Recent Changes

Friday, July 23

  1. page home edited Check out last year's ddw wiki, last year's ddi wiki, and this years ddw wiki Also, check out the…
    Check out last year's ddw wiki, last year's ddi wiki, and this years ddw wiki
    Also, check out the 2010 DDW wiki and the 2010 DDI wiki
    Check out the Dartmouth Debate Workshop & Institute Podcast!

    Welcome to the wikispace for the 2009 Dartmouth Debate Institute.
    You will find pictures, files, videos and general information about the institute provided by the DDI Staff. If you have any questions about the DDI, requests for further information, or would like to submit something to post, please feel free to email me.
    Do you wish you could receive updates in your google reader? Do you want to get an email when there are changes? Click on "notify me" at the top and follow the instructions.
    Check out the Dartmouth Debate Workshop & Institute Podcast!
    {Debate_group2.jpg}
    Here's a google calendar of our schedule!
    (view changes)
    9:27 am

Thursday, July 22

  1. page DDI 09 Elective Classes edited ... -Tips and Tricks Olsen -- Debating for a Small School {debate for small school.doc} Deba…
    ...
    -Tips and Tricks
    Olsen -- Debating for a Small School
    {debate for small school.doc}
    Debating at a school with fewer resources and fewer debaters often requires a different approach to debate. This group will talk about both how to deal with logistics (housing, funding, finding a sponsor, etc.), debate questions about picking argument types and how to approach research.
    Quinn -- Answering the K, with Capitalism as the example
    ...
    So you think you have done your speaking drills? Learn the next step beyond just talking pretty in this 1 hour elective that covers how to make sure you sound as good as possible and how to make the arguments that will get you good points.
    Strange -- PICs 'R Good
    ...
    inclusive counterplans.
    Elective #6
    Monday August 3 – 10:00 am - 10:50 am
    (view changes)
    3:49 pm

Friday, June 25

  1. user_add KKernoff KKernoff joined ddi09
    7:35 am

Tuesday, November 10

  1. 12:43 pm

Thursday, October 29

  1. user_add Kcramer558 Kcramer558 joined ddi09
    9:25 am

Friday, August 14

  1. page Murayama-Werner Octas edited Download the original attachment 0.0__Toc2362820331NC Social Services= Social Workers 1) Definit…
    Download the original attachment
    0.0__Toc2362820331NC Social Services= Social Workers
    1) Definition –Social services are provided through social workers
    Random House Webster’s College Dictionary 96
    Social services: organized welfare efforts carried on under professional auspices by trained personnel
    2) Violation – the affirmative does not exclusively use social workers in their plan
    3) Standards –
    a. Limits – with a topic as big as poverty, the negative is at a distinct disadvantage to the affirmative, who could research thousands of miniscule social services. Limits to the aff are the only fair way to insure clash, equal aff and neg ground, and fairness.
    b. Extra-T – they claim advantages on areas that are not based on social workers. Extra-T causes the debate to divert to arguments that do not discuss the core issues of this year’s resolution, completely destroying topic-centered education and the point of debate. This is an individual voting issue for fairness and education..
    4) T is a Voting Issue for Fairness and Education
    T—Poverty
    A. Interpretation – the term “for” is exclusive.
    U.S. Customs Court 1939, “AMERICAN COLORTYPE CO. v. UNITED STATES,” C.
    D. 107, Protest 912094-G against the decision of the collector of
    customs at the port of New York, UNITED STATES CUSTOMS COURT, THIRD
    DIVISION, 2 Cust. Ct. 132; 1939 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 35
    The same reasons used by the appellate court may be adopted in construing the language of the statute herein involved. If the words "for industrial use" mean no more than the words "articles of utility," there could be no reason for inserting the additional words "for industrial use" in the paragraph. Therefore, it must be held that the [*135] new language "for industrial use" was intended to have a different meaning from the words "articles of utility," as construed in the case of Progressive Fine Arts Co. v. United States, [8] supra. Webster's New International Dictionary defines the word "industrial" as follows: Industrial. 1. Relating to industry or labor as an economic factor, or to a branch or the branches of industry; of the nature of, or constituting, an industry or industries * * * . The transferring of the scenes on an oil painting to a printed copy is a branch of industry under the definition above quoted. Some of the meanings of the preposition "for" signify intent, as shown by the following definition in the same dictionary: For. 2. Indicating the end with reference to which anything is, acts, serves, or is done; as: a. As a preparation for; with the object of; in order to be, become, or act as; conducive to. * * *. d. Intending, or in order, to go to or in the direction of. Therefore, the words "articles for industrial use" in paragraph 1807 imply that Congress intended to exclude from that provision articles either purchased or imported with the intention to use the same in industry for manufacturing purposes.
    Poverty is defined by the federal poverty line
    The Kaiser Family Foundation 05, “Total Number of People Living in Poverty based on Household Income (In Thousands), 2005,” __http://www.statehealthfacts. org/comparemaptable.jsp?cat=1& ind=17__
    Definitions: Persons in poverty are defined as those who make less than 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). The federal poverty level for a family of three in the 48 contiguous states and D.C. was $17,170 in 2007. For more information, please see a detailed description of the federal poverty level provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, available at __http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/ faq.shtml__.
    B. The aff removes quality control restrictions. This is the mechanism that enforces the exclusive eligibility of food stamps. They fiat that states are allowed to give food stamps to anyone with no penalty. This is anti-topical or extra-topical at best
    National Governor's Association 2005, "Food Stamps,"
    __http://www.nga.org/cda/files/ welfareFS.pdf__.
    Quality Control The degree to which errors are made by state welfare agencies in determining eligibility and benefit allocations is monitored by the food stamp Quality Control (QC) system. The QC system is also used to calculate and impose fiscal sanctions on states have very high error rates.
    C. Standards**
    Limits - if there is no enforcement, there is no restriction on who is eligible. They explode the topic to anything that provides funding to anyone.
    Extra topicality - they allow the aff to add anything to their plan that helps their solvency or spikes out of disads - this makes it nearly impossible for the neg to win.
    D. Topicality is a voting issue for fairness and education
    Biopower
    The discourse of social service disciplines those labeled as persons living in poverty.
    Hartley DEAN Social Policy @ London School of Economics ’92 “Poverty Discourse and the Disempowermetn of the Poor” Critical Social Policy 12 (35) p. 86-87
    CONCLUSION
    Returning for a moment to the Working Together Against Poverty conference, one of the participants is reported as having said 'I think this word poverty is a real crusher'(Lister and Beresford, 1991 plO). Certainly, the data from our interviews with social security claimants reveals in its sheer complexity a certain crushing force behind the currency of the 'p' word. The simple imagery of 'victims and villains' dissolves into a miasma of more subtle meanings. Poverty' evokes fear, resentment, guilt, confusion, mistrust and disempowerment.
    However, does this discursive analysis bring us any closer to the true meaning of 'poverty'? By interviewing social security claimants, were we in fact interviewing 'the poor'? Such questions cannot be answered because they miss the point.
    Poverty is a social construction -just as, for example, sexuality or criminality are social constructions. There is nothing inherently difficult about defining and describing sex (as a biologically conditioned aspect of human behaviour) or crime (as consensually embargoed forms of conduct), yet the socially constructed notions of sexuality and criminality are hugely difficult to define or describe. By the same token, it is a relatively straightforward matter to define and describe levels of material deprivation and inequalities of distribution, but the notion of 'poverty' is highly problematic, as we have seen.
    It has been argued (by Foucault and others) that it is through the expert and administrative systems by which we regulate sexuality and criminality that we create our historically specific patterns of sexual activity and crime. Simi- larly, the role played by the welfare state and, in particular, the social security system in regulating the distribution of resources is inextricably bound up with the way that modern poverty is socially constructed, experienced and understood (see Dean, 1991). If therefore we wish to tease apart or 'deconstruct' the discourse of poverty, then it is not only reasonable but perfectly logical to investigate the perceptions of social security claimants. The social security system and its 'clients' are after all the most palpable objective phenomena around which poverty discourse is generated.
    In this context, it is highly significant that the majority of social security claimants should resist the suggestion that they are in 'poverty'. The word is a 'crusher', not because it uniquely refers to the experiences of 'the poor,' but because it constructs the perceptions of the population as a whole. So long as the social distribution of resources remains unequal, 'poverty', as a phantom of discourse, is capable of quietly terrorising the entire population. If we go behind the many different things which the word 'poverty' may be used to describe, it may be seen that the discourse of poverty constitutes a process of subjection; a process which is disciplinary rather than descriptive and which is general rather than specific (Dean, 1991).
    What is more, the discourse of poverty (as with the discourse of class) can often shoulder aside other dimensions of oppression, especially those of gender and 'race': it can obscure or deny the reality of the experiences and struggles of women and black people. It is now commonplace to recognize that women and black people are overrepresented amongst those on low incomes (see, for example, Oppenheim, 1990) but this phenomenon is then addressed in terms of their particular vulnerability to 'poverty'. It becomes a technical or a moral problem rather than a political one. Questions of oppression and power - not to mention the possibilities of resistance - are submerged through the discursive construction of pervasive 'poverty'.
