Changes for page Southlake Carroll Patel Aff
Summary
-
Objects (1 modified, 2 added, 6 removed)
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[1]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,74 +1,0 @@ 1 -=1AC= 2 - 3 -===Framing=== 4 - 5 -====I value morality since ought implies a moral obligation==== 6 - 7 - 8 -====The standard is maximizing expected well-being==== 9 - 10 -====Extinction outweighs – its irreversible ==== 11 -**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/) 12 -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 something. A human life is a human life. If you have that moral point of view 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 could come into existence in the future if humanity survives this critical period of time—-we might live for billions of years, our descendants might colonize billions of solar systems, and there could be billions 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 immens 13 - 14 -====Util is best for policy making and role playing the government—The impossibility to attain knowledge of every outcome or abuse leaves util as the only option for most rational decision-making==== 15 -**Goodin 95** – Professor of Philosophy at the Research School of the Social Sciences at the Australian National University (Robert E., Cambridge University Press, "Utilitarianism As a Public Philosophy" pg 63) 16 -My larger argument turns on the proposition that there is something special about the situation of public officials that makes utilitarianism more plausible for them (or, more precisely, makes them adopt a form of utilitarianism that we would find more acceptable) than private individuals. Before proceeding with that larger argument, I must therefore say what it is that is so special about public officials and their situations that makes it both more necessary and more desirable for them to adopt a more credible form of utilitarianism. Consider, first the argument from necessity. Public officials are obliged to make their choices under uncertainty, and uncertainty of a very special sort at that. All choices-public and private alike- are made under some degree of uncertainty, of course. But in the nature of things, private individuals will usually have more complete information on the peculiarities of their own circumstances and on the ramifications that alternative possible choices might have for them. Public officials, in contrast, at ~~are~~ relatively poorly informed as to the effects that their choices will have on individuals, one by one. What they typically do know are generalities: averages and aggregates. They know what will happen most often to most people as a result of their various possible choices. But that is all. That is enough to allow public policy makers to use the utilitarian calculus – if they want to use it at all – to choose general rules of conduct. Knowing aggregates and averages, they can proceed to calculate the utility payoffs from adopting each alternative possible general rule. But they cannot be sure what the payoff will be to any given individual or on any particular occasion. Their knowledge of generalities, aggregates and averages is just not sufficiently fine-grained for that. 17 - 18 -===Inherency === 19 - 20 -====Corporate propaganda continues to push the "so-called" benefits of nuclear in order to shut out deliberation and progress in greener alternatives – be skeptical of their offense ==== 21 -**Wasserman 16 ** 22 -(Harvey ~~ Harvey Franklin Wasserman is an American journalist, author, democracy activist, and advocate for renewable energy. ~~ http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/29/ny-times-pushes-nukes-while-claiming-renewables-fail-to-fight-climate-change/ , 7-29) 23 -The idea that nuclear power might fight climate change, and that environmentalists might support it, is a recent concoction, a disgraceful, desperate load of utility hype meant to defend the status quo. Fukushima, unsolved waste problems and the plummeting price of renewables have solidified the environmental community’s opposition to nuke power. These reactors are dirty and dangerous. They are not carbon-free and do emit huge quantities of heated water and steam into the ecosphere. The utility industry can’t get private liability insurance for them, and relies on the1957 Price-Anderson Act to protect them from liability in a major catastrophe. The industry continually complains about subsidies to renewable energy but never mentions this government protection program without which all reactors would close. 7. Not just nuke power but the entire centralized fossil/nuke-based grid system is now being undermined by the massive drops in the price of renewable~~s~~ energy, and massive rises in its efficiency and reliability. The critical missing link is battery technology. Because the sun and wind are intermittent, there needs to be energy storage to smooth out supply. Elon Musk‘s billion-dollar Tesla Gigafactory in Nevada and many other industrial ventures indicate major battery breakthroughs in storage is here today. 8. Porter’s NY Times piece correctly says that the massive amounts of cheap, clean renewables flooding the grid in Europe and parts of the U.S. are driving nuclear power plants into bankruptcy. At least a dozen reactor shut downs have been announced in the U.S. since 2012 and many more are on their way. In Japan 52 of the 54 reactors online before the Fukushima disaster are now closed. And, Germany has pledged to shut all its reactors by 2022. But Porter attacks this by complaining that those nukes were supplying base load power that must be otherwise—according to him—shored up with fossil burners. Here’s his key line: "Renewable sources are producing temporary power gluts from Australia to California, driving out other energy sources that are still necessary to maintain a stable supply of power." But as all serious environmentalists understand, the choice has never been between nukes versus fossil fuels. It’s between centralized fossil/nukes versus decentralized renewables. Porter’s article never mentions the word "battery" or the term "rooftop solar." But these are the two key parts in the green transition already very much in progress. So here is what the Times obviously can’t bring itself to say: "Cheap solar panels on rooftops are now making the grid obsolete." The key bridging element of battery back-up capability is on its way. Meanwhile there is absolutely no need for nuclear power plants, which at any rate have long since become far too expensive to operate. Spending billions to prop up dying nuke reactors for "base load" generation is pure corporate theft at the public expense, both in straight financial terms and in the risk of running badly deteriorated reactors deep into the future until they inevitably melt down or blow up. Those billions instead should go to accelerating battery production and distribution, and making it easier, rather than harder, to gain energy independence using the wind and the sun. All this has serious real-world impacts. In Ohio, for example, a well-organized shift to wind and solar was derailed by the Koch-run legislature. Some $2 billion in wind-power investments and a $500 million solar farm were derailed. There are also serious legal barriers now in place to stop homeowners from putting solar shingles and panels on their rooftops. Meanwhile, FirstEnergy strong-armed the Ohio Public Utilities Commission into approving a huge bailout to keep the seriously deteriorated Davis-Besse nuke operating, even though it cannot compete and is losing huge sums of money. Federal regulators have since put that bailout on hold. Arizona and other Koch-owned legislatures have moved to tax solar panels, ban solar shingles and make it illegal to leave the grid without still paying tribute to the utilities who own it. Indeed, throughout the U.S. and much of the western world, corporate-owned governments are doing their best to slow the ability of people to use renewables to rid themselves of the corporate grid. For an environmental movement serious about saving the Earth from climate change, this is a temporary barrier. The Times and its pro-nuke allies in the corporate media will continue to twist reality. But the Solartopian revolution is proceeding ahead of schedule and under budget. A renewable, decentralized energy system is very much in sight. The only question is how long corporate nonsense like this latest NY Times screed can delay this vital transition. Our planet is burning up from fossil fuels and being irradiated by decrepit money-losing reactors that blow up. Blaming renewable energy for all that is like blaming the peace movement for causing wars. The centralized King CONG grid and its obsolete owners are at the core of the problem. So are the corporate media outlets like the New York Times that try to hide that obvious reality. 24 - 25 -====The Nuclear Renaissance increases the risk of prolif—ensures that new nuclear energy spreads to non-state actors==== 26 -**Bozzo, 16** 27 -(Luciano Bozzo, School of political Sciences Cesare Alfieri, University of Florence, "More May Be Better, Perhaps: Nuclear Weapons, Proliferation, and International Politics in the Post-global Age", in the book "Non-Proliferation, Safety, and Nuclear Security", Vol 126, edited by M. Gerlini and A. Chetaine, IOS Press, Google Books, 2016, Accessed 7/13/16, JL @ RKS) 28 -With the geopolitical collapse that followed the end of the Cold War, the balance of power between the old and new powers has changed. One single great rift, dotted with areas of violent conflict, political instability, and terrorism stretches seamlessly from Kashmir to the Atlantic coasts of Northern Africa. In this critical scenario, new and not so new factors contribute to increasing the risk that sensitive nuclear materials and technologies will spread, even to non-state actors. The growing spread of technologies for civil use that are easily convertible for military purposes is above all a consequence, that is in some respect paradoxical, of the liberalisation and democratisation of the international system. The so-called 'nuclear renaissance' — triggered by the need to slow global warming (constraints established in the 2005 Kyoto Protocol); by the growing demand for energy on the part of the rising economies; by the prices of fossil fuels and the advent or new safer and more efficient nuclear reactors — has played a central part. This ‘renaissance' has indubitably suffered the backlash of the serious Fukushima accident, the consequences of which were borne by the environment, above all in Japan and Europe (Germany). But the more recent changes with regard to regional conflict, the aforementioned situation with Iran, and economic need have shadowed the Fukushima effect. However, the increase in the national nuclear fuel cycles and the very characteristics of the new reactors will multiply and complicate the controls necessary to impede illicit activities, the efficacy of which is, today, already the object of strong criticism because of what has happened over the last three decades. All of this exasperates the central paradox of the NPT: the treaty was created to impede nuclear proliferation and yet it acknowledges — art. IV, second pillar of the act — the 'inalienable right' of the NNWSs to develop nuclear technologies that are peaceful in scope, and it actually promotes this. It is not by chance that all of the States that have joined the original nuclear club, or that have attempted to do so, were able to do so through their civil nuclear programmes thanks to the financial, scientific, and technical collaboration of the nuclear powers allowed under the treaty. On the other hand, the paradox of article IV is connected to the discriminatory nature of the treaty and of the non-proliferation regime itself, which according to its critics functions on the basis of the same principle that George Orwell used to underpin his well-known novel Animal Farm published in 1945: 'all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others'~~18~~. In fact, this paradox aims to temper the distinction between those whose status as a nuclear power is recognised by right and those who accept to renounce it by compensating the latter. The current regional conflict and instability, on the other hand, have served to compound the problem or 'latent proliferation': states — such as Japan, South Korea, now Iran, and the others that could join them — that are capable of rapidly developing their nuclear capabilities in crisis situations and could cause potentially devastating chain reactions. Not less worrisome are the consequences of the illegal trafficking of sensitive nuclear materials and technologies. This fear first surfaced — and with good reason, given the recent disclosures — as a result of the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Then, between 2003 and 2004, the same fear eventually materialised following the discovery of Abdul Q. Khan's clandestine (or presumed to be) network. Khan, the Pakistani scientist, contributed to the development of the nuclear programmes of North in exchange tor missile technology — Iran, Libya, and probably Syria, Korea providing them with the projects and technology to build the centrifuges needed to separate the U -235 isotope. To complete the picture, the great, unresolved question of the aforementioned asymmetrical and discriminatory nature of the NPT remains. How is it possible for those that continue to modernise their nuclear arsenals and the doctrines surrounding their use, to miniaturise warheads, and to draw up new operative scenarios to actually persuade others to give up the possibility of having these very weapons on the premise they are useless and dangerous? 