Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[3]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[3]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[3]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-11-14 04:57:22.410
	1	+2016-11-14 04:57:22.0

Caselist.CitesClass[3]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,67 @@
	1	+Part 1 is the Framework
	2	+1 Rejecting oppression must be prioritized – everyday oppression is the largest proximate cause of psychological and physical warfare against the excluded.
	3	+Scheper-Hughes and Bourgois ‘4: (Nancy and Philippe, Prof of Anthropology @ Cal-Berkeley; Prof of Anthropology @ UPenn, Introduction: Making Sense of Violence, in Violence in War and Peace, pg. 19-22)
	4	+This large and at first sight “messy” Part VII is central to this anthology’s thesis. It encompasses everything from the routinized, bureaucratized, and utterly banal violence of children dying of hunger and maternal despair in Northeast Brazil (Scheper-Hughes, Chapter 33) to elderly African Americans dying of heat stroke in Mayor Daly’s version of US apartheid in Chicago’s South Side (Klinenberg, Chapter 38) to the racialized class hatred expressed by British Victorians in their olfactory disgust of the “smelly” working classes (Orwell, Chapter 36). In these readings violence is located in the symbolic and social structures that overdetermine and allow the criminalized drug addictions, interpersonal bloodshed, and racially patterned incarcerations that characterize the US “inner city” to be normalized (Bourgois, Chapter 37 and Wacquant, Chapter 39 Violence also takes the form of class, racial, political self-hatred and adolescent self-destruction (Quesada, Chapter 35), as well as of useless (i.e. preventable), rawly embodied physical suffering, and death (Farmer, Chapter 34). Absolutely central to our approach is a blurring of categories and distinctions between wartime and peacetime violence. Close attention to the “little” violences produced in the structures, habituses, and mentalites of everyday life shifts our attention to pathologies of class, race, and gender inequalities. More important, it interrupts the voyeuristic tendencies of “violence studies” that risk publicly humiliating the powerless who are often forced into complicity with social and individual pathologies of power because suffering is often a solvent of human integrity and dignity. Thus, in this anthology we are positing a violence continuum comprised of a multitude of “small wars and invisible genocides” (see also Scheper- Hughes 1996; 1997; 2000b) conducted in the normative social spaces of public schools, clinics, emergency rooms, hospital wards, nursing homes, courtrooms, public registry offices, prisons, detention centers, and public morgues. The violence continuum also refers to the ease with which humans are capable of reducing the socially vulnerable into expendable nonpersons and assuming the license - even the duty - to kill, maim, or soul-murder. We realize that in referring to a violence and a genocide continuum we are flying in the face of a tradition of genocide studies that argues for the absolute uniqueness of the Jewish Holocaust and for vigilance with respect to restricted purist use of the term genocide itself (see Kuper 1985; Chaulk 1999; Fein 1990; Chorbajian 1999). But we hold an opposing and alternative view that, to the contrary, it is absolutely necessary to make just such existential leaps in purposefully linking violent acts in normal times to those of abnormal times. Hence the title of our volume: Violence in War and in Peace. If (as we concede) there is a moral risk in overextending the concept of “genocide” into spaces and corners of everyday life where we might not ordinarily think to find it (and there is), an even greater risk lies in failing to sensitize ourselves, in misrecognizing protogenocidal practices and sentiments daily enacted as normative behavior by “ordinary” good-enough citizens. Peacetime crimes, such as prison construction sold as economic development to impoverished communities in the mountains and deserts of California, or the evolution of the criminal industrial complex into the latest peculiar institution for managing race relations in the United States (Waquant, Chapter 39), constitute the “small wars and invisible genocides” to which we refer. This applies to African American and Latino youth mortality statistics in Oakland, California, Baltimore, Washington DC, and New York City. These are “invisible” genocides not because they are secreted away or hidden from view, but quite the opposite. As Wittgenstein observed, the things that are hardest to perceive are those which are right before our eyes and therefore taken for granted. In this regard, Bourdieu’s partial and unfinished theory of violence (see Chapters 32 and 42) as well as his concept of misrecognition is crucial to our task. By including the normative everyday forms of violence hidden in the minutiae of “normal” social practices - in the architecture of homes, in gender relations, in communal work, in the exchange of gifts, and so forth - Bourdieu forces us to reconsider the broader meanings and status of violence, especially the links between the violence of everyday life and explicit political terror and state repression, Similarly, Basaglia’s notion of “peacetime crimes” - crimini di pace - imagines a direct relationship between wartime and peacetime violence. Peacetime crimes suggests the possibility that war crimes are merely ordinary, everyday crimes of public consent applied systematic- ally and dramatically in the extreme context of war. Consider the parallel uses of rape during peacetime and wartime, or the family resemblances between the legalized violence of US immigration and naturalization border raids on “illegal aliens” versus the US government- engineered genocide in 1938, known as the Cherokee “Trail of Tears.” Peacetime crimes suggests that everyday forms of state violence make a certain kind of domestic peace possible. Internal “stability” is purchased with the currency of peacetime crimes, many of which take the form of professionally applied “strangle-holds.” Everyday forms of state violence during peacetime make a certain kind of domestic “peace” possible. It is an easy-to-identify peacetime crime that is usually maintained as a public secret by the government and by a scared or apathetic populace. Most subtly, but no less politically or structurally, the phenomenal growth in the United States of a new military, postindustrial prison industrial complex has taken place in the absence of broad-based opposition, let alone collective acts of civil disobedience. The public consensus is based primarily on a new mobilization of an old fear of the mob, the mugger, the rapist, the Black man, the undeserving poor. How many public executions of mentally deficient prisoners in the United States are needed to make life feel more secure for the affluent? What can it possibly mean when incarceration becomes the “normative” socializing experience for ethnic minority youth in a society, i.e., over 33 percent of young African American men (Prison Watch 2002). In the end it is essential that we recognize the existence of a genocidal capacity among otherwise good-enough humans and that we need to exercise a defensive hyper vigilance to the less dramatic, permitted, and even rewarded everyday acts of violence that render participation in genocidal acts and policies possible (under adverse political or economic conditions), perhaps more easily than we would like to recognize. Under the violence continuum we include, therefore, all expressions of radical social exclusion, dehumanization, depersonalization, pseudo speciation, and reification which normalize atrocious behavior and violence toward others. A constant self-mobilization for alarm, a state of constant hyper arousal is, perhaps, a reasonable response to Benjamin’s view of late modern history as a chronic “state of emergency” (Taussig, Chapter 31). We are trying to recover here the classic anagogic thinking that enabled Erving Goffman, Jules Henry, C. Wright Mills, and Franco Basaglia among other mid-twentieth-century radically critical thinkers, to perceive the symbolic and structural relations, i.e., between inmates and patients, between concentration camps, prisons, mental hospitals, nursing homes, and other “total institutions.” Making that decisive move to recognize the continuum of violence allows us to see the capacity and the willingness - if not enthusiasm - of ordinary people, the practical technicians of the social consensus, to enforce genocidal-like crimes against categories of rubbish people. There is no primary impulse out of which mass violence and genocide are born, it is ingrained in the common sense of everyday social life. The mad, the differently abled, the mentally vulnerable have often fallen into this category of the unworthy living, as have the very old and infirm, the sick-poor, and, of course, the despised racial, religious, sexual, and ethnic groups of the moment. Erik Erikson referred to “pseudo- speciation” as the human tendency to classify some individuals or social groups as less than fully human - a prerequisite to genocide and one that is carefully honed during the unremarkable peacetimes that precede the sudden, “seemingly unintelligible” outbreaks of mass violence. Collective denial and misrecognition are prerequisites for mass violence and genocide. But so are formal bureaucratic structures and professional roles. The practical technicians of everyday violence in the backlands of Northeast Brazil (Scheper-Hughes, Chapter 33), for example, include the clinic doctors who prescribe powerful tranquilizers to fretful and frightfully hungry babies, the Catholic priests who celebrate the death of “angel-babies,” and the municipal bureaucrats who dispense free baby coffins but no food to hungry families. Everyday violence encompasses the implicit, legitimate, and routinized forms of violence inherent in particular social, economic, and political formations. It is close to what Bourdieu (1977, 1996) means by “symbolic violence,” the violence that is often “nus-recognized” for something else, usually something good. Everyday violence is similar to what Taussig (1989) calls “terror as usual.” All these terms are meant to reveal a public secret - the hidden links between violence in war and violence in peace, and between war crimes and “peace-time crimes.” Bourdieu (1977) finds domination and violence in the least likely places - in courtship and marriage, in the exchange of gifts, in systems of classification, in style, art, and culinary taste- the various uses of culture. Violence, Bourdieu insists, is everywhere in social practice. It is misrecognized because its very everydayness and its familiarity render it invisible. Lacan identifies “rneconnaissance” as the prerequisite of the social. The exploitation of bachelor sons, robbing them of autonomy, independence, and progeny, within the structures of family farming in the European countryside that Bourdieu escaped is a case in point (Bourdieu, Chapter 42; see also Scheper-Hughes, 2000b; Favret-Saada, 1989). Following Gramsci, Foucault, Sartre, Arendt, and other modern theorists of power-vio- lence, Bourdieu treats direct aggression and physical violence as a crude, uneconomical mode of domination; it is less efficient and, according to Arendt (1969), it is certainly less legitimate. While power and symbolic domination are not to be equated with violence - and Arendt argues persuasively that violence is to be understood as a failure of power - violence, as we are presenting it here, is more than simply the expression of illegitimate physical force against a person or group of persons. Rather, we need to understand violence as encompassing all forms of “controlling processes” (Nader 1997b) that assault basic human freedoms and individual or collective survival. Our task is to recognize these gray zones of violence which are, by definition, not obvious. Once again, the point of bringing into the discourses on genocide everyday, normative experiences of reification, depersonalization, institutional confinement, and acceptable death is to help answer the question: What makes mass violence and genocide possible? In this volume we are suggesting that mass violence is part of a continuum, and that it is socially incremental and often experienced by perpetrators, collaborators, bystanders - and even by victims themselves - as expected, routine, even justified. The preparations for mass killing can be found in social sentiments and institutions from the family, to schools, churches, hospitals, and the military. They harbor the early “warning signs” (Charney 1991), the “priming” (as Hinton, ed., 2002 calls it), or the “genocidal continuum” (as we call it) that push social consensus toward devaluing certain forms of human life and lifeways from the refusal of social support and humane care to vulnerable “social parasites” (the nursing home elderly, “welfare queens,” undocumented immigrants, drug addicts) to the militarization of everyday life (super-maximum-security prisons, capital punishment; the technologies of heightened personal security, including the house gun and gated communities; and reversed feelings of victimization).
	5	+2 Theory absent real solutions is as useless as action divorced from theory – concrete solutions backed by theory are key.
	6	+Giroux ‘14: Henry A. Giroux 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, “Neoliberalism’s War on Democracy”, Truthout, 26 Apr 2014 //AB
	7	+In this instance, understanding must be linked to the practice of social responsibility and the willingness to fashion a politics that addresses real problems and enacts concrete solutions. As Heather Gautney points out, ¶ We need to start thinking seriously about what kind of political system we really want. And we need to start pressing for things that our politicians did NOT discuss at the conventions. Real solutions—like universal education, debt forgiveness, wealth redistribution, and participatory political structures—that would empower us to decide together what’s best. Not who’s best.75¶ Critical thinking divorced from action is often as sterile as action divorced from critical theory. Given the urgency of the historical moment, we need a politics and a public pedagogy that make knowledge meaningful in order to make it critical and transformative. Or, as Stuart Hall argues, we need to produce modes of analysis and knowledge in which "people can invest something of themselves . . . something that they recognize is of them or speaks to their condition."76 A notion of higher education as a democratic public sphere is crucial to this project, especially at a time in which the apostles of neoliberalism and other forms of political and religious fundamentalism are ushering in a new age of conformity, cruelty, and disposability. But as public intellectuals, academics can do more.
	8	+3 Use the state as a heuristic - provides a means of understanding the state to break it down and articulate power as a changeable system.
	9	+Zanotti ‘14: Dr. Laura Zanotti is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Virginia Tech. Her research and teaching include critical political theory as well as international organizations, UN peacekeeping, democratization and the role of NGOs in post-conflict governance. “Governmentality, Ontology, Methodology: Re-thinking Political Agency in the Global World” – Alternatives: Global, Local, Political – vol 38(4):p. 288-304 – The Stated “Version of Record” is Feb 20, 2014, but was originally published online on December 30th, 2013. Obtained via Sage Database.