    Finally then, should we use the word 'poverty'? Are those who campaign against poverty simply tilting at windmills or, worse still, are they perpetuat- ing a discourse which disempowers those whom they seek to defend? In reality, we have little choice but to engage with the discourse of poverty. Rhetoric and discursive manipulation, however, are legitimate weapons of political struggle and those who would campaign against social inequaity could begin to focus their own and their opponents' attention upon that pro- cess of subjection which 'poverty' constitutes but fails to describe. What this article suggests is that the contradictory relationship between discourse as subjugation and discourse as a means of political struggle needs to be better understood and continually addressed.
    The ethos of welfare reform conceals sovereign violence with the rhetoric of assistance and obligation.
    Mitchell DEAN Sociology @ Macquarie ‘2 “Life and Death Beyond Governmentality” Cultural Values 6 (1-2) p. 126-127
    This point about the multiform character of ensembles of rule can be quite easily made in relation to the ethos of welfare. In what does this ethos seek? From Foucault (1981, 2001), it is about an effort to maximize the security of the population and the independence of its members. This entails balancing the labor of forming a community of responsible, virtuous and autonomous citizens with a pastoral care of their health, their needs and their capacities and means to live. The ethos of welfare is a potent admixture of rights and obligations, freedom and coercion, liberty andlife. It is formed through practices of freedom by which citizens are formed and form themselves. Yet these are located within a web of sovereign powers by which subjects are bound to do certain things. These include the use of deductive and coercive powers of taxation, of systems of punishment, detention, expulsion and disqualification, and of compulsion in drug rehabilita- tion, child support, immunization and workfare programs, etc., for the achievement of various goals of national government. More fundamentally, these sovereign powers consist in decisions as to what constitutes a normal frame of life, and hence of what constitutes public order and security, and when such a situation obtains (Schmitt 1985b: 9). Today there are various rationalities of the government of the state that attempt to provide a means of deciding this normal frame. Among communitarians, such as Etzioni (1996), this normal frame is decided upon by the shared moral values of communities. Among sociologists such as Anthony Giddens (1998) and Ulrich Beck (2000), this normal frame is defined by the processes that lead to a new kind of institutionally negotiated individualization and cosmopolitanism. Among new paternalists, such as Lawrence Mead and his associates (1986, 1997), it is decided by the views of the citizenry made known by their representatives in the Congress. There is an agreement between all three groups that, however we decide the content of this normal, everyday frame of life, at least certain populations can be invited, expected and, indeed, obligated,to follow it. As Giddens puts it (1998: 37), We need more actively to accept responsibilities for the consequences of what we do and lifestyle habits we adopt. The theme of responsibility, or mutual obligation, was there in old-style social democracy, but was largely dormant, since it was submerged within the concept of collective provision. We have to find a new balance between individual and collective responsibilities today. Fifty years ago, T. H. Marshall smuggled in sovereign notions of rights to justify the pastoral character of the welfare state in his classic essay, aCitizenship and Social Classo (1963). Today, welfare reform, and its instruments of workfare, emphasizes the converse of rights, obligations, when it demands the transformation of the individual as a condition of the exercise of a pastoralÐand indeed paternalistÐcare. Both cross the threshold between the political-juridical order of sovereignty and pastoral government of conduct. For Marshall, pastoral care is a function of social rights; for new paternalists, communitarians and Third Way social democrats, sovereign instruments bind those receiving pastoral care to paternally defined collective obligations. Summing up this part of the argument, government, understood as the conduct of conduct, is one zone or field of contemporary power relations. To understand those relations we need to take into account heterogenous powers such as those of sovereignty and biopolitics. The exercise of power in contemporary liberal democracies entails matters of life and death as much as ones of the direction of conduct, of obligation as much as rights, as decisions on the fostering or abandonment of life, on the right to kill without committing homicide, as well as of the shaping of freedom and the exercise of choice. Nevertheless, having distinguished this heterogenous field of power, there are key thresholds that are crossed in which these distinctions begin to collapse. Sovereign violence, its symbols and its threat, is woven into the most mundane forms of government. The unemployed, for example, are to transform themselves into active job-seekers or participate in workfare programs under the sanction of the removal of the sustenance of life. In contemporary genetic politics and ethics, too, we enter thresholds where it becomes unclear whether we are in the presence of the powers to foster life or the right to take it. The biopolitical, the sovereign, the governmental, begin to enter into zones of indistinction.
    Discursive analysis of the frame for poverty research is a pre-requisite for challenges to the existing problems of social service provision.
    Sanford SCHRAM Social Policy @ Graduate School of Social Work and Social Research at Bryn Mawr College ’95 Words of Welfare p. xxvii-xxx
    Discource and Structure
    This, then, is not strictly a question of discourse per se. Poverty research as a special field of applied social science exists because it was created to serve state managers and existing political-economic arrangements." From government grants and contracts to a political realism that reinforces the need to impress those in power, the discursive practices of poverty research anticipate the prevailing structures of society writ large. Research gets writ- ten in ways that reinforce that structural context. Welfare policy discourse in turn promotes exclusionary practices in poverty research. Seeking to inform a policy discourse that limits alternatives serves only to impoverish the social science of poverty. Policies that are implicated in the perpetuation of poverty come to impoverish poverty research. Poverty research comes to reinforce poverty.
    Helen Longino has sought to deflate the myth of autonomous, objective science by suggesting that science is always constructed out of values internal to any specific field of scientific endeavor, such as standards of method and evidence (i.e., constitutive values) and values external to that science associated with the broader cultural context (i.e., contextual values)." Sim- ilarly, I want to suggest that the microdiscourse of the social science of poverty is influenced by the macrodiscourse of the broader society26 No more autonomous than any other discipline, poverty research discourse is no pure unalloyed good, but instead is infiltrated by the prevailing discursive structures of the broader society, all the more so as poverty research strains to achieve policy relevance. This problem interests me as more than a way of debunking the alleged autonomy of social science or as a means for high- lighting how power operates in the exclusionary practices of scientific dis- course. It opens the possibility for promoting a postmodern, poststructural, postpositivistic poverty research retrofitted for the postindustrial era.
    Postmodern Policy Analysis
    As disputes about the term recede, it is possible to see postmodernism as a cultural sensibility that is increasingly incorporated into popular and academic thought." This sensibility takes many forms, but in common is the appreciation that reality as we know it is socially constructed and discursively constituted -that is, that there is a politics to how we go about making sense of the world and the ways in which we communicate our under- standings to others .2' This postmodern sensibility stresses perspectivism. In other words, we always understand things from a partial (in the senses of both incomplete and biased) perspective. This particular perspective also stresses textual mediation, which suggests that our understandings of the world are always mediated through texts and that we need to be attentive to how discursive practices help constitute the partial perspectives we rely on for making sense of the world. The preferred technique for doing this, called deconstruction, involves pointing out how any text must necessarily invoke various discursive practices without which its coherent character would collapse. To deconstruct a text is riot to repudiate it, for all texts, if we read them closely enough, deconstruct themselves.29 Yet deconstruction has allowed investigators to highlight the constitutive practices of any texts, to make these moves visible, and to interrogate them.
    Postmodernism includes a poststructural orientation that encourages the dematerialization of structures into discursive practices." This post- structural perspective denies structures their materiality as real entities that can be experienced independent of discourse. This refusal to accept the autonomy of material structures is why Michel Foucault concentrated his energies on what he called "genealogy" or "eventualization" -the practice of showing how discursive practices make it possible for some things and not others to happen .31 Dematerializing structures involves interrogating them as prevailing systems of interpretation. These stabilized structures of interpretation serve as the basis for structuring the activities of daily life, which in turn cycle back and reproduce these stabilized structures of interpretation, be they the social structure, the economy, the state, or whatever. From this perspective, value gets created when discursive structures are stabilized sufficiently to serve as the basis for enabling people to value some identities and interests over others. Identities emerge out of textually con- structed differences. Preferring one identity over others converts differ- ence into "otherness' Preferring other distinctions marginalizes a host of other interests, things, places, and so on.
    The oft-quoted postmodern maxim "Ii n'y a pas de hors-texte" (There is no outside-the-text) is, however, no excuse for ignoring the broader social context, including culture, institutions, and markets." Instead, it is to suggest that there is no "inside-the-text" either; that is, there is no realm of autonomous textuality. Discourse versus structure, text versus institutions, and the like become falsified binaries. Attention to how structure and institutions help impart meaning is a necessary part of the deconstructive enterprise." Such exercises provide a means for challenging value-allocating interpretive structures. Yet this is only the initial move in the politicization of the material world -that is, an important first step in highlighting the discursive structures that make it possible for things to happen the way they do. Getting people to resist the structural insistences of prevailing discourses is, however, no simple second act. Discursive politics may start with dematerialization; however, mobilizing enough people to destabilize the re- production of embedded structures entails moving beyond reinterpretation.