29 - 30 - 31 -====The current NPT is loosing cred and legitimacy- non-nuclear states feel unequally obligated while nuclear powers maintain their weapons==== 32 -**Tannenwald**, Faculty Fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies, **2013** 33 -(Nina Tannenwald, senior lecturer in the Political Science Department at Brown University, "Justice and Fairness in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime", Ethics and International Affairs, Volume 27, Issue 03, Fall 2013, Cambridge Journals, Accssed 7/1/16, JL @ RKS) 34 -How much do these claims of justice matter? On one hand, we can be struck by how much the issues of justice and fairness continue to pervade negotiations over the NPT. Not surprisingly, weaker parties appeal to fairness and justice considerations more often than stronger parties. On the other hand, the nonproliferation regime has continued to persist over forty-five years despite ongoing complaints about discrimination and unfairness. Perhaps the fairness discourse is simply "cheap talk" and the NPT regime could just continue to muddle along. But as this essay has suggested, unaddressed grievances about inequities in the ~~NPT~~ regime have real consequences for outcomes: nonnuclear states that actually support the NPT are reluctant to agree to additional nonproliferation obligations that would strengthen the regime, including stronger safeguards, strengthened provisions on withdrawal from the treaty, and proposals regarding multinational fuelcycle~~s~~ arrangements. Most critically, the nuclear powers are unable to get the NNWS to care more about the noncompliance of Iran and North Korea, the issue of most importance to the United States and its allies. Not all of this unwillingness can be traced to the nuclear powers’ foot-dragging on disarmament, of course. Security threats or economic interests may also play a role in the reluctance of nonnuclear states to take on new obligations. Nevertheless, the evidence is strong that nonnuclear states withhold cooperation on nonproliferation because proposed new measures are perceived to impose unfair obligations, not because such measures would be ineffective. As the Brazilian delegate to the April 2013 NPT PrepCom stated, "The measure of success of any review cycle . . . is whether it contributes to reducing the basic asymmetry inherent in the NPT. . . . We should therefore shun attempts to further increase the imbalance between the rights and obligations of NWS and NNWS." With the asymmetry unaddressed, the legitimacy of the regime is in the process of eroding, as is quite clear from the hedging strategies of various middle powers. Legitimacy is the generally held belief that a particular institution or rule is valid, appropriate, or proper and thus ought to be obeyed. Equity is a defining dimension of legitimacy. The legitimacy of the NPT is based on a principled justification of a temporary inequality, and a balancing of norms, rights, and obligations designed to limit, and ultimately eliminate, the fundamental discrimination of the regime. The time horizon for resolving the inequality may be distant, but it cannot be nonexistent. Progress toward disarmament is important, as Nina Rathbun argues, because it "strengthens the legitimacy of the regime by creating the expectation that the special rights of the nuclear weapon states will end at some point in the future." For the majority of states, the legitimacy of further nonproliferation measures, therefore, is dependent on progress on disarmament. 35 - 36 -====The NPT can’t prevent the spread of weapons—ensures prolif will continue==== 37 -**Wesley**, 20**06** 38 -(Michael Wesley, "It's time to scrap the NPT", Australian Journal of International Affairs Vol. 59, No. 3, 20 Aug 2006, Taylor and Francis Online, Accessed 7/17/16, JL @ RKS) 39 -The NPT’s inability either to prevent the spread of nuclear components, materials and technology, or to secure the nuclear disarmament of the nuclear weapons states (as discussed below), only adds to these demand-side pressures. In developing nuclear weapons, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea and probably Iran have demonstrated that neither the NPT nor any other international regime provides them with an adequate security guarantee against either nuclear or conventional coercion. To the contrary, by confining the possession of ~~nukes~~ nuclear weapons to some states and not others, the NPT has raised the attractiveness of ~~nukes~~ nuclear weapons for those states not covered by the nuclear weapons states’ guarantees of extended deterrence. These demand-side pressures suggest that the incentives of a small number of states to acquire ~~nukes~~ nuclear weapons will endure over time. Each new nuclear weapons state will give rise to proliferation incentives among a limited number of neighbours and rivals, thereby maintaining a fairly consistent level of proliferation pressure over time. As I discuss below, because the vast majority of states choose to eschew nuclear weapons, because their sense of insecurity is insufficient to justify the costs of possessing nuclear weapons, the risks of a major nuclear ‘break out’ are low. It is the conditions of proliferation, rather than its occurrence, that a new regime should try to regulate. 40 - 41 - 42 -===Advantage 1: New States=== 43 - 44 -====Put those prolif good turns away—prolif in new states uniquely causes conflict ==== 45 -**Kroenig** **14** – Matthew, Associate Professor and International Relations Field Chair at Georgetown University, and Nonresident Senior Fellow in the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security at The Atlantic Council ("The History of Proliferation Optimism: Does It Have A Future?", April 2014, http://www.matthewkroenig.com/The20History20of20Proliferation20Optimism'Feb2014.pdf) 46 -The spread of nuclear weapons poses a number of severe threats to international peace and security including: nuclear war, nuclear terrorism, global and regional instability, constrained freedom of action, weakened alliances, and further nuclear proliferation. Each of these threats has received extensive treatment elsewhere and this review is not intended to replicate or even necessarily to improve upon these previous efforts. Rather the goals of this section are more modest: to usefully bring together and recap the many reasons why we should be pessimistic about the likely consequences of nuclear proliferation. Many of these threats will be illuminated with a discussion of a case of much contemporary concern: Iran’s advanced nuclear program. Nuclear War. The greatest threat posed by the spread of nuclear weapons is nuclear war. The more states in possession of nuclear weapons, the greater the probability that somewhere, someday, there will be a catastrophic nuclear war. To date, nuclear weapons have only been used in warfare once. In 1945, the United States used nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, bringing World War II to a close. Many analysts point to the sixty-five-plus-year tradition of nuclear non-use as evidence that nuclear weapons are unusable, but it would be naïve to think that nuclear weapons will never be used again simply because they have not been used for some time. After all, analysts in the 1990s argued that worldwide economic downturns like the great depression were a thing of the past, only to be surprised by the dot-com bubble bursting later in the decade and the Great Recession of the late Naughts.49 This author, for one, would be surprised if nuclear weapons are not used again sometime in his lifetime. Before reaching a state of MAD, new nuclear states go through a transition period in which they lack a secure second-strike capability. In this context, one or both states might believe that it has an incentive to use ~~nukes~~ nuclear weapons first. For example, if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, neither Iran, nor its nuclear-armed rival, Israel, will have a secure, second-strike capability. Even though it is believed to have a large arsenal, given its small size and lack of strategic depth, Israel might not be confident that it could absorb a nuclear strike and respond with a devastating counterstrike. Similarly, Iran might eventually be able to build a large and survivable nuclear arsenal, but, when it first crosses the nuclear threshold, Tehran will have a small and vulnerable nuclear force. In these pre-MAD situations, there are at least three ways that nuclear war could occur. First, the state with the nuclear advantage might believe it has a splendid first strike capability. In a crisis, Israel might, therefore, decide to launch a preventive nuclear strike to disarm Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Indeed, this incentive might be further increased by Israel’s aggressive strategic culture that emphasizes preemptive action. Second, the state with a small and vulnerable nuclear arsenal, in this case Iran, might feel use ‘em or loose ‘em pressures. That is, in a crisis, Iran might decide to strike first rather than risk having its entire nuclear arsenal destroyed. Third, as Thomas Schelling has argued, nuclear war could result due to the reciprocal fear of surprise attack.50 If there are advantages to striking first, one state might start a nuclear war in the belief that war is inevitable and that it would be better to go first than to go second. Fortunately, there is no historic evidence of this dynamic occurring in a nuclear context, but it is still possible. In an Israeli-Iranian crisis, for example, Israel and Iran might both prefer to avoid a nuclear war, but decide to strike first rather than suffer a devastating first attack from an opponent. Even in a world of MAD, however, when both sides have secure, second-strike capabilities, there is still a risk of nuclear war. Rational deterrence theory assumes nuclear-armed states are governed by rational leaders who would not intentionally launch a suicidal nuclear war. This assumption appears to have applied to past and current nuclear powers, but there is no guarantee ~~rational deterrence theory~~ that it will continue to hold in the future. Iran’s theocratic government, despite its inflammatory rhetoric, has followed a fairly pragmatic foreign policy since 1979, but it contains leaders who hold millenarian religious worldviews and could one day ascend to power. We cannot rule out the possibility that, as nuclear weapons continue to spread, some leader somewhere will choose to launch a nuclear war, knowing full well that it could result in self-destruction. One does not need to resort to irrationality, however, to imagine nuclear war under MAD. Nuclear weapons may deter leaders from intentionally launching full-scale wars, but they do not mean the end of international politics. As was discussed above, nuclear-armed states still have conflicts of interest and leaders still seek to coerce nuclear-armed adversaries. Leaders ~~they~~ might, therefore, choose to launch a limited nuclear war.51 This strategy might ~~would~~ be especially attractive to ~~inferior~~ states in a position of conventional inferiority that might have an incentive to escalate a crisis quickly. During the Cold War, the United States planned to use nuclear weapons first to stop a Soviet invasion of Western Europe given NATO’s conventional inferiority.52 As Russia’s conventional power has deteriorated since the end of the Cold War, Moscow has come to rely more heavily on nuclear weapons in its military doctrine. Indeed, Russian strategy calls for the use of nuclear weapons early in a conflict (something that most Western strategists would consider to be escalatory) as a way to de-escalate a crisis. Similarly, Pakistan’s military plans for nuclear use in the event of an invasion from conventionally stronger India. And finally, Chinese generals openly talk about the possibility of nuclear use against a U.S. superpower in a possible East Asia contingency. Second, as was also discussed above, leaders can make a "threat that leaves something to chance."53 They can initiate a nuclear crisis. By playing these risky games of nuclear brinkmanship, states can increases the risk of nuclear war in an attempt to force a less resolved adversary to back down. Historical crises have not resulted in nuclear war, but many of them, including the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, have come close. And scholars have documented historical incidents when accidents nearly led to war.54 When we think about future nuclear crisis dyads, such as Iran and Israel, with fewer sources of stability than existed during the Cold War, we can see that there is a real risk that a future crisis could result in a devastating nuclear exchange. Nuclear Terrorism. The spread of ~~nukes~~ nuclear weapons also increases the risk of nuclear terrorism.55 While September 11th was one of the greatest tragedies in American history, it would have been much worse had Osama Bin Laden possessed nuclear weapons. Bin Laden declared it a "religious duty" for Al Qaeda to acquire ~~nukes~~ nuclear weapons and radical clerics have issued fatwas declaring it permissible to use nuclear weapons in Jihad against the West.56 Unlike states, which can be more easily deterred, there is little doubt that if terrorists acquired nuclear weapons, they would use them. Indeed, in recent years, many U.S. politicians and security analysts have argued that nuclear terrorism poses the greatest threat to U.S. national security.57 Analysts have pointed out the tremendous hurdles that terrorists would have to overcome in order to acquire nuclear weapons.58 Nevertheless, as nuclear weapons spread, the possibility that they will eventually fall into terrorist hands increases. States could intentionally transfer nuclear weapons, or the fissile material required to build them, to terrorist groups. There are good reasons why a state might be reluctant to transfer nuclear weapons to terrorists, but, as nuclear weapons spread, the probability that a leader might someday purposely arm a terrorist group increases. Some fear, for example, that Iran, with its close ties to Hamas and Hezbollah, might be at a heightened risk of transferring nuclear weapons to terrorists. Moreover, even if no state would ever intentionally transfer nuclear capabilities to terrorists, a new nuclear state, with underdeveloped security procedures, might be vulnerable to theft, allowing terrorist groups or corrupt or ideologically-motivated insiders to transfer dangerous material to terrorists. There is evidence, for example, that representatives from Pakistan’s atomic energy establishment met with Al Qaeda members to discuss a possible nuclear deal.59 Finally, a nuclear-armed state could collapse, resulting in a breakdown of law and order and a loose nukes problem. U.S. officials are currently very concerned about what would happen to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons if the government were to fall. As nuclear weapons spread, this problem is only further amplified. Iran is a country with a history of revolutions and a government with a tenuous hold on power. The regime change that Washington has long dreamed about in Tehran could actually become a nightmare if a nuclear-armed Iran suffered a break down in authority, forcing us to worry about the fate of Iran’s nuclear arsenal. Regional Instability: The spread of nuclear weapons also ~~nukes~~ emboldens