the use of language
spills over into ontology it is liable to be a confused mixture of what should be
two distinct investigations: the study of the facts about which the language is
used, and the study of the linguistic phenomena themselves. It is precisely,
however, this confused mixture of fact and discourse that critical thinking seeks
to impose on the study of terrorism and infuses the practice of critical theory
more generally. From this confused seed no coherent method grows. What is To
Be Done? This ontological confusion notwithstanding, Ken Booth sees critical theory not only
exposing the dubious links between power and knowledge in established
terrorism studies, but also offering an ideological agenda that transforms the
face of global politics. [C]ritical knowledge, Booth declares, involves understandings of the
social world that attempt to stand outside prevailing structures, processes, ideologies and orthodoxies
while recognizing that all conceptualizations within the ambit of sociality derive from particular
social/historical conditions (original italics) (p. 78). Helpfully, Booth, assuming the manner of an Old
Testament prophet, provides his critical disciples with big-picture navigation aids (original italics) (p. 66)
to achieve this higher knowledge. Booth promulgates fifteen commandments (as Clemenceau remarked of
Woodrow Wilson's nineteen points, in a somewhat different context, God Almighty only gave us ten).
When not stating the staggeringly obvious, the Ken Commandments are hopelessly contradictory.
Critical theorists thus should avoid exceptionalizing the study of terrorism ,3
recognize that states can be agents of terrorism, and keep the long term in
sight. Unexceptional advice to be sure and long recognized by more
traditional students of terrorism. The critical student, if not fully conversant
with critical doublethink, however, might find the fact that she or he lives
within Powerful theories that are constitutive of political, social, and
economic life (6th Commandment, p. 71), sits uneasily with Booth's concluding
injunction to stand outside prevailing ideologies (p. 78). In his preferred imperative
idiom, Booth further contends that terrorism is best studied in the context of an academic international
relations whose role is not only to interpret the world but to change it (pp. 67-68). Significantly,
academicor more precisely, criticalinternational relations, holds no place for a realist appreciation of
the status quo but approves instead a Marxist ideology of praxis. It is within this transformative praxis that
critical theory situates terrorism and terrorists. The political goals of those non-state entities that choose to
practice the tactics of terrorism invariably seek a similar transformative praxis and this leads critical
global theorizing into a curiously confused empathy with the motives of those engaged in such acts, as
well as a disturbing relativism. Thus, Booth again decrees that the gap between those who hate terrorism
and those who carry it out, those who seek to delegitimize the acts of terrorists and those who incite them,
and those who abjure terror and those who glorify itis not as great as is implied or asserted by orthodox
terrorism experts, the discourse of governments, or the popular press (p. 66). The gap between us/them
is a slippery slope, not an unbridgeable political and ethical chasm (p. 66). So, while terrorist actions are
alwayswithout exceptionwrong, they nevertheless might be contingently excusable (p. 66). From this
ultimately relativist perspective gang raping a defenseless woman, an act of terror on any critical or
uncritical scale of evaluation, is, it would seem, wrong but potentially excusable. On the basis of this
worrying relativism a further Ken Commandment requires the abolition of the discourse of evil on the
somewhat questionable grounds that evil releases agents from responsibility (pp. 74-75). This not only
reveals a profound ignorance of theology, it also underestimates what Eric Voeglin identified as a central
feature of the appeal of modern political religions from the Third Reich to Al Qaeda. As Voeglin observed in
1938, the Nazis represented an attractive force. To understand that force requires not the abolition of
evil [so necessary to the relativist] but comprehending its attractiveness. Significantly, as Barry Cooper
argues, its attractiveness, [like that of al Qaeda] cannot fully be understood apart from its evilness. 4 The
line of relativist inquiry that critical theorists like Booth evince toward terrorism leads in fact not to moral
clarity but an inspissated moral confusion. This is paradoxical given that the editors make much in the
journal's introductory symposium of their responsible research ethics. The paradox is resolved when one
realizes that critical moralizing demands the ethics of responsibility to the terrorist other. For Ken Booth it
involves, it appears, empathizing with the ethic of responsibility faced by those who, in extremis have
some explosives (p. 76). Anthony Burke contends that a critically self-conscious normativism requires the
analyst, not only to critique the strategic languages of the West, but also to take in the side of the
Other or more particularly engage with the highly developed forms of thinking that provides groups
like Al Qaeda with legitimizing foundations and a world view of some profundity (p. 44). This additionally
demands a capacity not only to empathize with the other, but also to recognize that both Osama bin
Laden in his Messages to the West and Sayyid Qutb in his Muslim Brotherhood manifesto Milestones not
only offer well observed criticisms of Western decadence, but also converges with elements of critical
theory (p. 45). This is not surprising given that both Islamist and critical theorists share an analogous
contempt for Western democracy, the market, and the international order these structures inhabit and
have done much to shape. Histrionically Speaking Critical theory, then, embraces relativism not only
toward language but also toward social action. Relativism and the bizarre ethicism it engenders in its
attempt to empathize with the terrorist other are, moreover, histrionic. As Leo Strauss classically inquired
of this relativist tendency in the social sciences, is such an understanding dependent upon our own
commitment or independent of it? Strauss explains, if it is independent, I am committed as an actor and I
am uncommitted in another compartment of myself in my capacity as a social scientist. In that latter
capacity I am completely empty and therefore completely open to the perception and appreciation of all
commitments or value systems. I go through the process of empathetic understanding in order to reach
clarity about my commitment for only a part of me is engaged in my empathetic understanding. This
means, however, that such understanding is not serious or genuine but histrionic. 5 It is also profoundly
dependent on Western liberalism. For it is only in an open society that questions the values it promotes
that the issue of empathy with the non-Western other could arise. The critical theorist's explicit loathing of
the openness that affords her histrionic posturing obscures this constituting fact. On the basis of this
histrionic empathy with the other, critical theory concludes that democratic states do not always abjure
acts of terror whether to advance their foreign policy objectives or to buttress order at home (p. 73).
Consequently, Ken Booth asserts: If terror can be part of the menu of choice for the relatively strong, it is
hardly surprising it becomes a weapon of the relatively weak (p. 73). Zulaika and Douglass similarly
assert that terrorism is always a weapon of the weak (p. 33). At the core of this critical,
ethicist, relativism therefore lies a syllogism that holds all violence is terror :
Western states use violence, therefore, Western states are terrorist . Further,
the greater terrorist uses the greater violence: Western governments exercise
the greater violence. Therefore, it is the liberal democracies rather than Al
Qaeda that are the greater terrorists. In its desire to empathize with the transformative ends,
if not the means of terrorism generally and Islamist terror in particular, critical theory reveals itself as a
form of Marxist unmasking. Thus, for Booth terror has multiple forms (original italics) and the real terror
is economic, the product it would seem of global capitalism (p. 75). Only the engagee intellectual
academic finding in deconstructive criticism the philosophical weapons that reveal the illiberal neo-
conservative purpose informing the conventional study of terrorism and the democratic state's prosecution
of counterterrorism can identify the real terror lurking behind the manipulation of the politics of fear (p.
75). Moreover, the resolution of this condition of escalating violence requires not any strategic solution that
Booth, Burke,
creates security as the basis for development whether in London or Kabul. Instead,
and the editors contend that the only solution to the world-historical crisis
that is facing human society globally (p. 76) is universal human
emancipation. This, according to Burke, is the normative end that critical theory pursues.
Following Jurgen Habermas, the godfather of critical theory, terrorism is really a form of distorted
communication. The solution to this problem of failed communication resides not only in the improvement
of living conditions, and the political taming of unbounded capitalism, but also in the telos of mutual
understanding. Only through this telos with its strong normative bias towards non violence (p. 43) can a
In other words, the only ethical
universal condition of peace and justice transform the globe.
solution to terrorism is conversation: sitting around an un-coerced table
presided over by Kofi Annan, along with Ken Booth, Osama bin Laden,
President Obama, and some European Union pacifist sandalista, a
transcendental communicative reason will emerge to promulgate norms of
transformative justice. As Burke enunciates, the panacea of un-coerced communication would
establish a secularism that might create an enduring architecture of basic shared values (p. 46). In the
end, un-coerced norm projection is not concerned with the world as it is, but
how it ought to be. This not only compounds the logical errors that permeate
critical theory, it advances an ultimately utopian agenda under the guise of
soi-disant cosmopolitanism where one somewhat vaguely recognizes the
human interconnection and mutual vulnerability to nature, the cosmos and
each other (p. 47) and no doubt bursts into spontaneous chanting of Kumbaya .
In analogous visionary terms, Booth defines real security as emancipation in a way that denies any
definitional rigor to either term. The struggle against terrorism is, then, a struggle for emancipation from
the oppression of political violence everywhere. Consequently, in this Manichean struggle for global
emancipation against the real terror of Western democracy,Booth further maintains that
universities have a crucial role to play. This also is something of a concern for
those who do not share the critical vision, as university international relations
departments are not now, it would seem, in business to pursue dispassionate
analysis but instead are to serve as cheerleaders for this critically inspired
vision. Overall, the journal's fallacious commitment to emancipation undermines any ostensible claim to
pluralism and diversity. Over determined by this transformative approach to world
politics, it necessarily denies the possibility of a realist or prudential
appreciation of politics and the promotion not of universal solutions but
pragmatic ones that accept the best that may be achieved in the
circumstances. Ultimately, to present the world how it ought to be rather than as
it is conceals a deep intolerance notable in the contempt with which many of
the contributors to the journal appear to hold Western politicians and the Western
media.6 It is the exploitation of this oughtistic style of thinking that leads the
critic into a Humpty Dumpty world where words mean exactly what the
critical theorist chooses them to meanneither more nor less. However, in
order to justify their disciplinary niche they have to insist on the failure of
established modes of terrorism study . Having identified a source of government grants and
academic perquisites, critical studies in fact does not deal with the notion of terrorism as such, but instead
the manner in which the Western liberal democratic state has supposedly manipulated the use of violence
by non-state actors in order to other minority communities and create a politics of fear. Critical Studies
and Strategic TheoryA Missed Opportunity Of course, the doubtful contribution of critical theory by no
means implies that all is well with what one might call conventional terrorism studies. The subject area has
in the past produced superficial assessments that have done little to contribute to an informed
understanding of conflict. This is a point readily conceded by John Horgan and Michael Boyle who put A
Case Against 'Critical Terrorism Studies' (pp. 51-74). Although they do not seek to challenge the agenda,
assumptions, and contradictions inherent in the critical approach, their contribution to the new journal
distinguishes itself by actually having a well-organized and well-supported argument. The authors'
willingness to acknowledge deficiencies in some terrorism research shows that critical self-
reflection is already present in existing terrorism studies . It is ironic, in fact, that the
most clearly reflective, original, and critical contribution in the first edition should come from established
terrorism researchers who critique the critical position. Interestingly, the specter haunting both
conventional and critical terrorism studies is that both assume that terrorism is an existential
phenomenon, and thus has causes and solutions. Burke makes this explicit: The inauguration of this
journal, he declares, indeed suggests broad agreement that there is a phenomenon called terrorism (p.
39). Yet this is not the only way of looking at terrorism. For a strategic theorist the notion of terrorism does
not exist as an independent phenomenon. It is an abstract noun. More precisely, it is merely a tacticthe
creation of fear for political endsthat can be employed by any social actor, be it state or non-state, in any
strategic theory offers
context, without any necessary moral value being involved. Ironically, then,
a far more critical perspective on terrorism than do the perspectives
advanced in this journal. Guelke, for example, propounds a curiously orthodox standpoint when
he asserts: to describe an act as one of terrorism, without the qualification of quotation marks to indicate
the author's distance from such a judgement, is to condemn it as absolutely illegitimate (p. 19). If you are
Terrorism is simply a method to achieve an
a strategic theorist this is an invalid claim.
end. Any moral judgment on the act is entirely separate. To fuse the two is a
category mistake. In strategic theory, which Guelke ignores, terrorism does not, ipso facto, denote
absolutely illegitimate violence. Intriguingly, Stohl, Booth, and Burke also imply that a strategic
understanding forms part of their critical viewpoint. Booth, for instance, argues in one of his
commandments that terrorism should be seen as a conscious human choice. Few strategic theorists would
disagree. Similarly, Burke feels that there does appear to be a consensus that terrorism is a form of
instrumental political violence (p. 38). The problem for the contributors to this volume is that they cannot
emancipate themselves from the very orthodox assumption that the word terrorism is pejorative. That may
be the popular understanding of the term, but inherently terrorism conveys no necessary connotation of
moral condemnation. Is terrorism a form of warfare, insurgency, struggle, resistance, coercion, atrocity, or
All violence is
great political crime, Burke asks rhetorically. But once more he misses the point.
instrumental. Grading it according to whether it is insurgency, resistance, or
atrocity is irrelevant. Any strategic actor may practice forms of warfare. For this
reason Burke's further claim that existing definitions of terrorism have
specifically excluded states as possible perpetrators and privilege them as
targets, is wholly inaccurate (p. 38). Strategic theory has never excluded state-directed
terrorism as an object of study, and neither for that matter, as Horgan and Boyle point out, have more
conventional studies of terrorism. Yet, Burke offersas a critical revelationthat the strategic intent
behind the US bombing of North Vietnam and Cambodia, Israel's bombing of Lebanon, or the sanctions
against Iraq is also terrorist. He continues: My point is not to remind us that states practise terror, but to
show how mainstream strategic doctrines are terrorist in these terms and undermine any prospect of
achieving the normative consensus if such terrorism is to be reduced and eventually eliminated (original
italics) (p. 41). This is not merely confused, it displays remarkable nescience on the part of one engaged in
teaching the next generation of graduates from the Australian Defence Force Academy. Strategic theory
conventionally recognizes that actions on the part of state or non-state actors that aim to create fear (such
as the allied aerial bombing of Germany in World War II or the nuclear deterrent posture of Mutually
Assured Destruction) can be terroristic in nature. 7 The problem for critical analysts like Burke is that they
impute their own moral valuations to the term terror. Strategic theorists do not. Moreover, the statement
that this undermines any prospect that terrorism can be eliminated is illogical: you can never eliminate an
those interested in a truly critical approach to the
abstract noun. Consequently,
subject should perhaps turn to strategic theory for some relief from the
strictures that have traditionally governed the study of terrorism, not to self-
proclaimed critical theorists who only replicate the flawed understandings of
those whom they criticize. Horgan and Boyle conclude their thoughtful article by claiming that
critical terrorism studies has more in common with traditional terrorism research than critical theorists
would possibly like to admit. These reviewers agree: they are two sides of the same coin. Conclusion In the
looking glass world of critical terror studies the conventional analysis of terrorism is ontologically
challenged, lacks self-reflexivity, and is policy oriented. By contrast, critical theory's ethicist, yet relativist,
and deconstructive gaze reveals that we are all terrorists now and must empathize with those sub-state
actors who have recourse to violence for whatever motive. Despite their intolerable othering by media and
governments, terrorists are really no different from us. In fact, there is terror as the weapon of the weak
and the far worse economic and coercive terror of the liberal state. Terrorists therefore deserve empathy
At the core of this understanding sits a radical
and they must be discursively engaged.
pacifism and an idealism that requires not the status quo but communication
and human emancipation. Until this radical post-national utopia arrives both
force and the discourse of evil must be abandoned and instead therapy and
un-coerced conversation must be practiced. In the popular ABC drama Boston Legal
Judge Brown perennially referred to the vague, irrelevant, jargon-ridden
statements of lawyers as jibber jabber. The Aberystwyth-based school of critical
internationalist utopianism that increasingly dominates the study of
international relations in Britain and Australia has refined a higher order
incoherence that may be termed Aber jabber. The pages of the journal of
Critical Studies on Terrorism are its natural home.
AT Kellner
No link this is about the speed of war they have no
evidence thats a consequence of the war on terror
AT Jabri
Jabris wrong
243]
peace is revealed to be perpetual war (Reid, 2006: 18). Perhaps the most radical abstract
framing of global war is that of Giorgio Agamben. In his seminal work Homo Sacer,
he reframed Foucaults understanding of biopower in terms of the totalizing control over bare life, arguing
that the exemplary places of modern biopolitics [were] the concentration camp and the structure of the
great totalitarian states of the twentieth century (Agamben, 1998: 4; see also Chandler, 2009a).
Agambens view of liberal power is that of the concentration camp writ globally, where we are all merely
objects of power, we are all virtually homines sacri (Agamben, 1998: 115). In focusing on biopower as a
means of critiquing universalist policy discourses of global security,
assumed from the outset. In effect, the critical aspect is merely in the reproduction of the
framework of Foucault that liberal discourses can be deconstructed as an exercise of regulatory power.
Without deconstructing the dominant framings of global security threats, critical theorists are in danger of
reproducing Foucaults framework of biopower as an ahistorical abstraction. Foucault (2007: 1) himself
stated that his analysis of biopower was not in any way a general theory of what power is. It is not a part
or even the start of such a theory, merely the study of the effects of liberal governance practices, which
posit as their goal the interests of society the population rather than government. In his recent attempt
at a ground-clearing critique of Foucauldian international relations theorizing, Jan Selby (2007) poses the
question of the problem of the translation of Foucault from a domestic to an international context. He
argues that recasting the international sphere in terms of global liberal regimes of regulation is an
accidental product of this move. This fails to appreciate the fact that many critical theorists appear to be
drawn to Foucault precisely because drawing on his work enables them to critique the international order
in these terms. Ironically, this Foucauldian critique of global wars has little to do with Foucaults
understanding or concerns, which revolved around extending Marxs critique of the freedoms of liberal
modernity. In effect, the post-Foucauldians have a different goal: they desire to understand and to critique
war and military intervention as a product of the regulatory coercive nature of liberalism. This project owes
much to the work of Agamben and his focus on the regulation of bare life, where the concentration camp,
the totalitarian state and (by extension) Guantnamo Bay are held to constitute a moral and political
indictment of liberalism (Agamben, 1998: 4). In these critical frameworks, global war
is understood as the exercise of global aspirations for control, no
longer mediated by the interstate competition that was central to traditional
realist framings of international relations. This less-mediated framework
understands the interests and instrumental techniques of power in
global terms. As power becomes understood in globalized terms , it
becomes increasingly abstracted from any analysis of contemporary
social relations : viewed in terms of neoliberal governance, liberal
power or biopolitical domination. In this context, global war
becomes little more than a metaphor for the operation of power.
This war is a global one because, without clearly demarcated political subjects, the
unmediated operation of regulatory power is held to construct a
world that becomes, literally, one large concentration camp
(Agamben, 1998: 171) where instrumental techniques of power can be exercised regardless of
frameworks of rights or international law (Agamben, 2005: 87). For Julian Reid (2006: 124), the
global war on terror can be understood as an inevitable response
to any forms of life that exist outside and are therefore
threatening to liberal modernity, revealing liberal modernity itself
to be ultimately a terrorising project arraigned against the vitality
of life itself. For Jabri, and other Foucauldian critics, the liberal peace can only
mean unending war to pacify, discipline and reconstruct the liberal subject:
AT Islamophobia Impact
Our nuanced account solves we never said there was a
vague, amorphous threat of terrorism weve identified
specific groups and vectors solves their kritik of
generality
Quantitative research is useful and is a stable correct