    Articulating alliances and building coalitions involve taking structures, even if they are discursively, constituted, seriously. A politically directed social science of poverty therefore necessarily interrogates prevailing discourse, but treats it as structure firmly enmeshed in the reproduction of daily life of researchers and citizens alike. Another false dichotomy that finds its le- gitimation in a pragmatic orientation geared for achieving political efficacy, "discursive/material," like its cousin "symbolic/substantive," has its uses.
    Not so much rejecting as deconstructing positivistic approaches to policy analysis, postmodern policy analysis involves highlighting how policy ana- lytic work is implicated in its own representations of reality. Postmodern policy analysis is therefore not so much "antipositivistic" as it is "postposi- tivistic?' A postpositivistic orientation to policy analysis rejects the artifi- cial distinctions that have plagued policy analysis, such as between theo- retical and empirical, objective and subjective, interpretive and scientific work, it recognizes that the "assumptions which provide epistemological warrant for empirical policy analysis are highly contentious" and that "em- pirical policy analysis masks ... the valuative dimensions of its own techni- cal discourse."" From this perspective, policy analysis is at best insufficient and at worst seriously misleading if it fails to examine the presuppositional basis for what are taken to be "the facts" of any policy. As an alternative, postmodern analysis examines how policy is itself constitutive of the reality against which it is directed. Postmodern policy analysis, therefore, may be defined as those approaches to examining policy that emphasize how the initiation, contestation, adoption, implementation, and evaluation of any policy are shaped in good part by the discursive, narrative, symbolic, and other socially constructed practices that structure our understanding of that policy, the ostensible problems to be attacked, the methods of treat-
    The critique is an objection to the affirmative’s relationship between intellectuals and the problems that they discuss – instead of creating another set of univeralisms that “fix” the “problems” caused by a lack of social services, the alternative is a rejection of the mindset that divides the world into problem zones and imposes solutions
    A vote for the alternative is an endorsement of our specific intellectual criticism that makes possible challenging the neutrality of the affirmative’s power relationships that form the root cause of their harms
    Edkins ‘6 (Jenny Edkins, International Politics, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, 2006
    “The Local, the Global and the Troubling,” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy Vol. 9, No. 4, 499–511)
    Rather than starting with a reading of traditional academic analyses of the Northern Ireland conflict and offering a critique of particular ways in which the conflict has been represented and analysed in the literature, this chapter takes a step back. It considers not how or why the existing literature on the ‘troubles’ may be considered to be lacking in its analysis or its proposed solutions to the problem of Northern Ireland, but rather examines how that literature could be argued to be founded on certain prior assumptions, about the conflict and about the role of academic analysis, that are perhaps in need of challenge. I do not engage with the specific literature on Northern Ireland – I am not an expert on that particular topic – rather, I put forward a series of considerations about the ways in which work about conflicts, famines, genocides and other traumatic events is or could be framed. I argue that framings that prevail in much academic or intellectual work are of a distinct ‘problem solving’ type, and that the narratives that they produce limit what can be achieved in practical, on-the-ground terms and can even be argued to perpetuate the ‘problem’ to which they attempt to provide a ‘solution’. This is particularly the case, I will argue, where we are concerned with events of a violent, or what could be called traumatic, type. In summary, then, the chapter addresses ‘the problem of Northern Ireland’ by looking at how problems like this are constituted as ‘problems’ in the first place, and how this then conditions what forms of ‘solution’ become possible. Moreover, it argues, as does Nick Vaughan-Williams (2006) that such problematisa- tions are often in part at least to blame for the persistence of the ‘problem’ they appear merely to identify.
    In a sense the challenge that will be posed here is one that could be, and indeed has been, applied to much intellectual work in our particular tradition. The responsi- bility of intellectuals more generally is of course one that has been widely debated, and has resurfaced recently in relation to the so-called ‘war on terror’ (Smith 2004; Edkins 2005). To what extent can work arising from the ivory tower of academia have any relevance to the practical political choices faced by policy-makers and their opponents on a daily basis? How best can concerned academics intervene in the politics with which they would so like to be involved? Or, indeed, are they perhaps already deeply implicated in that politics, so that the question of interven- tion does not arise?
    There are two related but distinct preliminary points that are worth making here. First, intellectuals are of course not as separate from political and social structures as might seem to be the case. Antonio Gramsci addresses the question of whether intellectuals are ‘an autonomous and independent social group’ (Gramsci 1971: 5) as they so often appear. He argues against looking for criteria that distinguish intel- lectuals as such ‘in the intrinsic nature of intellectual activities, rather than in the ensemble of the system of relations in which these activities (and therefore the intel- lectual groups who personify them) have their place within the general complex of social relations’ (Gramsci 1971: 8). We should focus not on what defines ‘an intel- lectual’ but rather on what categories are historically made available for intellectual activity and how struggles for dominance between different groups or classes can be conceived in these terms. He distinguishes ‘traditional intellectuals,’ on the one hand, who have an apparent neutrality and absence of class-belongingness, but whose status and authority derives from their historical position and whose role is as ‘the dominant group’s ‘deputies’, exercising the … functions of social hegemony and political government’ (Gramsci 1971: 12) and ‘organic intellectuals,’ on the other, who are part of a subaltern group or class that is engaged in a struggle for dominance. ‘Traditional intellectuals’ are those who are commonly recognised as intellectuals: academics, writers, scientists and so on. ‘Organic intellectuals,’ on the other hand, though not recognisable as intellectuals, articulate the ‘new modes of thought’ (Gramsci 1971: 9) of their
    CONTINUED
    CONTINUED
    group. Organic intellectuals serve to help disrupt rather than reinforce the prevailing hegemony.
    The second preliminary point is that contemporary intellectuals in the Western context operate within a particular ‘‘regime’ of truth’ (Foucault 1980a: 133), one that constitutes as ‘truth’ knowledge that is the product of scientific methods of working. Michel Foucault argues that the figure of what he calls ‘the specific intellectual’ is of central importance in present day struggles. Specific intellectuals, such as atomic scientists for example, who have a ‘direct and localised relation to scientific knowledge and institutions’ (Foucault 1980a: 128) constitute a political threat because of their ability ‘to intervene in contemporary political struggles in the name of a “local” scientific truth’ (Foucault 1980a: 129). In other words, because of their status as experts, and despite the fact that ‘the specific intellectual serves the interests of State or Capital’ (Foucault 1980a: 131), they remain in a strategic position to intervene on behalf of local struggles. There are dangers, of course: the risk of remaining at the level of local struggles, of manipulation or control by other inter- ests, and of not being able to gain widespread support. Nevertheless, the specific intellectual should not be discounted (Foucault 1980a: 131). What is important is the relation between ‘truth’ and power, and the way in which each society has its regime of truth, its ‘general politics’ of truth: that is, the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true; the mechanisms and instances which enable one to distinguish true and false statements, the means by which each is sanctioned; the techniques and procedures accorded value in the acquisition of truth; the status of those who are charged of saying what counts as true. (Foucault 1980a: 131)
    Foucault argues that, in our societies, the dominant regime of truth is centered on scientific discourse and the institutions that support this. The specific intellectual has a particular class position, as Gramsci noted too, and particular conditions of work, but more than that, a particular connection to the way that the politics of truth works. This gives such an intellectual the possibility of struggle at the level of the regime of truth. Of course, ‘this regime is not merely ideological or superstructural; it was a condition of the formation and development of capitalism’ (Foucault 1980a: 133), which means that interventions that challenge the regime of truth constitute a challenge to the hegemony of the social and economic system with which it is bound up. It is in this context of a particular, scientific regime of truth and the role of the intellectual that I want to discuss the ways in which the academic search for ‘causes’ and ‘solutions’ to the Northern Ireland conflict operates, and how this mode of working can prohibit change. The role of the intellectual, as both Gramsci and Foucault have argued, can be central to change and contestation, but it can also be part of the structures that prohibit change and keep existing structures and problematisations in place. I suggest that the particular form of intellectual work that identifies ‘problems’ and then proposes ‘solutions’ is problematic. It ultimately reinforces or reproduces certain ways of thinking and conceals the way that identifying something as a problem in the first place is already to take a particular stance in relation to it. I argue that the alternative in the case of violence in particular is to engage in intellectual activity that brings to light struggles hidden in detailed historical records or localised knowledges – an activity that Foucault calls genealogy – and emphasises the necessity for a gradual remaking of the world, not through narrative accounts that regularise and normalise history in terms of cause and effect, but through a slow re-building, brick by brick.
    Education CP
    Text: The United States federal government should substantially increase the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to include all eligible persons, including those excluded by quality controls; funding will be conditioned on the fifty states agreeing to the collection of student achievement data and tying teacher pay to student performance.