nuclear powers, contributing to regional instability. States that lack nuclear weapons need to fear direct military attack from other states, but states with nuclear weapons can be confident that they can deter an intentional military attack, giving them an incentive to be more aggressive in the conduct of their foreign policy. In this way, nuclear weapons provide a shield under which states can feel free to engage in lower-level aggression. Indeed, international relations theories about the "stability-instability paradox" maintain that stability at the nuclear level contributes to conventional instability.60 Historically, we have seen that the spread of nuclear weapons has emboldened their possessors and contributed to regional instability. Recent scholarly analyses have demonstrated that, after controlling for other relevant factors, nuclear-weapon states are more likely to engage in conflict than nonnuclear-weapon states and that this aggressiveness is more pronounced in new nuclear states that have less experience with nuclear diplomacy.61 Similarly, research on internal decision-making in Pakistan reveals that Pakistani foreign policymakers may have been emboldened by the acquisition of nuclear weapons, which encouraged them to initiate militarized disputes against India.62 47 - 48 -====Nuclear war makes the world go boom==== 49 -CHALKO 2003 (Dr. Tom J., MSc., Ph.D., Head of Geophysics Research, Scientific E Research P/L, "Can a Neutron Bomb Accelerate Global Volcanic Activity?" http://sci-e-research.com/neutron'bomb.html) 50 -Consequences of using modern nuclear weapons can be far more serious than previously imagined. These consequences relate to the fact that most of the heat generated in the planetary interior is a result of nuclear decay. Over the last few decades, all superpowers have been developing so-called "neutron bombs". These bombs are designed to emit intensive neutron radiation while creating relatively little local mechanical damage. Military are very keen to use neutron bombs in combat, because lethal neutron radiation can peneterate even the largest and deepest bunkers. However, the military seem to ignore the fact that a neutron radiation is capable to reach significant depths in the planetary interior. In the process of passing through the planet and losing its intensity, a neutron beam stimulates nuclei of radioactive isotopes naturally present inside the planet to disintegrate. This disintegration in turn, generates more neutron and other radiation. The entire process causes increased nuclear heat generation in the planetary interior, far greater than the initial energy of the bomb. It typically takes many days or even weeks for this extra heat to conduct/convect to the surface of the planet and cause increased seismic/volcanic activity. Due to this variable delay, nuclear tests are not currently associated with seismic/volcanic activity, simply because it is believed that there is no theoretical basis for such an association. Perhaps you heard that after every major series of nuclear test there is always a period of increased seismic activity in some part of the world. This observable fact CANNOT be explained by direct energy of the explosion. The mechanism of neutron radiation accelerating decay of radioactive isotopes in the planetary interior, however, is a VERY PLAUSIBLE and realistic explanation. The process of accelerating volcanic activity is nuclear in essence. Accelerated decay of unstable radioactive isotopes already present in the planetary interior provides the necessary energy. The TRUE danger of modern nuclear weaponry is that their neutron radiation is capable to induce global overheating of the planetary interior, global volcanic activity and, in extreme circumstances, may even cause the entire planet to explode. 51 - 52 - 53 -===Advantage 2: Asia === 54 - 55 -**====Pakistan nuclear creates small nuclear strikes on India drawing in multiple actors.====** 56 -**Gurung 09/23 **("Military failure could push Pakistan to initiate nuclear attack against India" http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/military-failure-could-push-pakistan-to-initiate-nuclear-attack-against-india/articleshow/54479254.cms?prtpage=1) 57 -But Pakistan~~‘s~~ is a nuclear state, and a majority of its arsenal has been acquired keeping a threat from ~~with~~ India in mind. In an interview to Pakistan's GeoNews last week, Pakistan Defence Minister Khawaja M Asif said the country would not hesitate using nuclear weapons if its security was under threat. A Threat Assessment Brief of the Arms Control Association says Pakistan mainly has ~~nukes~~ nuclear weapons to compensate for the growing conventional military superiority of India. SIPRI also confirms this statement. "Pakistan is the Asian state expanding its fissile material production most rapidly," the report says. Defence experts say war with Pakistan will always be with a nuclear backdrop. And India's endeavour, in case it initiates war, will always be to keep it below the level of nuclear threshold. "But then war is dynamic. If the Indian forces are getting success everywhere, and if you threaten Pakistan's major cities, there may come a time when Pakistan will be forced to use the nuclear option," said a defence expert. But given the kind of global reaction that will come against the use of nuclear weapons, Pakistan will also like to restrict their use of nuclear weapons to the tactical battlefield, meaning smaller warheads and of short range. "If Pakistan has developed the Nasr, then it means against their immediate adversary, India. If they are developing such low-yield weapons it has to be against India," said another defence expert. Defence experts believe that Pakistani tactical, low-yield nuclear weapons like Nasr will be used on its own soil against Indian armed forces as a last resort, preferably in instances with minimum collateral damage to them. "Pakistan will use tactical nuclear weapons where they will not have radiation effects, so that it does not affect their own troops," said a defence expert. While Pakistan has pledged in its nuclear doctrine that it will not initiate use against non-nuclear weapons states, it has not ruled out the possible first use of ~~nukes~~ nuclear weapons against India, as per the Arms Control Association. On the other hand, India's nuclear forces have much higher range than those of Pakistan, giving them the ability to target cities and heartlands of Pakistan. However, reports predict that use of Indian nuclear force will always be a reaction, never a first strike itself. "Due to technical realities and doctrinal inclinations, India's nuclear forces will remain an inherently second-strike system against China and Pakistan for the foreseeable future - even if it is perceived otherwise in Islamabad," says the Arms Control Association. The Association reveals that India wields its nuclear weapons to gain leverage to become a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and to seek a Nuclear Suppliers Group waiver to commence civilian nuclear trade. India sees its nuclear stockpile to maintain a "credible minimum deterrent" and such weapons will only be used to retaliate against a nuclear attack. It measures its own nuclear profile with that of China. In case, the two countries decide to use ~~nukes~~ nuclear weapons against each other, millions would be affected in both countries during the attack, and in the aftermath of the attack. As per a National Resources Defense Council study in 2001, a "limited" nuclear exchange involving detonation of only ten Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons over ten major cities in India and Pakistan would kill or severely injure well over four million people. "According to an updated study by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War in 2013, an exchange of 100 weapons (less than half of the existing Indian and Pakistani arsenals) would not only kill 20 million people within one week, but also ultimately ~~and~~ put some two billion people at risk worldwide due to starvation brought on by the climatic effects of nuclear use," reads the report. Defence experts assess that Indian cities would be targeted by Pakistani nuclear weapons in case the tactical or small range nuclear warheads fail to have the desired effect on attack on military columns. India doesn't face the threat of a nuclear attack by Pakistan alone. Pakistan is expected to use Chinese help to turn the table in its favour, creating severe instability in the Asian Subcontinent. "Pakistan's introduction of the Nasr ballistic missile is probably the most destabilizing technological development in the nuclear arsenals of the subcontinent. The Nasr is designed for tactical use, possibly on Pakistani territory in the event of an Indian conventional attack," reveals a US Arms Control Association report. US-based Arms Control Association reveals that there are nine nuclear armed countries in the world, equipped with about 15,500 nuclear warheads. Pakistan has 120 nuclear warheads, 10 more than India's 110. The Association says Pakistan is expanding its nuclear arsenal faster than any other country. 58 - 59 -====Nuclear proliferation in Asia risks nuclear war- mistrust between countries, coalitions could form, misperceptions of others actions, and hair-trigger status==== 60 -**Cimbala**, 20**13** 61 -(Stephen J. Cimbala, "Arms for Uncertainty: Nuclear Weapons in US and Russian Security Policy", Ch. 4, Ashgate Publishing, Ebrary, Accessed 6/26/16, JL @ RKS) 62 -Although the projection of past events into future scenarios is always perilous, something like the July 1914 crisis in Europe could erupt in Asia once nuclear weapons have been distributed among eight Asian and/or Middle Eastern states and in numbers sufficient to tempt crisis-bound leaders. National, religious or other cultural hatreds could be combined with the memory of past wrongs and the fear of preemptive attack. This could occur not only between dyads of states but between alliances, as it did on the eve of World War I. Coalitions might form among a nuclear-armed China, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran—lined up against Russia, Japan, South Korea and India. This would be an alignment of market democracies of various stripes against dictatorships or authoritarian regimes of sorts. Another possibility would be conflicts between dyads within, or across, democratic and dictatorial coalitions: for example, rivalry between Japan and China, between the two Koreas, or between India and Pakistan. Russia might find itself in bilateral competition or conflict with China or with Japan. Iran might use its nuclear capability for coercion against US. allies, such as Saudi Arabia or Israel, drawing American political commitments and military power directly into a regional crisis. How could one estimate the delicacy or sensitivity of states’ nuclear forces to the risk of a mistaken preemption or other hasty decision for nuclear war? As in the case of the constrained proliferation model, we can also interrogate this second case to measure the degrees of generation stability and prompt launch stability under the following exigent conditions: generation stability, under conditions of prompt or delayed launch; and prompt launch stability, under conditions of generated compared to day-to-day alert. Tables 6.7 and 6.8 summarize the results of these road tests for the components of crisis stability. Although the data summarized in Tables 6.7 and 6.8 are based on notional forces only, they offer important insights into the kinds of systems that states might deploy and their consequences. In order to make these insights clearer, we have deliberately set up an artificial situation in which total force sizes are more or less similar (except for Russia) across states. In the "real world" of Asian nuclear arms races, one danger is that richer states, like wealthier American baseball teams, will outspend their rivals into nuclear bankruptcy and deploy forces intimidating by sheer size. Regardless of force size, force characteristics and operational assumptions make a considerable difference for crisis and arms race stability. Most states in Asia will depend on land-based missiles and/or bomber-delivered weapons as the bulwark of their deterrents. Few if any will be capable of operating fleets of ballistic missile submarines as does the United States. Thus ICBM- or IRBM/ MRBM-dependent countries in Asia will rely on alerted forces and prompt launch to guarantee survivability. Hair triggers may be more the rule than the exception. In addition, many of the land-based missiles available to Asian powers for use as "strategic" launchers will be of medium or intermediate range: theater, as opposed to intercontinental, missiles. These theater-range missiles will have shorter flight times than true ICBMs, ~~will~~ allowing less time for the defender’s launch detection, decision making and response. Errors in launch detection, in the estimation of enemy intentions and in choice of response, are more likely with shorter-, compared to longer-, range missiles. The high dependency of Asian forces on land-based missiles will be compounded by command-and-control systems that may be accident prone or politically ambiguous. In democratic states, political control over the military is guaranteed by checks and balances and by constitutional fiat. In authoritarian polities, the military may operate as a political tool of the ruling clique or it may be an autonomous political force, subject to intrigue and coup plotting. The possibility of political overthrow or military usurpation during a nuclear crisis would not be ruled out in systems lacking constitutional or other political safeguards. The danger is not only that of Bonapartism on the part of disgruntled officers. It is also that of panic in the face of nuclear threats and an institutional military bias for getting in the first blow, in order to maximize the possibility of military victory and avoid defeat. 