epistemology
Haynes 10 (Carter, phd candidate in org studies @ UCSB A Case for Flexible
Epistemology and Metamethodology in Religious Fundamentalism Research
INTEGRAL REVIEW Vol. 6, No. 3 http://www.integral-
review.org/documents/Haynes,%20Religious%20Fundamentalism
%20Research,%20Vol.%206,%20No.%203.pdf
As can be seen from this sampling of quantitative research studies
on religious fundamentalism, important knowledge has been
produced using these methodologies. The observant reader will have noticed that all
the studies cited thus far have investigated North American fundamentalist movements. Quantitative
found. To the extent that
studies of non-Western fundamentalist groups were sought but not
religious constructs can be quantified, the relationships between
phenomena such as authoritarianism, political affiliation, policy
preference, dogmatism, social and gender issues, prejudice, and
aggression can be analyzed as a source of descriptive and
comparative data. One of the strengths of quantitative methods is
that otherwise amorphous concepts and confusing relationships can
be presented logically and, often, with clarity. The value of being
able to compare fundamentalism directly with other known
behavioral phenomena is immense, and the empirical sensibility that
originally grew out of positivist epistemology brought us this
common language of quantified constructs.
1ar EXT CTS Indict
Their criticism is based on a poorly researched caricature
of terrorism studies, orthodox analysis includes a self-
reflexive element that makes the permutation more likely
to succeed than the alternative. Pure rejection of the
Western social order wont replace terrorism discourse
and is likely to reinforce the totalitarian impulse of al
Qaeda
Schmid 9 - Chair in International Relations; the Director of the Centre for the
Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at St. Andrews University(Alex,
Perspectives on Terrorism, v.3, issue 4, Book Review of Critical Terrorism
Studies. A new research agenda. by Richard Jackson,
http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php?
option=com_rokzine&view=article&id=96
The editors accuse, in their introduction the orthodox field of orthodox terrorism studies of functioning
ideologically in the service of existing power structures, with their academic research. Furthermore, they
claim that orthodox scholars are frequently being used to legitimise coercive intervention in the global
South. (p.6). The present volume is edited by three authors associated with the Centre for the Study of
Radicalisation and Contemporary Political Violence (CSRV) in the Department of International Politics in
Aberystwyth (Wales, UK). They also happen to be editors of a new Routledge journal Critical Studies on
Terrorism . The critical refers principally but not exclusively to the Frankfurt-via-Welsh School Critical
Theory Perspective. The twelve contributors are not all equally critical in aHabermasian sense. The
programmatic introduction of the editors is followed by two solid chapters from Magnus Ranstorp (former
Director of CSTPV, St. Andrews, and currently Director of the Centre for Asymmetric Threat Studies at the
Swedish National Defence College) and Andrew Silke (formerly with the UK Home Office and now Field
Leader for Criminology at the University of East London). They both rightfully criticize some of the past sins
and present shortcomings of the field of Terrorism Studies. One of them approvingly quotes Marc Sageman
who observed that disagreements among experts are the driving force of the scientific enterprise. Such
disagreements, however, exist among orthodox scholars like Sageman and Hoffman or
Pape and Abrams. In that sense, the claim by some critical theorists that the field of
traditional Terrorism Studies is ossified without them, is simply is not true .
One of the problems with many of the adherents of the critical school is
that the focus is almost exclusively on the strawman they set up to shoot -
orthodox terrorism discourse rather than on the practitioners of terrorism .
Richard Jackson claims that most of what is accepted as well-founded
knowledge in terrorism studies is, in fact, highly debatable and unstable
(p.74), dismissing thereby almost four decades of scholarship as based on a
series of virulent myths, half-truths and contested claimsbiased towards
Western state priorities (p.80). For him terrorism isa social fact rather than a brute fact and
does not exist outside of the definitions and practices which seek to enclose it, including those of the
terrorism studies field (pp.75-76). He objects to prevailing problem-solving theories of terrorism in
Another
favour of an approach that questions the status quo and the dominant acts within it (p.77).
contributor, J.A. Sluka, argues, without offering any proof, that terrorism is
fundamentally a product of social inequality and state politics (p. 139). Behind
many of the critical theorists who blame mainstream terrorism research for
taking the world as it finds it there is an agenda for changing the status quo
and overthrowing existing power structures . There is, in itself, nothing wrong
with wanting a new and better world order. However, it is not going to be
achieved by using an alternative discourse on terrorism and counter-
terrorism. Toros and Gunning, contributors of another chapter, state that the sine qua non of Critical
Theory is emancipation (p. 99) and M. McDonald als puts emancipation as central to the study of
terrorism (p.121). However, there is not a single word on the non-emancipated position of women under
One of the
Islam in general or among the Taliban and their friends from al-Qaeda in particular.
strength (some argue weakness) of Western thinking is its ability for self-criticism
something largely absent in the Muslim world. In that sense, this volume falls within a Western tradition.
However, self-criticism should not come at the cost of not criticising adversaries by using the same
yardstick. In this sense, this volume is strangely silent about the worldview of those terrorists who have no
self-doubts and attack the Red Cross, the United Nations, NGOs and their fellow Muslims with equal lack of
A number of authors in the volume appear to equate terrorism
scruples.
uncritically with political violence in general while in fact it is more usefully
thought of as one of some twenty sub-categories of political violence - one
characterized by deliberate attacks on civilians and non-combatants in order
to intimidate, coerce or otherwise manipulate various audiences and parties
to a conflict. Part of the volume advocates reinventing the wheel. J. Gunning, for instance,
recommends to employ Social Movement Theory for the study of terrorism. However, that theory has been
employed already explicitly or implicitly by a number of more orthodox scholars, e.g. Donatella della Porta.
Many critical statements in the volume are unsupported by convincing
evidence, e.g. when C. Sylvester and S. Parashar state The September 11 attacks and the ongoing war
on terror reinforce gender hierarchy and power in international relations (p.190). Jackson claims
that the key question for critical terrorism theory is who is terrorism
research for and how does terrorism knowledge support particular interests?
(p.224) It does not seem to occur to him that he could have studied this
question by looking at the practitioners of terrorism and study al-Qaedas
ideological writings and its training and recruiting manuals. If CTS is a call
for making a commitment to emancipatory praxis central to the research
enterprise (R. Jackson et al, p. 228), CTS academics should be the first on the
barricades against jihadists who treat women not as equals and who would, if
they get their way, eradicate freedom of thought and religion for all mankind. It is sad
that some leading proponents of Critical Terrorism Studies appear to be in
fact uncritical and blind on one eye.
Their understanding of terror means nothing and is

unhelpful for policymaking
Lutz 10 (James M. Lutz, professor at Indiana University, A Critical View of
Critical Terrorism Studies, Perspectives on Terrorism, Volume 4, Issue 6,
December 2010)
It needs to be recognized that not every form of violence that is evil
or reprehensible, when performed by governments, constitutes
terrorism. Genocide is far worse than terrorism, but genocide does
not primarily seek to create fear in a target audience. In fact governments
undertaking genocide may even seek to lull the victims into a false sense of security to make the killing
easier. This was the case with the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, the Jews during the Holocaust and,
more recently, according to some reports, also with the Tutsi in Rwanda. Similarly,
harsh
repression of non-violent dissent is evil, but it is usually not
terrorism as long as it is not indiscriminate. Slavery is a pernicious
attack on human dignity, but it is not terrorism. Institutional
violence in which some citizens have fewer rights or situations
where equal rights are not equally protected are to be deplored, but
it is not terrorism (unless accompanied by government-tolerated vigilante violence intended to
enforce the control of particular groups). It is quite legitimate and desirable to focus public and scholarly
attention on these issues, but it is not appropriate to consider them to be examples of terrorism. To fault
those who study other forms of terrorism than state terrorism, as CTS scholars do, is unjust since these
it
type of situations are actually frequently analyzed in other academic (sub-)disciplines. Therefore,
cannot be said that orthodox analysts refuse to examine cases of
state terrorism (very broadly defined). [20] If almost every example of government use of force
to maintain law and order is labeled state terrorism, then the concept of terrorism
ceases to have any real meaning and simply becomes a polemic
term used to apply a negative and pejorative label to a government
or states that an observer dislikes. Supporters of the CTS perspective also
argue that the conventional approach to terrorism noticeably
ignores the violence involved in the counterterrorism strategies of
governments. They further argue that governments take advantage of the presence of dissident
terrorist actions to crack down on opponents to the regime in power. It has even been suggested that the
recent wave of attacks by dissident groups has led governments to manufacture a new concept of
terrorism in order to further the interests of the elite. [21] Governments in many circumstances have
indeed long used threats and acts of violent protest from dissidents as often not unwelcome pretexts for
manipulation of public
crackdowns on dissenters or for other political purposes. Such
events, however, does not necessarily qualify as terrorism even when it
frequently involves manipulation and repression. The use of dissident actions
as an excuse for government repression or the excesses of counterterrorism have also been cited by CT
scholars to allege that the conventional orthodox terrorism perspective is flawed in another way.
1ar EXT CT Good
Counter-terrorism is successful best data
Price 12 - major in the U.S. Army and former Assistant Professor of Social
Sciences at the U.S. Military Academy (Bryan, Targeting Top Terrorists
International Security, Spring, http://shakes31471.typepad.com/files/how-
leadership-decapitation-contributes-to-counterterrorism.pdf)
This article has advanced an argument that runs counter to the near
scholarly consensus that leadership decapitation has been
ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst in the fight against terrorist
groups.138 I argue that terrorist groups are susceptible to decapitation
because they have unique organizational characteristics (they are
violent, clandestine, and values-based organizations) that amplify
the importance of leaders and make leadership succession difficult . To
provide evidence for this claim, I eschewed short-term metrics and instead
analyzed the effects of leadership decapitation on the mortality rate
of terrorist groups over a longer period of time . My study yielded six primary findings.
First, decapitated terrorist groups have a significantly higher mortality
rate than nondecapitated groups. Regardless of how I specified the duration of the effect from
leadership decapitation (i.e., whether I limited it to the year in which decapitation occurred, limited it to two years, or
allowed it to linger indefinitely), killing or capturing a terrorist leader increased the mortality rate of the group. There is no
guarantee, however, that organizational death will be immediate; only 30 percent of decapitated groups (40 of 131)
the earlier leadership decapitation
ended within two years of losing their leader. Second,
occurs in a terrorist groups life cycle, the greater the effect it will
have on the groups mortality rate. Additionally, the magnitude of this effect decreases over
time. Killing or capturing a terrorist leader in the first year of the
groups existence makes the group more than eight times as likely
to end than a nondecapitated group. The effects, however, diminish by half in the first ten
years, and after approximately twenty years, leadership decapitation may have no effect on the groups mortality rate.
This finding is in line with the conclusion of other scholars who argue that a terrorist groups organizational capacity
increases with age, making it more durable with time.139 Third, all three methods of leadership
decapitation in this studykilling, capturing, or capturing and then
killing the leadersignificantly increase the mortality rate of
terrorist groups. The relative ranking of each method differs according to how one specifies the duration of
the decapitation effect, but even then, the effect is statistically indistinguishable across all three methods. Fourth, any
type of leadership turnover, not just decapitation, increases the
mortality rate of terrorist groups. This is an important finding because states may not have to
kill or capture a leader to hasten the groups demise. Fifth, group size does not affect terrorist group duration. Smaller
groups are just as durable as larger groups, and groups of different size react similarly after losing a leader. Sixth, contrary
I found that religious terrorist groups were less
to findings in other studies,140
resilient and easier to destroy than nationalist groups following
leadership decapitation. Although religious groups appear to be 80
percent less likely to end than nationalist groups based on ideology
alone, they were almost five times as likely to end than nationalist
groups after experiencing leadership decapitation. I believe this is because of the
important role leaders of religious terrorist groups play in framing and interpreting organizational goals and strategies.
states that are willing to employ leadership decapitation
Given these findings,
as part of their counterterrorism strategy should target terrorist
group leaders as early as possible and allocate their resources accordingly. As terrorist groups
age, especially as they approach the twenty-year mark, states might consider reducing the amount of resources aimed at
killing and capturing the groups leadership and instead invest in other counterterrorism initiatives. States that are
unwilling to employ decapitation tactics, whether for moral or legal reasons, or fear of the retaliatory boomerang
The findings
effect,141 can still achieve similar effects without lethally targeting terrorist leaders.
suggest that states can hasten a terrorist groups demise by
exploiting intra-organizational rifts and removing the leader either
through shaming or by pitting one group faction against another.142 It
is unclear, however, how long these internal processes would take to remove the leader, not to mention how difficult it is
to implement this type of strategy in the first place. Ultimately, states must weigh the costs and benefits associated with
implementing decapitation strategies.
Transphobia
2ac F/L
is unlimited and self-serving --- voter for fairness and
education
Legalism is vital to challenge transphobia

Armstrong 14 (Susan M. Armstrong is a nationally recognized legal educator
whose accomplishments have been acknowledged by the LexisNexis-
Australasian Law Teachers Association Award for Excellence and Innovation
in the Teaching of Law. She was a foundational appointment to the new
University of Western Sydney School of Law in 1996 and, before that, held
research and policy positions in the Family Court of Australia and the
Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal, 7/8/14, "Is Feminist Law
Reform Flawed? Abstentionists & Sceptics," pg. online @
www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13200968.2004.10854323//DM)
Feminists have generally been ambivalent about whether law could or should be used as a tool for feminist action and strategy. Early feminist
legal scholarship implicated law as central to a patriarchal political structure which reinforced womens subordination. Politically committed to
changing this, feminists sought to use law to address the unequal conditions under which many women live, but lamented the failure of
feminist law reforms to achieve lasting or meaningful change.1 Some questioned whether law or legal method could ever respond to gendered
claims and concluded that law was largely impervious to feminist perspectives.2 Others doubted that a feminist jurisprudence was possible.3
Frustrated by what they

Still others became disillusioned by the law reform project altogether.
considered to be the nave assumptions that informed feminist law

reform and the paucity of its results, they cautioned feminists to
abstain from reform and sought to engage differently with law.4
However, feminists are still challenged by the urgency and
magnitude of the inequalities many women continue to experience.
Chastened by law reform failures and informed by developments within feminist legal theory, many feminists feel compelled to engage in legal
reformist projects. This paper revisits debates within legal feminism about the merits of engaging with law reform. I survey a spectrum of
feminist approaches to reformism to argue that feminist law reform is not flawed. There is
still scope, indeed necessity, for reform in a transformative feminist
project. British sociologists and feminists working in the field of domestic violence have described those supportive of legal
interventions as sceptical reformers and those who reject engagement with law and law reform as abstentionists.5 Whilst this
categorisation was not solely directed at feminist analyses of law reform, and simplifies the complexity and range of critical feminist legal
is a useful framework for appraising feminist approaches

scholarship, it to law
reform. Although I adopt this dualism as a shorthand to describe different approaches to law reform, it is more useful to situate these
approaches along a continuum of readiness to engage in law reform, with abstentionists at one end and sceptics at the other. Nor do I wish to
make too much of these distinctions. As Mari Matsuda reminds us, feminists and other outsiders may
need to adopt elements of a multiple consciousness appropriate to
the circumstances. Like Angela Davis, they may be compelled to
embrace legalism as a tool of necessity to attack injustice, yet at
other times stand outside the courtroom door, condemning the abuse of law to sustain
I prefer the term sceptical pragmatists to describe
oppression and domination.6
feminists willing to engage in law reform . They share with legal

pragmatists an acceptance that law can, and in some instances
must, be used in an instrumentalist sense to achieve some broader
social goal, or to limit the erosion of existing entitlements, but they are sceptical because they appreciate the political limitations
and practical difficulties associated with law reform. The discussion below is not an exhaustive review of feminist scholarship dealing with law
reform, but focuses on a few of those whose work is emblematic of these approaches. Whilst the feminists reviewed may not necessarily
categorise themselves as abstentionists or sceptics, and their body of work does not unambiguously present either perspective, these terms
do reflect a tendency in their scholarship.
Perm do both both the plan and alt are a critique of

current body scanning tech there are dozens of checks
on private sector abuses airports can screen private
procedures for transphobic implications they can
respond to trans complaints all of those policies are
methodological implications of the alt which means it isnt
intrinsic
Perm do the alt as a justification for the plan resisting

the TSA is compatible with endorsing private screening
Jilani 14 Zaid, writer for Alternet, "Why Is Ezra Klein's Vox Parroting Right-
Wing Talking Points About Privatizing the TSA?" 5/29
http://www.alternet.org/media/why-ezra-kleins-vox-parroting-right-wing-
talking-points-about-privatizing-tsa
Between 2011 and 2012, despite aggressive and sustained opposition from right-wing
politicians and pundits, 45,000 transportation security officers at the
Transportation Security Administration won their first-ever labor contract, thanks to a
hardened organizing drve by the American Federation of Government
Employees. Its no surprise that the agency soon came under intense attack from
Republicans and D.C. lobbyists who normally utter nary a word about civil
liberties. These Republicans, like Rep. John Mica (R-FL), whose campaign coffers are lined with cash from private
security contractors who want to displace the TSA, made clear that their goal was to privatize the agency meaning they
were okay with security procedures some viewed as intrusive, but they wanted profit-making, non-unionized corporations
to be the ones doing these searches, not one of Americas newest unionized public workforces.
Earlier this
week, Vox.com a new website run by wunderkind Ezra Klein that promises to explain the
news in an objective manner setting itself apart from supposedly more
ideological media on the left and right piled onto this campaign by publishing an
article called The Case for Abolishing The TSA . To the pieces author, Dylan Matthews, abolishing
the TSA isnt a tough call rather, its just a matter of objective data that shows the agency is virtually a waste of
resources, and that the responsibility of airline security should be privatized and carried out by the airlines themselves.
Its worth remembering that the inconvenience and injustice of the TSAs activities exists for literally no reason, he
writes. Airline security is, so far as we can tell, totally useless. To defend reaching this conclusion, Matthews cites a
variety of sources. First, he points to Bruce Schneier, a cryptographer who he refers to as a security expert. The source
Matthews links to is not a peer-reviewed paper or journal article, but rather a statement Schneier made in a debate. The
debate is not over abolishing the TSA, persay, but rather about TSAs post-9/11 security measures. While Schneier argues
that the TSA has not apprehended any terrorists since 9/11, he does not argue for the agencys abolition. On the contrary,
he writes that aircraft require a special level of security for several reasons: they are a favoured terrorist target; their
failure characteristics mean more deaths than a comparable bomb on a bus or train; they tend ot be national symbols;
and they often fly to foreign countries where terrorists can operate with more impunity. But all that can be handled with
pre-9/11 security. The next set of sources Matthews uses is a literature review by professors Cynthia Lum and Leslie
Kennedy, of George Mason University and Rutgers, respectively. Matthews writes that these professors studied the
research on airport security and found that while the TSA has prevented hijackings, it didnt reduce attacks, but
encouraged would-be hijackers to attack through other means. He concludes, Additional research done after the review
has similarly concluded that the screenings are, in effect, a wash. Actually, thats not what Lum and Kennedy conclude. I
know this because I emailed them and asked. Heres what Kennedy had to say about Matthewss article: "We did not
argue for abolishing the TSA. That is the reporter's conclusion not ours. We simply reported on the effectiveness of airport
screening which we found, based on the research, was quite high. Our research was not focused on the TSA per se but,
obviously, based on our findings, it would make no sense to get rid of airport screening." And here is what Lum had to say:
none of the
I agree with Prof Kennedy. This is an incorrect interpretation of our research. In other words,
researchers Matthews cited actually agree with him that the TSA is useless or
should be abolished even as he is basing his conclusion almost entirely on
the idea that the research shows that he is right. Well, not entirely. Towards
the end of his piece, Matthews cites some odd political figures to validate his
idea that abolishing the TSA isnt outside of mainstream political thought:
What to do, then? Simple: just abolish the agency. This is hardly an extreme
proposal; members of Congress, including influential figures like Senator Rand
Paul (R-Kentucky) and Congressman John Mica (R-Florida), have endorsed it. The
Cato Institute's Chris Edwards wants to privatize the TSA and devolve its
responsibilities to airports, but that preserves far too much of the status quo.
Better would be to make security the responsibility of individual airlines, so as
to allow competition on that dimension. Its mind-boggling how Matthews can view a proposal as
not extreme because the Cato Institute which publishes tracts opposing child labor laws endorses it. The same goes for
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), a right-libertarian who once questioned the Civil Rights Act on national television. And as was noted
above, Mica is a close ally of private security firms whose behavior is just as intrusive as any government agency, and is
hardly a champion of civil liberties (he recently voted for an NSA bill that liberties proponents decried as fake reform)
Government screening is worse for trans-bodies than

private screening
Beauchamp 9 Toby Beauchamp, Ph.D. assistant professor of gender and
womens studies at the University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign, Artful
Concealment and Strategic Visibility: Transgender Bodies and U.S. State
Surveillance After 9/11, 2009, Surveillance & Society 6(4): 356-366,
http://www.surveillance-and-society.org, ISSN: 1477-7487, pg. 356-357, AR
AD: 7/17/15
On September 4, 2003, shortly before the two-year anniversary of the attacks
on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security released an official Advisory to security personnel. Citing ongoing concerns about
potential attacks by Al-Qaeda operatives, the advisorys final paragraph emphasizes that
terrorism is everywhere in disguise: Terrorists will employ novel methods to artfully conceal suicide
devices. Male bombers may dress as females in order to discourage scrutiny (Department of Homeland
Security 2003). Two years later, the Real ID Act was signed into law,
proposing a major restructuring of identification documents and
travel within and across U.S. borders. Central components of this
process include a new national database linked through federally
standardized drivers licenses, and stricter standards of proof for asylum
applications. In response to both the Advisory and the Real ID Act,
transgender activist and advocacy organizations in the U.S. quickly
pointed to the ways trans populations would be targeted as
suspicious and subjected to new levels of scrutiny. Criticizing what they read
as instances of transphobia or anti-trans discrimination, many of these organizations

offer both transgender individuals and government agencies
strategies for reducing or eliminating that discrimination. While
attending to the very real dangers and damages experienced by many trans
people in relation to government policies, in many cases the organizations
approaches leave intact the broader regulation of gender,
particularly as it is mediated and enforced by the state. Moreover, they
tend to address concerns about anti-trans discrimination in ways that are
disconnected from questions of citizenship, racialization or
nationalism. Nevertheless, by illuminating the ways that new security measures interact with and
affect transgender-identified people and gender-nonconforming bodies, transgender activist practices and
the field of transgender studies are poised to make a significant contribution to the ways state surveillance
tactics are understood and interpreted. The monitoring of transgender and gender-nonconforming
populations is inextricable from questions of national security and regulatory practices of the state, and
state surveillance policies that may first appear unrelated to transgender people are in fact deeply rooted
in the maintenance and enforcement of normatively gendered bodies, behaviors and identities. I argue
transgender and gender-nonconforming bodies are bound up in
here that
surveillance practices that are intimately tied to state security,
nationalism and the us/them, either/or rhetoric that underpins
U.S. military and government constructions of safety. At the same time, the
primary strategies and responses offered by transgender advocacy
organizations tend to reconsolidate U.S. nationalism and support
the increased policing of deviant bodies.
The plan accesses a way larger internal link to structural

violence aviation attacks result in endless global
intervention which turns the impact to the k preventing
terrorism is critical
Lariv 14 (Maxime H.A., The making of American foreign policy in the
post-9/11 world, Foreign Policy Association, May 6th, 2014,
http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2014/05/06/the-making-of-american-foreign-
policy-in-the-post-911-world/) . WM
The label of national
Lets be honest, foreign policy making has never been democratic.
security has offered governments around the world the power to
hide information from their citizens. Aside from this statement, the making of
American foreign policy has completely shifted since 9/11. Not only
this shift was abrupt and made under intense emotional stress , but it
has also created a precedent in the way the U.S. engages in the world.
Additionally, American foreign policy has become much more militarized
than in the past. A series of recent articles (here and here), documentaries (here and here), and
radio show (here) have been produced looking back at the way the U.S. has conducted itself these last 13
Since 9/11, the U.S. has been fighting evil to
years on the international stage.
with evil. The U.S. has used a wide array of
adopt a very Bushian expression
instruments considered by international law as illegal such as:
rendition, torture known as an enhanced interrogation technique use of force
against countries without legal jurisdiction, drone strikes in
countries wherein the U.S. is not at war, mass snooping on American and world
citizens,
cover-up operations, and so forth. The Global War on Terror
has been the longest war in American history. Since 2001, the U.S. has
invaded two countries Iraq and Afghanistan launched an undisclosed
numbers of drone strikes in countries with which the U.S. is not at war Yemen, Pakistan,
and Somalia (here are the numbers of drones strikes as of April 2014) and all this in complete
impunity. The real question is: Has it made America safer? It is a very difficult subject to answer in all
impartiality. Members of American intelligence community and other departments of the U.S. government
would most likely say yes. Not only, I would tend to answer, not really, but I would also argue that
The
American democracy has progressively been the main collateral damage of this endless war.
starting point in the shifting in decision-making in American foreign policy
was the approval of the Authorization for Use of Military Force , of what is
known as the AUMF. The famous sentence, as reported by Gregory E. Johnsen and which inspired the
Radiolab podcast posted below, that changed it all were these 60 words from the AUMF drafted on Sept.
12, 2001: That the President is authorized to use all necessary and
appropriate force against those nations, organization, or persons he
determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2011, or harbored such
organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of
international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or person. In French,
we would say that the president has now carte blanche, meaning unlimited
power . This sentence taken from AUMF pretty much gives unlimited power to the executive branch
without any supervision by the Congress, as it gave it up soon after 9/11. Such
legal piece was approved by Congress on Sept. 13, 2001 at the
exception of only one elected official, the California Representative Barbara Lee,
opposing it. In the excellent podcast of Radiolad, Barbara Lee takes us throughout her reflection process
about taking such decision. At the time she was under intense pressure, and was even called unpatriotic, a
terrorist, and so forth. Today, she seems like a visionary as she not only understood the consequences of
taking swift decisions under stress and emotions, but also foresaw the legal implications embedded in
these words. For instance, during a 2013 Senate Armed Service committee
hearing chaired by Carl Levin as reported in the Radiolab podcast about the use of military force,
DOD officials argued in favor of the continued use of the AUMF .
Throughout the hearing the officials never named one enemy, but
only referred to associated forces. Senator Angus King responded
to these statements by DOD officials, saying: you guys have essentially rewritten
the Constitution here today. Kings argument is that the DOD is using the
concept of associated forces, not present in the AUMF, in order to justify the
use of force against pretty much anyone . The AUMF has in fact changed the entire
institutional design of use of force. The Declaration of War is kind of a dead instrument of national law,
argued Ben Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in the Radiolab podcast. But the modern
incarnation of the Declaration of War is the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). Such comments
fall under the fact that the list of American enemies and the people that the U.S. is in war against is secret.
American citizens do not have and cannot have the information about the enemies. The absolute lack of
supervision by one branch of the government over the other will undeniably lead to extreme decisions and
situations. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution is the perfect example, as it led the U.S. to a lengthy and costly
war in Vietnam. Additionally, without a clear enemy, it implies that the
U.S. could be at war indefinitely . At the distinction with Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan,
this war seems foreign, remote, distant, and impersonal, making it even more dangerous to American
democracy and political system.