    1. States won’t reform without the CP—the threat of the CP is key to compliance
    St. Louis, 7/25/2009
    (__http://www.stltoday.com/ stltoday/news/stories.nsf/ nation/story/ 4DD5397BE25C7DF2862575FE00101E 54?OpenDocument__)
    WASHINGTON — Dangling the promise of $5 billion in grants, President Barack Obama pressured states to embrace his ideas for overhauling the nation's schools, ideas that include performance pay for teachers and charter schools. To get the money, state officials may have to do things they, or the teachers unions, dislike. But in a recession that is starving state budgets, the new "Race to the Top" fund is proving impossible for some states to resist. Already, Illinois, Tennessee, Rhode Island, Indiana, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Colorado have lifted restrictions on charter schools so they can compete for the money. "Not every state will win, and not every school district will be happy with the results," the president said Friday. "But America's children, America's economy, America itself will be better for it." Officials from nearly a dozen states, including Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire, a Democrat, and Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue, a Republican, joined Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan Friday at the Education Department to announce the rules for the competition. Broadly speaking, the president wants states to do four things he considers to be reforms:— Toughen academic standards.— Find better ways to recruit and keep effective teachers.— Track student performance.— Have a plan of action to turn around failing schools. Obama's administration has made it clear that it wants an end to state laws, adopted after heavy teacher union lobbying, barring the use of student achievement data to evaluate teacher performance. Legislatures in New York, California and some other states have enacted such laws.
    2. Conditioning state funding solves education
    Branigin, staff writer, 7/24
    (William Branigin, staff writer, 7/24/09, “Obama Launches 'Race' for $4 Billion in Education Funds,” Washington Post, __http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2009/ 07/24/AR2009072402203.html__)
    President Obama launched a competition Friday for $4.35 billion in federal education funds, urging states to ease restrictions on charter schools, link teacher pay to student achievement and adopt common national academic standards to be eligible for the money. In a speech at the Education Department, Obama joined Education Secretary Arne Duncan in announcing draft criteria for the "Race to the Top" fund, which the administration is billing as the "largest-ever federal investment in education reform." "America will not succeed in the 21st century unless we do a far better job of educating our sons and daughters," Obama said. "In a world where countries that out-educate us today will out-compete us tomorrow, the future belongs to the nation that best educates its people." Acknowledging that "our education system is falling short," he said that for years, "we've talked these problems to death . . . while doing all too little to solve them." Now, he said, he is challenging the nation's governors, schools boards, teachers, parents, students and others to meet "a few key benchmarks for reform" in order to compete for and win Race to the Top grants. "That race starts today," Obama said. He pledged that "this competition will not be based on politics or ideology or the preferences of a particular interest group" but on "whether a state is ready to do what works." If everyone pitches in, he said, "then we will not only strengthen our economy over the long run, and we will not only make America's entire education system the envy of the world, but we will launch a Race to the Top that will prepare every child, everywhere in America, for the challenges of the 21st century." The fund "will reward eligible states for past accomplishments and create incentives for future improvement" in four key areas: toughening academic standards, recruiting and retaining effective teachers, turning around failing schools and tracking the performance of students and teachers, the Education Department said. In an interview with The Washington Post, Obama made it clear that he wants to use the federal aid as leverage to reform the U.S. public education system, which by some measures has been lagging behind the school systems of other industrialized countries. Speaking before Obama addressed the gathering Friday, Duncan underscored a need to target particular school districts for reform. He noted that 2,000 high schools produce half the country's dropouts and "a staggering 75 percent of our nation's minority dropouts." Warning that states can increase or decrease their odds of winning federal support through their policies, Duncan said states that cap the number of charter schools or fail to hold such schools accountable, for example, "will be at a disadvantage," and those that prohibit linking student performance to teacher evaluations "will be ineligible" for the funding. Several states, including New York, California and Wisconsin, bar such linkages, which also are generally opposed by teachers unions. In addition to the Race to the Top fund, which was established under the $787 billion economic stimulus package enacted in February, the government is making billions more available for educational innovation, technology and other programs, Duncan said. "When you add it all up, the department will be disbursing almost $10 billion for education reform," he said. He urged state governments: "Do not let this unprecedented opportunity slip by." The Education Department plans to gather public comment on the program's rules over the next 30 days before finalizing the criteria and accepting applications for funding this fall. Officials expect to release the first round of aid early next year, with a second tranche following by September 2010.
    3. Education solves poverty through empowerment, political voice, and earning ability.
    ADB 02
    (Asian Development Bank, 8/02, “Policy on Education,” __http://www.adb.org/documents/ policies/education/default. asp?p=policies__)
    The relationship between education and poverty reduction is very clear: educated people have higher income earning potential, and are better able to improve the quality of their lives. Persons with at least a basic education are more likely to avail of a range of social services, and to participate more actively in local and national government through voting and community involvement. They are less likely to be marginalized within the larger society. Education empowers; it helps people become more proactive, gain control over their lives, and widen the range of available choices (Box 2). In fact, the opposite of marginalization is empowerment, and basic education is one of the keys to empowerment, both for individuals and groups.10 The combination of increased earning ability, political and social empowerment, and enhanced capacity to participate in community governance is a powerful instrument for helping break the poverty cycle. In fact, education is the primary vehicle by which economically and socially marginalized adults and children can lift themselves out of poverty and obtain the means to participate fully in their communities.11
    States CP
    Text: The 50 states and relevant sub-national territories should provide a substantial amount of funding to subsidize food purchases for all persons who are eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, including those excluded by quality controls.
    Health Care
    1. Health Care will pass—Democratic cohesion allows for passage.
    Evans, Associate Professor of Political Science, 8/14
    (Sean Evans, Associate Professor of Political Science at Union University, 8/14/09, http://www.jacksonsun.com/ article/20090814
    /OPINION/908140305/Health- care-reform-will-pass)
    Most importantly, Democrats have large, coherent majorities in Congress and a leadership committed to using them to alter the larger political environment. In terms of numbers, congressional Republicans are largely irrelevant. Democrats have a 78-vote advantage in the House and 60 seats in the Senate, enabling them to break Republican filibusters. And the Democratic Party of today is more ideologically coherent. There are really no moderates left in Congress. A moderate Democrat or Republican is not a centrist. One is a moderate relative to the base of one's party. Thus, a moderate Democrat is really a moderate liberal. That is why Blue Dogs vote with their party 88 percent of the time and a majority supported TARP, the auto bailout and the stimulus. So when looking at Blue Dog opposition to health care reform, remember that Blue Dogs are Democrats first. They support the goal of universal health care, which makes negotiating a compromise likely.
    2. Food Stamp’s and Welfare are unpopular in congress.
    Wetzstein, staff writer, 7
    (Cheryl Wetzstein, staff writer, 08-07-2007, “Critical Hunger for Reform,” Washington Times)
    Budget hawks are criticizing efforts to expand a welfare program that many people decline to use, even though the government has spent millions of dollars to tout its benefits. The House voted last month to add $4 billion to the granddaddy of America's domestic nutrition programs for the poor: the Food Stamp Program. The measure, part of the farm bill that passed by a vote of 231-191 on July 27, also would ease the program's eligibility rules and increase food stamp benefits. Anti-hunger advocates are pleased with many of the changes to the program, which provides about $33 billion a year in assistance. "These investments represent real progress in addressing hunger in the U.S.," the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), an anti-hunger advocacy group, said after the bill passed. But Jeffrey M. Jones, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative-leaning think tank, said now is not the time for the government to cajole poor people into using a federal entitlement program. "The drive to reduce entitlement spending while simultaneously expanding participation [in the Food Stamp Program] is tantamount to having two trains racing toward each other on the same track - catastrophic," Mr. Jones wrote in December. "It's one thing to offer a program to people in need," said Chris Edwards, a tax-policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute. "But I don't think we should be beating them over the head with a bat, saying you've got to take federal welfare. I mean, c'mon. My taxpayer money is being used to encourage people to cost me even more tax money? I have a problem with that." High hassle, low value As of 2005, 35 percent of eligible low-income households did not use food stamps, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which administers the program. Stigma is often cited as a reason for not using food stamps, but several people at a faith-based anti-poverty program in Maryland gave more pragmatic reasons for nonparticipation Mr. Besharov said. If it were converted to cash, "people could do a more responsible job in deciding what to eat." At a minimum, it is time to allow states to run the Food Stamp Program, Cato's Mr. Edwards said. The federal government can't keep funding everything it does now, he said. "It seems to me that's a very strong reason to send some of these programs that don't need to be at the federal level back to the states," he said. Congress seems to have no appetite for these kinds of systemic reforms. Moreover, the farm bill may end up being extended as is. It expires Sept. 30; it still has to go through the Senate, and it faces the strong likelihood of a presidential veto because of its funding mechanisms. "I find it unacceptable to raise taxes to pay for a farm bill that contains virtually no reform," Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said July 25, after House Democratic leaders revealed that they would pay for the $4 billion in new food stamp funds with a tax increase on U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies. As a result, some policy observers are already focusing on 2008. "We're not going to get serious farm- or food-subsidy reforms this year," so "my goal is to get presidential candidates thinking about this going ahead," Mr. Edwards said.