63 - 64 -===Underview=== 65 - 66 -====Role-playing teaches students to be comfortable with the language of power which is critical to genuine and effective political activism – personal experiences must be tied to concrete political strategies to avoid cooptation==== 67 -Coverstone, 05 – masters in communication from Wake Forest and longtime debate coach 68 -(Alan H., "Acting on Activism: Realizing the Vision of ebate with Pro-social Impact," Paper presented at the National Communication Association Annual Conference, 11/17/05) 69 - 70 -It is very important to note that Mitchell (1998b) tries carefully to limit and bound his notion of reflexive fiat by maintaining that because it "views fiat as a concrete course of action, it is bounded by the limits of pragmatism" (p. 20). Pursued properly, the debates that Mitchell would like to see are those in which the relative efficacy of concrete political strategies for pro-social change is debated. In a few noteworthy examples, this approach has been employed successfully, and I must say that I have thoroughly enjoyed judging and coaching those debates. The students in my program have learned to stretch their understanding of their role in the political process because of the experience. Therefore, those who say I am opposed to Mitchell’s goals here should take care at such a blanket assertion. 71 -However, contest debate teaches students to combine personal experience with the language of political power. Powerful personal narratives unconnected to political power are regularly co-opted by those who do learn the language of power. One need look no further than the annual state of the Union Address where personal story after personal story is used to support the political agenda of those in power. The so-called role-playing that public policy contest debates encourage promotes active learning of the vocabulary and levers of power in America. Imagining the ability to use our own arguments to influence government action is one of the great virtues of academic debate. Gerald Graff (2003) analyzed the decline of argumentation in academic discourse and found a source of student antipathy to public argument in an interesting place. 72 -I’m up against…their aversion to the role of public spokesperson that formal writing presupposes. It’s as if such students can’t imagine any rewards for being a public actor or even imagining themselves in such a role. This lack of interest in the public sphere may in turn reflect a loss of confidence in the possibility that the arguments we make in public will have an effect on the world. Today’s students’ lack of faith in the power of persuasion reflects the waning of the ideal of civic participation that led educators for centuries to place rhetorical and argumentative training at the center of the school and college curriculum. (Graff, 2003, p. 57) 73 -The power to imagine public advocacy that actually makes a difference is one of the great virtues of the traditional notion of fiat that critics deride as mere simulation. Simulation of success in the public realm is far more empowering to students than completely abandoning all notions of personal power in the face of governmental hegemony by teaching students that "nothing they can do in a contest debate can ever make any difference in public policy." Contest debating is well suited to rewarding public activism if it stops accepting as an article of faith that personal agency is somehow undermined by the so-called role playing in debate. Debate is role-playing whether we imagine government action or imagine individual action. Imagining myself starting a socialist revolution in America is no less of a fantasy than imagining myself making a difference on Capitol Hill. Furthermore, both fantasies influenced my personal and political development virtually ensuring a life of active, pro-social, political participation. Neither fantasy reduced the likelihood that I would spend my life trying to make the difference I imagined. One fantasy actually does make a greater difference: the one that speaks the language of political power. The other fantasy disables action by making one a laughingstock to those who wield the language of power. Fantasy motivates and role-playing trains through visualization. Until we can imagine it, we cannot really do it. Role-playing without question teaches students to be comfortable with the language of power, and that language paves the way for genuine and effective political activism. 74 -Debates over the relative efficacy of political strategies for pro-social change must confront governmental power at some point. There is a fallacy in arguing that movements represent a better political strategy than voting and person-to-person advocacy. Sure, a full-scale movement would be better than the limited voice I have as a participating citizen going from door to door in a campaign, but so would full-scale government action. Unfortunately, the gap between my individual decision to pursue movement politics and the emergence of a full-scale movement is at least as great as the gap between my vote and democratic change. They both represent utopian fiat. Invocation of Mitchell to support utopian movement fiat is simply not supported by his work, and too often, such invocation discourages the concrete actions he argues for in favor of the personal rejectionism that under girds the political cynicism that is a fundamental cause of voter and participatory abstention in America today. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-24 21:14:28.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Panel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Greenhill MR - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Octas - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Southlake Carroll Patel Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -SEPOCT- 1AC Prolif - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Newman Smith
- Caselist.CitesClass[2]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,63 +1,78 @@ 1 -==Part 1: History == 2 -We start our journey on March 28th 1979 Dauphin County, Pennsylvania : A reactor partially melts down and releases radioactive material into the surrounding areas in what is now known as the Three Mile Island Accident. 30 years after the atrocity, it is still called the worst meltdown in U.S history with effects felt to date. Cancer, violence, death. BUT no one knows that – the incident has gone down in infamy as one of the biggest streams of government lies to hide the horrid effects of a government sponsored initiative – nuclear power 3 -Wasserman, No Date (Harvey Wasserman has been writing about atomic energy and the green alternatives since 1973. His 1982 assertion to Bryant Gumbel on NBC's TODAY Show that people were killed at TMI sparked a national mailing from the reactor industry demanding a retraction. NBC was later bought by General Electric, still a major force pushing atomic power. , "People Died at Three Mile Island," No Publication, http://www.nukefree.org/news/peoplediedatthreemileisland No date) AP 1 +=1AC= 4 4 5 -As news of the accident poured into the global media, the public was assured there were no radiation releases.That quickly proved to be false.The public was then told the releases were controlled and done purposely to alleviate pressure on the core. Both those assertions were false. The public was told the releases were "insignificant."But stack monitors were saturated and unusable, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission later told Congress it did not know—-and STILL does not know—-how much radiation was released at Three Mile Island, or where it went. Using unsubstantiated estimates of how much radiation was released, the government issued average doses allegedly received by people in the region, which it assured the public were safe. But the estimates were utterly meaningless, among other things ignoring the likelihood that high doses of concentrated fallout could come down heavily on specific areas. Official estimates said a uniform dose to all persons in the region was equivalent to a single chest x-ray. But pregnant women are no longer x-rayed because it has long been known a single dose can do catastrophic damage to an embryo or fetus in utero. The public was told there was no melting of fuel inside the core.But robotic cameras later showed a very substantial portion of the fuel did melt.The public was told there was no danger of an explosion. But there was, as there had been at Michigan's Fermi reactor in 1966. In 1986, Chernobyl Unit Four did explode.The public was told there was no need to evacuate anyone from the area. But Pennsylvania Governor Richard Thornburgh then evacuated pregnant women and small children. Unfortunately, many were sent to nearby Hershey, which was showered with fallout.In fact, the entire region should have been immediately evacuated. It is standard wisdom in the health physics community that—-due in part to the extreme vulnerability of human embryos, fetuses and small children, as well as the weaknesses of old age—-there is no safe dose of radiation, and none will ever be found. The public was assured the government would follow up with meticulous studies of the health impacts of the accident.In fact, the state of Pennsylvania hid the health impacts, including deletion of cancers from the public record, abolition of the state's tumor registry, misrepresentation of the impacts it could not hide (including an apparent tripling of the infant death rate in nearby Harrisburg) and much more.The federal government did nothing to track the health histories of the region's residents. 6 6 7 -Three mile resulted in an increase of infant mortality, cancer rates, psychological and physical effects that lasted long after the initial explosion. 8 -Epstein 11 , Eric Epstei, Mr. Epstein is the Chairman of Three Mile Island Alert,, "Health Studies," Three Mile Island Alert, http://www.tmia.com/taxonomy/term/12, 10-27-2011)AP 4 +===1AC=== 9 9 10 -Penn State Professor Winston Richards reported, "Infant mortality for Dauphin County, while average in 1978, becomes significantly above average in 1980." 8. 1984: The first Voluntary Community Health Study was undertaken by a group of local residents trained by Marjorie Aamodt. That study found a 600 percent cancer death rate increase for three locations on the west shore of TMI directly in the plumes' pathway. The data were independently verified by experts from the TMI Public Health Fund. 1985: Jane Lee surveyed 409 families living in a housing development five miles from TMI. Lee documented 23 cancer deaths, 45 cancer incidences, 53 benign tumors, 31 miscarriages, stillbirths and deformities, and 204 cases of respiratory problems.By 1985, TMI’s owners and builders had paid more than $14 million for out-of-court settlements of personal injury lawsuits including $12.250 million paid to 280 plaintiffs and Orphans Court Cases. August, 1985: Marc Sheaffer, a psychologist at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, released a study linking TMI-related stress with immunity impairments. August, 1987: Prof. James Rooney and Prof. Sandy Prince of Embury of Penn State University-Harrisburg reported that "chronically elevated levels of psychological stress" have existed among Middletown residents since the Accident.April, 1988: Andrew Baum, professor of medical psychology at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda discussed the results of his research on TMI residents in Psychology Today. "When we compared groups of people living near Three Mile Island with a similar group elsewhere, we found that the Three Mile Island group reported more physical complaints, such as headaches and back pain, as well as more anxiety and depression. We also uncovered long- term changes in levels of hormones...These hormones affect various bodily functions, including muscle tension, cardiovascular activity, overall metabolic and immune-system function..." 11 -James Fenwick, a researcher at Millersville University, found statistically significant increases of kidney, renal, pelvis and ovarian cancer in women. (April, 1998) June, 1991: Columbia University’s Health Study (Susser-Hatch) published results of their findings in the American Journal of Public Health. The study actually shows a more than doubling of all observed cancers after the accident at TMI-2, including: lymphoma, leukemia, colon and the hormonal category of breast, endometrium, ovary, prostate and testis. For leukemia and lung cancers in the six to 12 km distance, the number observed was almost four times greater. In the 0-six km range, colon cancer was four times greater. The study found "a statistically significant relationship between incidence rates after the accident and residential proximity to the plant." 12 12 7 +====The standard is mitigating structural violence.==== 13 13 14 -====The effects lasted long into the public memory with the government learned from the Three Mile Incident, not building new reactors since the 80’s until they could find the place that would have the least amount effects on its "citizens." – They learned WHERE to place these horrible reactors and who to exploit for their own gain==== 15 -Cousins et. Al no date (Elicia Cousins, Claire Karban, Fay Li, and Marianna Zapanta Carleton College, Environmental Studies Comprehensive Project Northfield, MN, USA, "Nuclear Power and Environmental Justice: A Mixed-Methods Study of Risk, Vulnerability, and the Victim Experience, No date, "https://apps.carleton.edu/curricular/ents/assets/Cousins'Karban'Li'Zapanta.pdf, Carleton Environmental Studies,)AP 16 -We begin with an analysis of the spatial distribution of nuclear power plants in the Eastern United States, concluding that nuclear reactors are indeed situated in areas with high proportions of certain vulnerable populations (non-white Hispanics, women, children and the elderly). Furthermore, the only nuclear facility that has been sited after the Three Mile Island accident of 1979 is situated in an area with a disproportionately large population of African Americans and people below the poverty line. We then illustrate what this physical proximity would mean in the case of an accident by exploring the victim experiences of the three main nuclear power plant accidents in history: Fukushima Daiichi, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island (TMI). In doing so, we highlight some of the most profound social risks associated with nuclear power that are often overlooked, largely because of difficulties in quantifying and addressing them. Well-documented patterns of social vulnerability in the United States suggest that the most disadvantaged populations would likely experience these costs to a greater extent in the case of an accident. 