something.
we might live for


und

number saved
Consequentialism comes first --- public officials cant

adhere to moral precepts because that prioritizes
personal attachments and risks bad outcomes
As,an Account of the peculiar role responsibilities of public officials
that vice
(and, by extension, of ordinary individuals in their public capacities as citizens)
effect.
in the service of some greater public good.8 It
ordinary private individuals)
9
Alt AT Fia
Perm do the plan and the alt this bans the use of ____
<transphobic> technology in all US airports and enforces
that ban its not severance because a curtailment isnt a
ban on oversight, allowing the possibility for partial
enforcement enforcing this ban would remain the only
constraint on the private sector
Trigger Warning
2ac F/L
Trigger warning are an attempt to silence anything

unpleasant, reinforcing suffering
Chait 15 (Jonathan [commentator and writer for New York magazine. He
was previously a senior editor at The New Republic]; How the language police
are perverting liberalism; Jan 27; nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/not-
a-very-pc-thing-to-say.html; kdf)
At a growing number of campuses, professors now attach trigger warnings to
texts that may upset students, and there is a campaign to eradicate
microaggressions, or small social slights that might cause searing trauma. These newly
fashionable terms merely repackage a central tenet of the first p.c. movement: that people should
be expected to treat even faintly unpleasant ideas or behaviors as
full-scale offenses. Stanford recently canceled a performance of Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson
after protests by Native American students. UCLA students staged a sit-in to protest microaggressions such
as when a professor corrected a students decision to spell the word indigenous with an uppercase I one
example of many perceived grammatical choices that in actuality reflect ideologies. A theater group at
Mount Holyoke College recently announced it would no longer put on The Vagina Monologues in part
because the material excludes women without vaginas. These sorts of episodes now hardly even qualify as
Trigger warnings arent much help in actually overcoming
exceptional.
trauma an analysis by the Institute of Medicine has found that the
best approach is controlled exposure to it, and experts say avoidance
can reinforce suffering . Indeed, one professor at a prestigious university told me that, just in
the last few years, she has noticed a dramatic upsurge in her students sensitivity toward even the mildest
social or ideological slights; she and her fellow faculty members are terrified of facing accusations of
triggering trauma or, more consequentially, violating her schools new sexual-harassment policy
merely by carrying out the traditional academic work of intellectual exploration. This
is an
environment of fear, believe it or not, she told me by way of explaining her request for
anonymity. It reminds her of the previous outbreak of political correctness Every other day I say to my
But it would be a mistake to categorize
friends, How did we get back to 1991?
todays p.c. culture as only an academic phenomenon. Political
correctness is a style of politics in which the more radical members
of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as
bigoted and illegitimate. Two decades ago, the only communities where the left could exert such
hegemonic control lay within academia, which gave it an influence on intellectual life far out of proportion
to its numeric size. Todays political correctness flourishes most consequentially on social media, where it
enjoys a frisson of cool and vast new cultural reach. And since social media is also now the milieu that
hosts most political debate, the new p.c. has attained an influence over mainstream journalism and
commentary beyond that of the old. It also makes money. Every media company
knows that stories about race and gender bias draw huge audiences,
making identity politics a reliable profit center in a media industry
beset by insecurity. A year ago, for instance, a photographer compiled images
of Fordham students displaying signs recounting an instance of
racial microaggression they have faced. The stories ranged from
uncomfortable (No, where are you really from?) to relatively innocuous (Can you
read this? He showed me a Japanese character on his phone). BuzzFeed published part of
her project, and it has since received more than 2 million views . This is
not an anomaly. In a short period of time, the p.c. movement has assumed a towering presence in the
psychic space of politically active people in general and the left in particular. All over social media, there
dwell armies of unpaid but widely read commentators, ready to launch hashtag campaigns and circulate
Change.org petitions in response to the slightest of identity-politics missteps, Rebecca Traister wrote
recently in The New Republic. Two and a half years ago, Hanna Rosin, a liberal journalist and longtime
friend, wrote a book called The End of Men, which argued that a confluence of social and economic
changes left women in a better position going forward than men, who were struggling to adapt to a new
postindustrial order. Rosin, a self-identified feminist, has found herself unexpectedly assailed by feminist
critics, who found her message of long-term female empowerment complacent and insufficiently
concerned with the continuing reality of sexism. One Twitter hashtag, #RIPpatriarchy, became a label for
critics to lampoon her thesis. Every new continuing demonstration of gender discrimination a survey
showing Americans still prefer male bosses; a person noticing a man on the subway occupying a seat and
a half would be tweeted out along with a mocking #RIPpatriarchy. Her response since then has been to
avoid committing a provocation, especially on Twitter. If you tweet something straightforwardly feminist,
you immediately get a wave of love and favorites, but if you tweet something in a cranky feminist mode
then the opposite happens, she told me. The price is too high; you feel like there might be banishment
waiting for you. Social media, where swarms of jeering critics can materialize in an instant, paradoxically
creates this feeling of isolation. You do immediately get the sense that its one against millions, even
though its not. Subjects of these massed attacks often describe an impulse to withdraw. Political
correctness is a term whose meaning has been gradually diluted since it became a flashpoint 25 years ago.
People use the phrase to describe politeness (perhaps to excess), or evasion of hard truths, or (as a term
of abuse by conservatives) liberalism in general. The confusion has made it more attractive to liberals, who
share the goal of combating race and gender bias. But political correctness is not a
rigorous commitment to social equality so much as a system of left-
wing ideological repression . Not only is it not a form of liberalism; it
is antithetical to liberalism. Indeed, its most frequent victims turn out to be liberals
themselves.
AT Schlosser
Wrong, and a link
Taub 15 Amanda, professor not terrified of her students (I was a liberal
adjunct professor. My liberal students didnt scare me at all., Vox, 6/5/15,
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/5/8736591/liberal-professor-identity //Red)
I
I was a liberal adjunct professor at a large university until 2013, and my liberal students never scared me at all.
covered sensitive topics in my courses, including rape, capital punishment,
female genital mutilation, and disputed accounts of mass atrocities. Our
classroom debates were contentious, and forced students to examine their
own biases. I kept an "on-call" list that pressured students to participate actively in those discussions. I did not use
trigger warnings. I never had any complaints. I bring up my own experiences as a reminder that if the
plural of anecdote isn't data, the singular of it sure as hell isn't, either. The
fact that I enjoyed my time teaching doesn't tell you anything about the state
of education in America and neither does the fact that the pseudonymous
author of this Vox article is a liberal professor who is terrified of his liberal students. And yet
the response to his article, which as of this writing has now been shared more than 190,000 times on Facebook, shows it
has struck a nerve. This is something people are genuinely concerned about enough that the thoughts of an
unidentified man from the Midwest feel like a revelation, as if some secret truth everyone suspected has finally been
it's truthy: it offers a conclusion that feels as if it
exposed. In other words,
should be true, even though it isn't accompanied by much in the way
of actual evidence. In this case, that truthy conclusion is that the rise of identity politics is doing real harm
that this new kind of discourse, whether you call it "identity politics" or "call-out culture" or "political correctness," is not
just annoying or upsetting to the people it targets, but a danger to academic freedom and therefore an actual substantive
a closer read of the
problem to be addressed. You're a professor. Why are you scared of students? In fact,
article shows that the actual problem the professor faces isn't the rise of a
scary new breed of students. Students, after all, have been complaining about their professors and just
about everything else since time immemorial. Rather, if university faculty are feeling disempowered in their classrooms,
that's because they do, in fact, have less power at work: the shrinking pool of tenure-track jobs and
the corresponding rise in the numbers of poorly paid adjuncts means many university teachers are
in a precarious position right now. The American Association of University Professors reports that 76 percent
of faculty across all US institutions are adjuncts non-tenured contract positions that universities can terminate or not
renew at will. Those uncertain jobs are also poorly paid a study from the US House of Representatives last year found
that a majority of adjuncts live below the poverty line, and that they rarely have access to health, retirement, or other
benefits. Tenure-track jobs are comparatively rare, and even tenure itself may be becoming a political target: Wisconsin
Governor and GOP presidential hopeful Scott Walker is pushing legislation that would weaken tenure protections for state
university professors. That means that, as Vox's anonymous correspondent wrote in his article, "the academic job market
is brutal. Teachers who are not tenured or tenure-track faculty members have no right to due process before being
dismissed, and there's a mile-long line of applicants eager to take their place." In that context, it's hardly surprising that
non-tenured university lecturers would take an extremely conservative approach to any perceived threat to their job
security. As the "liberal professor" wrote, "In this type of environment, boat-rocking isn't just dangerous, it's suicidal, and
so teachers limit their lessons to things they know won't upset anybody." That is a real issue, with real implications for
pinning the blame on students' embrace of
education, and for academic freedom. But
identity politics is a mistake. If adjuncts and junior faculty members feel insecure enough to censor their
teaching or work, then that's a problem in their relationship with their universities, not in their relationships with their
students. Indeed, in that academic environment, it wouldn't matter if liberal identity politics disappeared tomorrow. Some
students will always be unhappy about something, and if faculty are this nervous, that will influence their teaching.
Indeed, the article notes that the only actual complaint the professor ever received was from a conservative student angry
at his "communistical" tendencies because he refused to blame poor black homeowners for the 2008 financial crisis. The
problem isn't the substance of student complaints the problem is that university lecturers are so terrified of the effect
student complaints could have. That's a problem to be solved by universities having faculty members' backs, not by
somehow silencing the debate over identity politics. The search for real harm from the culture wars Of course, an article
about the employment challenges for today's budding academics probably wouldn't have been shared 190,000 times on
Facebook. The professor's article didn't inspire columns in the National Review or the Wall Street Journal because their
the article
conservative authors are so concerned about the working conditions of adjunct professors. Rather,
garnered so much attention because it seems like it's raising new evidence
that identity politics is a bad thing not just a kind of discourse that some people dislike by
identifying real harm. In January, liberal writer Jonathan Chait took a stab at doing something
similar in New York Magazine, critiquing political correctness by claiming it was an attempt to "expand freedom for the
oppressed by eliminating it for their enemies," and that such efforts were doomed to undermine the freedom they sought
to protect. And now the Vox article seems to suggest that the harm is to academic freedom: even the professors are
It's not surprising that
scared! These kids today with their identity politics are threatening the academy!
people are eager to grasp at such conclusions, because without some kind of
real harm to point to, critiques of identity politics collapse in on
themselves. As Matt Yglesias wrote in January, the term "identity politics" is generally
used to refer to feminist or anti-racist critiques, but that assumes that
traditionally marginalized groups are the only people with an "identity." "The
implication of this usage," Yglesias wrote, "is that somehow an identity is something only women or
African Americans or perhaps LGBT people have. White men just have ideas about politics that
spring from a realm of pure reason, with concerns that are by definition
universal." Citing the supposed threat to the academy is another way to claim
that arguments against identity politics are rooted in pure reason and are
trying to protect universal concerns, rather than silence specific concerns
raised by marginalized people that we'd rather not listen to. (After all, if you're going to
dismiss campus identity politics as a debate "in which the feelings of individuals are the primary or even exclusive means
through which social issues are understood and discussed," as the anonymous professor does, then you need to come up
But "identity politics are bad"
with something beyond your own feelings to explain why that's a problem.)
is the wrong lesson to take from the experiences of the professor who wrote
for Vox. If adjuncts and tenure-track professors are disempowered in relation to their students, the solution
isn't to attack students, as the professor did, sneering at undergraduates with
too many feelings or an unsuspecting woman who had the misfortune of tweeting about the biases of scientific
research and discourse. Rather, it's to focus on a university system that treats
students as customers and faculty as the interchangeable means of
production. If you care about academic freedom, care about that.
University
2ac F/L
Framework The k must prove that the whole plan is bad
weighing the hypothetical implementation of AFF
against the hypothetical implementation of an alternative
is vital to fair and educational engagement
Advocating the plan is a voter for deterrence makes aff

only the things they can win failure to dispute plan
desirability weakens advocacy skills.
Simulation allows us to more effectively influence state

policy AND is key to agency studies prove
policy simulations

these five categories has proved to be particularly helpful in strategic
support in
synopsis below.
Theres no impact debate can still have useful

educational impacts on debaters even if broader academic
structures are flawed
That means that we can redeem educational spaces

Baudrillard casts aside
Means 14 [On: 26 October 2014, Publisher: Routledge, Educational
commons and the new radical democratic imaginary, Alexander J. Means, a
Social and Psychological Foundations of Education, StateUniversity of New
York, Buffalo State, Buffalo, USA]
Immanence here becomes a constructivist concept of strategic decisionism rather
than simply an ontological claim on being and freedom (Means, 2011a; Nail, 2013). Such a
constructivist ethic orients our perspective toward thinking through how new
forms of democratic-egalitarian educational organization and subjectivity
might emerge through the patient work of collaboration , movement
building, experimentation , and the strategic cultivation of the
values and constituent desires for lives and livelihoods in common.
While this contains an admittedly utopian dimension , such notions are
far from an abstraction today, as represented by the recent
proliferation of educational movements and protests against
neoliberal privatization and austerity such as in the student protests in London in 2011, the
Maple Spring student uprising in Quebec in 2012, the Chicago teacher
strike in 2012, the ongoing Chilean Education Conflict, and Indignants
Movement in Spain, as well as in countless lesser known actions,
including building occupations and a growing standardized testing
boycott movement across the United States. It is important observe here that we cannot
prescribe the valences of a common life in advance, because it is something that can only
arise through an insurrectional spirit of radical democratic action.
Fortunately, as these diverse educational struggles indicate, the desire to be in common is all around us. It
occurs whenever human beings produce values and forms of cooperation that exceed capital and State
control. It is immanently present when teachers and students construct new and different senses of the
world and the common together in the course of everyday life in schools and classrooms (De Lissovoy,
2011).The crucial task before us is to find new and creative ways to
intensify these moments of the surplus-educational-common
through an insurrectional process of common action, so that they
spill over into new and different senses of educational organization ,
desire, and pedagogy in the name of universal equaliberty.
Perm do both their critique can motivate more
effective implementation of the plan
Politics is possible---debate solves info overload

Bleiker 2, professor of international relations at the University of
Queensland, Politics After Seattle: Dilemmas of the Anti-Globalisation
Movement, conflits.revues.org/1057
Any protest action that draws sufficient media attention has the potential
to engender a political process that transcends its immediate spatial
environment. It competes for the attention of global television audiences and thus interferes with the struggle
over values that ultimately shapes the world we live in. "A world united by Benetton slogans, Nike sweatshops and
fibre-optic cables
McDonald's jobs might not be anyone's utopian global village," says Naomi Klein, "but its
and shared cultural references are nonetheless laying the
foundations for the first truly international people's movement .31 But
the recent wave of global protests is hardly the first international
movement of its kind. Nor is it as unproblematic as Klein suggests. For some the
revolution of speed is too random to allow for critical interference
and, indeed, for human agency. Jean Baudrillard, for instance, believes that the
distinctions between reality and virtuality, political practice and
simulation are blurred to the extent that they are no longer
recognisable.32 Our media culture, he says, has annihilated reality in stages, such that in the end its simulating
image bears no relation to any reality whatever : it is its own pure simulacrum. Television, the unproblematic
transmission of the hyperreal, has conditioned our mind such that we have lost the ability to penetrate beneath the
manifest levels of surface.33 24 Patterns of global protest do not confirm the

pessimistic views that Baudrillard and others espouse. The blurring
of reality and virtuality has not annihilated dissent . The fact that
televised images are hyperreal does not necessarily diminish their
influence. Independently of how instantaneous, distorted and
simulated images of a protest action may be, they still influence our
perceptions of issues, and thus also our political responses to them. To
accept the logic of speed, then, is not to render political influence
obsolete, but to acknowledge multiple and overlapping spatial and
temporal spheres within which political practices are constantly
being shaped and reshaped.
Data is awesome holds creative potential, can change