    3. Political capital key to healthcare reform
    Chiropractic Economics 7-7-2009
    http://www.chiroeco.com/ chiropractic/news/7360/861/ Prioritizing-healthcare- reform-components/
    INDIANAPOLIS – Faced with a barrage of pressing issues, the Obama administration has placed health-care reform high on its agenda. The timing bodes well for change, according to Aaron E. Carroll, M.D., director of the Indiana University Center for Health Policy and Professionalism, associate professor of pediatrics at the IU School of Medicine and a pediatrician at Riley Hospital for Children. "If the new administration wants to accomplish significant reform, they will need political capital, which they have now," says Dr. Carroll, who is a health services researcher and a Regenstrief Institute affiliated scientist. "We have a government elected with a mandate for change and health care is an area that requires reform. Moreover, with the economy in its current state, with unemployment on the rise, and with health care costs on the ascent, more and more people will not be able to afford insurance or health care. Therefore, more will be in need of reform." According to Dr. Carroll there are now more than 45 million people in America who have not had health insurance for the entire year; almost twice that number lack coverage for a portion of the year. Over the last few years, most of the newly uninsured are from the middle class. As unemployment rises, along with food, utilities and other prices, a growing number of people will be unable to afford health insurance, especially as it gets increasingly expensive.
    4. The impact is a new Great Depression. Reform is key to signal long term fiscal solvency and prevent spiraling sell-offs of US debt
    Boston Globe, 2-23-09
    Budget analysts are worried that a continuing economic crisis will make it impossible to raise sufficient funds from foreign markets to finance the nation's debt. In the last four years, about three-quarters of US debt was purchased by foreign interests, most prominently by China. If other nations lose confidence that the United States will pay its debts, however, some economists fear an international financial crisis could escalate and turn into a worldwide depression. In any case, it is widely expected that debt purchasers will soon demand higher interest rates, which would translate into higher costs for US taxpayers. Obama is being urged by some analysts to start moving toward a balanced budget as soon as possible to send a signal to the world that deficit spending will abate. Yet some analysts are offering Obama conflicting advice, warning him not to repeat what they regard as the mistake of President Franklin Roosevelt, who launched the New Deal but eventually heeded calls to curtail deficit spending, only to see a new recession batter his presidency. A key player in the summit will be Senator Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire Republican who backed out of his commitment to be Obama's commerce secretary and then voted against the stimulus bill. Despite the embarrassment caused by Gregg's about-face, the White House believes that he could be one of its most important allies in the overhaul of Social Security, Medicare, and tax policy. That is because Gregg is the co-sponsor of the measure that would create a bipartisan commission to put together far-reaching recommendations for an up-or-down vote by Congress. In an interview, Gregg said that under such a procedure, the measures could be passed within a year, as long as most of the benefit cuts and tax increases were not slated to take effect until well after the recession is over. "We need an up-or-down vote on a package that will be unquestionably bipartisan and fair," Gregg said, a reference to criticism that Obama's stimulus bill was too partisan. Asked about his hopes for the summit, he said, "It can either be very nice public relations or move the ball down the road on what is an impending fiscal tsunami." Some budget specialists are skeptical. Robert Reischauer, former head of the Congressional Budget Office, said Obama should have seized the opportunity to pair the stimulus bill with the overhaul of Social Security, Medicare, and the tax code. "When you are shoveling out the goodies, you have a greater probability of getting people to sign on to some fiscal diet," said Reischauer, who has been invited to the summit. He said he is worried that nothing will happen on the most difficult issues until political leaders "have a gun at our heads. The system tends to respond only in the face of unavoidable crisis." Analysts across the political spectrum agree that the current path is unsustainable. Unless there is a major budgetary change, federal spending will go from being about 20 percent of the nation's economy to 42 percent in 2050, according to the Concord Coalition. The major reason is that entitlement programs for older Americans are running short of funds. Social Security is slated to pay out more money than it receives by 2017. Obama suggested during his campaign that he might support changing the level of income at which Social Security taxes are calculated. Another frequently mentioned option is raising the retirement age. But any measure will be even more controversial than usual because so many Americans have seen their private retirement plans pummeled by the stock market collapse. Medicare, the government-run healthcare program for older Americans, is already running a deficit, which is expected to increase quickly as baby boomers retire. That is why many analysts are urging Obama to link changes in Medicare with an overhaul of the health system.
    5. Global nuclear war
    Mead, 2009 (Walter Russell, the Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, “Only Makes You Stronger”, The New Republic, February 4, 2009)
    History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.
    6. Health care reform solves poverty.
    Rev. Gregory Seal Livingston, 6-11-09, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ gregory-seal-livingston/ health-care-and-poverty_b_ 214610.html
    For the millions of American children who are living below the poverty line, escaping the cycle can seem impossible. Statistics show that children from poor families are more likely to drop out of school before attaining their high school diplomas -- and that individuals without a high school diploma are more likely to be poor. A recent study from the Schott Foundation shows that 7 of 10 black and brown males in major urban centers don't finish high school. They are also exponentially more likely to be incarcerated and unemployed throughout the course of their lives. Quite simply, the odds are stacked against these young people. One of the ways to explain this crippling cycle is as follows: When you feel better, you do better. When you feel bad, you do bad. In my anti-poverty work I have experienced the truth of this statement firsthand. The more than 10 million adolescents who currently live in low-income families are not just denied life's little luxuries. They also are denied basic human rights, such as healthcare and nutritious food. Many of these children are unable to see a dentist because their families don't have insurance, and their parents can't take time off from work to spend the whole day waiting at the public health facility. Many of them have poor vision but do not get glasses since their families don't have insurance for vision care. Furthermore, many of these children are malnourished, which means they are either underweight or overweight. Just because a child's bones aren't sticking out does not mean that his body is well nourished, as obesity has a myriad of health problems that can complicate a child's life. However, many families are forced to rely on cheap, unhealthy sustenance, including fast food and empty candy store calories. Healthy foods such as produce and lean meats are more expensive than fried, fatty foods, and most families don't have the option of buying the fresh food their children need to be healthy. These are just a few of the very basic health problems that can prevent a child from excelling in school. When children's teeth ache from cavities, when their vision is too blurred to see the chalkboard, and when all they had for breakfast was a candy bar and a soda, it is no wonder that their school performance is poor and their behavior is aggressive. We need to help the impoverished feel better so they can do better. We must work on legislative, faith-based, private and public sector solutions. Poverty is much too pernicious to fight over turf. Healthcare is just one area we must acutely address and until we do the poverty cycle will continue to ruin lives and imprison dreams.
    Case
    The stigma associated with food stamps deters their usage.
    Maryn, Emerson Hunger Fellow, ‘09
    (Nick Maryn, Emerson Hunger Fellow, Food Research and Action Center, February 2009, http://www.frac.org/Access_ Barriers_Food_StampsFEB2008. htm)
    Bartlett and Burstein found in 2004 that 44 percent of all eligible nonparticipants surveyed reported stigma as a reason for not applying for benefits. Twenty percent of all eligible nonparticipants did not want to be seen shopping with food stamps, 24 percent did not want people to know they needed financial help, and 30 did not want to go to the welfare office. A majority (64 percent) of all eligible nonparticipants reported that they did not want to rely on government assistance and that this was one of the reasons they would not participate.
    Stigmatization is dehumanizing – this TURNS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
    Spicker, Professor and Grampian Chair of Public Policy at the Robert Gordon University, ‘84
    (Paul Spicker, Professor and Grampian Chair of Public Policy at the Robert Gordon University, 1984, Stigma and Social Welfare, pg. 51)
    Thirdly, within the context of the service, stigmatized people may be treated as inferior individuals. One of the most degrading features of the old people’s homes described by Townsend (1963) found, in a survey of hospitals for mentally handicapped people, no only a lack of personal possessions and storage space, but a lack of anywhere that was private – a proportion and toilets without doors, and others had them without partitions. Institutions affect the behaviour and character of the residents. Goffman suggests, in Asylums, that much of the bahaviour of people in mental institutions can be understood as a reaction to a situation where sanity seems to have been abandoned rather than pathological madness (Goffman, 1961). And Barton (1959) describes one effect of institutional life as a clinical syndrome, which he terms ‘institutional neurosis’. Many residential institutions are insufficiently protected from these problems. The buildings are physically isolated, the staff – especially trained staff, who are substantially in the majority tend, for their own convenience, and because they are severely overburdened to favour methods that facilitate the control of residents rather than their care, and the residents are not in a position protest (see K.Jones et el. 1967).
    The provision of services reflects an underlying attitude to the people who use social services. They are supposed not to care about the quality of service they receive. Privacy, personal possessions and consideration for personal needs are thought of as dispensable luxuries. The recipient is treated as something less than human, and this treatment both implies and encourages the degradation.
    Spicker, Professor and Grampian Chair of Public Policy at the Robert Gordon University, ‘84
    (Paul Spicker, Professor and Grampian Chair of Public Policy at the Robert Gordon University, 1984, Stigma and Social Welfare, pg. 51)
    Secondly, because stigmatized people are “undeserving, they tend to lack the political influence that is needed to divert resource towards them. In cases where their stigma is morally reprehensible, as it may be, for example, in the case of unemployment, they may have resources diverted away from them; it is more likely though, that they will simply be ignored.