17 -Cousins et. Al continues (Elicia Cousins, Claire Karban, Fay Li, and Marianna Zapanta Carleton College, Environmental Studies Comprehensive Project Northfield, MN, USA, "Nuclear Power and Environmental Justice: A Mixed-Methods Study of Risk, Vulnerability, and the Victim Experience, No date, "https://apps.carleton.edu/curricular/ents/assets/Cousins'Karban'Li'Zapanta.pdf, Carleton Environmental Studies,)AP 18 -All of the reactors currently in operation were commissioned before the Three Mile Island incident in 1979. The high cost of reactors and the infrastructure and spent fuel that accompany them make it unrealistic that environmental injustice in plant siting could be addressed at an existing plant. Newly sited plants however, have an opportunity to consider the surrounding populations in an environmental justice context. Recently, the NRC approved the siting of two new nuclear reactors for the first time since 1980. The plants are currently under construction in Waynesboro, Georgia at the existing Vogtle nuclear power plant (Peskoe 2012). We isolated the data for this particular facility to examine the surrounding population using the same methodology. 19 19 20 -==Part 2: Wasteland== 21 -Our journey takes us to September 2016 22 - Burke County, Georgia – site of the Vogtle nuclear plant 10 +====Structural violence is based in moral exclusion, which is fundamentally flawed because exclusion is not based on dessert but rather on arbitrarily perceived differences.==== 11 +Winter and Leighton 99 ~|Deborah DuNann Winter and Dana C. Leighton. Winter~|~~Psychologist that specializes in Social Psych, Counseling Psych, Historical and Contemporary Issues, Peace Psychology. Leighton: PhD graduate student in the Psychology Department at the University of Arkansas. Knowledgable in the fields of social psychology, peace psychology, and justice and intergroup responses to transgressions of justice~~ "Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology in the 21st century." Pg 4-5 ghs//VA 12 +Finally, to recognize the operation of structural violence forces us to ask questions about 13 +AND 14 +local cultures, will be our most surefooted path to building lasting peace. 23 23 24 -====Black bodies live in a world of nuclear waste, constantly tormenting their every day lives – lives full of cancer, death, pitiful living conditions – nothing has changed – nothing positive was learned from the 3-mile incident- black bodies are still represented as fungible- their demands for change- unheard- their lives invisible to the eyes of the government ==== 25 - Dixon 12 Environmental racism: Is nuclear plant causing cancer for poor black residents of Shell Bluff, Ga.?http://thegrio.com/2012/01/25/nuclear-plants-and-cancer-epidemics-in-a-poor-black-georgia-town-environmental-racism-in-the-21st-ce/ 26 -Environmental racism occurs when hazardous industries and facilities are placed in and near poor, minority communities. Because the resultant pollution from such installations is a cost usually paid by the immediate environment and community affected, the fall out of environmental racism is the localization of those costs in areas with the least political clout. In 2010, President Obama supported the Department of Energy’s decision to grant $8.3 billion in conditional loan guarantees for the construction of twin nuclear reactors in Burke County, Ga. at the Vogtle plant. According to Southern Company (which is building the reactors), the creation of the nation’s first new nuclear reactors in 30 years will result in an emissions-free, jobs-creating bonanza for the poor and mostly black communities around Shell Bluff and other Burke County cities. But some residents are asking, if nuclear reactors are really economic shots in the arm, why is Burke County still one of the poorest corners of the state a quarter century after Southern Company brought its first pair of local reactors online in 1987? They also want to know: If the old and new reactors will be safe, why won’t Southern Company or the federal government pay to monitor radiation levels in Burke County? And most of all, why are cancer rates more than 50 percent higher in communities near existing reactors, according to the Centers for Disease Control? Trading clean energy and jobs for the health of poor black citizens without investigating the long-term effects fits the definition of environmental racism precisely. "Some people did get jobs," former Shell Bluff resident Annie Laura Stephens told the Grio, "but a lot of us got something else. We got cancer. I lost sisters, brothers and cousins to cancer, and every family I know has lost somebody to cancer." Ms. Stephens’ complaint is echoed by many local residents. Since the early 1980s, Burke County residents have experienced a veritable cancer epidemic. Located along what is already the fourth most toxic waterway in the nation, Shell Bluff is across the Savannah River from a former nuclear weapons manufacturing plant. Nearby Waynesboro residents rely on wells for bathing and drinking water, which makes them highly vulnerable to the radioactive contamination of local ground water. With the two existing reactors at Vogtle, in addition to the former weapons plant (which is a Superfund toxic site), when the new reactors are completed the number of potential sources of nuclear contamination in tiny Burke county will rise to five. But no one is closely monitoring their effects on residents. This has left Shell Bluff residents to rely on anecdotal evidence "We don’t have the best educations, but we can read and we can count," continues Stephens regarding her observations. "We know that since 2004 there has been no testing of our water, soil or air for radiation. We drink the water, we bathe in it and wash dishes and clothes in it. We know every family has cancer… and that can’t be normal, that can’t be right. We know way too many are sick with cancer and we know why. But we can’t prove it absolutely, because nobody will test the local air or water or anything else for the radiation we know is there. 27 27 17 +====Day to day lives of people should be valued above all other impacts ==== 18 +Dr. Tommy J. Curry The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the 21^^st^^ Century. 2014 19 +Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to the real 20 +AND 21 +used to currently justify the living wages in under our contemporary moral parameters. 28 28 29 -====Due to fungibility the voices of the black body are never heard – this space is key ==== 30 -Dixon 12 Environmental racism: Is nuclear plant causing cancer for poor black residents of Shell Bluff, Ga.?http://thegrio.com/2012/01/25/nuclear-plants-and-cancer-epidemics-in-a-poor-black-georgia-town-environmental-racism-in-the-21st-ce/ 31 -"We’ve had meetings and protests and lots of promises and more meetings," Stephens said. "But it seems that nobody is listening, but Jesus." At the end of 2003, when federal funding for radiation monitoring was slated to end in the area, Georgia WAND (Womens Action for New Directions) and local residents began pushing for the Department of Energy to resume radiation monitoring around the two existing nuclear plants at Shell Bluff. They met with state officials and members of Congress over several years, but got no results. Then in 2010, WAND discovered that the DOE had falsely reported to Congress that funds has been provided to Georgia for radiation monitoring since 2004. In fact the state had received no money for this purpose since 2003. After CNN investigated these circumstances at Shell Bluff and aired an April 2010 report on the cancer epidemic, federal officials pledged to reinstate funds for radiation monitoring in the area. But by August of that year, DOE was refusing to fund any proposal for this work. Since then, according to WAND director Bobbie Paul, federal officials and their contractors have stalled and made empty promises about restoring the funds. In the meantime, Southern Company has implemented plans for the two new nuclear reactors. "The NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) just approved construction permits for two new reactors right next to the old ones," lamented Rev. Willy Tomlin, also of Shell Bluff. "They are making billions off us, but can’t spare a nickel to tell us why our cancer rates are higher than everybody else’s, or even to count them. A lot of people are scared. They see we’ve been having meetings and fighting this for a long while now. They see we haven’t won yet. "Georgia Power is (the source of) a lot of the few jobs in this area, and people don’t want to jeopardize the little they have," Tomlin continued. "If you speak out, you can lose your job, or your relatives can lose theirs. It happens." Southern Company is the parent company of Georgia Power. "Many people really are resigned to the cancer as the price they have to pay to keep living here," Paul confirmed. The manipulation of the local population into accepting the terms presented by Southern Company to keep their jobs goes further. In early January 2012, WAND and Shell Bluff residents invited Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery of the Georgia Coalition for the Peoples Agenda to Shell Bluff to hear the concerns of residents, and preach about the power of voting. Dr. Lowery, a former president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), confided to meeting participants that he had met with a representative from Southern Company. He did not mention that the SCLC, which he headed until 1997, has a special relationship with Georgia Power. A former Georgia Power CEO has headed a SCLC $3 million building fund drive. Empty public meetings. Many broken promises. Bribing black communities with jobs in exchange for sickness and death. Is this what environmental racism looks like in the 21st century? The Grio asked Ms. Stephens why the election of a black president hasn’t protected the mostly black residents of Shell Bluff Georgia from such circumstances. Stephens answered: "We all vote. We have meetings and more meetings in between the elections. People are still getting sick and dying of cancer. This has been going on a long time. Right now, they ~~,Southern Company,~~ have the power." According to CNN, the NRC and Southern Company have stated that the plants in Burke County are safe. It is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission policy to allow plants to monitor themselves. Atlanta Progressive News reports that the energy generated by the new reactors will not benefit Georgia residents, because it will be sold to Florida.’ 32 32 24 +====Policy decisions directed at maintaining human survival through whatever means will encourage genocide, war, and the destruction of moral values==== 25 +**Callahan 73** – Co-Founder and former director of The Hastings Institute, PhD in philosophy from Harvard University (Daniel, "The Tyranny of Survival", p 91-93) 26 +The value of survival could not be so readily abused were it not for its 27 +AND 28 +properly manage their need to survive, they succeeded in not doing so. 33 33 34 -====The impact to that fungibility is irreversible. Nuclear plants are responsible for devastating effects of displacement, contamination and distraction. Nuclear spaces become war zones in and of themselves, enacting violence through illness, war, poverty, death, and more, creating and unpredictable risk.==== 35 -**Taylor 2010** (Bryan Taylor, "Radioactive History Rhetoric, Memory, and Place in the Post–Cold War nuclear Museum" in Places of Public Memory) 36 -To understand the rhetorical nature of these spaces, we must remember that nuclear weapons are capable of producing "effects" whether or not they are actually used as military weapons. That is, they are technological artifacts whose production requires the reconfiguration of space to serve military, scientific, and industrial goals. This process involves highly consequential— and often irreversible—material practices, including the appropriation, condemnation, and clearing of land; the exposure, displacement, and relocation of indigenous populations; the contamination and devastation of existing ecosystems; and the construction of facilities requiring significant reallocation of water and energy resources. The massive artificiality of this process is neatly captured by environmental historian Hal Rothman in his image of the wartime Los Alamos Laboratory as "cantilevered" and "grafted" onto the existing culture and environment of northern new Mexico.6 Mounting—and highly controversial—evidence has established that the nuclear industrialization of these spaces has created destructive and extremely long-lasting consequences for public health, worker safety, and the environment (for example, stemming from the release of radioactive materials into groundwater).7 This evidence concerns the impossibility of "containing" the effects of nuclear weapons events. Instead, those effects evade control and circulate unpredictably within and across local communities, regions, and nations. The environmentalist colloquialism "Every- thing is connected" concisely expresses the sad wisdom arising from this ontological rupture. It suggests how nuclear spaces can be charged with both the ominous aura of illness, war, and death, and also with the material traces of production operations. While both sets of phenomena may create a sense of dread for inhabitants and visitors, the latter also creates unpredictable risk for their bodies. 37 37 31 +====Plan: The United States federal government should prohibit the production of nuclear power. ==== 38 38 39 39 34 +===C1 – Black Communities === 40 40 41 -==Part 3: Memory Space == 42 42 43 -====Three Mile and Burke County Georgia reflect the long and contested history of nuclear power production in this country. We must use these sites as memory places in order to understand the effects on populations of environmental degradation, and to challenge the militarized power that displaces and subjects black and brown communities to health crises. The nuclear power plant is symbolic of militarized control over black bodies and embracing these sites as a memory space unmasks and unmakes those system of power.==== 44 -Blair, Dickson, and Ott 2010 (Introduction Rhetoric/Memory/Place; Places of Public Memory) 37 +====Black bodies are fungible to us – we energize our lives while not noticing the horrible effects of nuclear power from the urban communities most of their plants inhabit. ==== 38 +Dixon 12 Environmental racism: Is nuclear plant causing cancer for poor black residents of Shell Bluff, Ga.?http://thegrio.com/2012/01/25/nuclear-plants-and-cancer-epidemics-in-a-poor-black-georgia-town-environmental-racism-in-the-21st-ce/ 39 +Environmental racism occurs when hazardous industries and facilities are placed in and near poor, 40 +AND 41 +air or water or anything else for the radiation we know is there. 