	10	+By questioning substantialist representations of power and subjects, inquiries on the possibilities of political agency are reframed in a way that focuses on power and subjects’ relational character and the contingent processes of their (trans)formation in the context of agonic relations. Options for resistance to governmental scripts are not limited to ‘‘rejection,’’ ‘‘revolution,’’ or ‘‘dispossession’’ to regain a pristine ‘‘freedom from all constraints’’ or an immanent ideal social order. It is found instead in multifarious and contingent struggles that are constituted within the scripts of governmental rationalities and at the same time exceed and transform them. This approach questions oversimplifications of the complexities of liberal political rationalities and of their interactions with non-liberal political players and nurtures a radical skepticism about identifying universally good or bad actors or abstract solutions to political problems. International power interacts in complex ways with diverse political spaces and within these spaces it is appropriated, hybridized, redescribed, hijacked, and tinkered with. Governmentality as a heuristic focuses on performing complex diagnostics of events. It invites historically situated explorations and careful differentiations rather than overarching demonizations of ‘‘power,’’ romanticizations of the ‘‘rebel’’ or the ‘‘the local.’’ More broadly, theoretical formulations that conceive the subject in non-substantialist terms and focus on processes of subjectification, on the ambiguity of power discourses, and on hybridization as the terrain for political transformation, open ways for reconsidering political agency beyond the dichotomy of oppression/rebellion. These alternative formulations also foster an ethics of political engagement, to be continuously taken up through plural and uncertain practices, that demand continuous attention to ‘‘what happens’’ instead of fixations on ‘‘what ought to be.’’83 Such ethics of engagement would not await the revolution to come or hope for a pristine ‘‘freedom’’ to be regained. Instead, it would constantly attempt to twist the working of power by playing with whatever cards are available and would require intense processes of reflexivity on the consequences of political choices. To conclude with a famous phrase by Michel Foucault ‘‘my point is not that everything is bad, but that everything is dangerous, which is not exactly the same as bad. If everything is dangerous, then we always have something to do. So my position leads not to apathy but to hyper- and pessimistic activism.’’84
	11	+4 Critical analysis of modern energy systems requires a social understanding to mitigate technocratic corruption and oppression – reject extinction and tech-based rhetoric because they mask internal problems.
	12	+Byrne et al ‘6: John Byrne, Noah Toly, and Leigh Glover write in “Transforming Power: Energy, Environment, and Society in Conflict.” John Byrne is distinguished professor of energy and climate policy and director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy (CEEP) at the University of Delaware. He is also chairman of the board of the Foundation for Renewable Energy and Environment. He has contributed since 1992 to Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the panel’s authors. He is editor of Transaction’s book series Energy and Environmental Policy. Noah Toly is a research associate and Ph.D. candidate in the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Delaware. Leigh Glover is policy fellow and assistant professor in the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Delaware. https://books.google.com/books?id=d_8ij4SGQxMCandpg=PA1andlpg=PA1anddq=From+climate+change+to+acid+rain,+contaminated+landscapes,+mercury+pollution,+and+biodiversityandsource=blandots=JPEQRX6CyQandsig=gc~-~-F_f0ujG981Fu1yyz6ThCPUandhl=enandsa=Xandved=0ahUKEwjY6Nmw8qnPAhUW32MKHYidAP8Q6AEIHjAA#v=onepageandq=sustainable20energy20futuresandf=false; AB
	13	+From climate change to acid rain, contaminated landscapes, mercury pollution, and biodiversity loss, the origins of many of our least tractable environmental problems can be trace to the operations of the modern energy system. A scan of nightfall across the planet reveals a social dilemma that also accompanies this system’s operations: invented over a century ago, electric light remains an experience only for the socially privileged. Two billon human beings – almost one-third of the planet’s population – experience evening light by candle, oil lamp, or open fire, reminding us that energy modernization has left intact – and sometimes exacerbated – social inequalities that its architects promised would be banished (Smil, 2003: 370 – 373). And there is the disturbing link between modern energy and war. Whether as a mineral whose control is fought over by the powerful (for a recent history of conflict over oil, see Klare, 200b, 2004, 2006), or as the enablement of an atomic war of extinction, modern energy makes modern life possible and threatens its future. With environmental crisis, social inequality, and military conflict among the significant problems of contemporary energy-society relations, the importance of a social analysis of the modern energy system appears easy to establish. One might, therefore, expect a lively and fulsome debate of the sector’s performance, including critical inquiries into the politics, sociology, and political economy of modern energy. Yet, contemporary discourse on the subject is disappointing: instead of a social analysis of energy regimes, the field seems to be a captive of euphoric technological visions and associated studies of “energy futures” that imagine the pleasing consequences of new energy sources and devices. One stream of euphoria has sprung from advocates of conventional energy, perhaps best represented by the unflappable optimist of nuclear power, who, early on, promised to invent a “magical fire” (Weinberg, 1972) capable of meeting any level of energy demand inexhaustibly in a manner “too cheap to meter” (Lewis Strauss, cited in the New York Times 1954, 1955). In reply to those who fear catastrophic accidents from the “magical fire” or the proliferation of nuclear weapons, a new promise is made to realize the “inherently safe reactors” (Weinberg, 1985) that risk neither serious accident nor intentionally harmful use of high-energy physics. Less grandiose, but no less optimistic, forecasts can be heard from fossil fuel enthusiasts who, likewise, project more energy, at lower cost, and with little ecological harm (see e.g., Yergin and Stoppard, 2003). Skeptics of conventional energy, eschewing involvement with dangerously scaled technologies and their ecological consequences, find solace in “sustainable energy alternatives” that constitute a second euphoric stream. Preferring to redirect attention to smaller, and supposedly more democratic options, “green” energy advocates conceive devices and systems that prefigure a revival of human scale development, local self-determination, and a commitment to ecological balance. Among supporters are those who believe that greening the energy system embodies universal social ideals, and, as a result, can overcome current conflicts between energy “haves” and “have-nots.” In a recent contribution to this perspective, Vaitheeswaran suggests (2003: 327, 291), “today’s nascent energy revolution will truly deliver power to the people” as “micropower meets village power.” Hermann Scheer echoes the idea of an alternative energy-led transformation: the shift to a “solar global economy… can satisfy the material needs of all mankind and grant us the freedom to guarantee truly universal and equal human rights to safeguard the world’s cultural diversity” (Scheer, 2002: 34). The euphoria of contemporary energy studies is noteworthy for its historical consistency with a nearly unbroken social narrative of wonderment extending from the advent of steam power through the spread of electricity (Nye 1999). The modern energy regime that now powers nuclear weaponry and risks disruption of the planet’s climate is a product of promises pursued without sustained public examination of the political, social, economic, and ecological record of the regime’s operations. However, the discursive landscape has occasionally included thoughtful exploration of the broader contours of energy-environment-society relations. As early as 1934, Lewis Mumford (see also his two-volume Myth of the Machine, 1966; 1970) critiqued the industrial energy system for being a key source of social and ecological alienation (1934: 196): The changes that were manifested in every department of Technics rested for the most part on one central fact: the increase of energy. Size, speed, quantity, the multiplication of machines, were all reflections of the new means of utilizing fuel and the enlargement of the available stock of fuel itself Power was disassociated from its natural human and geographic limitations: from the caprices of the weather, from the irregularities that definitely restrict the output of men and animals. By 1961, Mumford despaired that modernity had retrogressed into a life-harming dead end (1961: 263, 248): …an orgy of uncontrolled production and equally uncontrolled reproduction: machine fodder and cannon fodder surplus values and surplus populations… The dirty crowded houses, the dank airless courts and valleys, the bleak pavements, the sulphurous atmosphere; the over-routinized and dehumanized factory, the drill schools, the second-hand experiences, the starvation of the senses, the remoteness from nature and animal activity – here are the enemies. The living organism demands a life-sustaining environment. Modernity’s formula for two centuries had been to increase energy in order to produce overwhelming economic growth. While diagnosing the inevitable failures of this logic, Mumford nevertheless warned that modernity’s supporters would seek to derail present-tense evaluations of the era’s social and ecological performance with forecasts of a bountiful future in which, finally, the perennial social conflicts over resources would end. Contrary to traditional notions of democratic governance, Mumford observed that the modern ideal actually issues from a pseudomorph that he named the “democratic-authoritarian bargain” (1964: 6) in which the modern energy regime and capitalist political economy join in a promise to produce “every material advantage, every intellectual and emotional stimulus one may desire, in quantities hardly available hitherto even for a restricted minority” on the condition that society demands only what the regime is capable and willing to offer. An authoritarian energy order thereby constructs an aspirational democracy while facilitating the abstraction of production and consumption from non-economic social values. The premises of the current energy paradigms are in need of a critical study in the manner of Mumford’s work if a world measurably different from the present order is to be organized. Interrogating modern assumptions, this chapter examines the social projects of both conventional and sustainable energy as a beginning effort in this direction. The critique explores the neglected issue of the political economy of modern energy, and considers the discursive continuities between the premises of conventional and sustainable energy futures.
	14	+The standard is to materially mitigate oppression.
	15	+Part 2 is the Colonialist Nuclear State
	16	+First, corporate-state propaganda depicts nuclear power as the silver bullet solution to global warming to exclude democratic discourse about alternative energy futures in order to fuel dependence on a centralized corporate grid.
	17	+Wasserman ‘16: Harvey Wasserman writes in “NY Times Pushes Nukes While Claiming Renewables Fail to Fight Climate Change” for Counterpoint on July 29th, 2016. Harvey Franklin Wasserman (born December 31, 1945) is an American journalist, author, democracy activist, and advocate for renewable energy. He has been a strategist and organizer in the anti-nuclear movement in the United States for over 30 years. He has been a featured speaker on Today, Nightline, National Public Radio, CNN Lou Dobbs Tonight and other major media outlets. Wasserman is senior advisor to Greenpeace USA and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, 1 an investigative reporter, and senior editor of The Columbus Free Press where his coverage, with Bob Fitrakis, has prompted Rev. Jesse Jackson to call them "the Woodward and Bernstein of the 2004 election."2 He lives with his family in the Columbus, Ohio, area. http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/29/ny-times-pushes-nukes-while-claiming-renewables-fail-to-fight-climate-change/; AB
	18	+When nuclear power and its apologists defend continued operations at dangerously deteriorated reactors, they are more broadly defending the power and profits of huge corporations that are completely invested in a centralized grid. When they argue that renewables “can’t do the job,” they’re in fact working to prolong the lives of the large generators that are the “base load” basis of a corporate grid-based supply system. 3. But that grid is now obsolete. What strikes the ultimate terror in utility boardrooms is the revolutionary reality of a decentralized power supply, free of large generators, comprised instead of millions of small photovoltaic (PV) panels owned by individuals. Industry sources have widely confirmed that this decentralized, post-grid model means the end of big utilities. Thus when they fight against PV and for nuclear power, they are fighting not for the life of the planet, but for the survival of their own corporate profits. 4. Some utilities do support some renewables, but primarily in the form of large centralized grid-based solar and wind turbine farms. Pacific Gas and Electric said it will replace the power from the Diablo Canyon nuke plant with solar energy. But PGandE is simultaneously fighting rooftop solar, which will allow individual homeowners to disconnect from the grid. Germany’s transition from fossil-nukes to renewables has also been marked by conflict between large grid-based wind farms versus small community-based renewables. 5. PGandE and other major utilities are fighting against net metering and other programs that promote small-scale renewables. The Koch Brothers’ American Legislature Exchange Council (ALEC) has spread a wide range of taxes and disincentives passed by the states to make it ever-harder to go solar. All this is being done to preserve the grid-based monopolies that own large fossil/nuclear facilities. 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 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.
	19	+Second, the nuclear-state falsifies data due to state interest in nuclear power– err on the side of aff evidence to reject the state-sponsored corruption of nuclear – the centralized grid feeds corruption.