our minds and behavior despite oversaturation if
communicated effectively, and its just interesting
McCandless 10 David McCandless, award-winning writer, designer and
author August 2010, David McCandless: The beauty of data visualization,
http://www.ted.com/talks/david_mccandless_the_beauty_of_data_visualization
.html#
It feels like we're all suffering from information overload or data
glut. And the good news is there might be an easy solution to that, and
that's using our eyes more. So, visualizing information, so that we can
see the patterns and connections that matter and then designing
that information so it makes more sense, or it tells a story, or allows
us to focus only on the information that's important . Failing that,
visualized information can just look really cool. So, let's see. This is the
Billion Dollar Gram, and this image arose out of frustration I had with the reporting of billion-
dollar amounts in the press. That is, they're meaningless without context. 500 billion for this
pipeline. 20 billion for this war. It doesn't make any sense, so the only way to understand it is
visually and relatively. So I scraped a load of reported figures from various news outlets and
then scaled the boxes according to those amounts. And the colors here represent the
motivation behind the money. So purple is fighting, and red is giving money away, and green is
profiteering. And what you can see straight away is you start to have a different relationship
to the numbers. You can literally see them. But more importantly, you start to see patterns
and connections between numbers that would otherwise be scattered across multiple news
reports. Let me point out some that I really like. This is OPEC's revenue, this green box here --
780 billion a year. And this little pixel in the corner -- three billion -- that's their climate change
fund. Americans, incredibly generous people -- over 300 billion a year, donated to charity
every year, compared with the amount of foreign aid given by the top 17 industrialized nations
at 120 billion. And then of course, the Iraq War, predicted to cost just 60 billion back in 2003.
And it mushroomed slightly. Afghanistan mushroomed now to 3,000 billion. So now it's great
because now we have this texture, and we can add numbers to it as well. So we could say,
well, a new figure comes out ... let's see African debt. How much of this diagram do you think
might be taken up by the debt that Africa owes to the West? Let's take a look. So there it is.
227 billion is what Africa owes. And the recent financial crisis -- how much of this diagram
might that figure take up? What has that cost the world? Let's take a look at that. Dooosh. I
think is the appropriate sound effect for that much money. 11,900 billion. So, by visualizing
this information, we turned it into a landscape that you can explore with your eyes, a kind of
map really, a sort of information map. And when you're lost in information, an information map
is kind of useful. So I want to show you another landscape now. We need to imagine what a
landscape of the world's fears might look like. Let's take a look. This is mountains out of mole
hills, a timeline of global media panic. (Laughter) So, I'll label this for you in a second. But the
height here, I want to point out, is the intensity of certain fears, as reported in the media. Let
me point them out. So this, swine flu -- pink. Bird flu. SARS -- brownish here. Remember that
one. The millennium bug -- terrible disaster. These little green peaks are asteroid collisions.
(Laughter) And in summer, here, killer wasps. (Laughter) So these are what our fears look like
over time in our media. But what I love -- and I'm a journalist -- and what I love is finding
hidden patterns; I love being a data detective. And there's a very interesting and odd pattern
hidden in this data that you can only see when you visualize it. Let me highlight it for you. See
this line. This is a landscape for violent video games. As you can see, there's a kind of odd,
regular pattern in the data, twin peaks every year. If we look closer, we see those peaks occur
at the same month every year. Why? Well, November, Christmas video games come out, and
there may well be an upsurge in the concern about their content. But April isn't a particularly
massive month for video games. Why April? Well, in April 1999 was the Columbine shooting,
and since then, that fear has been remembered by the media and echoes through the group
mind gradually through the year. You have retrospectives, anniversaries, court cases, even
copy-cat shootings, all pushing that fear into the agenda. And there's another pattern here as
well. Can you spot it? See that gap there? There's a gap, and it affects all the other stories.
Why is there a gap there? You see where it starts? September 2001, when we had something
very real to be scared about. So, I've been working as a data journalist for about a year, and I
keep hearing a phrase all the time, which is this: "Data is the new oil." And data is
the kind of ubiquitous resource that we can shape to provide new
innovations and new insights, and it's all around us, and it can be
mined very easily. And it's not a particularly great metaphor in these
times, especially if you live around the Gulf of Mexico, but I would, perhaps, adapt
this metaphor slightly, and I would say that data is the new soil.
Because for me , it feels like a fertile, creative medium . You know, over
the years, online, we've laid down a huge amount of information and
data, and we irrigate it with networks and connectivity, and it's been
worked and tilled by unpaid workers and governments. And, all
right, I'm kind of milking the metaphor a little bit. But it's a really
fertile medium, and it feels like visualizations, infographics, data
visualizations, they feel like flowers blooming from this medium. But
if you look at it directly, it's just a lot of numbers and disconnected
facts. But if you start working with it and playing with it in a certain
way, interesting things can appear and different patterns can be
revealed. Let me show you this. Can you guess what this data says? What rises twice a
year, once in Easter and then two weeks before Christmas, has a mini peak every Monday and
then flattens out over the summer. I'll take answers. (Audience: Chocolate.) David McCandless:
Chocolate. You might want to get some chocolate in. Any other guesses? (Audience:
Shopping.) DM: Shopping. Yeah, retail therapy might help. (Audience: Sick leave.) DM: Sick
leave. Yeah, you'll definitely want to take some time off. Shall we see? (Laughter) (Applause)
So, the information here, Lee Byron and myself, we scraped 10,000 status Facebook updates
for the phrase "break-up" and "broken-up" and this is the pattern we found -- people clearing
out for spring break, (Laughter) coming out of very bad weekends on a Monday, being single
over the summer. And then the lowest day of the year, of course: Christmas Day. Who would do
that? So there's a titanic amount of data out there now, unprecedented. But if you ask the
right kind of question, or you work it in the right kind of way, interesting things can emerge.
information is beautiful. Data is beautiful . I wonder if I could make
So
my like beautiful. And here's my visual C.V. I'm not quite sure I've succeeded. Pretty
blocky. The colors aren't that great. But I wanted to convey something to you. I started as a
programmer, and then I worked as a writer for many years, about 20 years, in print, online and
then in advertising, and only recently have I started designing. And I've never been to design
school. I've never studied art or anything. I just kind of learned through doing. And when I
started designing, I discovered an odd thing about myself. I already knew how to design, but it
wasn't like I was amazingly brilliant at it, but more like I was sensitive to the ideas of grids and
being exposed to all this
space and alignment and typography. It's almost like
media over the years had instilled a kind of dormant design literacy
in me. And I don't feel like I'm unique. I feel that everyday, all of us now
are being blasted by information design. It's being poured into our
eyes through the Web, and we're all visualizers now; we're all demanding a visual
aspect to our information. And there's something almost quite magical about visual
information. It's effortless; it literally pours in. And if you're navigating a dense information
jungle, coming across a beautiful graphic or a lovely data visualization, it's a relief, it's like
coming across a clearing in the jungle. And I was curious about this, so it led me to the work of
a Danish physicist called Tor Norretranders, and he converted the bandwidth of the senses
This is your senses, pouring into your
into computer terms. So here we go.
senses every second. Your sense of sight is the fastest. It has the
same bandwidth as a computer network. Then you have touch, which
is about the speed of a USB key. And then you have hearing and
smell, which has the throughput of a hard disk . And then you have poor, old
taste, which is like barely the throughput of a pocket calculator. And that little square in the
corner, 0.7 percent, that's the amount we're actually aware of. So a lot of your vision -- the
bulk of it is visual, and it's pouring in. It's unconscious. And the eye is exquisitely sensitive to
patterns in variations in color, shape and pattern. It loves them, and it calls them beautiful. It's
the language of the eye. And if you combine that language of the eye with the language of the
mind, which is about words and numbers and concepts, you start speaking two languages
simultaneously, each enhancing the other. So, you have the eye, and then you drop in the
So we
concepts. And that whole thing -- it's two languages both working at the same time.
can use this new kind of language, if you like, to alter our
perspective or change our views . Let me ask you a simple question
with a really simple answer. Who has the biggest military budget?
It's got to be America, right? Massive. 609 billion in 2008 -- 607, rather.
So massive, in fact, that it can contain all the other military budgets
in the world inside itself. Gobble, gobble, gobble, gobble, gobble. Now, you
can see Africa's total debt there and the U.K. budget deficit for reference. So that might well
chime with your view that America is a sort of warmongering, military machine, out to
overpower the world with its huge, industrial-military complex. But is it true that America has
the biggest military budget? Because it is an incredibly rich country. In fact, it's so massively
rich that it can contain the four other top industrialized nations economies inside itself, it's so
vastly rich. So its military budget is bound to be enormous. So, to be fair and to alter our
perspective, we have to bring in another data set, and that data set is GDP, or the country's
earnings. Who has the biggest budget as a proportion of GDP? Let's have a look. That changes
the picture considerably. Other countries pop into view that you, perhaps, weren't considering,
and American drops into eighth. Now you can also do this with soldiers. Who has the most
soldiers? It's got to be China. Of course, 2.1 million. Again, chiming with you view that China is
a militarized regime ready to, you know, mobilize enormous its forces. But of course, China has
an enormous population. So if we do the same, we see a radically different picture. China
drops to 124th. It actually has a tiny army when you take other data into consideration. So,
absolute figures, like the military budget, in a connected world, kind of don't give you the
We need relative figures that
whole picture. They're not as true as they could be.
are connected to other data so that we can see a fuller picture, and
then that can lead to us changing our perspective. As Hans Rosling, the
master, my master, said, " Let the dataset change your mindset ." And if it
can do that, maybe it can also change your behavior. Take a look at this
one. I'm a bit of a health nut. I love kind of like taking supplements
and being fit, but I can never understand what's going on in terms of
evidence. There's always conflicting evidence. Should I take vitamin C?
Should I be taking wheatgrass? This is a visualization of all the evidence for nutritional
supplements. This kind of diagram is called a balloon race. So the higher up the image, the
more evidence there is for each supplement. And the bubbles correspond to popularity as
regards to Google hits. So you can kind of immediately apprehend the relationship between
efficacy and popularity, but you can also, if you grade the evidence, sort of do a "worth it" line.
And so supplements above above this line are worth investigating, but only for the conditions
listed below. And then the supplements below the line are, perhaps, not worth investigating.
Now this image constitutes a huge amount of work. We scraped like 1,000
studies from PubMed, the biomedical database, and we compiled them and graded them all.
And it was incredibly frustrating for me because I had a book of 250 visualizations to do for my
book, and I spent a month doing this, and I only filled two pages. But what it points to is that
It's a way of
visualizing information like this is a form of knowledge compression.
squeezing an enormous amount of information and understanding
into a small space. And once you've curated that data, and once you've cleaned that
data, and once it's there, you can do cool stuff like this. So I converted this into an interactive
app, so I can now generate this application online -- this is the visualization online -- and I can
say, "Yeah, brilliant." So it spawns itself. And then I can say, "Well, just show me the stuff that
affects heart health." So let's filter that out. So heart is filtered out, so I if I'm curious about
that. I think, "No, no. I don't want to take any synthetics. I just want to see plants and -- just
show me herbs and plants. I've got all the natural ingredients." Now this app is spawning itself
from the data. The data is all stored in a Google doc, and it's literally generating itself from
that data. So the data is now alive; this is a living image, and I can update it in a second. New
evidence comes out -- I just change a row on a spreadsheet. Doosh! Again, the image recreates
But it kind of can go beyond data, and it
itself. So it's cool. It's kind of living.
can go beyond numbers. And I like to apply information visualization
to ideas and concepts. This is a visualization of the political spectrum, in an attempt
for me to try and understand how it works and how the ideas percolate down from government
into society and culture, into families, into individuals, into their beliefs and back around again
in a cycle. What I love about this image is it's made up of concepts, it explores our worldviews
and it helps us -- it helps me anyway -- to see what others think, to see where they're coming
from. And it feels just incredibly cool to do that. And what was most exciting for me designing
this, was that, when I was designing this image, I desperately wanted this side, the left side,
to be better than the right side -- being a kind of journalist, a left-leaning person -- but I
in order to really
couldn't, because I would have created a lopsided, biased diagram. So,
create a full image, I had to honor the perspectives on the right-
hand side and at the same time, kind of uncomfortably recognize
how many of those qualities were actually in me, which was very, very
annoying and uncomfortable. (Laughter) But not too uncomfortable, because there's
something unthreatening about seeing a political perspective, versus being told or forced to
listen to one. It's actually -- you're capable of holding conflicting viewpoints joyously, when
you can see them. It's even fun to engage with them because it's visual. So that's what's
exciting to me, seeing how data can change my perspective and change my mind midstream --
it feels to me that
beautiful, lovely data. So, just to wrap-up, I wanted to say that
design is about solving problems and providing elegant solutions.
And information design is about solving information problems. And it
feels like we have a lot of information problems in our society at the
moment, from the overload and saturation to the breakdown of trust
and reliability and runaway skepticism and lack of transparency, or
even just interestingness. I mean, I find information just too
interesting. It has a magnetic quality that draws me in. So, visualizing
information can give us a very quick solution to those kinds of
problems. And even when the information is terrible, the visual can
be quite beautiful . And often we can get clarity or the answer to a simple question very
quickly, like this one, the recent Icelandic volcano. Which was emitting the most CO2? Was it
the planes or the volcano, the grounded planes or the volcano? So we can have a look. We look
at the data and we see, yep, the volcano emitted 150,000 tons; the grounded planes would
have emitted 345,000 if they were in the sky. So essentially, we had our first carbon-neutral
volcano.
Virilio
2ac F/L
Perm do both tech is reflexive which ensures its

compatible with critique
technology critique for our time is that it is written from
The third characteristic of a relevant
a position of technological competence, rather than avoidance. As I have suggested
elsewhere (Rose, 2000), such avoidance and dismissal of technology is no longer
possible or warranted, because those who comment on technology are now
unavoidably implicated and immersed in technological developments (Rose,
2000, p. 193). Moreover, in an age devoted to the enlargement and circulation of knowledge,
expertise, not antipathy, confers the authority to speak (Rose, 2000, p. 192). Therefore,
criticism must go hand in hand with a certain degree of technological
competence. Media education offers one model for the way in which technology
use can actually become a means of promoting deeper insight into the
social impacts of media and technology . Media education is a pedagogical
approach designed to help students gain awareness of the ways in which
television, tabloids, and other media function to condition and construct viewers and
readers. As Len Masterman (1992) described it, media education is a demythologizing process which
will reveal the selective practices by which images reach the television screen, emphasize the constructed
nature of the representations projected, and make explicit their repressed ideological function (p. 47). In
its early days, media education consisted largely of an inoculation approach highly reminiscent of
technology critique: It involved protecting impressionable youngsters from the harmful influences of the
mass media (primarily television) by telling them which media products were good and which were
bad. However, over the years, the emphasis of media education has shifted from
regarding students as passive consumers in need of protection to valuing their judgments and experiences
as media consumers and, most important, encouraging them to become active producers
of newspapers, films, computer programs, and other media. Technological competence thus
becomes the means by which students and teachers work together to
develop critical insight into the constructedness of media messages .
Technology critique is, I believe, ready to make a similar transition: from a
discourse grounded in a no-longer-tenable position of technology avoidance
to one that speaks with authority and relevance to members of our
technological society. In the words of Arthur Kroker, editor of an online journal devoted to exploring
the meanings and manifestations of high technology , it is necessary to swim within
the sea which one confronts (Menzies, 2000). The final characteristic of a
renewed technology critique is that it rejects extreme positions in
favor of a middle ground from which we can carefully consider the
impact of technologies without rejecting them wholesale (Nardi & ODay,
1999, p. 20). The irony is that the extreme stance assumed by most technology critics actually
tends to stifle the kind of critical reflection that they want people to engage in
which is precisely why the techno-utopians speak in hyperbole . Ideas become
concretized in absolute terms rather than remaining fluid and open for
analysis and debate. Instead of offering conclusive, sweeping statements about the negative impacts of
technological phenomena, technology critique should draw on and present diverse
perspectives and viewpoints and should indicate, by means of this balanced
presentation, possibilities for responsible local action . I am not by any means
suggesting that, having found a new way of framing social analysis, we abandon as irrelevant to
our lives and time the work and ideas of technology critics such as Ellul , Mumford, and
Postman. On the contrary, this article emerges from my deep respect for their work
and my realization that it has had a disappointingly small impact on societys
response to new media and technology . Yet the technology critics have taught me well. I
have learned from them that it is both possible and necessary to think otherwise about technological
What
developments, but I have also learned that insightful commentary from a distance is not enough:
is needed is a critique that provides guidelines and models for reflection and
action at the level of lived experience. Let me, then, conclude this article as I began it, with
reference to Socrates and his student, Plato. Plato immortalized Socrates teachings by using them as the
I too
basis for his own philosophy. I do not by any means compare myself to Plato, except in this: that
believe it necessary to perpetuate the important ideas of my mentors by
framing them in more relevant, meaningful, and generally accessible terms.
The net benefit is extinction this outweighs the residual

link
something.
we might live for


und
Speed of information opens up space for politics

Kellner 3 critical theorist in the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research,
George Kneller Chair in the Philosophy of Education in the GSEI at UCLA
(Douglas, Virilio, War, and Technology: Some Critical Reflections,
illuminations: the critical theory project,
http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/Illumina%20Folder/kell29.htm) //BZ
Butwhile there are still threats to world peace and even human survival from
the dark forces of military capitalism, one of the surprising events of the past
decade is the emergence of a new form of Microsoft capitalism, of less lethal
and more decentralized new technologies, of new modes of peaceful
connection and communication. The project of this new form of
technocapitalism is the development of an information-entertainment society
that we might call the infotainment society and which is sometimes described
as the "information superhighway." This form of capitalism is a softer
capitalism, a less violent and destructive one, a more ecological mode of
social organization, based on more flexible, smaller-scale, and more ludic
technologies.[6] The differences between hard military capitalism and a softer
Microsoft capitalism are evident in the transformation of the computer from a
top-down, highly centralized, specialized machine controlled by big
organizations to the smaller scale, more flexible, and more ludic personal
computer (see Turkle 1996 for elaboration of this distinction). Moreover, the surprising development
of the Internet opens up new public spheres and the possibility of political
intervention by groups and individuals excluded from political dialogue during
the era of Big Media, controlled by the state and giant corporations (for elaboration
of this argument see Kellner 1995, 1996, and forthcoming). Of course, Microsoft capitalism has its own dangers ranging
from economic worries about near-monopoly control of economic development through software domination to the
dangers of individuals getting lost in the proliferating terrains of cyberspace and the attendant decline of individual
autonomy and initiative, social relations and interaction, and community. Yet the infotainment society
promises more connections, interactions, communication, and new forms of
community. The project is in far too early stages to be able to appropriately
evaluate so for now we should rest content to avoid the extremes of
technophobia which would reject the new technologies out of hand as new
forms of alienation or domination contrasted to technophilic celebrations of
the information superhighway as the road to a computopia of information,
entertainment, affluence, and democracy.
The case is a disad their totalizing critique rejects

crucial technologies which solve extinction
Virilio misses a key component of the drama of technology in the present age
and that is the titanic struggle between national and international
governments and corporations to control the structure, flows, and content of
the new technologies in contrast to the struggle of individuals and social
groups to use the new technologies for their own purposes and projects . This
optic posits technology as a contested terrain, as a field of struggle between
competing social groups and individuals trying to use the new technologies
for their own projects. Despite his humanism, there is little agency or politics in Virilio's
conceptual universe and he does not delineate the struggles between various
social groups for the control of the new technologies and the new politics that
they will produce. Simply by damning, demonizing and condemning new
technologies, Virilio substitutes moralistic critique for social analysis and
political action, reducing his analysis to a lament and jeremiad rather than an
ethical and political critique la Ellul and his tradition of Catholic critique of contemporary civilization, or
critical social theory. Virilio has no theory of justice, no politics to counter,
reconstruct, reappropriate, or transform technology, no counterforces that
can oppose technology. Thus, the increasing shrillness of his lament, the rising
hysteria, and sense of futile impotence. While Virilio's take on technology is excessively negative
and technophobic, his work is still of importance in understanding the great
transformation currently underway. Clearly, speed and the instantaneity and
simultaneity of information are more important to the new economy and
military than ever before, so Virilio's reflections on speed, technology, politics, and culture are extremely
relevant. Yet he seems so far to have inadequately conceptualized the enormous
changes wrought by an infotainment society and the advent of a new kind of
multimedia information-entertainment technology. If my hunch is correct, his view of
technology and speed is integrally structured by his intense focus on war and
the military, while his entire mode of thought is a form of military-
technological determinism which forces him not only to overlook the
important role of capital, but also the complex ambiguities, the mixture of
positive and negative features, of the new technologies now proliferating and
changing every aspect of society and culture in the present era.
Even if they dont reject tech, they undermine confidence

in it which triggers the impact
Raman 9 (Varadaraja, Bachelor's and Master's degrees in Physics and
Mathematics from the University of Calcutta before doing his doctoral work
on the foundations of quantum mechanics at the University of Paris Global
Spiral, Jan 23,
http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/10678/Default.a
spx)
Next there are philosophical reasons for the anti-science movements,
formulated by thinkers who bring their full logical prowess to show that a framework
based on logic alone is untenable. They explore the flaws in the foundations
of scientific thinking, and question science's claim to hold monopoly for a
correct interpretation of the natural world. These are interesting perspectives in the academic
arena, but when they spill over to the general public and uproot the public's
respect for science, they can cause serious damage to the framework of
reason and rationality in which science operates in its interpretation of the world. When
reason and rationality are devalued or are equated with unreason in our
pursuit to explain the world, superstition and mindless magic can take over
with serious adverse impacts on society. Societies which are persuaded that
rationality can be dispensed with can do immense harm to their peoples. In
this sense philosophical anti-science is perhaps the most dangerous of all .
Tech advancement solves itself

Superintelligence is an example of a technology that seems especially worth
promoting because it can help reduce a broad range of threats.
Superintelligent systems could advise us on policy and make the progress
curve for nanotechnology steeper, thus shortening the period of vulnerability
between the development of dangerous nanoreplicators and the deployment
of effective defenses. If we have a choice, it seems preferable that superintelligence be developed before
advanced nanotechnology, as superintelligence could help reduce the risks of nanotechnology but not vice versa.
Other technologies that have wide risk-reducing uses include intelligence
augmentation, information technology, and surveillance. These can make us
smarter individually and collectively or make enforcement of necessary
regulation more feasible. A strong prima facie case therefore exists for pursuing these technologies as
vigorously as possible. Needless to say, we should also promote non-technological developments that are beneficial in
almost all scenarios, such as peace and international cooperation.
Incrementalism is good
Success in the transhumanist endeavor is not an all-or-nothing matter. There
is no it that everything hinges on. Instead, there are many incremental
processes at play, which may work better or worse, faster or more slowly.
Even if we cant cure all diseases, we will cure many. Even if we dont get
immortality, we can have healthier lives. Even if we cant freeze whole bodies
and revive them, we can learn how to store organs for transplantation . Even if we
dont solve world hunger, we can feed a lot of people. With many potentially transforming
technologies already available and others in the pipeline, it is clear that there
will be a large scope for human augmentation. The more powerful
transhuman technologies, such as machine-phase nanotechnology and
superintelligence, can be reached through several independent paths. Should
we find one path to be blocked, we can try another one. The multiplicity of
routes adds to the probability that our journey will not come to a premature
halt.
No impact
With the collapse of the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War, we are, as I argue below, in a new historical era which
Virilio has so far not adequately theorized. He remains, in my view, trapped in a
mode of technological determinism and a perspective on technology that
equates technology with military technology and pure war . For Virilio,
technology drives us, it impels us into new modes of speed and motion, it
carries us along predetermined trajectories. He believes that: the question, "Can we do without
technology?" cannot be asked as such. We are forced to expand the question of technology not only to the substance
produced, but also to the accident produced. The riddle of technology we were talking about
before is also the riddle of the accident" (Virilio and Lotringer 1983: 31-32). Virilio claims
that every technology involves its accompanying accident: with the invention of the
ship, you get the ship wreck; the plane brings on plane crashes; the automobile, car accidents, and so on. For Virilio,
the technocratic vision is thus one-sided and flawed in that it postulates a
perfect technological system, a seamless cybernetic realm of instrumentality
and control in which all processes are determined by and follow technological
laws (Baudrillard also, to some extent, reproduces this cybernetic and technological imaginary in his writings; see
Kellner 1989b). In the real world, however, accidents are part and parcel of
technological systems, they expose its limitations , they subvert idealistic
visions of technology. Accidents are consequently, in Virilio's view, an integral part of all modes of
transportation, industrial production, war and military organization, and other technological systems. He suggests that in
science a Hall of Accidents should be put next to each Hall of Machines: "Every technology, every science should choose
its specific accident, and reveal it as a product--not in a moralistic, protectionist way (safety first), but rather as a product
to be 'epistemo-technically' questioned. At the end of the nineteenth century, museums exhibited machines: at the end of
the twentieth century, I think we must grant the formative dimensions of the accident its rightful place in a new museum"
Virilio is fascinated as well by interruptions ranging from
(Virilio and Lotringer 1983).[5]
sleep to day dreams to maladies like picnolepsy or epilepsy to death itself
(1991a and Virilio and Lotringer 1983: 33ff). Interruption is also a properly cinematic vision in
which time and space are artificially parcelled and is close to the microscopic
and fragmented vision that Lyotard identifies with "the postmodern condition" (Virilio and
Lotringer 1983: 35). For Virilio, the cinema shows us that "consciousness is an effect of montage" (Virilio and Lotringer
1983: 35), that perception itself organizes experience into discontinuous fragments, that we are aware of objects and
events in a highly discontinuous and fragmented mode.
1ar EXT Turn AT: We Solve
They throw out the good with the bad
Hughes 6 (James, Ph.D., Public Policy Studies at Trinity College, Democratic Transhumanism 2.0, Last Mod Jan 26,
http://www.changesurfer.com/Acad/DemocraticTranshumanism.htm)
left Luddism inappropriately equates technologies with the power