45 45 46 -Finally, memory places themselves have histories. That is, they do not just represent the past. They accrete their own pasts. Virtually all studies of public memory places take account of the connections memory places draw between past and present. But James Loewen argues that these places actually are marked by three temporal moments, not just two. He suggests that "One is its manifest narrative—the event or person heralded in its text or artwork." The second, he argues, is "the story of its erection or preservation. The images on our monuments and the language on our markers reflect the attitudes and ideas of the time when Americans put them up, often many years after the event." And finally, he identities a "third age that comes into play whenever one visits a historic site—the visitor’s own era."129 47 47 44 +====It is try or die for the affirmative – effects on actual people that are always ignored because they are th out-group Winter and Leighton refer to is what outweighs the idea of nuclear power, under any circumstance, being productive or good for the rest of the environment. ==== 45 +Dixon 12 Environmental racism: Is nuclear plant causing cancer for poor black residents of Shell Bluff, Ga.?http://thegrio.com/2012/01/25/nuclear-plants-and-cancer-epidemics-in-a-poor-black-georgia-town-environmental-racism-in-the-21st-ce/ 46 +"We've had meetings and protests and lots of promises and more meetings," Stephens 47 +AND 48 +will not benefit Georgia residents, because it will be sold to Florida. 48 48 49 -====Thus I advocate the turn of Three Mile and Burke County Georgia into "Memory Spaces" as a means for countries to prohibit the production of nuclear power plants==== 50 50 51 -==== 52 -The memory place does not just represent the pasts, it accretes it and draws connections from past to present. It shapes our way of being, unmasking and unmaking systems of power that make black bodies fungible==== 51 +===C2 – Indigenous communities === 53 53 54 -Blair, Dickson, and Ott 2010 (Introduction Rhetoric/Memory/Place; Places of Public Memory) 55 -Places also mobilize power because they are implacably material. They act directly on the body in ways that may reinforce or subvert their symbolic memory contents. Places of memory are composed of and/or contain objects, such as art installations, memorabilia, and historic artifacts. Their rhetoricity is not limited to the readable or visible; it engages the full sensorium. Such objects produce particular sensations through touch, sound, sight, smell, and taste. Memory places also prescribe particular paths of entry, traversal, and exit. Maps, arrows, walls, boundaries, openings, doors, modes of surveillance all encode power and possibility. The design and building of memorial places often function as "strategy" in Michel de Cetteau’s sense of that word. At the same time, the uses to which the visitors put memorial sites make, remake, and unmake the imposed structures of power.127 The important point is that, no matter how overtly a place may exert power through its incorporation, enablement, direction, and constraints on bodies, it has its own power dimension that becomes part of the experience. 56 56 54 +====Without ending nuclear power, we distance ourselves from natives and their relationship and history with the land. ==== 55 +NIRS 01 Environmental Racism, Tribal Sovereignty, and Nuclear Waste http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/pfsejfactsheet.htm 56 +Having lost its bid to "temporarily" store its deadly wastes on Western Shoshone 57 +AND 58 +that struggle for Native American environmental justice against corporate greed and environmental racism. 57 57 58 -====The debate space is uniquely key –our rhetoric impacts those in the room with us and create a memory space for this specific round-IN a world where there is never a memory of the harms against the black body- Memory Spaces are uniquely key to contesting nuclear power AND REFRAME ALL STATE POLICIES ARE VIEWED. THUS THE ROLE OF THE BALLOT IS TO VOTE FOR THE DEBATER THAT BEST CREATES A MEMORY SPACE that resists a power structures==== 59 59 60 -=== =Museums and publicmemory force an immediate confrontation with the visitor to where they must deal with not just thepast but the present effectsof nuclear power. The phenomena of the nuclearplace restoresa sense of connectionbetween audiences both socially and internationally.====61 +===Eco-Apocalypse Link=== 61 61 62 -**Taylor 2010** (Bryan Taylor, "Radioactive History Rhetoric, Memory, and Place in the Post–Cold War nuclear Museum" in Places of Public Memory) 63 -The marginalized interests of these groups evoke alternate rhetorical frames that reorient museum visitors to the phenomena of nuclear place. Potentially, these frames can restore a spatial sense of connection—and perhaps identification—between audiences in the United States and other social groups and life forms, including U.S. citizens affected by radioactive fallout from weapons testing,30 nations seeking to develop their own nuclear weapons programs, and migrating species that spread radioactive contamination. These frames suggest that it is neither accurate nor sustainable for museum audiences to relegate the consequences of nuclear weapons development to the past, or to safely remote spaces. instead, their rhetoric inconveniently restores the phenomena of nuclear weapons production to local and regional sites that may be uncomfortably familiar to those audiences. 63 + 64 +====Environmental apocalypticism causes eco-authoritarianism and mass violence against those deemed environmental threats—-also causes political apathy which turns case==== 65 +Buell 3 Frederick—cultural critic on the environmental crisis and a Professor of English at Queens College and the author of five books, From Apocalypse To Way of Life, pages 185-186 66 +Looked at critically, then, crisis discourse thus suffers from a number of liabilities 67 +AND 68 +give up, or even cut off ties to clearly terminal "nature." 69 + 70 + 71 +===Apoc:=== 72 + 73 + 74 +====Apocalyptic rhetoric ignores that black bodies are constantly living in apocalypse. To care about the future is only to care about the deaths of white, first world citizens because every other body is already the object of violence. Their disembodied futurism makes violence spectacular causing desensitization, which turns their impacts since structural impacts never register in their 'extinction first' utilitarian calculations==== 75 +AbdelRahim 2008 (Layla, Ph.D. from the Université de Montréal, Department of Comparative Literature, "Beyond the Symbolic and towards the Collapse: Intro to John Zerzan's conferences in Montreal, May 2008," http://layla.miltsov.org/introduction-to-z/ ~|~| NDW) 76 +For, it is not Zerzan who has invented the Machine with its terminology and 77 +AND 78 +" and we find ourselves facing the elitist eugenicist rhetoric, once again. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2016- 10-1420:42:46.01 +2016-09-17 14:47:45.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 - Jared Woods1 +Lakshmi Uppalapati - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -H arrisonRP1 +Colleyville Heritage MS - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 - 61 +2 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 - 11 +2 - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -SEPOCT- 1ACMemorySpace1 +SEPOCT-1AC Structural Violence - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 - Greenhill1 +Conrad
- Caselist.CitesClass[3]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,43 +1,0 @@ 1 -====ROB: Endorse the debater who provides the best liberation strategy for Asian Americans to resist white supremacy in the context of race relations ==== 2 -Punongbayan 15 (10/02/2015 "What Asian Americans Owe African Americans" Christopher Punongbayan is Advisor and former Executive Director of the oldest Asian American legal civil rights organization in the country, Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus. JC) 3 -The untold story is that Asian America is what it is today because of the African American-led civil rights movement. The first step that we can do to bridge the distance among communities of color is understand our interconnected roots. The 1960s is perhaps best known for laws like the Civil Rights Act. But 50 years ago today, on October 3, 1965, the Immigration and Nationality Act was also passed in the midst of the social upheaval of that period. This immigration law has been absolutely transformational for American society because of the drastic demographic shifts that were brought about in its wake. From 1820 to 1965, only 1.5 million Asians immigrated to the US. After 1965’s immigration act, more than 10 million Asians have immigrated to our shores. Were it not for the centuries-long struggle led by African Americans on behalf of all excluded communities, we as a nation would not only have a lot fewer civil rights, we would not have nearly the racial diversity we do today. The Asian American community, nineteen million of us strong, could be the tipping point that shifts the balance of power against white supremacy. But what’s more, we Asian Americans must challenge the anti-black racism that exists in our own community. In 2015, when police brutality is a daily news headline and African Americans are senselessly murdered by law enforcement, Asian Americans must stand as allies to the Black Lives Matter movement. Black lives matter unconditionally. We Asian Americans owe it to African Americans to hold ourselves accountable to this undeniable truth. 4 - 5 - 6 -====The role of the judge is to act as a critical educator combating oppression—while obviously signing the ballot won’t make neoliberalism disappear, voting for strategies to combat oppression in this round makes us better activists in the future. ==== 7 -Giroux 13 (Henry, American scholar and cultural critic. One of the founding theorists of critical pedagogy in the United States, he is best known for his pioneering work in public pedagogy, "Public Intellectuals Against the Neoliberal University," 29 October 2013, http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/19654-public-intellectuals-against-the-neoliberal-university)//ghs-VA 8 -Increasingly, as universities are shaped by an audit culture, the call to be objective and impartial, whatever one's intentions, can easily echo what George Orwell called the official truth or the establishment point of view. Lacking a self-consciously democratic political focus, teachers are often reduced, or reduce themselves, to the role of a technician or functionary engaged in formalistic rituals, unconcerned with the disturbing and urgent problems that confront the larger society or the consequences of one's pedagogical practices and research undertakings. Hiding behind appeals to balance and objectivity, too many scholars refuse to recognize that being committed to something does not cancel out what C. Wright Mills once called hard thinking. Teaching needs to be rigorous, self-reflective, and committed not to the dead zone of instrumental rationality but to the practice of freedom, to a critical sensibility capable of advancing the parameters of knowledge, addressing crucial social issues, and connecting private troubles and public issues. In opposition to the instrumental model of teaching, with its conceit of political neutrality and its fetishization of measurement, I argue that academics should combine the mutually interdependent roles of critical educator and active citizen. This requires finding ways to connect the practice of classroom teaching with important social problems and the operation of power in the larger society while providing the conditions for students to view themselves as critical agents capable of making those who exercise authority and power answerable for their actions. Higher education cannot be decoupled from what Jacques Derrida calls a democracy to come, that is, a democracy that must always "be open to the possibility of being contested, of contesting itself, of criticizing and indefinitely improving itself."33 Within this project of possibility and impossibility, critical pedagogy must be understood as a deliberately informed and purposeful political and moral practice, as opposed to one that is either doctrinaire, instrumentalized or both. Moreover, a critical pedagogy should also gain part of its momentum in higher education among students who will go back to the schools, churches, synagogues and workplaces to produce new ideas, concepts and critical ways of understanding the world in which young people and adults live. This is a notion of intellectual practice and responsibility that refuses the professional neutrality and privileged isolation of the academy. It also affirms a broader vision of learning that links knowledge to the power of self-definition and to the capacities of students to expand the scope of democratic freedoms, particularly those that address the crisis of education, politics, and the social as part and parcel of the crisis of democracy itself. In order for critical pedagogy, dialogue and thought to have real effects, they must advocate that all citizens, old and young, are equally entitled, if not equally empowered, to shape the society in which they live. This is a commitment we heard articulated by the brave students who fought tuition hikes and the destruction of civil liberties and social provisions in Quebec and to a lesser degree in the Occupy Wall Street movement. If educators are to function as public intellectuals, they need to listen to young people who are producing a new language in order to talk about inequality and power relations, attempting to create alternative democratic public spaces, rethinking the very nature of politics, and asking serious questions about what democracy is and why it no longer exists in many neoliberal societies. These young people who are protesting the 1 recognize that they have been written out of the discourses of justice, equality and democracy and are not only resisting how neoliberalism has made them expendable, they are arguing for a collective future very different from the one that is on display in the current political and economic systems in which they feel trapped. These brave youth are insisting that the relationship between knowledge and power can be emancipatory, that their histories and experiences matter, and that what they say and do counts in their struggle to unlearn dominating privileges, productively reconstruct their relations with others, and transform, when necessary, the world around them. 9 - 10 -====Best for activism— Talking about methodologies to combat oppressive structures makes us better advocates in the future—this is a key pre-requisite to education and fairness claims, even if we learn from debate, that education is useless without the ability to put it to use.