    Food stamps are outdated and encourage dependency, forever destroying solvency.
    Rector, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, ‘03
    (Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation (Domestic Policy), 8/29/03, http://www.heritage.org/Press/ Commentary/ed090103a.cfm)
    Still, steps can be taken to reduce hunger further. The federal government runs multiple food-aid programs. The most important is food stamps. Unfortunately, food stamps is an old-style welfare program, little changed since the War on Poverty. As such, it is a poor vehicle for fighting either poverty or hunger.
    The majority of households receiving food stamps are headed by young able-bodied adults; 70 percent of these individuals perform no work, relying on the government entirely for support. The typical non-elderly recipient has received benefits for more than seven years.
    The food stamp program rewards idle dependence and traps individuals in poverty. We should reform food stamps by taking a lesson from the recent success of welfare reform. The core of the pre-reform welfare system was Aid to Families with Dependent Children, which provided cash aid, mainly to single mothers. AFDC gave one-way handouts to able-bodied recipients; beneficiaries were expected to do little or nothing in exchange for assistance; the program promoted dependence rather than self-help.
    In the mid 1990s, Congress enacted welfare reform, transforming AFDC. One-way handouts through AFDC were abolished. Aid would still be given, but recipients were expected to search or prepare for work in exchange for assistance. The results? After reform, welfare caseloads plummeted and employment of single mothers skyrocketed. As mothers left welfare and took jobs, their poverty rate declined sharply. One key indicator of success is the poverty rate of children of single mothers. Prior to welfare reform, this rate had remained unchanged for a quarter century; after reform the rate dropped dramatically and is now at the lowest point in U.S. history.

    (view changes)
    4:02 pm
  2. page CJ Murayama-Werner edited ... Murayama-Werner Round 8 Murayama-Werner Doubles Murayama-Werner Octas
    ...
    Murayama-Werner Round 8
    Murayama-Werner Doubles
    Murayama-Werner Octas
    (view changes)
    4:00 pm
  3. page Octos edited Aspec You Don’t Specify your agent Voting issue Key to disad and counterplan links based on the…
    Aspec
    You Don’t Specify your agent
    Voting issue
    Key to disad and counterplan links based on the agent which is the only ground on this topic
    Key to education – we are future leaders of America, we need to know how the government works
    Takes out solvency – we don’t know who the agent is, vote neg on presumption
    Violates resolved which is a definite course of action, topicality is an independent voting issue
    T – PLIP
    A. Poverty below poverty line.
    Kaiser, 5 (a project of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and is designed to provide free, up-to-date, and easy-to-use health data on all 50 states (“Total Number of People Living in Poverty based on Household Income (In Thousands), 2005”, **____http://www.statehealthfacts. org/comparemaptable.jsp?cat=1& ind=17____**)
    Persons in poverty are defined as those who make less than 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). The federal poverty level for a family of three in the 48 contiguous states and D.C. was $17,170 in 2007. For more information, please see a detailed description of the federal poverty level provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, available at **____http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/ faq.shtml____**.
    And, for is a term of exclusion
    FALLS 5 B.A., 2000, Southwest Missouri State University; J.D. Candidate 2005, Washburn University School of Law. I 44 Washburn L.J. 355
    Legal scholars have struggled to determine the scope of the public use requirement as envisioned by the Framers. n134 This struggle has occurred due to the lack of evidence as to what the Framers intended by implementing the public use language of the Fifth Amendment. n135 According to strict textualists, the three words "for public use," located just after "taken" but before "without just compensation," imply that private property must be taken for a "public use." n136 Additionally, textualists argue that the phrase "for public use" is narrowing rather than broadening the public use requirement under the Takings Clause. n137 For example, the preposition "for" appears only two other times in the Fifth Amendment, and both times, there is little doubt that the phrases are seen as narrowing the scope of the Amendment. n138 Finally, if the Framers intended a broad interpretation of "for public use," the Framers would have used such a phrase. n139 For example, [*370] the Takings Clause does not state "nor shall private property be taken, unless for public use" or "taken for legitimate public purpose." n140
    B. Aff targets those living above the federal poverty line
    C. Vote Neg –
    1. Predictability – The topic is already huge and social services are broad— federal definition only predictable one
    Clotfelter, public policy @ Duke ‘92
    (Charles T. Clotfelter is Z. Smith Reynolds Professor of Public Policy and Professor of Economics and Law at Duke University, Who benefits from the nonprofit sector? P 135, 1992)
    The principal feature of this reorientation was a shift in focus away from the narrow goal of reducing poverty and economic dependency toward the broader goal of enhancing human development (Kamerman and Kahn 1976, 3). Under the new approach, social services of the son provided by nonprofit human service agencies came to be viewed as something appropriate not simply for the poor, but for a broad cross section of the population as well. How have nonprofit human service agencies coped with the pressures that have resulted from this broadening of the human service client base? To what extent have they remained true to their historic missions? To what extent have they shifted their attention from the poor to broader segments of the population? To the extent such a shift has occurred, what accounts for it? Who, in fact, is served by nonprofit social service agencies and who foots the bill?
    2. Limits – Allowing for cases above the line means that every government policy would be topical because it would affect the poor in some way, massively exploding the topic
    T – SS
    A. Social services aren’t housing, water, healthcare, food, or sanitation. They’re a step up from basic needs
    CARRIBEAN SUB REGIONAL CIVIL SOCIETY FORUM 10/31/8
    CARIBBEAN SUB REGIONAL CIVIL SOCIETY FORUM IN PREPARATION FOR THE FIFTH SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS: “SECURING OUR CITIZENS’ FUTURE BY PROMOTING HUMAN PROSPERITY, ENERGY SECURITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY **____www.sasod.org.gy/files/ FinalCaribCSForumPreliminaryre portofrecommendations.doc____**
    Replace the phrase “social services” as used throughout this section with either “amenities” or “basic needs” given that water, housing, healthcare, food and sanitation are key to human survival and if one can achieve that then they move to the next level which is that of social services.
    B. Affirmative gives basic needs.
    C. Vote neg –
    1. Resolution meaning – their interpretation strips social of any meaning and makes it just a service – discounting words leads to self-serving and arbitrary interpretations.
    2. Limits – basic needs allows anything that saves a life to be a social service – massively expands the topic to include affs like disease prevention.
    Text: The fifty United States state governments and all relevant sub-national actors should substantially increase funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in their region and change the frequency and application process for Food Stamp renewal to match the laxest federally allowed standards. They should set up and implement parallel supplemental nutrition assistance programs for people excluded or hindered by federal supplemental nutrition assistance program quality controls. They should establish a single state-level national application for retailers to be able to receive any state food stamps. The actors of the counterplan should do .05 percent across the board cuts to pay for the counterplan.
    State deficit spending key to short-term economic revival.
    Krugman 8 Paul Krugman—Op-Ed Columnist, December 28, New York Times)
    But even as Washington tries to rescue the economy, the nation will be reeling from the actions of 50 Herbert Hoovers — state governors who are slashing spending in a time of recession, often at the expense both of their most vulnerable constituents and of the nation’s economic future. Tese state-level cutbacks range from small acts of cruelty to giant acts of panic — from cuts in South Carolina’s juvenile justice program, which will force young offenders out of group homes and into prison, to the decision by a committee that manages California state spending to halt all construction outlays for six months. Now, state governors aren’t stupid (not all of them, anyway). They’re cutting back because they have to — because they’re caught in a fiscal trap. But let’s step back for a moment and contemplate just how crazy it is, from a national point of view, to be cutting public services and public investment right now.
    States have jurisdiction.
    House Committee on Ways and Means 03
    (House Committee on Ways and Means, 2003, “FOOD STAMP PROGRAM,” __http://waysandmeans.house.gov/ media/pdf/greenbook2003/ FOODSTAMPS.pdf__)
    The regular SNAP operates in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. The Federal Government is responsible for most of the rules that govern the program, and, with limited variations for Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Virgin Islands, these rules are nationally uniform. However, by law and regulation, States have a number of significant options to vary from Federal administrative, benefit calculation, and eligibility rules, especially for those who also are recipients of their State’s cash welfare programs, and a number of waivers from regular rules and procedures have been (and continue to be) granted. Sales taxes may not be charged on purchases made with SNAP benefits, and SNAP benefits do not directly affect other assistance available to low-income households, nor are they taxed as income. Funding is overwhelmingly Federal. However, States and other jurisdictions have financial responsibility for significant administrative and benefit issuance costs, as well as a portion of expenses related to outreach, nutrition education, and employment/training initiatives for SNAP recipients. States and other operating jurisdictions are, to a degree, liable for erroneous benefit determinations or issuances (as assessed under the SNAP “quality control” system or rules governing major changes in State administrative arrangements and systemic errors, discussed later). Federal Administrative Responsibilities At the Federal level, the program is administered by the Agriculture Department’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). The FNS gives direction to welfare agencies through Federal regulations that define eligibility requirements, benefit levels, and administrative rules. It also is responsible for overseeing and cooperating with State programs for the electronic issuance of SNAP benefits, and for approving and overseeing participation by retail food stores and other outlets that may accept benefits. Other Federal agencies that have administrative roles to play include: the Federal Reserve System (which has some jurisdiction over “electronic benefit transfer (EBT)” methods for issuing benefits), the Social Security Administration (responsible for the Social Security numbers recipients must have, for providing limited application “intake” services information to verify recipients’ income), the Internal Revenue Service (assistance in verifying recipients’ income and assets), the Department of Homeland Security (helping welfare offices confirm alien applicants’ status), and the Agriculture Department’s Inspector General (largely responsible for trafficking investigations). State and Local Administrative Responsibilities States, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, through their local public assistance offices, have primary responsibility for day-to-day administration of the SNAP. Following Federal rules, they determine eligibility, calculate benefits, and issue monthly benefit allotments using Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards under a system largely run through private-sector contracts (for which they are responsible). They also have a significant voice in carrying out employment and training programs and in determining many administrative features of the program (e.g., the extent to which verification of household circumstances is pursued, how certain household expenses are treated, the length of eligibility certification periods, the structure of EBT systems). Most often, the SNAP is operated through the same public assistance agency and staff that runs the State’s TANF Program.