First,
relations around those technologies . Technologies do not determine power relations, they merely
create new terrains for organizing and struggle. Most new technologies open up new possibilities
for both expanded liberty and equality, just as they open new opportunities
for oppression and exploitation. Since the technologies will most likely not be stopped, democrats need
to engage with them, articulate policies that maximize social benefits from the technologies, and find liberatory uses for
If biotechnology is to be rejected simply because it is a product of
the technologies.
capitalism, adopted in class society, then every technology must be rejected.
The mission of the Left is to assert democratic control and priorities over the
development and implementation of technology. But establishing democratic
control over technological innovation is not the same as Luddism. In fact, to the
extent that advocates for the democratic control of technology do not
guarantee benefits from technology, and attempt to suppress technology
altogether, they will lose public support.
Visual Metaphors
2nc F/L
is unlimited and self-serving
Perm do both --- the 1AC didnt use visual meetaphors

explicitly and language is fluid
Davidson and Smith 99 Department of Environmental Studies and
Department of Philosophy @ Queens University (Joyce N. and Mick;
Wittgenstein and Irigaray: Gender and Philosophy in a Language (Game) of
Difference, Hypatia Volume 14 Number 2, tony)
The concept of a language-game links a particular employment of
language with the actions into which it is woven (Wittgenstein
1988, 7). Just as there are innumerable activities in which we employ
language, so there are countless kinds of uses of language, and
these do not stay the same. They are not fixed , given once and for
all; but new types of language, new language games , as we may say, come
into existence and others become obsolete and forgotten (1988, 23). Wittgenstein
lists a few of the many possible language games, including making up a story . . . play acting . . .
making a joke; telling it . . . translating . . . asking, thinking, cursing, greeting, praying (1988, 23). What
is more, the meaning of the words we employ will often change as we
put them to different uses in different language - games . Wittgenstein
suggests that to know the meaning of a word is not a matter of being able to define it, to fix its meaning,
but of knowing how to use it, that is, to have made the appropriate connections between concept and
language-game. It is only possible to demonstrate that we have understood a words meaning by being
consider what there might be in common
able to apply it. For example,
between deep sorrow, a deep sound, a deep well (Wittgenstein 1964, 137),
when to answer depth is obviously tautological.
The aff is a disad to the alt --- that outweighs

should save as many priceless objects as possible ? Even if two do
each is priceless ; thus, I have good reason to save as many as I can .
Especially since legal reform is key to challenge ableism

--- altering language is irrelevant
Harpur 12 PhD from the Queensland University of Technology, research
fellow at The University of Queensland, Griffith Law School and the United
Nations University (Paul, From disability to ability: changing the phrasing of
the debate, Disability & Society Volume 27, Issue 3, 2012, tony)
Persons with disabilities have been subjected to discrimination and

social apartheid for centuries. To address this discrimination, advocates have employed
various strategies including law reforms, public policy, education, language, and so on. This paper has
argued for a change in terminology to aid culture change. Over the proceeding decades, disability
advocates have gained control over how disability is defined through the promotion of the social model.
Advocates have worked to remove offensive terminology from the common vernacular. This paper asserts
that the time is right for disability advocates to adopt the label of ableism as a powerful label to describe
the prejudice, discrimination and discounting of persons with disabilities. The labels of disableism and
ableism have emerged to describe disability discrimination. This paper has argued that disability scholars
should embrace and promote the use of the term ableism. While being used by some scholars, disableism
serves two masters. Disability nomenclature developed with ableist ideological influences. Despite moves
by the disability community to gain control of the term disability, this paper asserts that this terms
historic antecedence detracts from the impact of disability advocacy. The label of ableism, in contrast, is
free from ableist ideological influences and offers greater advocacy potentials. By taking control of the
category away from the disability industry and by expanding people who can utilise the term ableism, this
paper concludes that ableist nomenclatures have the potential of increasing the power of disability
advocacy. While altering the language used to describe disability discrimination can assist in
is not sufficient to
culture change, this is just one strategy. Oliver (1996) has observed that it
simply abolishing the use of offensive words to describe persons with disabilities.
Rovner has observed that [f]or over forty years, the disability rights movement has sought to reframe the
way people with disabilities are understood by American law, social policy, and society (2004, 1043).
Rovner explains that to achieve this outcomeit will be necessary for the image of disability to
be remade in the eyes of those who make laws and apply them (2004, 1090). If policy-
makers and the judiciary do not embrace the culture change, then reforms
will have minimal impact (for a discussion of the impact disability models have upon
members of the judiciary consciously or subconsciously, see Cantor 2009, 401). Altering the way in which
language and culture constructs disability should be regarded as one useful weapon in the battle to
achieve equality. Coupled with other interventions, language can contribute to the struggle for social
equality. This paper has argued that using the term ableism to describe disability discrimination is one step
that can be used to assist in the wider struggle against oppression.
Surveillance metaphors good --- its the only way to

challenge oppressive government practices
Olukotun 14 -- Ford Foundation Freedom to Write Fellow at PEN American
Center, JD from Stanford Law School (Deji, Mapping Metaphors to Fight
Surveillance, Pen America, http://www.pen.org/blog/mapping-metaphors-
fight-surveillance, April 11, 2014, tony)
How do we use language to describe surveillance? As an organization that
promotes literature and defends freedom of expression wherever it is threatened, PEN is especially concerned about the
effect of mass surveillance on creative freedom. We fought U.S. government surveillance all the way to the Supreme Court
U.S. government
in the case Amnesty v. Clapper, and our report Chilling Effects documented that
surveillance is causing one out of six writers to self-censor their

research and writing. We may never know how many ideas are being
lost every day because of these programs. Judges and legislators
are increasingly confronted with the need to understand new
surveillance technologies, and often resort to metaphor to do so. The
Oxford English Dictionary defines metaphor as a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else,
especially something abstract. The use of metaphors can result in quite strange decisions, as Noam Cohen noted in a
December 2013 New York Times article, when Supreme Court Justice Scalia tried to illustrate how preposterous it would be
to liken a tracking device on the bottom of a car to a miniature policeman hitching a ride in the case U.S. v. Jones. The
inappropriate use of metaphors can distract from the fact that real lives are affected by them. Metaphors in law are to be
narrowly watched, once warned Justice Benjamin Cardozo, for starting as devices to liberate thought, they often end by
enslaving it. To better understand how metaphors are being used in coverage of surveillance, PEN embarked on a study
of articles by journalists and bloggers. Over 62 days between December and February, we combed through 133 articles by
We found that 91 percent of the articles

105 different authors and over 60 news outlets.
contained metaphors about surveillance. There is rich thematic diversity in the types of
metaphors that are used, but there is also a failure of imagination in using literature to describe surveillance. Over 9
percent of the articles in our study contained metaphors related to the act of collection; 8 percent to literature (more on
that later); about 6 percent to nautical themes; and more than 3 percent to authoritarian regimes. On the one hand ,
journalists and bloggers have been extremely creative in attempting
to describe government surveillance, for example, by using a variety
of metaphors related to the act of collection: sweep, harvest, gather,
scoop, glean, pluck, trap. These also include nautical metaphors, such as trawling, tentacles, harbor,
net, and inundation. These metaphors seem to fit with data and information flows. Yet we have also learned that George
Orwells novel 1984 continues to dominate literary metaphors with respect to surveillance; indeed, it was the only book
referenced in our study. His dystopian work, written in 1948, described a totalitarian state ruled by Big Brother. Nineteen
Eighty-Four in some ways describes the repression experienced by our writer colleagues in countries such as Vietnam,
Iran, China, and Syria. On our caselist, which we use to advocate on behalf of threatened writers, these countries account
for 58 of the 92 writers persecuted for their use of digital media. But scholars and activists have observed that relating
U.S. government surveillance regimes to Big Brother overstates the case, because the U.S. is a more open society than
the one 1984 describes and, despite the NSAs overreach, the country should not be labeled authoritarian. Scholar Daniel
J. Solove, for example, pointed out in a seminal article that Kafkas novella The Trial is probably better suited: We are not
heading toward a world of Big Brother or one composed of Little Brothers, but toward a more mindless processof
bureaucratic indifference, arbitrary errors, and dehumanizationa world that is beginning to resemble Kafkas vision in
The Trial. Other activists prefer to use Jeremy Benthams notion of the panopticon, an institution that allows those with
power to create the perception that their subjects are under surveillance at all times. But for journalists and bloggers, the
rich variety of literature that has tackled surveillancefrom science fiction to modern novelsis rarely invoked. Orwell is
the reigning king of the surveillance state. What do these results
mean? The fact that 91 percent of articles contain metaphors suggest that writers will continue to
use metaphors to help us understand advances in technology . They also
use a diverse range of metaphors. However, as advocates develop new messaging on
surveillance and look to literature for inspiration, they should not
stop at Orwell: there are many more literary treasures to be
explored . The human rights community and, now, private businesses are emphasizing the importance of
encryption and digital hygiene to protect against government intrusion. Soon we will need metaphors to explain how
people tend
these tools work, and how they might be abused. As security expert Bruce Schneier has observed,
to base risk analysis more on stories than on data . Stories engage

us at a much more visceral level, especially stories that are vivid,
exciting or personally involving. Choose the wrong story, and you can overstate the risk. This
means journalists should be vigilant in deciding which literature should serve as metaphors. As we grapple with new
technologies and continue our work to fight illegal government intrusion into our privacy, well have to think carefully
about how to explain complex, high-tech programs in an easily comprehensible way. Literature is a
logical resource for finding metaphors . Aaron Santesso and David Rosen, for example, have
shown that the Eye of Sauron in J.R.R. Tolkiens Lord of the Rings better captures the current surveillance state, but so too
do plays by Shakespeare , such as The Tempest. Our study suggests we need better
metaphors while not losing sight of the implications of government
action that affect real human beings. Meanwhile, well continue
fight ing bulk surveillance in the courts and promoting legislation
that respects privacy and enables creative freedom to flourish.

Thus,
materialist constructivist epistemology accounts for this by predicting that it is not possible for symbol-
All symbolic movement has a trajectory,
using animals to exist in a symbolic void.
and if you have not imagined a potentially realizable alternative for
that trajectory to take, then what people will leap into is biological
reveals itself to be critical, so it is worth pondering sources of that failure. The rhetoric of
the kill in social theory in the past half century has repeatedly reduced to the leap into a void because
the symbolized alternative that the context of the twentieth century otherwise predispositionally offers is
to the binary opposite of capitalism, i.e., communism. That rhetorical option, however, has been foreclosed
The hard
by the historical discrediting of the readily imagined forms of communism (e.g., iek9).
work to invent better alternatives is not as dramatically enticing as
the story of the kill: such labor is piecemeal , intellectually difficult ,
requires multi-disciplinary understandings, and perhaps requires more
creativity than the typical academic theorist can muster. In the
absence of a viable alternative, the appeals to Radical Revolution
seem to have been sustained by the emotional zing of the kill, in many
cases amped up by the appeal of autonomy and manliness (iek uses the former term and deploys the
ethos of the latter). But if one does not provide a viable vision that offers a
reasonable chance of leaving most people better off than they are now, then Fox News has a
better offering (you'll be free and you'll get rich!). A revolution posited as a void
cannot succeed as a horizon of history, other than as constant local
scale violent actions, perhaps connected by shifting networks we call terrorists. This analysis
of the geo-political situation, of the onto-epistemological character of language, and of the limitations of
the dominant horizon of social change indicates that the focal project for progressive
Left Academics should now include the hard labor to produce
alternative visions that appear materially feasible .
Wilderson
2ac F/L

Perm do both the alt isnt an opportunity cost to the

plan only the perm solves extinction this outweighs the
residual link

something.
we might live for


und
The perm is best their method concludes staring with

the wrong choice is key creates the conditions for future
change
Reform is possible their surrender is ideological

dogmatism
Massa 14- speaking of Frank Wilderson Implications of Wildersons Afro-
Pessimism http://thehistoricalnerds.com/2014/12/16/implications-of-
wildersons-afro-pessimism/#comments
Bydisproving Wildersons claim that the Black Body is in a perpetual
state of ontological death because of the violence of the Middle Passage and showing
that the Black Body is not socially dead, then the possibilities of
legal reform and coalitional politics become possible and desirable . For
Wilderson, coalitional politics are just attempts to feign the ontological capacity of Blacks to shape their own future. He
refers to white people and colored immigrants specifically who try to engage in coalitional politics with the Black Body as
the junior and senior partners of civil society who pretend as if the Black is coherent and human. (Wilderson, Red, White
and Black, pg. 39). It is this kind of ontological absolutism that Wilderson adheres to that David Marriott criticizes when he
writes, Wilderson is prepared to say that black suffering is not only beyond analogy, it also refigures the whole of being. It
is not hard when reading such sentences to suspect a kind of absolutism at work here, and one that manages to be
peculiarly and dispiritingly dogmatic: throughout Red, White, and Black, despite variations in tone and emphasis, there is
always the desire to have black lived experience named as the worst, and the politics of such a desire inevitably collapses
into a kind of sentimental moralism: for the claim that Blackness is incapacity in its most pure and unadulterated form
means merely that the black has to embody this abjection without reserve (p. 38). This logicand the denial of any kind
of ontological integrity to the Black/Slave due to its endless traversal by force does seem to reduce ontology to logic,
Wildersons insistence
namely, a logic of non-recuperability. (Mariott, Black Cultural Studies, pg. 37-66).
of absolute negativity destroys the possibility for coalitional politics
because it will always frame the Black Body as something that will
always stand in an antagonistic position to the world. In engaging in
this form of ontological absolutism, Wilderson effectively creates an
us against the world logic whereby its best to either succumb to
the negativity surrounding the Black Body or destroy the world to
free the Black Body. Furthermore, as Mariott points out, this dogmatic ontological
absolutism essentializes the Black experience to its most negative
point, a kind of negativity that reproduces a form of self-hatred that
contributes to the destruction of positive coalitional politics. When
one comes to believe that they themselves are ontologically dead,
this encourages the logic of political apathy where one refuses to
attempt to engage with agents of change because they curse their
own identity and believe that there is nothing they can do about
their situation because Blackness is an ontological condition. To put it in
Lehmans term, why go vote if Im socially dead?. This form of
disengagement from the political is problematic when racism is
entrenched in our law, as Ian Haney Lopez points out in his book White By Law when he writes, law is
implicated in the construction of the contingent social systems of meaning that attach in our society to morphology and
ancestry, the meaning system we commonly refer to as race. The legal system influences what we look like, the meanings
ascribed to our looks, and the material reality that confirms the meanings of our appearances. Law constructs race.
(Lopez, White By Law, pg. 16). If the precedent set by court cases, as Lopez points out, were responsible for creating the
precedents that shaped how we see race as a social construction, then the need to challenge racism through legal reform
becomes more apparent. Wildersons ontological absolutism destroys the possibility to form the kind of coalitions that are
The kind
necessary to engaging with the legal systems that use the law to shape our social perceptions of race.
of self-hatred that Wilderson perpetuates through his ontological
construction of Blackness will only re-entrench racism because the
Black Body will refuse to engage in the forms of legal reform
necessary to change the law and they way it shapes how we view
race as a social construction. If the law is what truly shapes the
social construction of race and if the Black Body is truly capable of
engaging with these institutions, then Wildersons Afro-pessimism must be
firmly rejected to usher in a politics of hope that is necessary to mobilize coalitions
against dominant power structures.
Anti-blackness is not ontological

Hudson 13, Political Studies Department, University of the Witwatersrand,
Johannesburg , South Africa, has been on the editorial board of the Africa
Perspective: The South African Journal of Sociology and Theoria: A Journal of
Political and Social Theory and Transformation, and is a member of the
Johannesburg Workshop in Theory and Criticism, The state and the colonial
unconscious, Social Dynamics: A journal of African studies, 2013
There always has to
Thus the self-same/other distinction is necessary for the possibility of identity itself.
exist an outside, which is also inside, to the extent it is designated as the
impossibility from which the possibility of the existence of the
subject derives its rule (Badiou 2009, 220). But although the excluded place
which isnt excluded insofar as it is necessary for the very possibility
of inclusion and identity may be universal (may be considered ontological), its
content (what fills it) as well as the mode of this filling and its
reproduction are contingent. In other words, the meaning of the signifier of
exclusion is not determined once and for all: the place of the place of
exclusion, of death is itself over-determined, i.e. the very framework
for deciding the other and the same, exclusion and inclusion, is
nowhere engraved in ontological stone but is political and never
terminally settled. Put differently, the curvature of intersubjective space
(Critchley 2007, 61) and thus, the specific modes of the othering of otherness are
nowhere decided in advance (as a certain ontological fatalism might
have it) (see Wilderson 2008). The social does not have to be divided
into white and black , and the meaning of these signifiers is never
necessary because they are signifiers. To be sure, colonialism institutes
an ontological division, in that whites exist in a way barred to blacks who are not. But this
ontological relation is really on the side of the ontic that is, of all
contingently constructed identities, rather than the ontology of the
social which refers to the ultimate unfixity, the indeterminacy or lack
of the social. In this sense, then, the white man doesnt exist, the black man doesnt exist (Fanon 1968, 165);
and neither does the colonial symbolic itself, including its most intimate structuring relations division is
constitutive of the social, not the colonial division. Whiteness may
well be very deeply sediment in modernity itself, but respect for the ontological
difference (see Heidegger 1962, 26; Watts 2011, 279) shows up its ontological status as ontic. It may be so
deeply sedimented that it becomes difficult even to identify the very
possibility of the separation of whiteness from the very possibility of order, but
from this it does not follow that the void of black being
functions as the ultimate substance, the transcendental signified on
which all possible forms of sociality are said to rest . What gets lost here,
then, is the specificity of colonialism, of its constitutive axis, its ontological
differential. A crucial feature of the colonial symbolic is that the real is not screened off by the imaginary in the
way it is under capitalism. At the place of the colonised, the symbolic and the imaginary give
way because non-identity (the real of the social) is immediately inscribed in
the lived experience (vcu) of the colonised subject. The colonised is traversing
the fantasy (Zizek 2006a, 4060) all the time; the void of the verb to be is the very content of his interpellation. The
colonised is, in other words, the subject of anxiety for whom the symbolic
and the imaginary never work, who is left stranded by his very interpellation.4 Fixed into
non-fixity, he is eternally suspended between element and
moment5 he is where the colonial symbolic falters in the production
of meaning and is thus the point of entry of the real into the texture
itself of colonialism. Be this as it may, whiteness and blackness are
(sustained by) determinate and contingent practices of signification;
the structuring relation of colonialism thus itself comprises a knot of

significations which, no matter how tight, can always be undone.
Anti-colonial i.e., anti-white modes of struggle are not (just) psychic 6 but
involve the reactivation (or de-sedimentation)7 of colonial objectivity itself.
No matter how sedimented (or global), colonial objectivity is not ontologically immune to antagonism. Differentiality, as
Zizek insists (see Zizek 2012, chapter 11, 771 n48), immanently entails antagonism in that differentiality both makes
possible the existence of any identity whatsoever and at the same time because it is the presence of one object in
another undermines any identity ever being (fully) itself. Each element in a differential relation is the condition of
possibility and the condition of impossibility of each other. It is this dimension of antagonism that the Master Signifier
covers over transforming its outside (Other) into an element of itself, reducing it to a condition of its possibility.8 All
symbolisation produces an ineradicable excess over itself,
something it cant totalise or make sense of, where its production of meaning falters.
This is its internal limit point, its real:9 an errant object that has no place of its own,
isnt recognised in the categories of the system but is produced by it
its part of no part or object small a.10 Correlative to this object a is the subject
stricto sensu i.e., as the empty subject of the signifier without an identity that pins it down.11 That is the
subject of antagonism in confrontation with the real of the social, as
distinct from subject position based on a determinate identity .
Their social death arguments are patronizing and

offensive
Massa 14 speaking of Frank Wilderson Implications of Wildersons Afro-
Pessimism http://thehistoricalnerds.com/2014/12/16/implications-of-
wildersons-afro-pessimism/#comments
While Spivaks criticism is targeted to a school of thought that it radically different from Wildersons, my argument here is
Wilderson claims that every Black Body is ontologically
that the way in which
a slave and that every Black Body must imagine the end of the world
in order to free themselves from the chains of their own ontology is
playing into the same colonial logic that Spivak criticizes Foucault
and Deleuze for because Wilderson has universalized the
experiences of the Black Body by claiming that they are all bad, that
these experiences mean that they all have no future within civil
society. In building upon Spivaks work, Linda Alcoff argues that speaking on behalf of
others and what they should do for themselves in problematic when she
writes, There may appear to be a conflation between the issue of speaking for others and the issue of speaking about
others. This conflation was intentional on my part. There is an ambiguity in the two phrases: when one is speaking for
it may be
others one may be describing their situation and thus also speaking about them. In fact,
impossible to speak for others without simultaneously conferring
information about them. Similarly, when one is speaking about others, or
simply trying to describe their situation or some aspect of it, one may also be speaking in place
of them, that is, speaking for them. One may be speaking about others as an advocate or a
messenger if the persons cannot speak for themselves. Thus I would maintain that if the practice of speaking for others is
problematic, so too must be the practice of speaking about others, since it is difficult to distinguish speaking about from
speaking for in all cases. Moreover, if
we accept the premise stated above that a
speakers location has an epistemically significant impact on that
speakers claims, then both the practice of speaking for and of
speaking about raise similar issues. If speaking about is also involved here, however, the
entire edifice of the crisis of representation must be connected as well. In both the practice of speaking for as well as
the practice of speaking about others, I am engaging in the act of representing the others needs, goals, situation, and in
fact, who they are. I am representing them as such and such, or in post-structuralist terms, I am participating in the
construction of their subject-positions. Even if someone never hears the discursive self I present of them they may be
affected by the decisions. (Alcoff, The Problem of Speaking for Others, pg. 5-32). Wilderson has spoken for behalf of
claims that the Middle Passage has been the root of Black
others. His
suffering because of the way that it has constructed their ontology
depicts him as the messenger Alcoff criticizes because he claims to
understand their situation better than they understand it
themselves. When Wilderson claims that the Slave needs to imagine
themselves free from the Human race, Wilderson has created a
subject position of the entire Black community that is subject to his
decision-making by the way he represents them. This excludes the
majority of Black folk who believe that they have a future and who
believe that the Civil Rights movement was a step in the right
direction. He has silenced their experiences in favor of presenting
the Black experience as one of universal suffering and negativity. The
same way that Wilderson believes the capacity of Whiteness to imagine new possibilities is parasitic upon the Black
incapacity to do so, Wildersons critique is also parasitic upon the construction of social death upon the Black Body so that
he can continue to speak on behalf of the Black Body and present himself as their savior by imagining the end of the
speaking for others is reminiscent of the
world. Spivak brilliantly articulates just how
logic of imperialism when she writes, For the true subaltern group, whose identity is its difference,
there is no unrepresentable subaltern subject that can know and
speak itself; the intellecutals solution is not to abstain from
representation.
Studies prove the Black Body is not ontologically dead