==== 11 - 12 -===Part two is the police=== 13 - 14 -====Reforming qualified immunity is the best starting point—a lack of police accountability is what the aff fixes ==== 15 -Wright 15, Sam. "Want to Fight Police Misconduct? Reform Qualified Immunity."Above the Law. N.p., 3 Nov. 2015. Web. 02 Oct. 2016. http://abovethelaw.com/2015/11/want-to-fight-police-misconduct-reform-qualified-immunity/. SM 16 -Recently, police have been killing and otherwise abusing people of color with what seems like increasing frequency. The Black Lives Matter movement is asking them to stop — and pushing for policy changes to help bring about that end. Back in August, the movement launched Campaign, which lays out a thoughtful platform for change at the federal, state, and local levels. One of the legs of this policy platform is "accountability." This makes sense — real accountability can be a powerful lever to change behavior. But I don’t think the Campaign Zero accountability goes far enough — I think that, in order to bring about real police accountability, we need to reform qualified immunity. Before getting into what Campaign Zero is proposing and why their proposal ought to include qualified immunity reform, let’s take a step back for some context. Overall, responses to Black Lives Matter and the Campaign Zero reform platform have varied. Megan McArdle wrote of Campaign Zero that its "suggestions range from ‘worthy of consideration’ to ‘immediate moral imperative.’" But others worry that the very notion of publicly questioning police powers — let alone real police accountability — has already led to gentler policing and, possibly, a corresponding increase in violent crimes. There’s even a name for the notion that paying attention to police misbehavior breeds inactive police and more active criminals — the "Ferguson effect," even though (in St. Louis, at least) whatever increase there’s been in violent crimes began before Michael Brown was killed by a Ferguson, Missouri police officer. As Ta-Nahesi Coates writes, "If the "Ferguson Effect" is real, how can it be that it started before the Ferguson protests?" Despite the fact that it doesn’t appear to be supported by evidence, FBI Director James Comey gave some credence to the notion of a "Ferguson effect" in a speech last week at the University of Chicago Law School. He described "a chill wind that has blown through American law enforcement over the last year" and suggested this "chill wind" was "some part of the explanation" for a putative rise in violent crimes. The disagreed with Comey. And Ta-Nahesi Coates had some things to say about Comey’s remarks, too, saying they reflected an attitude of non-evidence-based policing — a sort of "creationism, crime-fighting on a hunch." He linked this attitude to longstanding racist police practices, and he ended with these words: "A theory of government which tells citizens to invest agents of the state with the power to mete out lethal violence, but discourages them from holding those officers accountable is not democracy. It is fascism." Coates hits the proverbial nail squarely on its head: again it comes down to accountability. So now let’s take a look at what Campaign Zero is asking for on police accountability. This part of the Campaign Zero platform breaks down into four umbrella requests: Community Oversight — Campaign Zero proposes to increase community oversight of the police by establishing more effective structures for civilian oversight and removing barriers to reporting police misconduct. Independent Investigation and Prosecution — Campaign Zero wants to make police oversight more independent by lowering the standard of proof for federal civil rights investigations of police, using federal funds to increase investigations of killings by police officers, establishing a permanent Special Prosecutor position in each state, and requiring independent investigations of all deaths and serious injuries caused by police. Body Cameras and Filming the Police — Campaign Zero supports reforms to make it easier for civilians to obtain video evidence of encounters with police both by requiring police body cameras and by ensuring civilians can record police encounters. Fair Union and Police Contracts — Campaign Zero wants to remove special procedural protections for police officers accused of misconduct, to make police disciplinary records public, and to bar police officers who have killed or severely injured civilians from going on paid leave. I think Megan McArdle is probably right that these proposals (and the others in Campaign Zero’s broader platform) range from "worthy of consideration" to "immediate moral imperative." But I also think the list is missing something. As usual, I’ve not buried the lede: that something is qualified immunity reform. In order to truly hold police accountable for bad acts, civilians must be able to bring, and win, civil rights suits themselves — not rely on the Department of Justice, or special prosecutors, or civilian review boards to hold officers accountable. And in order to both bring and win civil rights suits, civilians need a level playing field in court. Right now, ~~which~~ they don’t have one. Instead, police officers have recourse to the broad protections of the judicially established doctrine of qualified immunity. Under this doctrine, state actors ~~they~~ are protected from suit even if they’ve violated the law by, say, using excessive force, or performing an unwarranted body cavity search — as long as their violation was not one of "clearly established law of which a reasonable officer would be aware." In other words, if there’s not already a case where a court has held that an officer’s identical or near-identical conduct rose to the level of a constitutional violation, there’s a good chance that even an obviously malfeasant officer will avoid liability — will avoid ~~and~~ accountability. To bring about true accountability and change police behavior, this needs to change. And change ~~it~~ should begin with an act of Congress rolling back qualified immunity. Removing the "clearly established" element of qualified immunity would be a good start — after all, shouldn’t it be enough to deviate from a basic standard of care, to engage in conduct that a reasonable officer would know is illegal, without having to show that that conduct’s illegality has already been clearly established in the courts? That’s just a start. There are plenty of other reforms that could open up civil rights lawsuits and help ensure police accountability for bad conduct. Two posts (one, two) at Balkinization by City University of New York professor Lynda Dodd provide a good overview. Campaign Zero should consider adding civil rights litigation reform to its platform, our policymakers should consider making civil rights litigation more robust, and, if we want to see justice done, we should push to make it happen. 17 - 18 -====The model minority myth allows police officers to commit acts of structural violence against Asian American populations. Only a total restructure of the political laws and how they construe Asian Americans can any change occur.==== 19 -Zhang 13 (Policy Memo Anti Asian American Discrimination https://asianamericansandpolicemisconduct.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/policy-memo-anti-asian-american-discrimination/~~#comments JC) 20 -There seems to be ~~is~~ a~~n~~ pervasive assumption attached to the Asian American community that enables institutions, such as law enforcement, to violate rights accorded under the Constitution. Asian Americans are increasingly becoming victims of unlawful detentions, imprisonment, violation of due process and police brutality. The Federal Criminal Enforcement, Federal Civil Enforcement (Police Misconduct Provision), Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and OJP Program prohibit any form of discrimination or police misconduct against any person, citizen or noncitizen, living in the US. Yet despite its proscription of police misconduct, there are clear incidents that show otherwise that these policies need to be reexamined to address the ever increasing violence against Asian Americans by police. Consequently, the "Model Minority" myth renders the notion that excessive force can and will be used against Asian Americans without law enforcement fearing any repercussion or accountability for their actions. For example, The New York Times reported that "a 16-year-old boy who the police say was brandishing a pellet gun was shot and killed by a police officer yesterday morning in the driveway of a home in Sheepshead Bay." (Hevesi, 1995) The parents of the young Asian American did not understand why police killed their son. In 1997 Kuan Chung Kao was shot in the head by the Rohnert Park Police Department. As a result of the death of Mr. Kao, "the Asian American community in the Bay Area had expressed concern over the possible violation of civil rights in the shooting and the implication of racial bias in the comments made by law enforcement and public officials following the incident." (Chapter 1) These incidents would not have been scrutinized or investigated had it not been for Asian American social justice groups. Yet, excessive violence against Asian American by police is not a new phenomenon nor does it pertain to a single race as most tend to believe. As a consequence, police misconduct against the Asian American community has created a distrust that of law enforcement will violate their civil rights based on current and past events. Law enforcement officers have demonstrated historically to abuse authority and discriminate minorities, the issue, however, arises when the misconception that Asian Americans due to their "Model Minority" status are exempt from police brutality. This issue becomes especially important for Asian Americans because this false belief, more often than not, leads to more police injustice without any accountability and lacks the attention needed to properly prosecute those who violate their civil liberties. In order to address police brutality we must look at how the policies mentioned above can extend to protect the Asian Americans more efficiently. 21 - 22 -===Part three is the resistance=== 23 - 24 -====The anti-black framing causes invisibility to the Asian American culture. The ideals of the model minority make it impossible to carve out identities in the system of oppression. Only by acknowledging the violence against the Asian American can we pursue a better understanding of how to break down this system of oppression.==== 25 -Yin 16 ("In A Black-and-White America, Asians Struggle to Fit In" Steph Yin is a freelance journalist and educator based in New York. Her work has appeared in The Huffington Post, Popular Science, and Vice. http://www.complex.com/life/2016/03/asian-america-race JC) 26 -In the aftermath of Liang’s conviction, Asian-Americans must decide where we fit in America’s racial landscape. We must acknowledge how our community is both privileged and oppressed, relate our experiences to those of other communities of color, and recognize that the "Asian-American" identity itself is fluid and ever-changing. "We really need to need to develop a better awareness of ourselves," said Jenn Fang, who writes about Asian-American activism, identity, and feminism on her blog Reappropriate. "~~We need~~ better access to our own history and our own knowledge, all of which is out there." But it's difficult to determine where Asian-Americans fit in, when our understanding of race is built around blackness and whiteness. "We’re not black, and we’re not white, but we have no language for articulating where we are," Fang said. "There’s anti-blackness, there’s white supremacy, and there’s no room for anything else." This black-white binary frames how American society understands Asian-Americans. In an article entitled, "Beyond the Model Minority Myth," writer Jennifer Pan describes how middle- and upper-class Asian-Americans might be defined by our non-blackness and non-whiteness. On one hand, our non-blackness and status as "model minorities" keeps us from being seen as targets of police violence or incarceration. On the other hand, our non-whiteness prevents us from accessing the same salaries and employment opportunities as our white counterparts. Given how the black-white binary constrains us, it might be tempting for Asian-Americans to carve out a space outside of it—but that’s not possible, according to Scot Nakagawa, senior partner at Changelab, an Oakland-based think tank that explores racial justice with a focus on Asian-American identity. The United States is built on the exploitation and criminalization of black people relative to white people, he said, and "there’s no way to get around that." This binary is the reality of how Americans think about race, Fang said, but as Asian-Americans, we can add nuance to the conversation by defining our own experiences and relating them to existing power structures. In terms of race, this means acknowledging the ways we experience oppression—because we’re not white—but also privilege, because we’re not black. Asian-Americans can also do this for experiences beyond race, Fang added, including class, gender, sexuality, ability, and more: "It’s really about seeing oneself as multifaceted." This process helps Asian-Americans recognize the diversity of experiences within the pan-Asian community, Fang said. One downfall of a monolithic national identity is that it erases the experiences of those who don’t fall into Asian-American stereotypes (e.g. Southeast Asian refugees, who experience some of the country’s highest poverty rates). If Asian-Americans start to break down these divisions of privilege and oppression, we can better unite on common causes, and support each other despite differences. Acknowledging all the ways we’re privileged and oppressed also allows Asian-Americans to build alliances with other communities of color through shared issues. One example is the alliance between APIs4BlackLives, a national group of Asian and Pacific Islander activists, and Black Lives Matter. By connecting the experiences of racial profiling and police brutality within black communities to those within Southeast Asian communities, APIs4BlackLives ~~this~~ challenges anti-blackness among Asian-Americans, and attracts them to the Black Lives Matter movement. "They have been able to present their racial politics and experiences in a way that doesn’t shift the conversation, so the focus is still on black lives," Fang said. Defining ourselves also means owning our history. After the Liang protests, for instance, multiple media outlets attributed them to Asian-Americans as a group, rather than explaining that the protests caused sharp divides within our community. This erased Asian-Americans’ history of resistance and the ongoing work of activist groups such as CAAAV: Organizing Asian Communities and ~~#Asians4BlackLives, according to Ellen Wu, an Indiana University Bloomington professor and author of The Color of Success: Asian Americans and the Origins of the Model Minority. In fact, the Asian-American identity was largely constructed out of the Civil Rights Movement by Asians who wanted to critique anti-black racism, and stand in solidarity with other communities of color, Wu said. At the heart of Asian-America today is a deep frustration with invisibility. Often, our invisibility is attributed to a black-versus-white framework that makes no space for us. We can demand for more inclusivity and to broaden the conversation, but this binary is America’s reality—and we can’t ignore that. This doesn’t mean we should let it paralyze us, though. By developing a deeper, more nuanced awareness of who we are as Asian-Americans, and using that awareness to build solidarity with other marginalized groups, we can grapple with the binary on our own terms. Doing so makes a difference not only for us, but for all people of color. "We're living in a time when white dominance can only be maintained by dividing and conquering non-whites," Nakagawa said. "This is a time for us to stand firm on the side of the color line that leans toward justice." 