	20	+Shrader-Frechette ‘11: Kristin Shrader-Frechette writes in “What Will Work: Fighting Climate Change with Renewable Energy, Not Nuclear Power” Print publication date: 2011 Print ISBN-13: 9780199794638 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2012 DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199794638.001.0001, University of Notre Dame Kristin Shrader-Frechette teaches biological sciences and philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. Her latest book, Taking Action, Saving Lives: Our Duties to Protect Environmental and Public Health (Oxford University Press, 2007), has been nominated for a National Book Award. https://books.google.com/books id=bbZoAgAAQBAJandpg=PA70andlpg=PA70anddq=nuclear+industry+science+falsificationandsource=blandots=43r38bkSYRandsig=OM9ndw0TL5YYkIjdQBLtNJ_gIzkandhl=enandsa=Xandved=0ahUKEwjRxOf21JXPAhVr74MKHTnvCoQQ6AEIRTAI#v=onepageandq=nuclear20industry20science20falsificationandf=false; AB
	21	+Merck Pharmaceuticals suppressed data on harmful effects of it drug Vioxx. As a result, many people died. Guidant Corporation suppressed data on electrical flaws in one of its heart-defibrillator models, and it too caused many patient deaths. Many similar examples reveal how financial conflicts of interest (COI) can skew biomedical research – especially when companies suppress data that could jeopardize their pharmaceutical profits. As a result, scientists and ethicists have long recognized the harm done by such COI. An Annals of Internal Medicine study showed that 98 percent of papers based on industry-sponsored studies reflected favorably on the industry’s products; a Journal of the American Medical Association article likewise concluded that industry-funded studies were 8 times less likely to reach conclusions unfavorable to their drugs than were non-profit studies. Does something similar happen in energy studies done by electric utilities? Both coal and nuclear utilities appear to massively underestimate the costs of their activities. For instance, an association of coal utilities and producers, the World Institute, said in 2009 that coal is “cheaper per energy unit than other fuels,” but as chapter 1 documented, the US National Academy of Sciences says that annual costs of coal-generated electricity often exceed their benefits, especially for older, dirtier coal plants. The academy noted that annual US health-related and CC damages from US coal plants are more than $120 billion annually, including tens of thousands of coal-induced deaths per year. Even in market terms, coal-benefits often do not pay for its costs. A recent report of the Mountain Association of Community Economic Development showed that, for a typical coal-producing state, like Kentucky, annual state revenues from coal are $528 million, but they cost $643 in state expenditures – and these figures do not include any health damages. Nuclear-industry cost estimates are just as misleading. Jonathan Porritt, chair of the UK Sustainable Development Commission and adviser to Gordon Brown, says, “Cost estimates from the nuclear industry have been the subject to massive underestimates – inaccuracy of an astonishing kind consistently over a 40-, 50-year period.” A UK government commission agrees, claiming that these “massive underestimates” have arisen because virtually all nuclear-cost data can be “traced back to industry sources”; the main US oversight agency, the Government Accountability Office, says something similar, repeatedly faulting the nuclear industry for greatly underestimating the full costs of its activities. Why do these flawed nuclear-fission cost estimates occur? The preceding chapter gave some of the historical reasons, namely the military legacy of secrecy and data falsification. It also noted that typically only the industry is privy to full nuclear-cost data. University of Greenwich business professor Stephen Thomas says the same thing: because the nuclear industry controls virtually all the economic data, it is difficult for others to check it or even obtain it; fission companies “are notoriously secretive about the costs they are incurring.” If these government and university charges are correct, they suggest the need to scrutinize nuclear-industry claims that, to address climate change (CC), fission is “the most cost-effective power source.” Is it?
	22	+Third, the military industrial complex clouds state judgment – nuclear power is lobbied and alternatives are excluded from discussion to maintain a technocratic Cold War security state.
	23	+Shrader-Frechette ‘8: Kristin Shrader-Frechette writes in “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy” for America magazine on June 23rd, 2008. Kristin Shrader-Frechette teaches biological sciences and philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. Her latest book, Taking Action, Saving Lives: Our Duties to Protect Environmental and Public Health (Oxford University Press, 2007), has been nominated for a National Book Award. BRACKETED FOR GRAMMAR http://americamagazine.org/issue/660/article/five-myths-about-nuclear-energy; AB
	24	+If atomic energy is really so risky and expensive, why did the United States begin it and heavily subsidize it? As U.S. Atomic Energy Agency documents reveal, the United States began to develop nuclear power for the same reason many and other nations have done so. It wanted weapons-grade nuclear materials for its military program. But the United States now has more than enough weapons materials. What explains the continuing subsidies? Certainly not the market. The Economist (7/7/05) recently noted that for decades, bankers in New York and London have refused loans to nuclear industries. Warning that nuclear costs, dangers and waste storage make atomic power “extremely risky,” The Economist claimed that the industry is now asking taxpayers to do what the market will not do: invest in nuclear energy. How did The Economist explain the uneconomical $20 billion U.S. nuclear subsidies for 2005-7? It pointed to campaign contributions from the nuclear industry. Despite the problems with atomic power, society needs around-the-clock electricity. Can we rely on intermittent wind until solar power is cost-effective in 2015? Even the Department of Energy says yes. Wind now can supply up to 20 percent of electricity, using the current electricity grid as backup, just as nuclear plants do when they are shut down for refueling, maintenance and leaks. Wind can supply up to 100 percent of electricity needs by using “distributed” turbines spread over a wide geographic region—because the wind always blows somewhere, especially offshore. Many renewable energy sources are safe and inexpensive, and they inflict almost no damage on people or the environment. Why is the current U.S. administration instead giving virtually all of its support to a riskier, more costly nuclear alternative? In the United States and elsewhere, periodic renewals in the hopes for nuclear power have been aided by active state support; indeed nuclear power was managed as a state-building exercise by many states, such as India and Pakistan, but also states such as Canada and France. The recent United States energy plan (the so-called Bush-Cheney plan) provides direct state assistance to the nuclear industry, and has once again raised hopes that it will play a larger role in future electricity supplies. Ultimately, however, nuclear power faces severe challenges to its legitimacy, especially in terms of global nuclear commerce; and, though the global warming debate offers some promise, nuclear power cannot present itself as a neutral power source free of massive capital consolidation and state assistance. If one accepts the benefits of nuclear power and overlooks its safety and political implications, there is no need to question the latest period of rhetorical renewal. However, analysts concerned with these questions must confront the ideational power wielded by this industry and its cohorts, and critically examine the role nuclear power could play in delaying the progression towards a more sustainable global energy path. Arguably, concerns with the terrorist threat make nuclear installations an even greater concern, and yet we have seen relatively little public debate over the wisdom of directing fiscal resources to the nuclear industry in the United States after September 11, 2001. After a brief history of the evolution of global nuclear commerce, and the development of a pro-nuclear power export regime, we will examine the current situation, with emphasis on the global warming argument and the problematic securitization issue in the post-September 11 context. The nuclear industry is global in scope, but the following discussion will necessarily make frequent reference to the United States and the United Kingdom. Though other states, notably Japan and France, have increased their reliance on nuclear power, and smaller states, most notably Canada, have pursued aggressively subsidized export policies, large American and British firms remain the most important players. Their linkages with the oil and gas industries, and their influence on the general American economy and the White House, are significant causal factors when explaining the worldwide persistence of an industry that has been largely discredited at home. Recent efforts to revive the nuclear industry, under the guise of global warming and national energy security concerns, and at the expense of investment in the larger social good of developing renewable energies such as solar, wind, and hydro power, suggest the industry maintains considerable influence in Washington and abroad. Though some states, such as Germany and Sweden, have made pledges (unrealized to date) to phase out nuclear power use altogether, it is increasing in Asia and an active campaign continues to recruit and intensify African participation in the global nuclear commerce fuel cycle through uranium exploration and mining. Wherever one finds nuclear power, from India to Romania, it is heavily invested with state support, often part of a broader campaign to promote nationalism. Canada subsidizes its industry by financing and insuring sales abroad, most controversially to China. And the Bush-Cheney plan makes End Page 100 it perfectly clear that nuclear energy has both a domestic and export future, despite the current concerns with nuclear terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. However it can also be argued that the political foundations of the industry's fragile legitimacy are under fire from continued concern over environmental impacts (in particular, the storage of nuclear waste), and the national and international security concerns raised by the development of nuclear power. As such the stage is set for an intensification of the continued propaganda war between the industry and its opponents, with the state most often playing the role of supporting actor to the former. Though its proponents argue nuclear power is the victim of exaggerated dangers, few would deny its significance from an environmental security perspective. And yet, since it supplies electricity on a national basis (though there are partial exceptions to this, since electricity is a viable export product for many states), it is rarely treated as an issue for the domain of global environmental politics. I would argue, however, that it should be, because the industry is clearly global in scope, reliant on trade, intersecting with the more traditional IR area of proliferation studies, and impacted by international debates and arrangements concerning global warming. As such, this article is based upon the "ecological approach to the study of global political economy" developed by Dennis Pirages. This approach "stresses the impact of population, resource and technology variables on economic, political and social institutions as well as on ideologies and beliefs which guide human behaviour." 1 But it is also founded in the task of uncovering power relations shrouded by strategically oriented discourse and, in the broader sense, contributing to what Richard Falk terms the demystification of interstate (and state) power by way of the "critical realist tradition," as well as the Foucauldian emphasis on the generative power of ideas. 2 Beyond normative concerns, however, it may also be suggested that one empirical way to approach the question of legitimacy is to recognize a political space where a contest of image will take place, and monitor it for actors, methods, and outcomes. This article is intended largely to provide the necessary background for such a research project. Global Nuclear Commerce The nuclear industry, and its state protectors and promoters, offers an illustrative example of how an industry which has obtained a global reach, is constantly in the process of further consolidation, and is challenged by fundamental discrepancies between its output and the physical and environmental security of citizens, has managed to survive through self-reinvention, aided by the technocratic strivings of the age of modernity. Energy and related resource use planning takes place at every level of the global economy. This includes family End Page 101 or household decision-making, such as womens' use of fuel wood in rural African areas, or western middle-class consumers' decisions to use oil or electric heating. But the level of decision-making responsible for the need for energy paths involving large-scale infrastructure development has been the technocratic, state, and capital one. And, as is the case historically in international energy markets, we witness a great deal of collusion between the state and private concerns, as the international history of oil production and consumption, for example, makes clear, and the symbiotic relationship between the nuclear energy industry and the Cold War security state made even clearer.
	25	+This appeal to nationalism and militarism through the construction of illusory threats to justify nuclearism reinforces a colonial nuclear-state.
	26	+Endres ‘9: Danielle Endres writes in “The Rhetoric of Nuclear Colonialism: Rhetorical Exclusion of American Indian Arguments in the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Siting Decision” on 17 Feb 2009. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14791420802632103; AB
	27	+Considering the use of American Indian resources and lands in support of the nuclear production process, the discourse of nuclearism intersects with the discourse of colonialism to create the discourse of nuclear colonialism. Nuclearism is the assumption that nuclear weapons and nuclear power are crucial to the national interest and national security, serving to normalize and justify all aspects of the nuclear production process.37 Nuclearism is an ideology and a discursive system that is ‘‘intertextually configured by present discourses such as militarism, nationalism, bureaucracy, and technical-rationality.’’38 Even with the end of the Cold War, we still see nuclearism present in contemporary US policy such as the call to license new nuclear reactors for the first time in over twenty years and research into new nuclear weapons technology (e.g., bunker busters). Resistance to nuclearism comes in many forms, one of which is the body of scholarship called nuclear communication criticism. Within this corpus, Bryan Taylor and William Kinsella advocate the study of ‘‘nuclear legacies’’ of the nuclear production process.39 The material legacies of the nuclear production process include the deaths of Navajo uranium miners, the left-over uranium tailings on Navajo land, and Western Shoshone downwinders. However, nuclear waste is in need of more examination; as Taylor writes, ‘‘nuclear waste represents one of the most complex and highly charged controversies created by the postwar society. Perhaps daunted by its technical, legal and political complexities, communication scholars have not widely engaged this topic.’’40 One of the reasons that nuclear waste is such a complex controversy is its connection with nuclear colonialism. Nuclear communication criticism has focused on examination of the ‘‘practices and processes of communication’’ related to the nuclear production process and the legacies of this process.41 At least two themes in nuclear discourse are relevant to nuclear colonialism: 1) invocation of national interest; and 2) constraints to public debate. First, nuclear discourse is married to the professed national interest, calling for the sacrifices among the communities affected by the legacies of the nuclear production process.42 According to Kuletz, the American West has been constructed as a ‘‘national sacrifice zone’’ because of its connection to the nuclear production process.43 Nuclearism is tautological in its basic assumption that nuclear production serves the national interest and national security and its use of national security and national interest to justify nuclearism. The federal government justifies nuclear production, which disproportionately takes place on American Indian land, as serving the national security. This justification works with the strategy of colonialism that defines American Indian people as part of the nation and not as separate, Nuclear Colonialism 45 Downloaded by University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) at 21:46 08 August 2016 inherently sovereign entities whose national interest may not include storing nuclear waste on their land. A second theme in nuclear discourse is its ability to constrain public debate through invoking the national interest, defining opponents as unpatriotic and employing discursive containment.44 For instance, ‘‘discursive containment often operates on the premise that public participation is a potential hazard to official interests and should be minimized and controlled.’’45 The strategies of nuclear discourse that constrain public debate work in concert with strategies of rhetorical colonialism that exclude and constrain the participation of American Indians in decisions affecting their land and resources. Taken together, the intersection of the discourses of colonialism and nuclearism create a powerful discourse aimed at perpetuating the nuclear production process for the benefit of the colonizer at the expense of their colonial targets.