Massa 14- speaking of Frank Wilderson Implications of Wildersons Afro-Pessimism
http://thehistoricalnerds.com/2014/12/16/implications-of-wildersons-afro-
pessimism/#comments
To put in bluntly, Africans did not come out of the Middle Passage as Blacks,
but came out with some form of their culture still left intact, a culture, that,
for Brown, still grew and developed in its own way even during the atrocities of slavery. If Wildersons main
argument for the ontological death of the Black Body is because of
their incapacity to develop their own subjectivity, then the formation
of a distinct slave culture would invalidate this argument because the
formation of a distinct culture shows that the Black Body still
retained some capacity to form their own subjectivity, a sign of life
in the ontological realm. Furthermore, if the Black Body were truly
ontologically dead in the present, then statistics would indicate
otherwise. A study by the Journal of Blacks in Higher education shows that since 1990, the
graduation rate for Black men has improved from 28% to 35% in
2005 and subsequently 34% to 46% for Black women during the same period.
The study does conceded that the statistics remain low, but that the
progress made in the past 15 years has been encouraging and that
reform has been a step in the right direction . If the Black Body were
truly socially dead, then institutions such as the university would be
completely inaccessible to the Black Body, yet the progress made in graduation rates
show that the Black Body still has some agency and capacity to shape their own futures.
Racial progress has occurred though legal change and
more in the area of drug laws is still possible---reject
pessimism because it ignores specific reforms that
achieved lasting reductions in racial inequality
Omi 13, and Howard Winant, Resistance is futile?: a response to Feagin and
Elias, Ethnic and Racial Studies Volume 36, Issue 6, p. 961-973, 2013 Special
Issue: Symposium - Rethinking Racial Formation Theory
In Feagin and Elias's account, white racist rule in the USA appears unalterable and
permanent. There is little sense that the white racial frame evoked by systemic racism theory changes in significant ways over
historical time. They dismiss important rearrangements and reforms as
merely a distraction from more ingrained structural oppressions and

deep lying inequalities that continue to define US society (Feagin and Elias 2012, p. 21). Feagin and Elias use a
concept they call surface flexibility to argue that white elites frame racial realities in ways that suggest change, but are merely engineered to
reinforce the underlying structure of racial oppression. Feagin and Elias say the phrase racial democracy is an oxymoron a word defined in
the dictionary as a figure of speech that combines contradictory terms. If they mean the USA is a contradictory and incomplete democracy in
respect to race and racism issues, we agree. If they mean that people of colour have no democratic rights or political power in the USA, we
disagree . The USA is a racially despotic country in many ways, but in our view it is also in many
respects a racial democracy, capable of being influenced towards
more or less inclusive and redistributive economic policies , social policies, or for that matter, imperial
policies. What is distinctive about our own epoch in the USA (post-Second World War to the present) with respect to race and racism? Over
the past decades there has been a steady drumbeat of efforts to contain and neutralize civil rights, to restrict racial democracy, and to
maintain or even increase racial inequality. Racial disparities in different institutional sites employment, health, education persist and in
many cases have increased. Indeed, the post-2008 period has seen a dramatic increase in racial inequality. The subprime home mortgage
crisis, for example, was a major racial event. Black and brown people were disproportionately affected by predatory lending practices; many
It would be easy to conclude,

lost their homes as a result; race-based wealth disparities widened tremendously.
as Feagin and Elias do, that white racial dominance has been continuous and
unchanging throughout US history . But such a perspective misses

the dramatic twists and turns in racial politics that have occurred
since the Second World War and the civil rights era. Feagin and Elias claim
that we overly inflate the significance of the changes wrought by the
civil rights movement, and that we overlook the serious reversals of racial
justice and persistence of huge racial inequalities (Feagin and Elias 2012, p. 21) that
followed in its wake. We do not . In Racial Formation we wrote about racial reaction in a chapter of that name, and elsewhere in
the book as well. Feagin and Elias devote little attention to our arguments there; perhaps because they are in substantial agreement with us.
While we argue that the right wing was able to rearticulate race and racism
issues to roll back some of the gains of the civil rights movement , we
also believe that there are limits to what the right could achieve in the post-
civil rights political landscape. So we agree that the present prospects for
racial justice are demoralizing at best. But we do not think that is the
whole story. US racial conditions have changed over the post-Second World War period, in
ways that Feagin and Elias tend to downplay or neglect. Some of the major reforms of the 1960s
have proved irreversible ; they have set powerful democratic forces

in motion . These racial (trans)formations were the results of unprecedented political mobilizations, led by the black movement, but
not confined to blacks alone. Consider the desegregation of the armed forces, as well as key civil rights
movement victories of the 1960s: the Voting Rights Act, the Immigration and
Naturalization Act (Hart- Celler), as well as important court decisions like Loving v. Virginia that
declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. While we have the greatest respect
for the late Derrick Bell, we do not believe that his interest convergence hypothesis effectively explains all these developments. How does
Lyndon Johnson's famous (and possibly apocryphal) lament upon signing the Civil Rights Act on 2 July 1964 We have lost the South for a
generation count as convergence? The US racial regime has been transformed in

significant ways . As Antonio Gramsci argues, hegemony proceeds through the incorporation of opposition (Gramsci 1971, p.
182). The civil rights reforms can be seen as a classic example of this process; here the US racial regime under movement pressure was
exercising its hegemony. But Gramsci insists that such reforms which he calls passive revolutions cannot be merely symbolic if they are to
be effective: oppositions must win real gains in the process. Once again, we are in the realm of politics, not absolute rule. So yes, we think
important if partial victories that shifted the racial state and

there were
transformed the significance of race in everyday life. And yes, we think that
further victories can take place both on the broad terrain of the
state and on the more immediate level of social interaction: in daily interaction, in the human psyche and across civil
society . Indeed we have argued that in many ways the most important accomplishment of
the anti-racist movement of the 1960s in the USA was the politicization of the social. In the USA
and indeed around the globe, race-based movements demanded not only the
inclusion of racially defined others and the democratization of

structurally racist societies, but also the recognition and validation
by both the state and civil society of racially-defined experience and
identity. These demands broadened and deepened democracy itself.
They facilitated not only the democratic gains made in the USA by the black
movement and its allies, but also the political advances towards equality, social justice and inclusion accomplished by other new
social movements: second-wave feminism, gay liberation, and the environmentalist and anti-war movements among others. By no
means do we think that the post-war movement upsurge was an

unmitigated success. Far from it: all the new social movements were subject to the same rearticulation (Laclau and
Mouffe 2001, p. xii) that produced the racial ideology of colourblindness and its variants; indeed all these movements confronted their mirror
images in the mobilizations that arose from the political right to counter them. Yet even their incorporation and containment, even their
even the need to develop the

confrontations with the various backlash phenomena of the past few decades,
highly contradictory ideology of colourblindness, reveal the

transformative character of the politicization of the social. While it is not possible here to explore so extensive a
subject, it is worth noting that it was the long-delayed eruption of racial subjectivity and self-awareness into the mainstream political arena
that set off this transformation, shaping both the democratic and anti-democratic social movements that are evident in US politics today.
use of racial categories can

What are the political implications of contemporary racial trends? Feagin and Elias's
be imprecise. This is not their problem alone; anyone writing about

race and racism needs to frame terms with care and precision, and we
undoubtedly get fuzzy too from time to time. The absence of a
careful approach leads to racial lumping and essentialisms of various kinds.
This imprecision is heightened in polemic . In the Feagin and Elias essay the
term whites at times refers to all whites, white elites, dominant white
actors and very exceptionally, anti-racist whites, a category in which we presume they
would place themselves. Although the terms black, African American and Latino appear, the term people of colour is emphasized, often in
direct substitution for black reference points. In the USA today it is important not to frame race in a
bipolar manner . The black/white paradigm made more sense in the
past than it does in the twenty-first century. The racial make-up of
the nation has now changed dramatically. Since the passage of the Immigration Reform Act of
1965, the USA has become more coloured. A majorityminority national demographic shift is well underway. Predicted to arrive by the mid-
twenty-first century, the numerical eclipse of the white population is already in evidence locally and regionally. In California, for example, non-
Hispanic whites constitute only 39.7 per cent of the state's population. While the decline in the white population cannot be correlated with any
decline of white racial dominance, the dawning and deepening of racial multipolarity calls into question a sometimes implicit and sometimes
explicit black/white racial framework that is evident in Feagin and Elias's essay. Shifting racial demographics and identities also raise general
questions of race and racism in new ways that the systemic racism approach is not prepared to explain.3 Class questions and issues of
panethnicizing trends, for example, call into question what we mean by race, racial identity and race consciousness. No racially defined group
is even remotely uniform; groups that we so glibly refer to as Asian American or Latino are particularly heterogeneous. Some have achieved or
exceeded socio-economic parity with whites, while others are subject to what we might call engineered poverty in sweatshops, dirty and
dangerous labour settings, or prisons. Tensions within panethnicized racial groups are notably present, and conflicts between racially defined
groups (black/brown conflict, for example) are evident in both urban and rural settings. A substantial current of social scientific analysis now
argues that Asians and Latinos are the new white ethnics, able to work toward whiteness4 at least in part, and that the black/white
bipolarity retains its distinct and foundational qualities as the mainstay of US racism (Alba and Nee 2005; Perlmann 2005; Portes and Rumbaut
2006; Waters, Ueda and Marrow 2007). We question that argument in light of the massive demographic shifts taking place in the USA.
Globalization, climate change and above all neoliberalism on a global scale, all drive migration. The country's economic capacity to absorb
enormous numbers of immigrants, low-wage workers and their families (including a new, globally based and very female, servant class)
without generating the sort of established subaltern groups we associate with the terms race and racism, may be more limited than it was
when the whitening of Europeans took place in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In other words this argument's key precedent, the
absorption of white immigrants of a different color (Jacobson 1998), may no longer apply. Indeed, we might think of the assimilationist model
itself as a general theory of immigrant incorporation that was based on a historically specific case study one that might not hold for, or be
replicated by, subsequent big waves of immigration. Feagin and Elias's systemic racism model, while offering numerous important insights,
does not inform concrete analysis of these issues. It is important going forward to understand how groups are differentially racialized and
relatively positioned in the US racial hierarchy: once again racism must be seen as a shifting racial project. This has important consequences,
not only with respect to emerging patterns of inequality, but also in regard to the degree of power available to different racial actors to define,
shape or contest the existing racial landscape. Attention to such matters is largely absent in Feagin and Elias's account. In their view racially
identified groups are located in strict reference to the dominant white racial frame, hammered into place, so to speak. As a consequence,
they fail to examine how racially subordinate groups interact and influence each others boundaries, conditions and practices. Because they
offer so little specific analysis of Asian American, Latino or Native American racial issues, the reader finds her/himself once again in the land
(real or imaginary, depending on your racial politics) of bipolar US racial dynamics, in which whites and blacks play the leading roles, and other
racially identified groups as well as those ambiguously identified, such as Middle Eastern and South Asian Americans (MEASA) play at best
supporting roles, and are sometimes cast as extras or left out of the picture entirely. We still want to
acknowledge that blacks have been catching hell and have borne
the brunt of the racist reaction of the past several decades. For
example, we agree with Feagin and Elias's critique of the reactionary politics
of incarceration in the USA. The new Jim Crow (Alexander 2012) or even the new slavery that the present system practises
is something that was just in its beginning stages when we were writing Racial Formation. It is now recognized as a national and indeed global
scandal. How is it to be understood? Of course there are substantial debates on this topic, notably about the
nature of the prison-industrial complex (Davis 2003, p. 3) and the social and cultural effects of mass incarceration along racial lines. But
beyond Feagin and Elias's denunciation of the ferocious white racism that is
operating here, deeper political implications are worth considering. As
Alexander (2012), Mauer (2006), Manza and Uggen (2008) and movement groups like Critical Resistance and the Ella Baker Center argue,
the upsurge over recent decades in incarceration rates for black (and brown) men
expresses the fear-based, law-and-order appeals that have shaped US racial politics since the rise of Nixonland (Perlstein 2008) and the
Southern strategy. Perhaps even more central, racial repression aims at restricting the increasing
impact of voters of colour in a demographically shifting electorate.
There is a lot more to say about this, but for the present two key points stand out: first, it is not an area where Feagin and Elias and we have
for all the horrors and injustices that the new Jim
any sharp disagreement, and second,
Crow represents, incarceration, profiling and similar practices

remain political issues . These practices and policies are not
ineluctable and unalterable dimensions of the US racial regime .
There have been previous waves of reform in these areas. They can
be transformed again by mass mobilization, electoral shifts and so
on. In other words, resistance is not futile . Speaking of electoral shifts and the formal political
arena, how should President Barack Obama be politically situated in this discussion? How do Feagin and Elias explain Obama? Quite
amazingly, his name does not appear in their essay. Is he a mere token, an oreo, a shill for Wall Street? Or does Obama represent a new
development in US politics, a black leader of a mass, multiracial party that for sheer demographic reasons alone might eventually triumph
over the white people's party, the Republicans? If the President is neither the white man's token nor Neo, the One,5 then once again we are in
the world of politics: neither the near-total white despotism depicted by Feagin and Elias, nor a racially inclusive democracy. President Obama
continues to enjoy widespread black support, although it is clear that he has not protected blacks against their greatest cumulative loss of
wealth in history. He has not explicitly criticized the glaring racial bias in the US carceral system. He has not intervened in conflicts over
workers rights particularly in the public sector where many blacks and other people of colour are concentrated. He has not intervened to
halt or slow foreclosures, except in ways that were largely symbolic. Workers and lower-middle-class people were the hardest hit by the great
recession and the subprime home mortgage crisis, with black families faring worst, and Latinos close behind (Rugh and Massey 2010); Obama
has not defended them. Many writers have explained Obama's centrism and unwillingness to raise the issue of race as functions of white
racism (Sugrue 2010). The black community and other communities of colour as well remains politically divided. While black folk have
taken the hardest blows from the reactionary and racist regime that has mostly dominated US politics since Reagan (if not since Nixon), no
united black movement has succeeded the deaths of Malcolm and Martin. Although there is always important political activity underway, a
relatively large and fairly conservative black middle class, a black bourgeoisie in Frazier's (1957) terms, has generally maintained its position
since the end of the civil rights era. Largely based in the public sector, and including a generally centrist business class as well, this stratum
has continued to play the role that Frazier and before him, Charles S. Johnson. William Lloyd Warner, Alison Davis and other scholars
identified: vacillation between the white elite and the black masses. Roughly similar patterns operate in Latino communities as well, where the
working towards whiteness framework coexists with a substantial amount of exclusion and super-exploitation. Alongside class issues in
communities of colour, there are significant gender issues. The disappearance of blue-collar work, combined with the assault by the criminal
justice system chiefly profiling by the police (stop and frisk) and imprisonment, have both unduly targeted and victimized black and brown
Women of colour are also targeted, especially by

men, especially youth.
violence, discrimination and assaults on their reproductive rights (Harris-

Perry 2011); profiling is everywhere (Glover 2009). Here again we are in the realm of racial politics. Debate proceeds in the black community
on Obama's credibilty, with Cornel West and Tavis Smiley leading the critics. But it seems safe to say that in North Philly, Inglewood or
Atlanta's Lakewood section, the president remains highly popular. Latino support for Obama remains high as well. Feagin and Elias need to
clarify their views on black and brown political judgement. Is it attuned to political realities or has it been captured by the white racial frame?
Is Obama's election of no importance? *** In conclusion, do Feagin and Elias really believe that white power is so complete, so extensive, so
sutured (as Laclau and Mouffe might say) as they suggest here? Do they mean to suggest, in Borg-fashion, that resistance is futile? This
seems to be the underlying political logic of the systemic racism approach, perhaps unintentionally so. Is white racism so ubiquitous that no
meaningful political challenge can be mounted against it? Are black and brown folk (yellow and red people, and also others unclassifiable
under the always- absurd colour categories) utterly supine, duped, abject, unable to exert any political pressure? Is such a view of race and
racism even recognizable in the USA of 2012? And is that a responsible political position to be advocating? Is this what we want to teach our
students of colour? Or our white students for that matter? We suspect that if pressed, Feagin and Elias would concur with our judgement that
racial conflict, both within (and against) the state and in everyday life, is a
fundamentally political process. We think that they would also accept our claim that the
ongoing political realities of race provide extensive evidence that
people of colour in the USA are not so powerless , and that whites
are not so omnipotent, as Feagin and Elias's analysis suggests them to be. Racial formation theory allows us to see
that there are contradictions in racial oppression. The racial formation approach reveals that white racism is unstable and constantly
challenged, from the national and indeed global level down to the personal and intra-psychic conflicts that we all experience, no matter what
there have been

our racial identity might be. While racism largely white continues to flourish, it is not monolithic. Yes,
enormous increases in racial inequality in recent years. But