27 - 28 -====The model minority myth was a construct created by white society to make the people of color complacent. This racial engineering pitted the Asian American community against the African American which ignores the systematic violence against the Asian community.==== 29 -Linshi 14 ("Why Ferguson Should Matter to Asian-Americans "http://time.com/3606900/ferguson-asian-americans/ JC) 30 -Michael Brown’s death has several parallels in Asian-American history. The first to come to mind may be the story of Vincent Chin, a Chinese-American killed in 1982 by a Chrysler plant superintendent and his stepson, both white, both uncharged in a racially-motivated murder; like Brown, Chin unified his community to demand protection under the law. However, most direct parallels have often had one distinct dissimilarity to Ferguson: they have not spurred widespread resistance, nor have they engraved a visible legacy. There is the story of Kuanchang Kao, an intoxicated Chinese-American fatally shot in 1997 by police threatened by his "martial arts" moves. There is Cau Bich Tran, a Vietnamese-American killed in 2003 after holding a vegetable peeler, which police thought was a cleaver. There is Fong Lee, a Hmong-American shot to death in 2006 by police who believed he was carrying a gun. None of the three cases resulted in criminal charges against the police or in public campaigns that turned the victim’s memory into a commitment to seek justice. One op-ed even declared how little America learned from Tran’s slaying. While Ferguson captures the world’s attention, why do these Asian-American stories remain comparatively unknown? One possible answer could be found in the model minority myth. The myth, a decades-old stereotype, casts Asian-Americans as universally successful, and discourages others — even Asian-Americans themselves — from believing in the validity of their struggles. But as protests over Ferguson continue, it’s increasingly important to remember the purpose of the model minority narrative’s construction. The doctored portrayal, which dates to 1966, was intended to shame African-American activists whose demands for equal civil rights threatened a centuries-old white society. (The original story in the New York Times thrust forward an image of Japanese-Americans quietly rising to economic successes despite the racial prejudice responsible for their unjust internment during World War II.) Racial engineering of Asian-Americans and African-Americans to protect a white-run society was nothing new, but the puppeteering of one minority to slap the other’s wrist was a marked change. The apparent boost of Asian-Americans suggested that racism was no longer a problem for all people of color — it was a problem for people of a specific color. "The model minority discourse has elevated Asian-Americans as a group that’s worked hard, using education to get ahead," said Daryl Maeda, a professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado, Boulder. "But the reality is that it’s a discourse that intends to pit us against other people of color. And that’s a divide and conquer strategy we shouldn’t be complicit with." Through the years, that idea erased from the public consciousness the fact that the Asian-American experience was once a story of racially motivated legal exclusion, disenfranchisement and horrific violence — commonalities with the African-American experience that became rallying points in demanding racial equality. That division between racial minorities also erased a history of Afro-Asian solidarity born by the shared experience of sociopolitical marginalization. As with Ferguson, it’s easy to say the Civil Rights movement was entirely black and white, when in reality there were many moments of interplay between African-American and Asian-American activism. 31 - 32 -====The anti-whiteness movements have holes in its history that create dichotomies between races that not only fails to realize the continued struggle against oppression, but also excludes the voices of Asian Americans.==== 33 -Linshi 14 ("Why Ferguson Should Matter to Asian-Americans "http://time.com/3606900/ferguson-asian-americans/ JC) 34 -The concept of non-whiteness is one way to begin the retelling of most hyphenated American histories. In Asian-American history, non-whiteness indelibly characterized the first waves of Asians arriving in the mid-1800s in America. Cases like People v. Hall (1854) placed them alongside unfree blacks, in that case by ruling that a law barring blacks from testifying against whites was intended to block non-white witnesses, while popular images documented Asian-American bodies as dark, faceless and indistinguishable — a racialization strengthened against the white supremacy of Manifest Destiny and naturalization law. Non-whiteness facilitated racism, but it in time also facilitated cross-racial opposition. With issues like post-9/11 racial profiling, anti-racism efforts continue to uphold this tradition of a shared non-white struggle. "This stuff is what I call~~ed~~ M.I.H. — missing in history," said Helen Zia, an Asian-American historian and activist. "Unfortunately, we have generations growing up thinking there’s no connection ~~between African-Americans and Asian-Americans~~. These things are there, all the linkages of struggles that have been fought together." The disassociation of Asian-Americans from Ferguson — not just as absent allies, but forgotten legacies — is another chapter in that missing history. In final moments of the Vine depicting an Asian-American shopkeeper’s looted store, the cameraman offers a last thought in their conversation that had halted to a brief pause. "It’s just a mess," the cameraman says. The observation, however simplistic, has a truth. That, as an Asian-American who’s become collateral damage in a climate often black-and-white, he, like all of Ferguson, must first clean up — and then reassess the unfolding reality outside. 35 - 36 - 37 -====We are missing in history, but it is only by changing the narrative can we reshape history and actually provide a space to live.==== 38 -Nguyen 15 ("Missing in History" and Why It Matters by Phuong Nguyen" The Ithaca Pan Asian American Film Festival is dedicated to supporting Asian American film, video and media makers both nationwide and throughout the upstate New York area while promoting films created by, starring, and/or about Asian Americans. https://panasianamericanfilm.org/2015/03/19/missing-in-history-and-why-it-matters-by-phuong-nguyen/) JC 39 -Lack of Asians in the U.S. history books can easily lead us to assume Asians have not lived in the United States that long. That’s a lie as Asians have lived in North America as early as 1763. Lack of Asians in U.S. history books can easily lead us to assume that Asian immigrants historically didn’t want to become American. That’s a lie as Asians were barred by law from entering the country, testifying in court against whites, marrying whom they wanted, and becoming U.S. citizens. The powers that be came up with every excuse in the book: Asians are sojourners who don’t want to settle here; the founding fathers never intended Asians to become U.S. citizens; we can’t admit more Asians to our university because we want more students who are well-rounded; we can’t promote Asians to leadership roles because we need ~~someone~~ leaders who everyone can relate to. Lack of Asians in U.S. history books can easily lead us to assume that Asians lacked any artistic, political, scientific, or business ambitions until recently. That’s a lie, too, as we’ve had generations and generations of talented Asian Americans whose names we can barely remember because those who write our history books don’t want to spend precious book space telling us how Asian Americans, like other people of color, succeeded despite discriminatory barriers that kept many talented people unrewarded and unrecognized, leaving us only with a model minority myth that claims that past and present wrongs are irrelevant because Asians are only good at math and science anyway. Ignorance is not bliss. The voices in Missing in History know that knowledge is more than just power; it’s a the key to survival, a way to counter the lies we were told throughout our lives all to justify a Eurocentric curriculum. Knowledge is their ticket to belonging and knowing their true place in American society and history. On Monday, April 20, we will invite the three filmmakers, Kristy Zhen, Kristiana Reyes, and Kailin Hibbs, to join us for a screening of Missing in History. And we, the beneficiaries of all the hard work this film marvelously captured, get to thank them in person. 40 - 41 -====We offer this round as an act of conscientization – a process of constant clarification that allows us to name the world and perceive how we exist in it – through this dynamic process we have come to realizations like the myth of the model minority and have already begun and will continue to create real change==== 42 -**Osajima ‘7** 2007, Keith Osajima is a professor and Director of the Race and Ethnic Studies Program at the University of Redlands. REPLENISHING THE RANKS: Raising Critical Consciousness Among Asian Americans; JOURNAL OF ASIAN AMERICAN STUDIES (JAAS), February, Volume 10, No. 1; p. 64 JC/SM 3 43 -Conscientization for these respondents meant being able to "name their world." That is, a meaningful education had helped them to recognize and understand the impact that societal conditions and forces of oppression have on their lives and the lives of others. As Freire writes, the process of conscientization, or education for critical consciousness, "involves a constant clarification of what remains hidden within us while we move about in the world," and it provokes "recognition of the world, not as a ‘given’ world, but as a world dynamically ‘in the making."24 Such recognition often inspires people to work against that oppression, thus beginning their active efforts to transform the world.25 Naming the world was an important step toward actively changing it. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-11-19 15:35:11.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Shania Hunt - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harker SP - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -7 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Southlake Carroll Patel Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -NOVDEC- 1AC Model Minority - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Glenbrooks
- Caselist.RoundClass[5]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-24 21:14:26.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Panel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Greenhill MR - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Octas - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,2 +1,0 @@ 1 -1AC Proliferation 2 -1NC Security K SMR PIC Warming DACase - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Newman Smith
- Caselist.RoundClass[6]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-10-14 20:42:44.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Jared Woods - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harrison RP - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,2 +1,0 @@ 1 -1AC Memory 2 -1NC Cap K Elections O spec - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Greenhill
- Caselist.RoundClass[7]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-11-19 15:35:09.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Shania Hunt - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harker SP - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,3 +1,0 @@ 1 -1AC Model Minority 2 -1NC Cap DA Case 3 -2NR Cap - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Glenbrooks
- Caselist.RoundClass[8]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-27 19:51:57.430 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -a - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -a - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Sunvite
- Caselist.RoundClass[2]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-09-17 14:47:44.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lakshmi Uppalapati - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Colleyville Heritage MS - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Conrad
- Caselist.RoundClass[3]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-09-17 19:43:08.645 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Jared Woods - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harrison RP - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,3 @@ 1 +1AC Memory Space 2 +1NC OSPEC FX T Cap K Elections Case turns 3 +2NR OSPECT FX T Elections Case turns - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Greenhill