	28	+AND the technocratic nuclear-state is environmentally racist in order to push this colonialist nuclear agenda – results in cultural genocide
	29	+Ryser et. al ‘16: Rudolph C. Ryser, Yvonne Sherwood, and Janna Lafferty write in “The Indigenous World Under a Nuclear Cloud” for Truthout on 27 March 2016. Rudolph Ryser is descendant from Oneida and Cree relatives and lived his early life in Taidnapum culture. He is Chairperson of the Center for World Indigenous Studies (CWIS), a research, education and public policy institution and he is a Fulbright Research Scholar. He has served as Senior Advisor to the President George Manuel of the World Council of Indigenous Peoples, as former Acting Executive Director of the National Congress of American Indians (USA), and a former staff member of the American Indian Policy Review Commission - a Joint US Congressional Commission. He holds a doctorate in international relations, teaches Fourth World Geopolitics, Public Service Leadership, and Consciousness Studies at the CWIS Masters Certificate Program (www.cwis.org). He is the author of numerous essays including "Observations On Self and Knowing" in TRIBAL EPISTEMOLOGIES (Aldershot, UK), "Indigenous and Traditional Knowledge" (Berkshire) and four books including INDIGENOUS NATIONS AND MODERN STATES published by Routledge (2012). He is the Principal Investigator for the CWIS Radiation Exposure Risk Assessment Action Research Project. (Contact: Chair@cwis.org). Janna Lafferty is descendant from the Irish and Northumbrians. She holds a Master's degree in Religions from Duke University. She is a doctoral student in the Department for Global and Sociocultural Studies at Florida International University with concentrations in critical food studies and cultural geography. Lafferty served as co-editor of the Anthropology and Environment Society's Blog, which features first-hand accounts by social scientists engaged in environmental issues. Her work has centered on social and environmental change, social justice, food and environmental justice, nature-culture relationships, and the ongoing legacies of colonialism. Ms. Lafferty is a research intern on the Center for World Indigenous Studies Radioactive Exposure Risk Assessment Action Research Project. Yvonne Sherwood is a member of the Yakama Nation. She is a doctoral student at the University of California, Santa Cruz in the Department of Sociology (with an emphasis in feminist studies). She is a UCSC Dean's Diversity Fellow from 2011 to 2016 and was advanced to candidacy for her doctoral degree in the fall of 2015. Prior to graduate school, Sherwood was an active student leader who served as an officer for Indigenous Resistance Organizers, M.E.Ch.A.,, and Yakima Valley Community College Tiin- Ma. She also allied with EWU Pride, EWU Black Student Union, and Spokane’s Peace and Justice League. Sherwood is currently a research intern at the Center of World Indigenous Studies where she is Co-researcher on the Radiation Risk Assessment Action Project with Rudolph Rÿser, PhD. During her time with CWIS her focus is on social analysis and community organizing. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35381-the-indigenous-world-under-a-nuclear-cloud; AB
	30	+Millions of indigenous peoples living in Fourth World territories around the world have been and continue to be exposed to nuclear radiation and toxic chemicals. The United States of America, France, Britain, Russia, China, Israel, Britain, Pakistan, India, and North Korea produce these toxic materials. Other countries with electricity-producing nuclear reactors also contribute to radioactive waste. Nuclear bomb detonations, radioactive waste storage sites and toxic chemical dumps have contaminated the soils, water, air, plants, animals and people for more than 70 years. In their wake they leave intergenerational health and cultural damage to Fourth World peoples rarely noticed by the public eye. The story of this generational disaster begins with the US government's secret Manhattan Project when in 1943-45 the first nuclear bomb code-named Trinity was developed and tested in Mescalero Apache territory at Alamogordo, New Mexico. After dropping a bomb on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan in 1945 the United States constructed what became the most radioactively contaminated site in the world at Hanford, Washington. Hanford plutonium reactors were constructed in the Confederated Tribes of the Yakama territory. In 1950 the Midnite Uranium Mine was opened on the Spokane Indian Reservation; the neighboring Fourth World nations (Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Nez Perce, Umatilla and Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation) bound to them by the mining project's radioactive reach. The First Nuclear Cloud The United States did not seek public opinions or debate about government plans to create the world's first nuclear weapons. The secretive Manhattan Project was launched to develop an atomic bomb. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, (a Republican serving under President Harry S. Truman) commissioned Hanford in 1943 to produce the extremely radioactive plutonium for the US government. Classified government research projects were first located at three public universities (Columbia University, University of Chicago, and University of California at Berkeley). Three custom-built facilities were constructed at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Los Alamos, New Mexico and Hanford, Washington. In total, over 2 billion dollars ($17.7 billion in 2015 USD) was spent on nuclear war research and development. The estimated cost to the current and intergenerational health of peoples, lands, culture and waterways, however, is still unknown. Human industry has many good and important qualities. Most human industry helps the quality of life. But, almost any and all human activity produces a byproduct ~-~- waste ~-~- that can damage the livability of human society. Human industrial waste does not generally concern communities when there is a working waste disposal program. Organized disposal takes unwanted leftovers to a disposal site and safely buries or incinerates it. But, what if the waste created in one place is then taken to your backyard and buried without anyone asking for your consent? And, what if that buried waste becomes lethal to life? What if it contaminates soil, plants, animals and people? Contaminating waste becomes a big problem. That is precisely what happened to the Yakama Nation along with 1.9 million non-tribal people in the Columbia River region. Since the US began uranium mining on the Spokane Reservation and bomb making in Yakama ceded territory it has created the most radioactively contaminated region in the world. With the construction and later decommissioning of nuclear power plants the disposal of spent radioactive fuel rods has added to the radioactive waste. The Hanford Nuclear waste site that receives radioactive materials from around the US and from some countries stores waste near the banks of the Columbia River. This places the peoples of Yakama and those living on the Yakama and Columbia Rivers in a state of indefinite danger. The Spokane Indian Tribe has the 350-acre Midnite Uranium Mine located inside its territory. The mine was originally opened in 1950 and is now closed See Columbia River Basin Radiation Sites above. The Midnite Mine was opened to support the U.S. nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union. It is now the site of 35 million tons of radioactive waste rock and uranium ore. According to Spokesman Review reporter Becky Kramer the dormant Midnite Mine will require at least a decade to "clean up." The managing company Newmont and its subsidiary Dawn Mining have the contract to perform the clean up at a cost of $193 million. Wastewater (monitored for radioactivity) is being discharged into the Spokane River that in turn, feeds into the Columbia River. The Yakama nation reserved territory and ceded territory hugs the middle of the Columbia River. This is where Hanford's engineers dumped 400,000 gallons of radioactive water and buried radioactive waste underground. Yakama's governing Council is concerned with the effects of Hanford on its reserved 2,031 square mile territory as well as the ceded territory. The Yakama government regards locating the contaminated Hanford site in their territory as a violation of the Yakama/US Treaty of 1855. The Yakama has 10,851 members and another 20,000 residents. Its territory is larger than the states of Rhode Island or Delaware and half the size of Connecticut. The United States government without the consent of Yakama's government created the Hanford plutonium reactor in an atmosphere of intense secrecy. And then the US made the site a radioactive dump. Risks of Radioactive and Chemical Exposures Faced by Fourth World Peoples Medical, genetic and social researchers have attempted to understand the complex public health effects of exposure to radioactive elements. Researchers conducting human subjects experiments repeatedly conclude that radioactive exposures cause many serious health problems. Various types of cancers, tumors, genetic mutations, congenital malformations, heart failure, gastrointestinal disorders, immunological dysfunction, and infertility are the common results. For Fourth World peoples, these risks overlap the destruction of culture and heritage, natural resources and denial of their human rights. Contaminated plants, water, animals, and soil in the world's nuclear "hot spots" are also the foods, medicines, and sacred places. As with any human society these are central to indigenous religions, cultures, identities, societies, economies, and knowledge bases ~-~- life. Thus, the burden of nuclear contamination essentially destroys these life-supporting resources and amounts to cultural genocide, or culturcide. These consequences are particularly acute on the Spokane Indian Reservation, parts of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and the Yakama. Health Consequences Radioactive substances carry uniquely dangerous characteristics compared to other toxins made by human industry. When nuclear technology was first being developed, researchers quickly discovered that radioactive isotopes had a "super-poisonous" quality. They destroy cells, damage the immune and digestive system, and accelerate aging and death. Radioactive isotopes accumulate in different organs of the body, including the lungs, thyroid, or kidneys. There, they trigger growth of cancerous cells. Worse, the consequences are far-reaching: they cause trans-generational harm through genetic alteration. Anyone exposed to the fallout of nuclear accidents, waste disposal or tests may experience any number of consequences including increased cancer rates, birth defects, severe cognitive disabilities, premature aging and death. Thyroid cancer and leukemia are among the most common cancers associated with radiation exposure. It is also an established cause of cardiovascular disease and solid tumors. However, It is not just high-levels of radiation exposure that are dangerous. As early as 1956, a report commissioned by the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) found that even low-levels of radiation could cause harmful genetic changes in individuals and in entire populations with significant trans-generational results. In a recent major World Health Organization study, scientists pointed to the emissions from nuclear power plants as a specific source of potential increased cancer risk ~-~- particularly from disposed spent radioactive fuel rods. Ecological Consequences Nuclear weapons, electrical power reactors and radioactive materials waste disposal results in the contamination of surface and subsurface water and soil with substances such as radioactive plutonium, uranium, strontium and cesium. These materials increase mutations, and they remain harmfully toxic for thousands or even millions of years. Accidents at nuclear power facilities have resulted in decreases in regional animal and plant populations and damaging food sources, water sources and entire ecosystems. Studies conducted around Hanford, Washington revealed that even small concentrations of nuclear waste damaged plants, contaminated soil, and rendered edible crops dangerous to eat. To date, the only containment "solution" is to bury the waste. However, burial is neither safe nor predictable, since there are no successful ways to dispose of waste or remediate contaminated sites. Various amounts of radioactive materials continue to be found in animals, soils, plants, and water near storage and production facilities. Studies suggest that protracted exposure to nuclear waste has resulted in genetic and epigenetic mutations in wildlife. Cultural Consequences The continuity of cultures in nuclear zones is an unstudied topic. The dynamic relationship between a people, earth and the cosmos is dramatically interrupted when the catastrophic introduction of nuclear radiation and toxic chemicals lays waste on a society. Fourth World nations across the globe repeatedly insist that the states responsible for the contamination of their territories have failed to clean up contaminated sites or to prevent further damage. Even where state's government bodies have tried to manage the health risks of radioactive contamination, they have done so in ways that neglect harmful consequences to cultures. Some state's governments use risk avoidance strategies to reduce or prevent damage to people's health. In northwest United States, for example, the US Department of Ecology uses fish consumptions rates to prevent people from eating irradiated fish ~-~- telling the public not to eat high levels of fish to avoid cancer risks. Instead of cleaning up the waste, or preventing its storage in the first place, avoidance warnings ask Fourth World peoples to stop using foods and medicines, even though they are core aspects of their cultures and community. Peoples in the Nuclear Bull's Eye The US government selected lands in the Yakama Nation's territory characterized as "barren." It was an ideal site for the nuclear reactors that would provide easy access to the Columbia River's fresh water. Hanford reactors were built on and used the surrounding land and a 50-mile stretch of the Columbia River to produce war grade materials. In most cases the 50,000 workers at the site did not know they were working to build three nuclear reactors. Just 18 months after breaking ground for the plutonium reactor the US military dropped an atomic bomb on Japan's Nagasaki. The 1985 Nobel Prize for Peace recipient Physicians for Social Responsibility reported that radioactive wastes were buried in the soil and dumped into the Columbia River. High-level waste was stored in single-shell storage tanks while the plutonium reactor was constructed. Hanford reactors refined 60 percent of the plutonium produced by the United States government and eventually closed the reactors down retaining the site for depositing more nuclear waste. The United States continues to add to this deadly mix of radioactive materials and toxic chemicals to this day. The Yakama Nation and her neighboring nations (Spokane, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation, Nez Perce, Umatilla and the Confederated Tribes of the Warms Springs Reservation) are in the reach of the Hanford Nuclear Waste Site and the Midnite Uranium Mine. There are six other highly radioactively contaminated sites in Fourth World nation territories worldwide and many more storing spent fuel rods from nuclear power plants as well as radioactive hospital waste. An estimated total of twenty additional Fourth World territories in Asia, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, North America and the Pacific Islands similar to the Yakama, Navajo and Shoshone territories in the US function as sites for the detonation of nuclear bombs, and as storage sites for nuclear waste, and toxic chemicals. The United States government and contracted waste management companies have located up to six hundred radiation and toxic chemical waste sites on Indian reservations leasing their land for that purpose. Locating waste disposal sites in these ways easily resulted from legal loopholes Fourth World territories provide ~-~- as spaces where state and international laws regarding environmental health and nuclear waste can be circumvented or laws are non-existent. The nuclear states (United States, Russia, France, Britain, China, Israel, and India) avoid testing weapons or storing radioactive and toxic waste on their own lands. They rather favor territories with relatively low-density populations and limited internal governmental regulation while generally avoiding obtaining informed consent or authorization from the affected communities. Significantly none of the bomb making and waste producing states considered in advance of developing plutonium reactors for bombs and electrical generation how to dispose of the waste safely. Despite all of the technological capabilities making radioactive materials no similar effort was early on developed to control