    Health care reform will pass – even the critics admit that Obama will be able to sell it
    Bloomberg, 7-25-09, ____http://www.bloomberg.com/ apps/ news?pid=20601087&sid= aIiiRyGaM.Os____
    The top Senate Republican drafting health-care legislation and a leader of House Democrats balking at the plan said they don’t expect committee and floor-vote delays to keep a bill from passing this year. Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said “it’s going to be difficult” for his panel to approve legislation in the next two weeks. Beyond that, the odds of Congress enacting an overhaul later this year are “very, very good,” the Iowa senator said in an interview with Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing this weekend. Representative Mike Ross of Arkansas, chairman of the health-care task force for the Blue Dog Coalition, about 50 self-described fiscally conservative House Democrats, said it would be a mistake for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to bring the measure to the chamber’s floor before lawmakers take their August recess. “I don’t think they have the votes,” Ross said in a separate “Political Capital” interview. By year’s end, “we will meet the president’s goal of passing meaningful and substantive health-care reform,” he also said.
    Food stamps are politically contentious – the right hates.
    Deborah Lutterbeck Common Cause Magazine, Spring, 1995
    ____http://findarticles.com/p/ articles/mi_m1554/is_n1_v21/ ai_16791409/pg_6/?tag=content; col1____
    Over the years food stamps have been used to buy all sorts of things: laundry detergent, paper plates, handheld surface-to-air missiles, the services of teenage prostitutes and, in one case, a home. These high-profile fraud cases "give political ammunition to people who think the federal government has no role in feeding needy Americans," says Steve Jenning, a congressional aide to Rep. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). "It is like throwing them red meal." Real-life cases such as these, along with the apocryphal horror stories, lead critics like Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) to call the $27 billion program a "multi billion-dollar shakedown of the American taxpayers."
    Pushing controversial legislation burns political capital
    Mark Seidenfeld, Associate Professor, Florida State University College of Law, Iowa Law Review, October 1994
    In addition, the propensity of congressional committees to engage in special-interest-oriented oversight might seriously undercut presidential efforts to implement regulatory reform through legislation. n198 On any proposed regulatory measure, the President could face opposition from powerful committee members whose ability to modify and kill legislation is well-documented. n199 This is not meant to deny that the President has significant power that he can use to bring aspects of his legislative agenda to fruition. The President's ability to focus media attention on an issue, his power to bestow benefits on the constituents of members of Congress who support his agenda, and his potential to deliver votes in congressional elections increase the likelihood of legislative success for particular programs. n200 Repeated use of such tactics, however, will impose economic costs on society and concomitantly consume the President's political capital. n201 At some point the price to the President for pushing legislation through Congress exceeds the benefit he derives from doing so. Thus, a President would be unwise to rely too heavily on legislative changes to implement his policy vision.
    Political capital key to healthcare reform
    Chiropractic Economics 7-7-2009
    __http://www.chiroeco.com/ chiropractic/news/7360/861/ Prioritizing-healthcare- reform-components/__
    INDIANAPOLIS – Faced with a barrage of pressing issues, the Obama administration has placed health-care reform high on its agenda. The timing bodes well for change, according to Aaron E. Carroll, M.D., director of the Indiana University Center for Health Policy and Professionalism, associate professor of pediatrics at the IU School of Medicine and a pediatrician at Riley Hospital for Children. "If the new administration wants to accomplish significant reform, they will need political capital, which they have now," says Dr. Carroll, who is a health services researcher and a Regenstrief Institute affiliated scientist. "We have a government elected with a mandate for change and health care is an area that requires reform. Moreover, with the economy in its current state, with unemployment on the rise, and with health care costs on the ascent, more and more people will not be able to afford insurance or health care. Therefore, more will be in need of reform." According to Dr. Carroll there are now more than 45 million people in America who have not had health insurance for the entire year; almost twice that number lack coverage for a portion of the year. Over the last few years, most of the newly uninsured are from the middle class. As unemployment rises, along with food, utilities and other prices, a growing number of people will be unable to afford health insurance, especially as it gets increasingly expensive.
    Solves econ collapse.
    Boston Globe, 2-23-09
    Budget analysts are worried that a continuing economic crisis will make it impossible to raise sufficient funds from foreign markets to finance the nation's debt. In the last four years, about three-quarters of US debt was purchased by foreign interests, most prominently by China. If other nations lose confidence that the United States will pay its debts, however, some economists fear an international financial crisis could escalate and turn into a worldwide depression. In any case, it is widely expected that debt purchasers will soon demand higher interest rates, which would translate into higher costs for US taxpayers. Obama is being urged by some analysts to start moving toward a balanced budget as soon as possible to send a signal to the world that deficit spending will abate. Yet some analysts are offering Obama conflicting advice, warning him not to repeat what they regard as the mistake of President Franklin Roosevelt, who launched the New Deal but eventually heeded calls to curtail deficit spending, only to see a new recession batter his presidency. A key player in the summit will be Senator Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire Republican who backed out of his commitment to be Obama's commerce secretary and then voted against the stimulus bill. Despite the embarrassment caused by Gregg's about-face, the White House believes that he could be one of its most important allies in the overhaul of Social Security, Medicare, and tax policy. That is because Gregg is the co-sponsor of the measure that would create a bipartisan commission to put together far-reaching recommendations for an up-or-down vote by Congress. In an interview, Gregg said that under such a procedure, the measures could be passed within a year, as long as most of the benefit cuts and tax increases were not slated to take effect until well after the recession is over. "We need an up-or-down vote on a package that will be unquestionably bipartisan and fair," Gregg said, a reference to criticism that Obama's stimulus bill was too partisan. Asked about his hopes for the summit, he said, "It can either be very nice public relations or move the ball down the road on what is an impending fiscal tsunami." Some budget specialists are skeptical. Robert Reischauer, former head of the Congressional Budget Office, said Obama should have seized the opportunity to pair the stimulus bill with the overhaul of Social Security, Medicare, and the tax code. "When you are shoveling out the goodies, you have a greater probability of getting people to sign on to some fiscal diet," said Reischauer, who has been invited to the summit. He said he is worried that nothing will happen on the most difficult issues until political leaders "have a gun at our heads. The system tends to respond only in the face of unavoidable crisis." Analysts across the political spectrum agree that the current path is unsustainable. Unless there is a major budgetary change, federal spending will go from being about 20 percent of the nation's economy to 42 percent in 2050, according to the Concord Coalition. The major reason is that entitlement programs for older Americans are running short of funds. Social Security is slated to pay out more money than it receives by 2017. Obama suggested during his campaign that he might support changing the level of income at which Social Security taxes are calculated. Another frequently mentioned option is raising the retirement age. But any measure will be even more controversial than usual because so many Americans have seen their private retirement plans pummeled by the stock market collapse. Medicare, the government-run healthcare program for older Americans, is already running a deficit, which is expected to increase quickly as baby boomers retire. That is why many analysts are urging Obama to link changes in Medicare with an overhaul of the health system.
    Limiting entitlement spending key to NMD funding.
    Economists for Peace and Security 1-3-2003, “The Full Costs of Ballistic Missile Defense.” __http://www.epsusa.org/ publications/papers/bmd/ execsum.htm__
    The projected rise in spending for BMD as system deployment accelerates in 2007 and after would coincide directly with a steep rise in entitlement spending for the elderly. For the next several years the combined Social Security and Medicare Hospitalization Trust Funds will collect over $100 billion per year more than they disburse and will lend this money to the Treasury. The combined surpluses of the trust funds are projected to begin declining in 2009, however, and to drop by an average of about $18 billion per year through 2015. When the surpluses of these programs decline, this source of revenue for other purposes will dry up, forcing other funds to be found to replace them. Trust-fund surpluses would turn to deficits in about 2017, and these deficits would increase by amounts averaging some $50 billion per year through 2020 and more thereafter. Hence, demands for cash over and above earmarked tax receipts for Social Security and Medicare would swell by such amounts each year and have to be met by cutting benefits or other federal spending, raising revenues and/or borrowing more in bond markets. Some people suggest that the Social Security problems can be solved by switching to private accounts invested partly in corporate stocks. Whether or not that is a good idea, any transition to individual accounts would greatly worsen the federal budget outlook for at least two decades. This analysis does not suggest that a commitment to BMD alone would require cutbacks in Social Security or Medicare. It would, however, be a significant element contributing to a very tight budget environment in which changes in these programs will be made. As the period of BMD’s phase-in stretches onward, the demands of Social Security and Medicare are likely to create desperately tight budgets year in and year out. If spending for BMD systems rises more slowly than assumed by the ambitious deployment dates, and there reaches its peak beyond 2015, spending would collide even more directly with the impending financial crisis in oldage entitlement programs.