movement-based anti-racist opposition continues, and sometimes
scores victories. Challenges to white racism continue both within
the state and in civil society . Although largely and properly led by people of colour, anti-racist movements also
incorporate whites such as Feagin and Elias themselves. Movements may experience setbacks,
the reforms for which they fought may be revealed as inadequate , and
indeed their leaders may be co-opted or even eliminated, but racial subjectivity and self-awareness, unresolved and
both within the individual psyche and the body politic, abides .
conflictual
Resistance is not futile.
No social death
Brown 9, Prof. of History and African and African-American Studies @
Harvard Univ., December 2009, "Social Death and Political Life in the Study of
Slavery," American Historical Review, p. 1231-1249
Specters of the Atlantic is self-consciously a work of theory (despite Baucoms prodigious archival research), and social
death may be largely unproblematic as a matter of theory, or even law. In these arenas, as David Brion Davis has argued,
the slave has no legitimate, independent being, no place in the cosmos except as an instrument of her or his masters
the concept often becomes a general description of actual
will.12 But
social life in slavery. Vincent Carretta, for example, in his authoritative biography of the abolitionist
writer and former slave Olaudah Equiano, agrees with Patterson that because enslaved Africans and their descendants
were stripped of their personal identities and history, [they] were forced to suffer what has been aptly called social
death. The self-fashioning enabled by writing and print allowed Equiano to resurrect himself publicly from the
condition that had been imposed by his enslavement.13 The living conditions of slavery in eighteenth-century Jamaica,
one slave society with which Equiano had experience, are described in rich detail in Trevor Burnards unflinching
examination of the career of Thomas Thistle- wood, an English migrant who became an overseer and landholder in
Jamaica, and who kept a diary there from 1750 to 1786. Through Thistlewoods descriptions of his life among slaves,
Burnard glimpses a world of uncertainty, where the enslaved were always vulnerable to repeated depredations that
actually led to significant slave dehumanization as masters sought, with considerable success, to obliterate slaves
personal histories. Burnard consequently concurs with Patterson: slavery completely stripped slaves of their cultural
heritage, brutalized them, and rendered ordinary life and normal relationships extremely difficult.14 This was slavery,
after all, and much more than a transfer of migrants from Africa to America.15 Yet one wonders, after reading Burnards
indispensable account, how slaves in Jamaica organized some of British Americas greatest political events during
Thistlewoods time and after, including the Coromantee Wars of the 1760s, the 1776 Hanover conspiracy, and the Baptist
War of 18311832. Surely they must have found some way to turn the disorganization, instability, and chaos of slavery
into collective forms of belonging and striving, making connections when confronted with alienation and finding dignity
Rather than pathologizing slaves by allowing the
in the face of dishonor.
condition of social death to stand for the experience of life in
slavery, then, it might be more helpful to focus on what the enslaved
actually made of their situation. Among the most insightful texts to explore the experiential
meaning of Afro- Atlantic slavery (for both the slaves and their descendants) are two recent books by Saidiya Hartman and
Stephanie Smallwood. Rather than eschewing the concept of social death, as might be expected from writing that begins
by considering the perspective of the enslaved, these two authors use the idea in penetrating ways. Hart- mans Lose
Smallwoods Saltwater Slavery: A
Your Mother: A Journey along the Atlantic Slave Route and
Middle Passage from Africa to American Diaspora extend social death beyond a general
description of slavery as a condition and imagine it as an experience
of self. Here both the promise and the problem with the concept are
most fully apparent.16 Both authors seek a deeper understanding of
the experience of enslavement and its consequences for the past,
present, and future of black life than we generally find in histories of slavery. In Hartmans
account especially, slavery is not only an object of study, but also the focus of a personal memoir. She travels along a
slave route in Ghana, from its coastal forts to the backcountry hinterlands, symbolically reversing the first stage of the
she meditates on the history of
trek now commonly called the Middle Passage. In searching prose,
slavery in Africa to explore the precarious nature of belonging to the
social category African American. Rendering her remarkable facility with social theory in
elegant and affective terms, Hartman asks the question that nags all identities, but especially those forged by the
descendants of slaves: What identifications, imagined affinities, mythical narratives, and acts of remembering and
forgetting hold the category together? Confronting her own alienation from any story that would yield a knowable
genealogy or a comfortable identity, Hartman wrestles with what it means to be a stranger in ones putative motherland,
to be denied country, kin, and identity, and to forget ones pastto be an orphan.17 Ultimately, as the title suggests, Lose
Your Mother is an injunction to accept dispossession as the basis of black self-definition. Such a judgment is warranted, in
Hartmans account, by the implications of social death both for the experience of enslavement and for slaverys afterlife in
the present. As Patterson delineated in sociological terms the death of social personhood and the reincorporation of
individuals into slavery, Hartman sets out on a personal quest to retrace the process by which lives were destroyed and
When she contends with what it meant to be a slave, she
slaves born.18
frequently invokes Pattersons idiom: Seized from home, sold in the
market, and severed from kin, the slave was for all intents and
purposes dead, no less so than had he been killed in combat. No less so
than had she never belonged to the world. By making men, women, and children into commodities, enslavement
destroyed lineages, tethering people to owners rather than families, and in this way it annulled lives, transforming men
and women into dead matter, and then resuscitated them for servitude. Admittedly, the enslaved lived and breathed,
but they were dead in the social world of men.19 As it turns out, this kind of alienation is also part of what it presently
means to be African American. The transience of the slaves existence, for example, still leaves its traces in how black
people imagine and speak of home: We never tire of dreaming of a place that we can call home, a place better than here,
wherever here might be . . . We stay there, but we dont live there . . . Staying is living in a country without exercising any
claims on its resources. It is the perilous condition of existing in a world in which you have no investments. It is having
never resided in a place that you can say is yours. It is being of the house but not having a stake in it. Staying implies
transient quarters, a makeshift domicile, a temporary shelter, but no attachment or affiliation. This sense of not belonging
and of being an extraneous element is at the heart of slavery.20 We may have forgotten our country, Hartman writes,
Hartman sees the history of
but we havent forgotten our dispossession.21 Like Baucom,
slavery as a constituent part of a tragic present. Atlantic slavery
continues to be manifested in black peoples skewed life chances,
poor education and health, and high rates of incarceration, poverty,
and premature death. Disregarding the commonplace temporalities of professional
historians, whose literary conventions are generally predicated on a formal
distinction between past, present, and future, Hartman addresses
slavery as a problem that spans all three. The afterlife of slavery inhabits the nature of
belonging, which in turn guides the freedom dreams that shape prospects for change. If slavery persists as an issue in
the political life of black America, she writes, it is not because of an antiquated obsession with bygone days or the
burden of a too-long memory, but because black lives are still imperiled and devalued by a racial calculus and a political
arithmetic that were entrenched centuries ago.22 A professor of English and comparative literature, Hartman is in many
respects in a better position than most historians to understand events such as the funeral aboard the Hudibras. This is
because for all of her evident erudition, her scholarship is harnessed not so much to a performance of mastery over the
facts of what happened, which might substitute precision for understanding, as to an act of mourning, even yearning.
She writes with a depth of introspection and personal anguish that is transgressive of professional boundaries but
one wonders how a historian could
absolutely appropriate to the task. Reading Hartman,
ever write dispassionately about slavery without feeling complicit
and ashamed. For dispassionate accountingexemplified by the ledgers of slave traders
has been a great weapon of the powerful, an episteme that made
the grossest violations of personhood acceptable, even necessary . This
is the kind of bookkeeping that bore fruit upon the Zong. It made it easier for a trader to countenance yet another dead
black body or for a captain to dump a shipload of captives into the sea in order to collect the insurance, since it wasnt
possible to kill cargo or to murder a thing already denied life. Death was simply part of the workings of the trade. The
archive of slavery, then, is a mortuary. Not content to total up the body count, Hartman offers elegy, echoing in her own
way the lamentations of the women aboard the Hudibras. Like them, she is concerned with the dead and what they mean
to the living. I was desperate to reclaim the dead, she writes, to reckon with the lives undone and obliterated in the
making of human commodities.23 It is this mournful quality of Lose Your Mother that elevates it above so many histories
the same sense of lament seems to require that Hartman overlook
of slavery, but
small but significant political victories like the one described by Butter- worth. Even as Hartman
seems to agree with Paul Gilroy on the value of seeing the consciousness of the slave as involving an extended act of
so focused on her own commemorations that her text
mourning, she remains
makes little space for a consideration of how the enslaved struggled
with alienation and the fragility of belonging, or of the mourning rites they used to
confront their condition.24 All of the questions she raises about the meaning of slavery in the presentboth highly
personal and insistently politicalmight as well be asked about the meaning of slavery to slaves themselves, that is, if
one begins by closely examining their social and political lives rather than assuming their lack of social being. Here
undone by her reliance on Orlando Pattersons totalizing definition
Hartman is
of slavery. She asserts that no solace can be found in the death of the slave, no higher ground can be located, no
perspective can be found from which death serves a greater good or becomes anything other than what it is.25 If she is
correct, the events on the Hudibras were of negligible importance. And indeed, Hartmans understandable
emphasis on the personal damage wrought by slavery encourages
her to disavow two generations of social history that have
demonstrated slaves remarkable capacity to forge fragile com-
munities, preserve cultural inheritance, and resist the predations of
slaveholders. This in turn precludes her from describing the ways that violence, dislocation, and death actually
generate culture, politics, and consequential action by the enslaved.26 This limitation is particularly evident in a stunning
chapter that Hartman calls The Dead Book. Here she creatively reimagines the events that occurred on the voyage of
the slave ship Recovery, bound, like the Hudibras, from the Bight of Biafra to Grenada, when Captain John Kimber hung an
enslaved girl naked from the mizzen stay and beat her, ultimately to her death, for being sulky: she was sick and could
not dance when so ordered. As Hartman notes, the event would have been unremarkable had not Captain Kimber been
tried for murder on the testimony of the ships surgeon, a brief transcript of the trial been published, and the womans
death been offered up as allegory by the abolitionist William Wilberforce and the graphic satirist Isaac Cruikshank.
Hartman re-creates the murder and the surge of words it inspired, representing the perspectives of the captain, the
surgeon, and the aboli tionist, for each of whom the girl was a cipher outfitted in a different guise, and then she puts
herself in the position of the victim, substituting her own voice for the unknowable thoughts of the girl. Imagining the
experience as her own and wistfully representing her demise as a suicidea final act of agencyHartman hopes, by this
bold device, to save the girl from oblivion. Or perhaps her hope is to prove the impossibility of ever doing so, because by
failing, she concedes that the girl cannot be put to rest. It is a compelling move, but there is something missing. Hartman
discerns a convincing subject position for all of the participants in the events surrounding the death of the girl, except for
the other slaves who watched the woman die and carried the memory with them to the Americas, presumably to tell
others, plausibly even survivors of the Hudibras, who must have drawn from such stories a basic perspective on the
history of the Atlantic world. For the enslaved spectators, Hartman imagines only a fatalistic detachment: The women
were assembled a few feet away, but it might well have been a thousand. They held back from the girl, steering clear of
her bad luck, pestilence, and recklessness. Some said she had lost her mind. What could they do, anyway? The women
danced and sang as she lay dying. Hartman ends her odyssey among the Gwolu, descendants of peoples who fled the
slave raids and who, as communities of refugees, shared her sense of dispossession. Newcomers were welcome. It
didnt matter that they werent kin because genealogy didnt matter; rather, building community did. Lose Your Mother
concludes with a moving description of a particular one of their songs, a lament for those who were lost, which resonated
deeply with her sense of slaverys meaning in the present. And yet Hartman has more difficulty hearing similar cries
intoned in the past by slaves who managed to find themselves.27 Saltwater Slavery has much in common with Lose Your
Mother. Smallwoods study of the slave trade from the Gold Coast to the British Americas in the late seventeenth and
early eighteenth centuries likewise redeems the experience of the people traded like so many bolts of cloth, who were
represented merely as ciphers in the political arithmetic, and therefore feature in the documentary record not as
subjects of a social history but as objects or quantities.28 Each text offers a penetrating analysis of the market logic that
turned people into goods. Both books work with the concept of social death. However, Smallwood examines the problem
of social death for the enslaved even more closely than Hartman does.29 Like Hartman, Smallwood sees social death as a
by-product of commodification. If in the regime of the market Africans most socially relevant feature was their
exchangeability, she argues, for Africans as immigrants the most socially relevant feature was their isolation, their
desperate need to restore some measure of social life to counterbalance the alienation engendered by their social death.
But Small- woods approach is different in a subtle way. Whereas for Hartman, as for others, social death is an
social death as an actual
accomplished state of being, Smallwood veers between a notion of
condition produced by violent dislocation and social death as a
compelling threat. On the one hand, she argues, captivity on the Atlantic littoral was a social death.
Exchangeable persons inhabited a new category of marginalization, one not of extreme alienation within the
seems to accept the idea of
community, but rather of absolute exclusion from any community. She
enslaved commodities as finished products for whom there could be
no socially relevant relationships: the slave cargo constituted the antithesis of community. Yet
elsewhere she contends that captives were only menaced with social death. At every point along the passage from
African to New World markets, she writes, we find a stark contest between slave traders and slaves, between the
traders will to commodify people and the captives will to remain fully recognizable as human subjects.30 Here, I think,
Smallwood captures the truth of the idea: social death was a receding ho- rizonthe farther slaveholders moved toward
the goal of complete mastery, the more they found that struggles with their human property would continue, even into
the most elemental realms: birth, hunger, health, fellowship, sex, death, and time. If social death did not define the
slaves condition, it did frame their vision of apocalypse. In a harrowing chapter on the meaning of death (that is, physical
death) during the Atlantic passage, Smallwood is clear that the captives could have no frame of reference for the
experience aboard the slave ships, but she also shows how desperate they were to make one. If they could not
reassemble some meaningful way to map their social worlds, slaves could foresee only further descent into an endless
The women aboard the Hudibras were not in fact the living
purgatory.
dead; they were the mothers of gasping new societies. Their view of
the danger that confronted them made their mourning rites vitally
important, putting these at the center of the womens emerging
lives as slavesand as a result at the heart of the struggles that
would define them. As Smallwood argues, this was first and foremost a battle over their presence in time,
to define their place among ancestors, kin, friends, and future progeny. The connection Africans needed was a narrative
continuity between past and presentan epistemological means of connecting the dots between there and here, then and
now, to craft a coherent story out of incoherent experience. That is precisely what the women on the Hudibras fought to
accomplish.31
Psychos made up
sequence=1)
trial.
White Supremacy DA
The alt feeds white supremacy
Massa 14- speaking of Frank Wilderson and Bell Hooks Implications of Wildersons Afro-
Pessimism http://thehistoricalnerds.com/2014/12/16/implications-of-wildersons-afro-
pessimism/#comments
Bell Hooks avoids falling into the colonial trap of Wilderson by speaking for herself and her own experiences. By
acknowledging that there are many anti-racist whites, she has
created a space where Black folk who believe that they have a future
can speak of their own experiences and contribute to meaningful
dialogue about how Black folk should take steps forward in the
context of legal reform. Unlike Wilderson who universalizes the Black experience, Bell Hooks
acknowledges that internalizing racist assumptions of the Black
Body, or in the context of Wilderson, their own ontological
construction, will only give into White supremacy because the cycle
of self-hatred creates a sense of powerlessness that prevents the
Black Body from ever getting out in the first place. Furthermore, Wildersons
ontological absolutism is a tactic of White supremacy , because, as pointed out
by Bell Hooks, it creates a sense of distrust that plays into the divide and
conquer mentality that is crucial to White supremacys grip on
society. For Bell Hooks, when the Black community gives into its own
pessimism, White supremacists win because there is no motivation
for resistance. In the wake of recent events, embracing a politics of hope and solidarity is more important than
ever as racism begins to become more apparent. Hope offers the crucial first step towards encouraging the first steps
Instead of
towards resistance, a step that Wildersons extreme negativity prevents from ever been taken.
imagining the end of the world, we must imagine a world with a
better future.
1ar EXT Reform Good
Our methods arent mutually exclusive reform is
possible
2. The

. The critique is imperialistic in that it tells
experience that occasional court victories do not mean the Promised Land is at hand

1ar Ext No Social Death
Their alt is counter-productive dogmatism
Marriott 12 [David Mariott, Black Cultural Studies, Years Work Crit Cult
Theory (2012) 20 (1): 37-66]
The problem with Wildersons argument, however, is that it remains of a

piece with the manichean imperatives that beset it , and which by
definition are structurally uppermost, which means that he can only
confirm those imperatives as absolutes rather than chart a
dialectical path beyond them , insofar as, structurally speaking, there is no outside
to black social death and alienation, or no outside to this outside,
and all that thought can do is mirror its own enslavement by race.
This is not so much afro-pessimism a term coined by Wildersonas [but]
thought wedded to its own despair .
1ar Ext Ontologizing Bad
Wildersons ontological account of blackness makes it
reliant on oppression
Pinn 4 (Anthony Pinn- Macalester College Professor of Religious Studies)
Black Is, Black Aint: Victor Anderson, African American Theological
Thought, and Identity Dialog: A Journal of Theology, pg.57-58Volume 43,
Number 1, Spring 2004, Wiley Online Library, online//droneofark
This connection between ontological blackness and religion is natural because: ontological blackness signifies the totality
of black existence, a binding together of black life and experience. In its root, religio, religion denotes tying together,
fastening behind, and binding together. Ontological blackness renders black life and
experience a totality.13 According to Anderson, Black theological
discussions are entangled in ontological blackness. And accordingly,
discussions of black life revolve around a theological understanding
of Black experience limited to suffering and survival in a racist
system. The goal of this theology is to find the meaning of black
faith in the merger of black cultural consciousness, icons of genius,
and post-World War II Black defiance. An admirable goal to be sure, but here is the rub:
Black theologians speak, according to Anderson, in opposition to ontological
whiteness when they are actually dependent upon whiteness for the
legitimacy of their agenda. Furthermore, ontological blacknesss
strong ties to suffering and survival result in blackness being
dependent on suffering, and as a result social transformation brings
into question what it means to be black and religious. Liberative outcomes
ultimately force an identity crisis, a crisis of legitimation and utility. In Andersons words: Talk about
liberation becomes hard to justify where freedom appears as
nothing more than defiant self-assertion of a revolutionary racial
consciousness that requires for its legitimacy the opposition of white
racism. Where there exists no possibility of transcending the blackness that whiteness created, African American
theologies of liberation must be seen not only as crisis theologies; they remain theologies in a crisis of legitimation.14
This conversation becomes more refined as new cultural
resources are unpacked and various religious alternatives
acknowledged. Yet the bottom line remains racialization of issues
and agendas, life and love. Falsehood is perpetuated through the hermeneutic of return, by which
ontological blackness is the paradigm of Black existence and thereby sets the agenda of Black liberation within the
postrevolutionary context of present day USA. One ever finds the traces of the Black aesthetic which pushes for a
dwarfed understanding of Black life and a sacrifice of individuality for the sake of a unified Black faith .
Yet
differing experiences of racial oppression (the stuff of ontological
blackness) combined with varying experiences of class, gender and
sexual oppression call into question the value of their racialized
formulations. Implicit in all of this is a crisis of faith, an unwillingness to address both the glory and guts of
Black existencenihilistic tendencies that, unless held in tension with
claims of transcendence, have the potential to overwhelm and to
suffocate. At the heart of this dilemma is friction between ontological blackness and contemporary postmodern
black lifeissues, for example related to selecting marriage partners, exercising freedom of movement, acting on gay
and lesbian preferences, or choosing political parties.15 How does one foster balance while embracing difference as
positive? Anderson looks to Nietzsche. European genius, complete with its heroic epic, met its match in the aesthetic
The grotesque
categories of tragedy and the grotesque genius revived and espoused by Friedreich Nietzsche.
genius served as an effective counter-discourse by embracing both
the light and dark aspects of life, and holding in tension
oppositional sensationspleasure and pain, freedom and
oppression.16 Utilizing Nietzsches work, Anderson ask: what should African
American cultural and religious criticism look like when they are no
longer romantic in inspiration and the cult of heroic genius is
displaced by the grotesqueryfull range of expression, actions,
attitudes, behaviors everything found in African American lifeof
contemporary black expressive culture and public life? 17 Applied to African
Americans, the grotesque embodies the full range of African American lifeall expressions, actions, attitudes, and
behavior. With a hermeneutic of the grotesque as the foci, religio-cultural criticism is free from the totalizing nature of
racial apologetics and the classical Black aesthetic. By extension, Black theology is able to address both issues of survival
(Anderson sees their importance.) and the larger goal of cultural fulfillment, Andersons version of liberation. That is to
placing blackness along side other indicators of identity allows
say,
African Americans to define themselves in a plethora of ways while
maintaining their community status. This encourages African
Americans to see themselves as they are complex and diversified
no longer needing to surrender personal interests for the sake of
monolithic collective status.
1ar Ext Black Subject DA
The alt eviscerates Black subjectivity
Allen 11 [Jafari S., Assistant Professor of African American Studies and
Anthropology at Yale University, Venceremos?: The Erotics of Black Self-
making in Cuba, p. 82-83]
For black folks, resistance always takes place in a field already constrained by the lingering question of black abjection with respect to subjecthood. Frank Wilderson in his
fine polemic Gramscis Black Marx: Whither the Slave in Civil Society? (2003) argues that blacks impose a radical incoherence upon the assumptive logic of a subject
constructed through its relation to labor exploitation. Wildersons thesis that the Black subject reveals Marxisms inability to think White supremacy as the base (n.p.)
resonated with Cedrick Robinsons Black Marxism (2000), which carefully details historical and philosophical (dis)articulations of black(ness and) Marxism. Wilderson points
out that if we follow Antonio Gramscis expansion of Marx, depending on civil society as the site of struggle (i.e., war of position) we reify racial terror, since for black
Where I have to depart from Wilderson is in his

subjects civil society is the site of recurrent racial terror.
contention that the black subject is thus in a position of total objectification in

contradistinction to human possibility, however slim, required for a war of position (2003: n.p.; emphasis mine). Wilderson
finds the black subject in a structurally impossible position. I must argue, following bell hooks use of Paolo Freire, however, that we cannot enter the struggle as objects
Unlike
in order to later become subjects (1989: 29). Part of my friendly disagreement with Wilderson is ontological, or, I readily admit, spiritual.
positions that deny notions of a deep psychic self, I want to affirm the
inherence of inalienable innate human dignity, and what I might gloss here as spirit, which
is offended not only by force but by any extrinsic practice that threatens the
individuals sense of personhood. On another score, Wildersons stress on objective
contradictions, impersonal structures and processes that work behind
mens backs, as Stuart Hall describes the conventional culture and discourses of the left, disable[s] us from
confronting the subjective dimension in politics in any coherent way (Hall, Morley, and
Chen 1996: 226). Thus, in some ways Wilderson takes us back to the old Marx that Gramsci,
Hall, and others attempted to rethink apropos of our new times , even as he points out the limits
of Gramsci to contend with these social and historical facts of blackness. This orientation leaves no air for black
transgression or resistance outside of the final solution. In the interim,

however, what will condition, reeducate and raise consciousness towards
revolution?
Topicality
Contextual
2ac surveillance
TSA inspections are surveillance