the adverse effects of waste products on life. Burying radioactive waste with the probability of unanticipated emissions and leaks remains the method for disposing of the deadly materials. Some of the toxic sites resulting from more than 2150 nuclear bomb detonations and radioactive dump sites in Fourth World Territories and the responsible governments depicted on the map above include: The French government detonated thirteen nuclear bombs in Tuareg territory (Algeria) in the 1960s. They released radioactive gases into the atmosphere and spread radioactive molten rocks across the land. These events exposed Tuaregs to high levels of radiation. No study to date has been conducted to determine the effects these exposures may have on the health and intergenerational lives of the Tuareg. Kazakh territory on the steppe in northeastern Kazakhstan was the place for hundreds of atmospheric and underground nuclear tests conducted by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Russian Federation is the successor) in the 1940s. Studies conducted years later determined that more than 200,000 Kazakh's and other local residents were exposed to intense radiation. These exposures resulted in high rates of cancers. No follow-up epidemiological studies have been conducted to assess the intergenerational consequences of radioactive exposures. The Uyghurs, Hui and Tadjiks in China's northwestern Xinjiang province were exposed to atomic radiation in 1964 and thermonuclear detonations in 1968. The People's Republic of China established Uyghur territory as its prime nuclear test site. At least two generations of Uyghurs, Hui and Tadjiks (a population of 10.95 million) may continue to experience the effects of radioactive and toxic waste exposures. The Pakistani government conducted nuclear detonations in 1998 in Baluchi territory at Ras Koh Hills. The Baloch Society of North America and Friends of Balochistan organized protests at the Pakistani Embassy during the detonations to call attention to the "heinous crime committed against our people." The Indian government conducted its first nuclear detonation in 1974 and continued nuclear test in 1998 in Rajastan the territory of Bhil. Britain conducted atmospheric tests in the 1950s in the Maralinga home of the Pitjantjatjara and Yankunytjatjara. Studies on these peoples were truncated. They did not result in any conclusions about exposure effects on health and genetic changes. The United States of America conducted more than 1100 nuclear detonations in the atmosphere, underground and aboveground (1944-1998) and nuclear waste dumps solely in Fourth World Territories. Marshal Islanders, Paiutes, Shoshone, Kiribati, Yakama, Spokane, Navajo, Mescalero Apache, and Aleutes are among the peoples directly affected by US radiation releases from 1943 to the present. The Taiwan government through the Taiwan Power Company (Taipower) stores 100,000 barrels of high level nuclear waste from the island country's three nuclear power plants. Storage was located at the Lanyu nuclear waste storage facility built in 1982 on the territory of the Tao (also known by the Japanese name as Yami). The Tao are a fishing people who have occupied their island (Ponso no Tao meaning "island of the people" Orchid Island) for at least a thousand years. In 2002 and 2012, there were major protests by the Tao, calling on Taipower to remove the nuclear waste from the island. The Yakama Nation and the Spokane Indian Tribe along the Columbia River host the most radioactively toxic region in the world. The Mescalero Apache are the first Fourth World nation to experience an atomic bomb detonated in their territory. Now many Fourth World nations live in irradiated territories under the nuclear cloud. In the name of "national security" all of the nuclear governments have maintained a policy of deliberately not informing residents of Fourth World territories in advance of nuclear tests. Human subjects experimentation using radioactive materials on native peoples, and siting of nuclear waste dumps go on without consent. No epidemiologic studies been concluded to determine exposure effects on health or cultures. Indeed the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) records predating 1974 documenting tests, human subject experimentations and radiation exposures have mysteriously disappeared. All records from 1974 remain top secret and not available for scrutiny outside the AEC or its successor the US Department of Energy.
	31	+AND nuclear environmental racism operates through direct economic racism - entrenches poverty.
	32	+Lopez ‘4: Bayley Lopez writes in “Radioactive Reservation: The Uphill Battle to Keep Nuclear Waste off Native American Land,” on Sept 1st, 2004. From the nuclear age peace foundation. https://www.wagingpeace.org/radioactive-reservation-the-uphill-battle-to-keep-nuclear-waste-off-native-american-land/); AB
	33	+In the late 1980s, the United States government seemed to make a complete 180 degree turn when it began to support the idea of Native American sovereignty, but the goal was still the same: to place nuclear waste storage sites on Native American lands. The Department of Energy appealed to native tribes to host temporary nuclear storage sites on their land, mostly based on the fact that restrictions placed on such sites are not as strict on reservations because of their sovereign status. In the words of the Grace Thorpe, an activist against the dumping of nuclear waste on native reservations and a member of the Sac and Fox tribe, “The real irony is that after years of trying to destroy it, the United States is promoting Indian national sovereignty — just so they can dump their waste on Native land.” The broken treaties and the confusion injected into the issue of Native American sovereignty are disturbing to be sure. However, the most disturbing aspect of United States nuclear waste policy is the blatant economic racism this policy exhibits. As a whole, Native Americans are the most poverty stricken ethnic group in the United States. On average, 23 percent of Native American families live in poverty, which is almost double that of the national poverty rate of families at 12 percent. Nuclear utility companies and the United States government take advantage of the overwhelming level of poverty on native reservations by offering them millions of dollars to host nuclear NEsites. No matter how pretty a picture the government paints about their “benevolent” efforts to improve the economic development of the reservations, this policy is virtually a bribe to try to coerce Native tribes into taking nuclear waste out of the hands of the government. An example of this occurred in 1989; Waste Tech Incorporated approached a small Navajo community with an offer to provide 175 jobs, a hospital, and a minimum of $100,000. In exchange, the community would allow Waste Tech to put a toxic waste incinerator and a dump to bury the dangerous toxic ash on their land. At the time, the tribe had a 72 percent unemployment rate. The tribe was targeted by this company because of their poor economic condition. The government itself has almost exactly copied this tactic and solicited Native American tribes with a reservation to host a waste site. Yucca Mountain is just one more example to add to the list of the United States government’s existing nuclear waste policies that are transparently racist, violate long-standing Native American treaty rights and disregard Native American sovereignty or use it for their own ends. Millions of dollars are being spent to bribe a minority portion of the population to take stewardship of the majority’s nuclear waste. Is this the best method the United States government can devise to deal with the issue of nuclear waste? Or is it just the simplest option available to the government with the least public visibility? With the billions of dollars spent each year on nuclear weapons and power plants, wouldn’t a more feasible option be to, first and foremost, stop producing new nuclear waste and redirect some of this money to solving the ever growing problem of nuclear waste? Since its formation, the United States government has subjugated and subdued Native Americans, and it is time to reverse this trend, beginning with the government’s policies on nuclear waste.
	34	+AND it’s not just Natives - the nuclear industry exploits the labor of poor communities and workers – uses false safety data and no compensation to trick them into life-threatening nuclear work the privileged would not take themselves.
	35	+Alldred and Shrader-Frechette ‘9: Mary Alldred and Kristin Shrader-Frechette write in “Environmental Injustice in Siting Nuclear Plants, Volume 2, Number 2, 2009. Kristin Shrader-Frechette writes in “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy” for America magazine on June 23rd, 2008. Kristin Shrader-Frechette teaches biological sciences and philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. Her latest book, Taking Action, Saving Lives: Our Duties to Protect Environmental and Public Health (Oxford University Press, 2007), has been nominated for a National Book Award. Mary Alldred: Education Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY PhD Program, Department of Ecology and Evolution, August 2008-Current Advisor: Dr. Stephen Baines, sbaines@ms.cc.sunysb.edu University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN Magna Cum Laude, Bachelor of Sciences, Biology, August 2004-May 2008 Publications and Reports Alldred, Mary. 2011. “Effects of Wetland Plants on Denitrification Rates: A Meta-Analysis.” (In prep). Alldred, Mary and Stephen Baines. 2011. “Interactions between Invasive Species Removal and Nitrogen-Removal Ecosystem Services in Freshwater Tidal Marshes.” Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 2010. Hudson River Foundation. New York, NY. (In press). Alldred, Mary and Kristin Shrader-Frechette. 2009. “Environmental Injustice in Siting Nuclear Plants.” Environmental Justice 2 (2): 85-96. Alldred, Mary. October 2007. “Alligator Management Policies in Temple Terrace, FL: A Preliminary Analysis.” Report Prepared for Temple Terrace, FL City Council. Presentations Stony Brook University Department of Ecology and Evolution Retreat, 26 March 2011 Oral Presentation, “Effects of Wetland Plant Communities on Denitrification Rates: A Meta-Analysis.” Brookhaven National Laboratory, 19 November 2010 Oral Presentation, “Using Plant Traits to Predict Denitrification in Wetland Ecosystems.” Final Report to the Hudson River Foundation, 27 August 2010 Oral Presentation, “Interactions between Invasive Species Removal and Nitrogen Removal Ecosystem Services in Freshwater Tidal Marshes.” American Society of Limnology and Oceanography Meeting, 6 June 2010 Oral Presentation, “Effects of Wetland Plant Communities on Denitrification Rates: A Meta-Analysis.” Undergraduate Research Symposium, 4 October 2007 Oral Presentation, “The Effects of Agricultural Run-Off on Macroinvertebrate Communities in Irrigation Ditch and Natural Stream Ecosystems.”http://www3.nd.edu/~kshrader/pubs/final-pdf-ej-nuke-siting-wi-Alldred_08-0544.pdf; AB
	36	+These damages include inadequate compensation for radiation-induced disease among native miners, no permanent closure/decontamination of hundreds of uranium-mining/ processing sites that continue to expose native peoples, and no ongoing medical studies of the health status of Native Americans affected by uranium mining.15 In stages (2)–(5) of the nuclear fuel cycle, tens of millions of radiation workers, including nearly two million in the United States, 16 also have faced EIJ. US nuclear-facility owners legally may expose workers to annual radiation doses up to 50 times higher than those allowed for members of the public,17 although there is no safe dose of ionizing radiation.7 Yet radiation workers typically receive no hazard pay or compensating wage differential.3 Often they also do not voluntarily accept dangerous nuclear jobs but take them because of economic necessity,3 because government falsification of worker radiation doses has mislead them,18,19 or because flawed radiation standards, flawed risk disclosure, and flawed workplace-radiation monitoring cause them to underestimate risks.20 Yet the risks are substantial. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) shows roughly 1 additional fatal cancer each time 60 people are exposed to the maximum-allowable, annual occupational-radiation dose of 50 mSv.20,21
	37	+Nuclear colonialism has evolved into a global neoliberal agenda – feeds the nuclear-state’s lust for nuclear resources
	38	+Wittman ‘11: Nora Wittman writes in “The Scramble for Africa’s Nuclear Resources: With the Current Nuclear Pollution in Japan and the Cost Involved in Controlling It, Africa Must Refuse to Tread the Road That Powerful Forces Want It to Take regarding Nuclear Resources and Energy. This Path Would Not Only Lead to Pollution of the Continent, but Also Create Huge Long-Term Financial Costs, Reports Nora Wittman” on June 2011 for the New African. https://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-259792276/the-scramble-for-africa-s-nuclear-resources-with; AB
	39	+THE CURRENT NUCLEAR POLLUTION in Japan and the reactions of politicians and governments throughout Europe, the USA and Asia, even in the eye of disaster, indicate that they will never stop using nuclear power for military means and domestic energy generation and supply. ILLUSTRATION OMITTED As Japan was battling to control pollution from its Fukushima nuclear plant, destroyed by the massive earthquake that hit the region on II March, French President Nicolas Sarkozy was firmly pronouncing that a withdrawal from nuclear energy was totally out of question for France and will not happen~-~-80 of domestic energy in France comes from nuclear plants. A few hours later, EU ministers deemed it sufficient to submit European nuclear power reactors to a so-called "stress test", and even then only on a voluntary basis. Apparently, the nuclear industry and their party allies throughout the political spectrum have been for a long time in a tight marriage that is far too beneficial for them to split. Africa is currently the continent where nuclear power plants are least present. Only one such plant is present in South Africa, imposed by the apartheid regime in the 1970s. It is located in Koeberg, 30km north of Cape Town, yet surrounded by the city's ever-spreading suburbs, and was built by a French company. Like most nuclear power plants, it has experienced serious problems and its reactors have had to be shut down several times, especially since 2005. Of course, the idea is not totally unconceivable that there could have been more severe incidents before, and that in apartheid times the white supremacist regime would not have made it a top priority to inform and protect the surrounding African people. In 2010, 91 members of staff were contaminated with Cobalt-58 dust in an incident that was said to be confined to the plant only. In view of these facts and the recent developments, it should be clearer than ever that Africa must not follow the path to ultimate and lasting nuclear destruction that European, North American and Asian leaders seem to be determined to continue to take. Indeed, Africa may not only have the responsibility to save itself from this fate, but may also ultimately have the power to save the world from some of this otherwise pre-programmed nuclear disaster. How? By refusing to let its vast nuclear resources be exploited. South Africa's only nuclear power plant, In Koeberg, 30km north of Cape Town, was imposed by the apartheid regime in the 70s ILLUSTRATION OMITTED The nuclear powers are increasingly experiencing and preparing for problems of supply with the necessary crude nuclear materials such as uranium and plutonium. Even though it is said that countries such as the USA, Russia and China have or rather had vast uranium resources themselves, all of these countries are now very eager to identify, secure and exploit mines for nuclear materials throughout Africa. Africa, the continent endowed with the richest natural resources, has vast nuclear materials in its soil. Almost every African country is currently being mined or examined and prepared for nuclear exploitation. According to a recent report updated in February 2011 by the World Information Service on Energy (WISE), an environmental activist amalgamation based in Amsterdam, China National Nuclear Group, being that country's biggest nuclear power plant builder, signed a deal with the China-Africa Development Fund, a Chinese state-run institution, in 2010 to examine and exploit uranium resources throughout Africa. French, Canadian, British, Swiss, Japanese, Russian, Chinese, Australian and other companies are mining uranium, or have signed contracts to do so very soon with Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, DRCongo, Gabon, Malawi, Mali, Chad, South Africa, Tanzania, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Zambia and other African countries. …
	40	+Part 3 is Solvency
	41	+Plan Text: Countries ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power through the model of phase-out.