AMT 14 Aircraft Maintenance Technology (March 2014, New Repair Station
Security Regulations, Cygnus Business Media, Lexis)//twemchen
TSA will have the authority to suspend or revoke the operating certificate of
errant repair stations. Commentators have urged that this is the domain of the FAA only. Some have said
that ifthe TSA now has this authority in addition to the FAA it will give incentive to them to reduce
their surveillance activities and the FAA would lose its oversight of repair stations and just
let TSA do it. The FAA would no longer conduct mandatory inspections and
thus safety and security would be compromised. TSA says its activity would not
duplicate the FAA?s and that their work would supplement not substitute for FAA surveillance. The TSA
security measures would be designed to ensure that unattended large aircraft capable of flight, cannot be
commandeered and used as a weapon. Many think this is the FAA?s job.
TSA employee accountability is surveillance

Dvtel 13 (2013, SPOT On Security: Where Does the TSA Go From Here?,
http://www.dvtel.com/spot-on-security-where-does-the-tsa-go-from-
here/)//twemchen
Whatever the next step in airport security, it should be well-planned and thoroughly vetted before its
implemented. The GAO report and public and legislative interest is a good start to revamping passenger
is said to be closely watching the TSA to make sure its
screening tactics. Congress
employees are held accountable and its screening methods are actually effective. In the
years to come, we hope to see improved screening tactics and more use of advanced video
surveillance technology to supplement the TSA presence. As U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson wrote
recently, We know the threats to aviation are real. Our enemies continue to plot against us. We need
layers of security, but those layers have to make sense. They cant be based on a hunch; they must be
proven.
2ac domestic surveillance
W/M: Airport security is domestic surveillance its the

original form of surveillance
Rittgers 11 legal policy analyst with the Cato Institute (David Rittigers,
9/11/11, Abolish the Department of Homeland Security,
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA683.pdf)//twemchen
National defense is a key governmental responsibility, but focusing too many resources on trying to defend
every potential terrorist target is a recipe for wasteful spending. Our limited resources are better spent on
investigating and arresting aspiring terrorists. DHS responsibilities for aviation security,
domestic surveillance , and port security have made it too easy for politicians to
disguise pork barrel spending in red, white, and blue. Politicians want to bring money home to their
districts, and as a result, DHS appropriations too often differ from what ought to be DHS priorities.
Substantial
2ac at: percentage
We meet they dont have a baseline we decrease way

more than __% of border surveillance which is a
substantial decrease
Counter-interpretation substantial means of real

worth or considerable value this is the terms customary
meaning
Words and Phrases 2 (Volume 40A, p. 458)
D.S.C. 1966. The word substantial within Civil Rights Act providing that a place is
a public accommodation if a substantial portion of food which is served has
moved in commerce must be construed in light of its usual and customary
meaning , that is, something of real worth and importance; of considerable
value; valuable, something worthwhile as distinguished from something
without value or merely nominal
Prefer it
a) Percentage values of substantial are arbitrary
b) Real world usage should set the standard key to aff

predictability we need to know if were T when we walk
in the room
Lit solves small affs dont have advantages, so no one

will cut them
Reasonability competing interps cause a race to the

bottom which arbitrarily excludes the aff
2ac at: subsets
We meet the plan results in net-less surveillance,

meaning it curtails the total body of surveillance that
takes place.
Counter-interpretation substantial means of real

worth or considerable value this is the terms customary
meaning
Words and Phrases 2 (Volume 40A, p. 458)
D.S.C. 1966. The word substantial within Civil Rights Act providing that a place is
a public accommodation if a substantial portion of food which is served has
moved in commerce must be construed in light of its usual and customary
meaning , that is, something of real worth and importance; of considerable
value; valuable, something worthwhile as distinguished from something
without value or merely nominal
Prefer it
a) Overlimiting DA there are secret NSA programs,

making a broad limit impossible
b) Makes it impossible to be aff cant cut answers to

every possible topic DA
c) Real world usage should set the standard key to aff

predictability we need to know if were T when we walk
in the room
Lit solves small affs dont have advantages, so no one

will cut them

bottom which arbitrarily excludes the aff
Curtail
2ac at: must decrease size
We meet the plan decreases TSA surveillance of its

contractors. This reduces the size of TSA surveillance.
They have to prove were untopical beyond a shadow of
doubt otherwise its too easy to be neg.
2ac at: third party
We meet
a) The plan is a third party restriction on TSA agents

ability to conduct surveillance of TSA contractors.
Requiring this restriction to come from outside the TSA is
arbitrary and creates shifting goalposts for the aff
b) Plan text in a vacuum we use the words of the rez

its a question of solvency, not T
Counter-interp curtail means reduce

Oxford Dictionaries 15 (curtail,
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/curtail)
curtail in English: verb [WITH OBJECT] 1Reduce in extent or quantity;
Definition of
impose a restriction on: civil liberties were further curtailed
Prefer it
a) Solves ground sufficiently they still get to say our

data collection is bad and circumvention by other
agencies
b) They destroy aff ground agency circumvention is

unbeatable since the NSA never listens to Congress
forcing teams to race to terrible perception advantages
c) Any aff ground they include is inherently concessionary

and unpredictable outweighs we need to know were T
when we walk in
Substantial and literature check no one will write small

affs with no advantages which creates substantive limits
on the topic
Reasonability the rez was created for both teams
competing interps always arbitrariliy exclude the aff
2ac at: cannot abolish
We meet
a) We maintain most TSA surveillance
b) Plan text in a vacuum we use the words of the rez

most objective its a question of solvency not T
Counter-interp limit or discontinue

Dembling 78 General Counsel, General Accounting Office; (Paul,
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT OF 1974
HEARING BEFORE THE TASK FORCE ON BUDGET PROCESS OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-FIFTH
CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JUNE 29, 1978, Hein Online)
"Curtail" means to discontinue, in whole or in part, the execution
(3)
of a program, resulting in the application of less budget authority in
furtherance of the program than provided by law.
Prefer it
a) Neg ground they get case specific PICs and the ability
to say the program we cut is good otherwise affs will
always be written to cut trival parts of programs to solve
unpredictable perception advantages
b) Causes hypotesting since the only topical aff would

curtail all surveillance destroys depth of education

on the topic

Domestic
2ac at: must be us terr
2ac at: must be us persons
We meet
a) Plan text meets evaluating in a vacuum is the only

objective standard its a question of solvency not T
b) Government contractors are US corporations

IG 15 (InsideGov, 2015, Polygon US Corporation in Amesbury, MA -
Contracting Profile, http://government-
contractors.insidegov.com/l/573961/Polygon-US-Corporation-in-Amesbury-
MA)//twemchen
US Corporation is a contractor in the Environmental Consulting Services

Polygon
industry. Last year, they won 8 contracts worth $1.22 Million. Since 2000, the contractor has performed
35 contracts with a total obligation amount of $9.52 Million, which means Polygon US Corporation is a large
government contractor. The average obligation amount for their contracts is $272,108.
US corporations are US persons

Jordan 6 - LL.M., New York University School of Law (2006); cum laude,
Washington and Lee University School of Law (2003) (David, Decrypting the
Fourth Amendment: Warrantless NSA Surveillance and the Enhanced
Expectation of Privacy Provided by Encrypted Voice Over Protocol 47 B.C.L.
Rev. 505 (2006), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol47/iss3/2
8 FISA's provisions require the government to obtain a FISA warrant when seeking to surveil a "United
A U.S. person is defined as a U.S. citizen, a permanent
States person."
resident, a corporation incorporated in the United States, or an
unincorporated association consisting of mostly U.S. citizens or
permanent residents. FISA, 50 U.S.C. 1801(1) (2000).
Reasonability
a) Presume were topical unless they conclusively prove

otherwise the alternative sets the bar too low for
terrible neg T args which crowd-out education and cause
shifting goalposts that exclude every aff
b) We get to clarify our aff whenever we want critical to

education weve done more research about the plan
Surveillance
2ac at: excludes oversight
We meet
a) Plan text in a vacuum its key to objectivity we use

the word surveillance its a question of solvency not T
b) TSA oversight is surveillance

that if the TSA now has this authority in addition to the FAA it will give incentive to them to reduce
Counter-interp surveillance is data collection prefer

contextual evidence to their abstract definitions
Lyon 7 David Lyon directs the Surveillance Studies Centre, is a Professor of
Sociology, holds a Queens Research Chair and is cross-appointed as a
Professor in the Faculty of Law at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario
(SURVEILLANCE STUDIES: AN OVERVIEW, p. 13-16)
So what is surveillance? For the sake of argument, we may start by saying that it is the focused,
systematic and routine attention to personal details for purposes
of influence, management, protection or direction . Surveillance
directs its attention in the end to individuals (even though aggregate data, such as those available in
the public domain, may be used to build up a background picture). It is focused. By systematic, I
mean that this attention to personal details is not random,
occasional or spontaneous; it is deliberate and depends on certain
protocols and techniques. Beyond this, surveillance is routine; it occurs as
a 'normal' part of everyday life in all societies that depend on bureaucratic administration and
some kinds of information technology. Everyday surveillance is endemic to modern societies. It is one of those major
social processes that actually constitute modernity as such (Giddens 1985). Having said that, there are exceptions.
Anyone who tries to present an 'overview' has to admit that particular
circumstances make a difference. The big picture may seem over-
simplified but, equally, the tiny details can easily lose a sense of
significance. For example, not all surveillance is necessarily focused. Some police surveillance, for instance, may
be quite general - a 'dragnet' - in an attempt somehow to narrow down a search for some likely suspects. And by the same
token, such surveillance may be fairly random. Again, surveillance may occur in relation to non-human phenomena that
have only a secondary relevance to 'personal details'. Satellite images may be used to seek signs of mass graves where
Such exceptions are
genocide is suspected or birds may be tagged to discover how avian flu is spread.
important, and add nuance to our understanding of the big picture. By
looking at various sites of surveillance, and exploring surveillance in both 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' ways, I hope to
illustrate how such variations make a difference to how surveillance is understood in different contexts. The above
definition makes reference to 'information technology', but digital devices only increase the capacities of surveillance or,
Surveillance also
sometimes, help to foster particular kinds of surveillance or help to alter its character.
occurs in down-to-earth, face-to- face ways. Such human
surveillance draws on time-honoured practices of direct supervision,
or of looking out for unusual people or behaviours , which might be seen in the
factory overseer or in neighbourhood watch schemes. Indeed, to accompany the most high-tech systems invented, the US
Department of Homeland Security still conscripts ordinary people to be the 'eyes and ears' of
government, and some non-professional citizen-observers in Durban, South Africa have been described by a
security manager (without irony) as 'living cameras' (Hentschel 2006).
Prefer it
a) Topic education the plan curtails surveillance of

corporations excluding that limits out EVERY NSA AFF
since they all get rid of surveillance on corporations
which is the core of the topic
b) Its not bidirectional the mandate of the plan must be

a decrease in data collection we dont allow internal
government oversight, which is distinct

on the topic

1ar at: excludes oversight xt: c/i
C/I: Surveillance includes overisight prefer industry-

specific evidence
Stefani 2 Assistant Inspector General for Auditing (Alexis Stefani, 4/11/2,
ADEQUACY OF FAA OVERSIGHT OF AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE, Federal
Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony, Lexis)//twemchen
inspectors needed to provide better surveillance

Both our report and FAA's review showed that FAA
of air carriers' internal maintenance oversight systems. Also, FAA inspectors needed better training
on how to evaluate these systems. In addition, we found that inspectors needed to better document their inspections so
they could perform trend analysis on the inspection results and ensure that identified deficiencies are corrected. FAA
agreed to implement the recommendations we made in these areas. FAA Must Correct Persistent Problems in Its Oversight
Process In reviewing reports prepared as far back as 1987 by our office and the General Accounting Office (GAO), we
found three common threads limiting FAA's ability to improve its oversight. These problems center on collection and use of
safety data, inspector training, and follow-up on previously identified safety problems. In these reports, recommendations
were made to address the problems and FAA promised to take corrective action. Yet, a recent FAA study, issued in March
2002, shows problems persist. For example, this study, which was a combined industry and FAA review of certification,
operations and maintenance processes concluded that FAA's data analysis efforts had been hampered by a lack of quality
data, in part stemming from an inability to compare and combine data from existing databases. Despite the fact that FAA
has devoted an inordinate amount of resources to improving its collection and use of data, FAA has been unable to correct
long standing problems in this area. These problems severely hinder FAA's ability to use data for analysis, conclusions,
and identifying accident precursors; effectively steer its inspections to the areas where they are needed most; and follow
up to ensure identified deficiencies have been corrected. To its credit, within the last year, FAA has taken steps to address
problems in ATOS and has made progress in generally improving its oversight of air carriers. FAA recently put a new
management team in place that seems committed to improving ATOS and correcting past program problems and delays.
FAA has agreed to implement recommendations we made in both our ATOS and aircraft maintenance reports. To make
material progress on these long-standing concerns, the key now is follow?through on a number of steps. - First, FAA needs
to strengthen its process for collecting and analyzing inspection results. - Second, FAA must improve training for
inspectors in the concepts and skills needed to effectively carry out safety inspections. - Third, FAA must develop a system
to effectively follow up on deficiencies identified during air carrier inspections.
2ac at: excludes places
We meet
a) We curtail surveillance of corporations, not airports.

Anything else is an effect of the plan.
b) The aff is surveillance

Counter-interpretation surveillance includes places

their definitions dont assume changing applications
Marx 2 Professor Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (gary t.,
Surveillance & Society , Whats New About the New Surveillance?
Classifying for Change and Continuity 2002, http://www.surveillance-and-
society.org/articles1/whatsnew.pdf //SRSL)
One indicator of rapid change is the failure of dictionary definitions
to capture current understandings of surveillance. For example in the Concise
Oxford Dictionary surveillance is defined as "close observation, especially of a suspected person". Yet
today many of the new surveillance technologies are not "especially" applied to "a suspected person".
They are commonly applied categorically. In broadening the range of suspects the term "a suspected
surveillance is also applied
person" takes on a different meaning. In a striking innovation,
to contexts (geographical places and spaces, particular time periods,
networks, systems and categories of person), not just to a particular
person whose identity is known beforehand.
Prefer it
a) Aff ground they exclude non-targeted internet
surveillance which is the vast majority of the NSAs
activities perception advantages are weak enough
without interpretations that force the aff to find
b) Their definition is from a dictionary which doesnt

assume changing applications

on the topic

2ac at: must be technical
We meet
a) Plan text evaluate it in a vacuum key to objectivity

and aff predictability if theyre right, constrain the
plans mandate to technical reduction


Such exceptions are
Surveillance also
Department of Homeland Security still conscripts ordinary people to be the 'eyes and ears' of
government, and some non-professional citizen-observers in Durban, South Africa have been described by a
security manager (without irony) as 'living cameras' (Hentschel 2006).
Prefer it
a) Predictability it internal link turns the impact to

ground human surveillance is grounded in DHS and FBI
policy
b) Ground they get human capital trade-off das
Substantial and literature check a large reduction in

surveillance reduces control, giving the neg DA links and
CPs

bottom which arbitrarily exclude the aff the rez is
created for both sides
2ac at: preventative intent
We meet
a) Obviously the entire 1AC says the surveillance we

curtail is designed to limit innovation by TSA contractors
b) Plan text evaluate it in a vacuum key to objectivity

and aff predictability if theyre right, constrain the
plans mandate to reduction pertaining to control
c) The aff is surveillance


Such exceptions are
Surveillance also
Department of Homeland Security still conscripts ordinary people to be the 'eyes and ears' of government, and some non-
professional citizen-observers in Durban, South Africa have been described by a security manager (without irony) as
'living cameras' (Hentschel 2006).
Prefer it
a) Intent is a stupid standard. Its arbitrary and mixes

burdens people would lose on topicality if their
surveillance ineffectively reduces control, or if they didnt
read a control-based advantage. This destroys aff
predictability we need to know were topical when we
walk in the room.
b) The only ground they get is privacy bad which is not a

winning argument anyway
Substantial and literature check a large reduction in

surveillance reduces control, giving the neg DA links and
CPs.

bottom which arbitrarily exclude the aff
2ac at: non-public
We meet
a) Plan text in a vacuum is most objective its a question

of solvency not T.


Such exceptions are
Surveillance also
Department of Homeland Security still conscripts ordinary people to be the 'eyes and ears' of government, and some non-
professional citizen-observers in Durban, South Africa have been described by a security manager (without irony) as
'living cameras' (Hentschel 2006).
Prefer it
a) Education their interpretation dodges a core topic

controversy
Bedan 7 - J.D. Candidate, Indiana University School of Law (Matt, Echelon's
Effect: The Obsolescence of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Legal Regime,"
Federal Communications Law Journal: Vol. 59: Iss. 2, Article 7. Available at:
http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj/vol59/iss2/7
It is clear from both FISA and Supreme Court precedent that an
individual must have a reasonable expectation of privacy for
"surveillance" to occur. In United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court held that
individuals have no expectation of privacy in information held by a
third party.55 Through the use of National Security Letters, the FBI and the NSA routinely
exploit this rule of law to acquire vast amounts of personal
information on U.S. citizens from private corporations, such as
phone companies and Internet service providers. 56 Because FISA's
definition of surveillance fails to account for this practice, the
government is not required to get a warrant or make any
certification of probable cause . Considering how much the technological capacity of the private
sector for gathering and retaining personal information has increased in recent years, the privacy
implications of government access to this data are huge .
b) The third party doctrines an outdated standard

Villasenor 13 - Senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a professor of
electrical engineering and public policy at UCLA. (John; What You Need to
Know about the Third-Party Doctrine;
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/what-you-need-to-
know-about-the-third-party-doctrine/282721/; 6/26/15 || NDW)
**Villasenor cites Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor
One of the most important recent Supreme Court privacy decisions, the United States v. Jones ruling issued in 2012,
involved GPS tracking performed directly by the government, without a third party intermediary. (That case, which the
government lost, turned on the governments physical intrusion onto private property, without a valid warrant, to attach a
Justice Sotomayor used her concurrence in Jones
GPS tracker to a suspects car.) Yet
to examine privacy more broadly and telegraph her discomfort with
the third-party doctrine: More fundamentally, it may be necessary to
reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable
expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third
parties. This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people
reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties
in the course of carrying out mundane tasks ... I would not assume that all information
voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited purpose is, for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth
Amendment protection.
b) All their affs are extra-topical everyones given their

details to someone else
c) Program confidentiality decks aff ground
Substantial and literature check any large plan will

curtail collection of non-public information guaranteeing
DAs and CPs
Reasonability judge intervention is inevitable and

competing interpretations are just as subjective they
always arbitrarily exclude the aff, cause a race to the
bottom, and crowd out substantive debate
Random
at: extra t (TNS)
Plan text solves we only curtail the part thats

surveillance plus, their ev provides no qualitative
distinction between inspection and surveillance, just uses
the two in a sentence theres no reason a single line
from an article thats not about the TSA titled Initiatives
to Improve Helicopter Air Ambulance Safety should be a
basis to exclude the aff
at: oversight not surveillance (FE)
This ev isnt predictable its from the Filipino Express

and is about the FAA, not the TSA and its not about
security, its about airlines which isnt the aff

A Tsa

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

A Tsa

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

***TSA Aff***

Advantage one is terrorism

The TSAs terrorism policy is worse than the Chiefs this

The TSA fails 95% of the time, which creates an enormous

screeners failed to detect explosives and weapons in nearly every test

Two internal links

a) Hiring and regulatory flexibility decentralization

The best studies prove our argument

performance ofTSA screeners to private screeners for such skills as spotting

performance of screeners prior to September 11 , 2001.118 A 2007 study by a

b) Streamlining the plan redirects resources making

Airport mismanagement has created massive

These innovations chronically outpace the TSA their

ISIS is also targeting aviation theyre developing tech to

Advantage two is airlines

TSA screening imposes chronic delays on airport

a) Efficiency and cost delegation TSA policy passes

Efficiencys essential delays deter flyers, devastating

TSA MUST PROMOTE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT SECURITY PROCEDURES

Efficient airlines are vital to agricultural distribution no

This causes food price blips which kill billions

Preventing starvation is ethically prior to any other

Independently, food price spikes risk global war

high food costs have long been a major factor in

If history, an evolving cycle, continues to repeat itself, the

Contention three is solvency

Private sector innovation is essential the TSA is

The status quo imposes devastating innovation

Such contracts typically stress measurement of outcome variables ,

Decentralizing regulation solves

training , and implementing new approaches to meet the federal operating

All their disads are non-unique

a) Privatizations inevitable internationally

environment . Many countries have embraced privatization not only for

pursue such innovations here. Privatization offers a viable alternative

b) Its inevitable in the US and increases are coming

The advantage is screening

The TSAs terrorism policy is worse than <condo><the

In the meantime, the risk of airport terrorism is resurging

ISIS is also targeting aviation theyre developing tech to

Such attacks risk nuclear lashout

Backlash by the insurance industry magnifies the impact

After 9/11, that grace period no longer exists ensuring

Even single carriers have a ripple effect

"Failureof an established carrier can have a domino effect throughout the

This is vital to agricultural distribution no other

Disruptions in the airline industry cause food price blips

Spikes in food prices create conditions conducive to

Irans looking to cyber-attack US airports the

Private data sharing is key

same year raised serious questions about cyber vulnerabilities. Making

Wed retaliate that goes nuclear

These innovations chronically outpace the TSA their

The plan solves

a) Hiring and regulatory flexibility decentralization

c) Risk analysis its essential to deal with the complexity

d) Security gap the status quo creates a chasm of

The best studies prove our internal link

performance ofTSA screeners to private screeners for such skills as spotting

performance of screeners prior to September 11 , 2001.118 A 2007 study by a

Independently, innovations to prevent terrorism are

Trafficking destroys the environment and causes rampant

Diseases risk extinction

TSA Aff