	42	+WNN ‘16: WNN (World Nuclear News) writes in “Proposal for financing German nuclear phase-out” on 28 April 2016. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Proposal-for-financing-German-nuclear-phase-out-2804164.html; AB
	43	+Following the Fukushima accident in March 2011, the government of German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced the withdrawal of the operating licences of eight German nuclear power plants and revived plans to phase out nuclear power by 2022. The independent commission - the Kommission zur Überprüfung des Kernenergieausstiegs (KFK) - was set up in October 2015 by the German government. Its mandate is to develop recommendations for action, such as ensuring the financing of the decommissioning of the country's reactors and the disposal of radioactive waste can be secured so that the utilities involved are financially able in the long term to fulfill their obligations in the nuclear area. The commission yesterday presented its recommendations to the Ministry of Economics and Energy. The KFK suggests, "The tasks of storing and final disposal of radioactive waste and the necessary funds are transferred to the state as security. For the remaining tasks - in particular the decommissioning and dismantling of the nuclear power plants and the packaging of waste - they and the financial security remain with the company." The commission says the utilities involved - EnBW, EOn, RWE and Vattenfall - should pay EUR4.7 billion to the state to secure the financing of interim storage, the production of repository containers for waste from reprocessing and the transport from the interim storage facility to the final repository. The companies will become entirely liable for carrying out these tasks. The commission also recommends the utilities pay EUR12.4 billion to the state fund to finance the selection, construction, operation and decommissioning of a radioactive waste repository. The companies should also pay a "risk premium" of around 35 to close the gap between provisions and costs, the KFK said. This brings the total amount expected from the utilities to EUR23.3 billion. It says the payments could be made in stages over the next few years. The commission also recommended that shut down reactors are dismantled as soon as possible, rather than sealed for several years to allow the radioactivity to reduce naturally. It called for the government to make the process for obtaining decommissioning permits faster and more efficient. Presenting its recommendations, the commission said, "The proposed combination of securing action and financial obligations establishes the basis for a new disposal consensus. This consensus represents a gain of security for the companies and society. It represents an opportunity to end the dispute over the use of nuclear energy for good." The Ministry of Economics and Energy said it will now examine the KFK's recommendations and consult with other government departments on actions that should be taken to implement the recommendations. Industry response "We welcome that there has been an open and constructive dialogue with the nuclear commission and the companies concerned about the commercial and regulatory framework for the German nuclear phase-out," said Vattenfall senior vice president for markets Stefan Dohler. "The proposals of the KFK appear to the four affected energy companies - and thus also in our view - in principle to be a feasible way to organize and finance the nuclear power phase-out." He said, however, the so-called risk premium is "disproportionate to the economic strength of the affected utilities".
	44	+Existence of nuclear motivations and energy directly inhibits the development of renewable; movement away from nuclear power causes a paradigm shift in policymakers and the energy industry toward renewables.
	45	+Diesendorf ‘16: Mark Diesendorf writes in “Renewable energy versus nuclear: dispelling the myths” on May 31st 2016 for EnergyPost UK. Mark Diesendorf is an Australian academic and environmentalist, known for his work in sustainable development and renewable energy. He currently teaches environmental studies at the University of New South Wales, Australia. Education: University of Sydney, University of New South Wales. http://energypost.eu/dispelling-nuclear-baseload-myth-nothing-renewables-cant-better/; AB
	46	+Don’t believe the spurious claims of nuclear shills constantly putting down renewables, writes Mark Diesendorf, Associate Professor of Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies at UNSW Australia. Clean, safe renewable energy technologies have the potential to supply 100 of the world’s electricity demand – but the first hurdle is to refute the deliberately misleading myths designed to promote the politically powerful but ultimately doomed nuclear industry. Courtesy The Ecologist. Nuclear energy and renewable energy are the principal competitors for low-carbon electricity in many countries. As renewable energy technologies have grown in volume and investment, and become much cheaper, nuclear proponents and deniers of climate science have become deniers of renewable energy. The strategies and tactics of renewable energy deniers are very similar to those of climate science deniers. To create uncertainty about the ability of renewable energy to power an industrial society, they bombard decision-makers and the media with negative myths about renewable energy and positive myths about nuclear energy, attempting to turn these myths into conventional wisdom. In responding to the climate crisis, few countries have the economic resources to expand investment substantially in both nuclear and renewable energy. This is demonstrated in 2016 by the UK government, which is offering huge long-term subsidies to nuclear while severely cutting existing short-term subsidies to renewable energy. This article, a sequel to one busting the myth that we need base-load power stations such as nuclear or coal, examines critically some of the other myths about nuclear energy and renewable energy. It offers a resource for those who wish to question these myths. The myths discussed here have been drawn from comments by nuclear proponents and renewable energy opponents in the media, articles, blogs and on-line comments.
	47	+Renewable growth is HUGE – nuclear is left in the dust
	48	+Romm ‘16: Dr. Joseph J. Romm writes in “Nuclear Power Advocates Claim Cheap Renewable Energy is a Bad Thing” on July 28th 2016. Romm holds a Ph.D. in physics from M.I.T. and researched his thesis on physical oceanography at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. More information on him can be found in his Wikipedia entry. Dr. Joe Romm is Founding Editor of Climate Progress, “the indispensable blog,” as NY Times columnist Tom Friedman describes it. In March 2009, Rolling Stone also named him one of “The 100 People Who Are Changing America.” BRACKETED FOR GRAMMAR https://thinkprogress.org/nuclear-power-advocates-claim-cheap-renewable-energy-is-a-bad-thing-a20e065d99e6#.h6xh60sfv; AB
	49	+The transition to a carbon-free grid has begun and is unstoppable Most people, including most opinion-makers and journalists covering energy and the environment, are not up-to-date on the “miraculous” and game-changing revolutions that have occurred just in the last couple of years with such core enabling climate solutions as solar power, wind power, LED lighting, and batteries, and electric vehicles. That’s why I launched my ongoing series “Almost Everything You Know About Climate Change Solutions Is Outdated.” As I wrote last week: If it surprises you that U.S. solar has jumped 100-fold in the last decade — and prices are now under 4 cents per kilowatt-hour — you should read this post. I’m not going to repeat everything I’ve already written on this, especially since Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) has repeatedly made the same point, as has the International Energy Agency (IEA), as has Goldman Sachs. But I haven’t written much about Goldman Sachs’ findings yet, so here’s their core conclusion from their new July 20 report, “The Low Carbon Economy: Our Thesis In 60 CHARTS” (emphasis in original): In a debate that is often dominated by strong views on what should or could happen in the future, we let the numbers speak for themselves. In our eyes, a relatively clear picture is emerging from the data: Select low carbon technologies are rapidly taking market share in a number of sectors and are changing the way that energy is generated, stored and consumed across the global economy. These technologies are now at a scale and growing at a pace that they deliver carbon emission savings at the gigatonne scale, but they are also transforming the competitive dynamics in industries like lighting, power generation and autos. Renewables, efficiency, and electrification of transport have emerged as the big winners in the race to find the most affordable, scalable, carbon-free sources for power generation and travel. Many core technologies are growing exponentially while cost and performance steadily improve. Here is what Goldman Sachs expects to happen just over the next decade: The result of this revolution, they conclude, is that “On our wind and solar numbers, emissions in IEA scenarios could peak as early as c.2020, rather than 2030.” Again, you’d never know any of this big picture once-in-a-century transformation from reading the New York Times, which just continues to write article after article that misses the forest for the trees. Yes, it is true that this revolution is happening so fast that it is “transforming the competitive dynamics in industries like lighting, power generation and autos,” as Goldman Sachs noted. And that means there will be dislocations. For instance, the clean energy revolution means other low-carbon or zero-carbon technologies that haven’t reached the point of exponential growth — and that are not experiencing learning curve improvements in cost and performance — are very likely to fall further and further behind. That is where nuclear power finds itself. As do hydrogen fuel cell cars. It also means that the electric grid in particular will go through some growing pains as it starts to integrate renewables at a faster pace than anybody thought possible just a few years ago. The Times, bizarrely, has chosen to publish article after article over-emphasizing and indeed exaggerating those growing pains, while projecting a future for nuclear power that currently doesn’t exist.
	50	+AND renewables provide a form of energy which empowers Native culture
	51	+Burger ‘13: Andrew Burger writes in “Native Americans, Renewable Energy and Environmental Injustice” for Triplepundit on Monday Aug 19th 2013. “An independent journalist, researcher and writer, my work roams across the nexus where ecology, technology, political economy and sociology intersect and overlap. The lifelong quest for knowledge of the world and self ~-~- not to mention gainful employment ~-~- has led me near and far afield, from Europe, across the Asia-Pacific, Middle East and Africa and back home to the Americas. LinkedIn: andrew burger Google+: Andrew B Email: huginn.muggin@gmail.com” http://www.triplepundit.com/special/skeo-environmental-justice/native-americans-renewable-energy-environmental-justice/; AB
	52	+Renewable energy – low-tech or high, large-scale or small – harnesses the natural forces upon which much of traditional Native American culture revolves, Henry Red Cloud, a pioneering Native American renewable energy advocate and entrepreneur, points out. Akin to solar, wind, hydro, biomass and geothermal energy, “Our language, our song, our cultural traditions are based on the Sun, the winds, the Earth and its waters,” Red Cloud, a descendant of Lakota-Northern Cheyenne chiefs and founder of Lakota Solar Enterprises, told 3p in an interview. The recent history of energy, economic and social development on indigenous American tribal lands is a checkered one, however. Booming urban and suburban development and population growth across the American West, not to mention agricultural production and economic expansion, wouldn’t have been possible without the water, energy and mineral resources that have been developed on Native American lands. Too often, what’s been left behind for tribal communities to deal with have been unfulfilled promises of equitably distributed income, wealth, community development and employment opportunities, along with the necessity of shouldering long-term, unaccounted for social and environmental costs: polluted air, diminished and degraded water resources, and contaminated lands.
	53	+Underview: Kritiks
	54	+Kritiks that don’t engage in concrete policy further entrench oppression.
	55	+Bryant ‘12: (Levi Bryant, professor of philosophy at Collins college, Critique of the Academic Left, http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/underpants-gnomes-a-critique-of-the-academic-left/); AB
	56	+The problem as I see it is that this is the worst sort of abstraction (in the Marxist sense) and wishful thinking. Within a Marxo-Hegelian context, a thought is abstract when it ignores all of the mediations in which a thing is embedded. For example, I understand a robust tree abstractly when I attribute its robustness, say, to its genetics alone, ignoring the complex relations to its soil, the air, sunshine, rainfall, etc., that also allowed it to grow robustly in this way. This is the sort of critique we’re always leveling against the neoliberals. They are abstract thinkers. In their doxa that individuals are entirely responsible for themselves and that they completely make themselves by pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, neoliberals ignore all the mediations belonging to the social and material context in which human beings develop that play a role in determining the vectors of their life. They ignore, for example, that George W. Bush grew up in a family that was highly connected to the world of business and government and that this gave him opportunities that someone living in a remote region of Alaska in a very different material infrastructure and set of family relations does not have. To think concretely is to engage in a cartography of these mediations, a mapping of these networks, from circumstance to circumstance (what I call an “onto-cartography”). It is to map assemblages, networks, or ecologies in the constitution of entities. Unfortunately, the academic left falls prey to its own form of abstraction. It’s good at carrying out critiques that denounce various social formations, yet very poor at proposing any sort of realistic constructions of alternatives. This because it thinks abstractly in its own way, ignoring how networks, assemblages, structures, or regimes of attraction would have to be remade to create a workable alternative. Here I’m reminded by the “underpants gnomes” depicted in South Park: The underpants gnomes have a plan for achieving profit that goes like this: Phase 1: Collect Underpants Phase 2: ? Phase 3: Profit! They even have a catchy song to go with their work: Well this is sadly how it often is with the academic left. Our plan seems to be as follows: Phase 1: Ultra-Radical Critique Phase 2: ? Phase 3: Revolution and complete social transformation! Our problem is that we seem perpetually stuck at phase 1 without ever explaining what is to be done at phase 2. Often the critiques articulated at phase 1 are right, but there are nonetheless all sorts of problems with those critiques nonetheless. In order to reach phase 3, we have to produce new collectives. In order for new collectives to be produced, people need to be able to hear and understand the critiques developed at phase 1. Yet this is where everything begins to fall apart. Even though these critiques are often right, we express them in ways that only an academic with a PhD in critical theory and post-structural theory can understand. How exactly is Adorno to produce an effect in the world if only PhD’s in the humanities can understand him? Who are these things for? We seem to always ignore these things and then look down our noses with disdain at the Naomi Kleins and David Graebers of the world. To make matters worse, we publish our work in expensive academic journals that only universities can afford, with presses that don’t have a wide distribution, and give our talks at expensive hotels at academic conferences attended only by other academics. Again, who are these things for? Is it an accident that so many activists look away from these things with contempt, thinking their more about an academic industry and tenure, than producing change in the world? If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, it doesn’t make a sound! Seriously dudes and dudettes, what are you doing? But finally, and worst of all, us Marxists and anarchists all too often act like assholes. We denounce others, we condemn them, we berate them for not engaging with the questions we want to engage with, and we vilify them when they don’t embrace every bit of the doxa that we endorse. We are every bit as off-putting and unpleasant as the fundamentalist minister or the priest of the inquisition (have people yet understood that Deleuze and Guattari’s Anti-Oedipus was a critique of the French communist party system and the Stalinist party system, and the horrific passions that arise out of parties and identifications in general?). This type of “revolutionary” is the greatest friend of the reactionary and capitalist because they do more to drive people into the embrace of reigning ideology than to undermine reigning ideology. These are the people that keep Rush Limbaugh in business. Well done! But this isn’t where our most serious shortcomings lie. Our most serious shortcomings are to be found at phase 2. We almost never make concrete proposals for how things ought to be restructured, for what new material infrastructures and semiotic fields need to be produced, and when we do, our critique-intoxicated cynics and skeptics immediately jump in with an analysis of all the ways in which these things contain dirty secrets, ugly motives, and are doomed to fail. How, I wonder, are we to do anything at all when we have no concrete proposals? We live on a planet of 6 billion people. These 6 billion people are dependent on a certain network of production and distribution to meet the needs of their consumption. That network of production and distribution does involve the extraction of resources, the production of food, the maintenance of paths of transit and communication, the disposal of waste, the building of shelters, the distribution of medicines, etc., etc., etc. What are your proposals? How will you meet these problems? How will you navigate the existing mediations or semiotic and material features of infrastructure? Marx and Lenin had proposals. Do you? Have you even explored the cartography of the problem? Today we are so intellectually bankrupt on these points that we even have theorists speaking of events and acts and talking about a return to the old socialist party systems, ignoring the horror they generated, their failures, and not even proposing ways of avoiding the repetition of these horrors in a new system of organization. Who among our critical theorists is thinking seriously about how to build a distribution and production system that is responsive to the needs of global consumption, avoiding the problems of planned economy, ie., who is doing this in a way that gets notice in our circles? Who is addressing the problems of micro-fascism that arise with party systems (there’s a reason that it was the Negri and Hardt contingent, not the Badiou contingent that has been the heart of the occupy movement). At least the ecologists are thinking about these things in these terms because, well, they think ecologically. Sadly we need something more, a melding of the ecologists, the Marxists, and the anarchists. We’re not getting it yet though, as far as I can tell. Indeed, folks seem attracted to yet another critical paradigm, Laruelle. I would love, just for a moment, to hear a radical environmentalist talk about his ideal high school that would be academically sound. How would he provide for the energy needs of that school? How would he meet building codes in an environmentally sound way? How would she provide food for the students? What would be her plan for waste disposal? And most importantly, how would she navigate the school board, the state legislature, the federal government, and all the families of these students? What is your plan? What is your alternative? I think there are alternatives. I saw one that approached an alternative in Rotterdam. If you want to make a truly revolutionary contribution, this is where you should start. Why should anyone even bother listening to you if you aren’t proposing real plans? But we haven’t even gotten to that point. Instead we’re like underpants gnomes, saying “revolution is the answer!” without addressing any of the infrastructural questions of just how revolution is to be produced, what alternatives it would offer, and how we would concretely go about building those alternatives. Masturbation. “Underpants gnome” deserves to be a category in critical theory; a sort of synonym for self-congratulatory masturbation. We need less critique not because critique isn’t important or necessary– it is –but because we know the critiques, we know the problems. We’re intoxicated with critique because it’s easy and safe. We best every opponent with critique. We occupy a position of moral superiority with critique. But do we really do anything with critique? What we need today, more than ever, is composition or carpentry. Everyone knows something is wrong. Everyone knows this system is destructive and stacked against them. Even the Tea Party knows something is wrong with the economic system, despite having the wrong economic theory. None of us, however, are proposing alternatives. Instead we prefer to shout and denounce. Good luck with that.
	57	+Particularism is key – root-cause claims ignore specific instances of oppression, which generalizes oppression and destroys our understanding of it – yes the state sucks but the question is where and when and how do we solve it.
	58	+Pappas ‘16: Gregory Fernando Pappas writes in “The Pragmatists’ Approach to Injustice.” From the Pluralist Volume 11, Number 1, Spring 2016. Ph.D., Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin, 1990 Research Interests: Pragmatism (Dewey, James), Ethics, Latin American Philosophy, Philosophy of Technology, Socio-Political Theory Current Course Schedule PHIL 205-500. Tech and Human Values. TR 9:35-10:50. YMCA 109. PHIL 415-500. American Philosophy. TR 12:45-2:00. YMCA 115. Office Hours: TR 12:00-1:00 and by appointment Pappas works within the American Pragmatist and Latin American traditions in ethics and social-political philosophy. He is the author of numerous articles on the philosophy of William James and John Dewey. His most recent publication is the book with Fordham University Press titled Pragmatism in the Americas, a work on the philosophical connections between American Pragmatism and Latin American Philosophy. He is the author of "John Dewey's Ethics: Democracy as Experience", the first comprehensive interpretation of Dewey's ethics. He has been the recipient of a Ford Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship, the William James and the Latin American Thought prizes by the American Philosophical Association, and the Mellow Prize by the Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy. Dr. Pappas is the editor-in-chief of The Inter-American Journal of Philosophy, the first online journal devoted to inter-American philosophy with an inter-American editorial board that includes prominent philosophers from the Americas. He is a Fulbright scholar '12-'13 in Argentina. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/612551; AB
	59	+The pragmatists’ approach should be distinguished from nonideal theories whose starting point seems to be the injustices of society at large that have a history and persist through time, where the task of political philosophy is to detect and diagnose the presence of these historical injustices in particular situations of injustice. For example, critical theory today has inherited an approach to social philosophy characteristic of the European tradition that goes back to Rousseau, Marx, Weber, Freud, Marcuse, and others. Accord- ing to Roberto Frega, this tradition takes society to be “intrinsically sick” with a malaise that requires adopting a critical historical stance in order to understand how the systematic sickness affects present social situations. In other words, this approach assumes that¶ a philosophical critique of specific social situations can be accomplished only under the assumption of a broader and full blown critique of soci- ety in its entirety: as a critique of capitalism, of modernity, of western civilization, of rationality itself. The idea of social pathology becomes intelligible only against the background of a philosophy of history or of an anthropology of decline, according to which the distortions of actual social life are but the inevitable consequence of longstanding historical processes. (“Between Pragmatism and Critical Theory” 63)¶ However, this particular approach to injustice is not limited to critical theory. It is present in those Latin American and African American political philosophies that have used and transformed the critical intellectual tools of ¶ critical theory to deal with the problems of injustice in the Americas. For instance, Charles W. Mills claims that the starting point and alternative to the abstractions of ideal theory that masked injustices is to diagnose and rectify a history of an illness—the legacy of white supremacy in our actual society.11 The critical task of revealing this illness is achieved by adopting a historical perspective where the injustices of today are part of a larger historical narrative about the development of modern societies that goes back to how Europeans have progressively dehumanized or subordinated others. Similary, radical feminists as well as Third World scholars, as reaction to the hege- monic Eurocentric paradigms that disguise injustices under the assumption of a universal or objective point of view, have stressed how our knowledge is always situated. This may seem congenial with pragmatism except the locus of the knower and of injustices is often described as power structures located in “global hierarchies” and a “world-system” and not situations.12¶ Pragmatism only questions that we live in History or a “World-System” (as a totality or abstract context) but not that we are in history (lowercase): in a present situation continuous with others where the past weighs heavily in our memories, bodies, habits, structures, and communities. It also does not deny the importance of power structures and seeing the connections be- tween injustices through time, but there is a difference between (a) inquiring into present situations of injustice in order to detect, diagnose, and cure an injustice (a social pathology) across history, and (b) inquiring into the his- tory of a systematic injustice in order to facilitate inquiry into the present unique, context-bound injustice. To capture the legacy of the past on present injustices, we must study history but also seek present evidence of the weight of the past on the present injustice.¶ If injustice is an illness, then the pragmatists’ approach takes as its main focus diagnosing and treating the particular present illness, that is, the particular situation-bound injustice and not a global “social pathology” or some single transhistorical source of injustice. The diagnosis of a particular injustice is not always dependent on adopting a broader critical standpoint of society in its entirety, but even when it is, we must be careful to not forget that such standpoints are useful only for understanding the present evil. The concepts and categories “white supremacy” and “colonialism” can be great tools that can be of planetary significance. One could even argue that they pick out much larger areas of people’s lives and injustices than the categories of class and gender, but in spite of their reach and explanatory theoretical value, they are nothing more than tools to make reference to and ameliorate particular injustices experienced (suffered) in the midst of a particular and unique re- lationship in a situation. No doubt many, but not all, problems of injustice are a consequence of being a member of a group in history, but even in these cases, we cannot a priori assume that injustices are homogeneously equal for all members of that group. Why is this important? The possible pluralism and therefore complexity of a problem of injustice does not always stop at the level of being a member of a historical group or even a member of many groups, as insisted on by intersectional analysis. There may be unique cir- cumstances to particular countries, towns, neighborhoods, institutions, and ultimately situations that we must be open to in a context-sensitive inquiry. If an empirical inquiry is committed to capturing and ameliorating all of the harms in situations of injustice in their raw pretheoretical complexity, then this requires that we try to begin with and return to the concrete, particular, and unique experiences of injustice.¶ Pragmatism agrees with Sally Haslanger’s concern about Charles Mills’s view. She writes: “The goal is not just a theory that is historical (v. ahistori- cal), but is sensitive to historical particularity, i.e., that resists grand causal narratives purporting to give an account of how domination has come about and is perpetuated everywhere and at all times” (1). For “the forces that cause and sustain domination vary tremendously context by context, and there isn’t necessarily a single causal explanation; a theoretical framework that is useful as a basis for political intervention must be highly sensitive to the details of the particular social context” (1).13¶ Although each situation is unique, there are commonalities among the cases that permit inquiry about common causes. We can “formulate tentative general principles from investigation of similar individual cases, and then . . . check the generalizations by applying them to still further cases” (Dewey, Lectures in China 53). But Dewey insists that the focus should be on the indi- vidual case, and was critical of how so many sociopolitical theories are prone to starting and remaining at the level of “sweeping generalizations.” He states that they “fail to focus on the concrete problems which arise in experience, allowing such problems to be buried under their sweeping generalizations” (Lectures in China 53).¶ The lesson pragmatism provides for nonideal theory today is that it must be careful to not reify any injustice as some single historical force for which particular injustice problems are its manifestation or evidence for its exis- tence. Pragmatism welcomes the wisdom and resources of nonideal theories that are historically grounded on actual injustices, but it issues a warning about how they should be understood and implemented. It is, for example, sympathetic to the critical resources found in critical race theory, but with an important qualification. It understands Derrick Bell’s valuable criticism as context-specific to patterns in the practice of American law. Through his inquiry into particular cases and civil rights policies at a particular time and place, Bell learned and proposed certain general principles such as the one of “interest convergence,” that is, “whites will promote racial advantages for blacks only when they also promote white self-interest.”14 But, for pragma- tism, these principles are nothing more than historically grounded tools to use in present problematic situations that call for our analysis, such as deliberation in establishing public policies or making sense of some concrete injustice. The principles are falsifiable and open to revision as we face situation-specific injustices. In testing their adequacy, we need to consider their function in making us see aspects of injustices we would not otherwise appreciate.15
	60	+
	61	+The only way to reject oppression is through BOTH ideological and material action in specific instances – inaction or theoretical objection alone legitimizes oppression.
	62	+Pappas ‘16: Gregory Fernando Pappas writes in “The Pragmatists’ Approach to Injustice.” From the Pluralist Volume 11, Number 1, Spring 2016. Ph.D., Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin, 1990 Research Interests: Pragmatism (Dewey, James), Ethics, Latin American Philosophy, Philosophy of Technology, Socio-Political Theory Current Course Schedule PHIL 205-500. Tech and Human Values. TR 9:35-10:50. YMCA 109. PHIL 415-500. American Philosophy. TR 12:45-2:00. YMCA 115. Office Hours: TR 12:00-1:00 and by appointment Pappas works within the American Pragmatist and Latin American traditions in ethics and social-political philosophy. He is the author of numerous articles on the philosophy of William James and John Dewey. His most recent publication is the book with Fordham University Press titled Pragmatism in the Americas, a work on the philosophical connections between American Pragmatism and Latin American Philosophy. He is the author of "John Dewey's Ethics: Democracy as Experience", the first comprehensive interpretation of Dewey's ethics. He has been the recipient of a Ford Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship, the William James and the Latin American Thought prizes by the American Philosophical Association, and the Mellow Prize by the Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy. Dr. Pappas is the editor-in-chief of The Inter-American Journal of Philosophy, the first online journal devoted to inter-American philosophy with an inter-American editorial board that includes prominent philosophers from the Americas. He is a Fulbright scholar '12-'13 in Argentina. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/612551; AB
	63	+In Experience and Nature, Dewey names the empirical way of doing philosophy the “denotative method” (LW 1:371).18 What Dewey means by “denotation” is simply the phase of an empirical inquiry where we are con- cerned with designating, as free from theoretical presuppositions as possible, the concrete problem (subject matter) for which we can provide different and even competing descriptions and theories. Thus an empirical inquiry about an injustice must begin with a rough and tentative designation of where the injustices from within the broader context of our everyday life and activities are. Once we designate the subject matter, we then engage in the inquiry itself, including diagnosis, possibly even constructing theories and developing concepts. Of course, that is not the end of the inquiry. We must then take the results of that inquiry “as a path pointing and leading back to something in primary experience” (LW 1:17). This looping back is essential, and it neverends as long as there are new experiences of injustice that may require a revi- sion of our theories.¶ Injustices are events suffered by concrete people at a particular time and in a situation. We need to start by pointing out and describing these prob- lematic experiences instead of starting with a theoretical account or diagnosis of them. Dewey is concerned with the consequences of not following the methodological advice to distinguish designation from diagnosis. Definitions, theoretical criteria, and diagnosis can be useful; they have their proper place and function once inquiry is on its way, but if stressed too much at the start of inquiry, they can blind us to aspects of concrete problems that escape our theoretical lenses. We must attempt to pretheoretically designate the subject matter, that is, to “point” in a certain direction, even with a vague or crude description of the problem. But, for philosophers, this task is not easy because, for instance, we are often too prone to interpret the particular problem in a way that verifies our most cherished theories of injustice. One must be careful to designate the subject matter in such a way as not to slant the question in favor of one’s theory or theoretical preconceptions. A philosopher must make an honest effort to designate the injustices based on what is experienced as such because a concrete social problem (e.g., injustice) is independent and neutral with respect to the different possible competing diagnoses or theories about its causes. Otherwise, there is no way to test or adjudicate between competing accounts.¶ That designation precedes diagnosis is true of any inquiry that claims to be empirical. To start with the diagnosis is to not start with the problem. The problem is pretheoretical or preinquiry, not in any mysterious sense but in that it is first suffered by someone in a particular context. Otherwise, the diagnosis about the causes of the problem has nothing to be about, and the inquiry cannot even be initiated. In his Logic, Dewey lays out the pattern of all empirical inquiries (LW 12). All inquiries start with what he calls an “indeterminate situation,” prior even to a “problematic situation.” Here is a sketch of the process:¶ Indeterminate situation → problematic situation → diagnosis: What is the problem? What is the solution? (operations of analysis, ideas, observations, clarification, formulating and testing hypothesis, reasoning, etc.) → final judgment (resolution: determinate situation)¶ To make more clear or vivid the difference of the starting point between Anderson and Dewey, we can use the example (or analogy) of medical prac- tice, one that they both use to make their points.19 The doctor’s starting point is the experience of a particular illness of a particular patient, that is, the concrete and unique embodied patient experiencing a disruption or prob- lematic change in his life. “The patient having something the matter with him is antecedent; but being ill (having the experience of illness) is not the same as being an object of knowledge.”20 The problem becomes an object of knowledge once the doctor engages in a certain interaction with the patient, analysis, and testing that leads to a diagnosis. For Dewey, “diagnosis” occurs when the doctor is already engaged in operations of experimental observation in which he is already narrowing the field of relevant evidence, concerned with the correlation between the nature of the problem and possible solu- tions. Dewey explains the process: “A physician . . . is called by a patient. His original material of experience is thereby provided. This experienced object sets the problem of inquiry. . . . He calls upon his store of knowledge to sug- gest ideas that may aid him in reaching a judgment as to the nature of the trouble and its proper treatment.”21¶ Just as with the doctor, empirical inquirers about injustice must return to the concrete problem for testing, and should never forget that their con- ceptual abstractions and general knowledge are just means to ameliorate what is particular, context-bound, and unique. In reaching a diagnosis, the doc- tor, of course, relies on all of his background knowledge about diseases and evidence, but a good doctor never forgets the individuality of the particular problem (patient and illness).¶ The physician in diagnosing a case of disease deals with something in- dividualized. He draws upon a store of general principles of physiology, etc., already at his command. Without this store of conceptual material he is helpless. But he does not attempt to reduce the case to an exact specimen of certain laws of physiology and pathology, or do away with its unique individuality. Rather he uses general statements as aids to direct his observation of the particular case, so as to discover what it is like. They function as intellectual tools or instrumentalities. (LW 4:166)¶ Dewey uses the example of the doctor to emphasize the radical contex- tualism and particularism of his view. The good doctor never forgets that this patient and “this ill is just the specific ill that it is. It never is an exact duplicate of anything else.”22 Similarly, the empirical philosopher in her in- quiry about an injustice brings forth general knowledge or expertise to an inquiry into the causes of an injustice. She relies on sociology and history as well as knowledge of different forms of injustice, but it is all in the service of inquiry about the singularity of each injustice suffered in a situation.¶ The correction or refinement that I am making to Anderson’s character- ization of the pragmatists’ approach is not a minor terminological or scholarly point; it has methodological and practical consequences in how we approach an injustice. The distinction between the diagnosis and the problem (the ill- ness, the injustice) is an important functional distinction that must be kept in inquiry because it keeps us alert to the provisional and hypothetical aspect of any diagnosis. To rectify or improve any diagnosis, we must return to the concrete problem; as with the patient, this may require attending as much as possible to the uniqueness of the problem. This is in the same spirit as Anderson’s preference for an empirical inquiry that tries to “capture all of the expressive harms” in situations of injustice. But this requires that we begin with and return to concrete experiences of injustice and not by starting with a diagnosis of the causes of injustice provided by studies in the social sciences, as in (5) above. For instance, a diagnosis of causes that are due to systematic, structural features of society or the world disregards aspects of the concrete experiences of injustice that are not systematic and structural.¶ Making problematic situations of injustice our explicit methodological commitment as a starting point rather than a diagnosis of the problem is an important and useful imperative for nonideal theories. It functions as a directive to inquirers toward the problem, to locate it, and designate it before venturing into descriptions, diagnosis, analysis, clarifications, hypotheses, and reasoning about the problem. These operations are instrumental to its ame- lioration and must ultimately return (be tested) by the problem that sparked the inquiry. The directive can make inquirers more attentive to the complex ways in which such differences as race, culture, class, or gender intersect in a problem of injustice. Sensitivity to complexity and difference in matters of injustice is not easy; it is a very demanding methodological prescription because it means that no matter how confident we may feel about applying solutions designed to ameliorate systematic evil, our cures should try to address as much as possible the unique circumstances of each injustice. The analogy with medical inquiry and practice is useful in making this point, since the hope is that someday we will improve our tools of inquiry to prac- tice a much more personalized medicine than we do today, that is, provide a diagnosis and a solution specific to each patient.
	64	+
	65	+No act-omission distinction for states – inaction despite awareness of the problem is a deliberate choice
	66	+Sunstein and Vermuele ‘5: Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermuele. The University of Chicago Law School. “Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life‐Life Tradeoffs.” JOHN M. OLIN LAW and ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 239. The Chicago Working Paper Series. March 2005
	67	+In our view, both the argument from causation and the argument from intention go wrong by overlooking the distinctive features of government as a moral agent. Whatever the general status of the act-omission distinction as a matter of moral philosophy,38 the distinction is least impressive when applied to government.39 The most fundamental point is that unlike individuals, governments always and necessarily face a choice between or among possible policies for regulating third parties. The distinction between acts and omissions may not be intelligible in this context, and even if it is, the distinction does not make a morally relevant difference. Most generally, government is in the business of creating permissions and prohibitions. When it explicitly or implicitly authorizes private action, it is not omitting to do anything, or refusing to act.40 Moreover, the distinction between authorized and unauthorized private action—for example, private killing—becomes obscure when the government formally forbids private action, but chooses a set of policy instruments that do not adequately or fully discourage it.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-11-14 04:57:24.727

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+x

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+x

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+3

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Sunset bhat Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SO - 1AC - Colonialism

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+St Marks