    NMD is critical to avoid nuclear war.
    Investor’s Business Daily, 11-7, 2007 __http://www.ibdeditorials.com/ IBDArticles.aspx?id= 279331529327444__
    Is it possible that Democrats are still skeptical that a missile shield will actually work? If so, evidence that it will has reached the point that it can no longer be denied. Or is their lack of support simply due to a reflexive opposition to the military and toward symbols of what they perceive to be projections of U.S. power? Either way, their actions could leave us vulnerable to nuclear attack from a rogue nation such as Iran (see editorial at left) or North Korea, which is supposedly backing down on its nuclear weapons program but will remain a threat as long as its communist regime stays in place. The risk doesn't end, however, with those two legs of the Axis of Evil, both of which are on the State Department's list of terrorist states. Nuclear-armed Pakistan is now an ally, yet it could become an enemy depending on how its internal turmoil is resolved. Both al-Qaida and the Taliban have powerful bases in the region. What if the Musharraf government one day falls and one of those terrorist groups suddenly has the keys to a nuclear arsenal? It's just as plausible that the threat could come from any of the Mideast nations that want to keep up with Iran's nuclear program. With Egypt making its announcement last week, there are now 13 countries in the region that have in the last year said they want nuclear power. They can claim, as Iran has, that they want it merely for energy. But the step from nuclear power to nuclear weapons is not that far. Given the volatility of the region, it would be wise to make sure that all precautions — and that includes a missile defense — are taken. Even Russia, with its extensive nuclear weaponry, could be a threat. President Vladimir Putin has raised objections to America's allying with former Soviet satellites to place U.S. missile defense components in their countries. This, warns Putin in language reminiscent of the Cold War, will turn Europe into a "powder keg." For his part, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has declared: "The arms race is starting again." Are congressional Democrats prepared to leave us only partly protected in a world where nuclear arms might soon begin to spread like a Southern California wildfire? Some have looked at the Democrats' actions and said, emphatically, yes. "Their aim," Heritage Foundation defense analyst Baker Spring said earlier this year, "is to force the U.S. to adopt a position that prohibits it from developing — much less deploying — missile defense interceptors in space under any circumstance and for all time."
    Econ Frontline
    1. Status quo food stamp increase solves their economy internal’s – this is their own author.
    ROGER THUROW and TIMOTHY W. MARTIN 7-7-2009 ____http://online.wsj.com/ article/ SB124691958931402479.html?mod= googlenews_wsj____
    Boost in Food-Stamp Funding percolates through the economy – DAVENPORT, Iowa -- The lush red strawberries caught the attention of Rachel Patrick, a mother of five shopping at a farmers market along the Mississippi River here. She selected two cartons and ignited a little-noticed chain reaction that is an important part of President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan. Ms. Patrick handed a plastic card loaded with her monthly food-stamp allocation to farmer Ed Kraklio Jr., who swiped it through his electronic reader. Mr. Kraklio now regularly takes in several hundred dollars a month from food-stamp sales, a vital new revenue stream that has allowed him to hire another assistant to help tend a cornucopia of fruits and vegetables. The new worker, in turn, spends her income in nearby stores, restaurants and gas stations. The president's stimulus plan has been aimed primarily at the top of the economy, pumping money into banks and car companies and state and city governments. But it also has put more money into the hands of the poorest Americans by boosting monthly food-stamp allocations. Starting in April, a family of four on food stamps received an average of $80 extra. Money from the program -- officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program -- percolates quickly through the economy. The U.S. Department of Agriculture calculates that for every $5 of food-stamp spending, there is $9.20 of total economic activity, as grocers and farmers pay their employees and suppliers, who in turn shop and pay their bills. While other stimulus money has been slow to circulate, the food-stamp boost is almost immediate, with 80% of the benefits being redeemed within two weeks of receipt and 97% within a month, the USDA says. The quick influx of cash into the economy reflects the often desperate situation faced by millions of households struggling to put enough food on the table. For many families, monthly food-stamp allotments rarely last more than a few weeks, leaving them with dwindling grocery supplies -- and sometimes bare cupboards -- by the end of the month. Angie Minix rushes to her local Save-a-Lot grocery store on Chicago's South Side at the start of every month, when her new food-stamp allocation appears on her card. So do many of her neighbors. "You can't even get in the parking lot," she says. On a recent shopping trip, she headed straight to the fresh produce section. Before her increase in April to $606 from $525, Ms. Minix said she would rarely even troll the fresh-food aisles. Now, she talks about how she has introduced her two sons to cauliflower, cabbage, lettuce and cucumbers. Employed by the state as a home aide, she has seen her hours cut and her mortgage payments rise. Still, the food-stamp boost has increased her purchasing power. "I can't buy a new car, but I can feed my family," she says. For years, the food-stamp program was plagued by criticism that it was an inefficient way to help the poor. Many who qualified wouldn't apply because of a lack of information, daunting paperwork or the embarrassment of handing over stamps in a grocery checkout line. And it did little to increase access to more nutritional food, since fresh produce remained scarce in poor areas. In recent years, though, registration has been streamlined; many food pantries offer information and direct sign-up services. The switch from stamps to plastic cards offers a cloak of anonymity. Meanwhile, more farmers markets offering fresh produce in urban areas have adopted the technology to accept the cards. Nationwide, enrollment in the program surged in March to about 33.2 million people, up by nearly one million since January and by more than five million from March 2008. In a recent research report, Pali Capital Inc. estimated that food-stamp spending will increase between $10 billion and $12 billion this year from $34.6 billion in 2008. For grocery stores and farmers markets, the added food-stamp revenue has helped offset slower sales to other consumers. "When we look at the acceptance of food stamps, it becomes part of a larger and longer strategy to us," says Ken Smith, chief financial officer of Family Dollar Stores Inc., a Charlotte, N.C., chain with 6,600 outlets in 44 states. A recent customer survey estimated that about 20% of Family Dollar customers receive food stamps. In Chicago, where the number of households relying on food stamps is up 15% over a year ago, according to the Chicago Community Trust, food-stamp receipts are cushioning the blows of the recession. Without the food-stamp increases, "we would have been hurting more," says Joe Garcia, controller at Moo & Oink Inc., a meat retailer with four stores in the Chicago area. Farmers markets in Iowa have been particularly aggressive in courting the business of food-stamp recipients. At the Davenport market, food-stamp purchases have boosted business at Sawyer Beef. As farmer Norman Sawyer's sales increase, he says he plans to buy more fencing and water tanks to improve grazing areas for his cattle. "This has been a good deal for us," he says.
    0.1_0.1__Toc236912636Econ Advantage Frontline [2/3]
    2. Economy recovering now and further recovery inevitable.
    JACK HEALY NYT Staff Writer, 7-31-2009 ____http://www.nytimes.com/2009/ 08/01/business/economy/01econ. html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss& src=ig____
    The American economy shrank at an annual rate of 1 percent from April through June, the government reported on Friday, stoking hopes that the worst recession since the Great Depression was nearly over. The economy’s long, churning decline leveled off significantly in the second quarter, as stock markets started to recover, corporate profits bounced back, housing markets stabilized and the rampant pace of job losses tapered off. Declines in business investment leveled off, and the economy was aided by big increases in government spending at the federal, state and local levels. “We’re in a deep hole, and now we’ve got to dig ourselves out of it, which is a very difficult task,” Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial, said. But consumer spending fell by 1.2 percent as Americans put more than 5 percent of their disposable income into savings. Economists are concerned that consumer spending, which makes up 70 percent of the economy, will not rebound as long as employers keep cutting jobs and trimming wages. Friday’s report on gross domestic product — a broad gauge of the country’s output — is the government’s rough draft at measuring the economy, and can be revised sharply up or down. The Commerce Department revised its earlier assessments of the country’s woes, saying that the economy contracted at a pace of 6.4 percent in the first three months of the year, compared with an earlier figure of 5.5 percent. Economists had been expecting the second-quarter economy to contract at a pace of 1.5 percent. Now, even with jobs still vanishing and wages flat, many forecasters expect the economy to touch bottom sometime in the next few months. Economists say that businesses from small manufacturers to big automakers are poised to rebuild their depleted inventories, which fell by an annualized $141 billion in the second quarter. That restocking could spur economic growth later this year. “We’re going from recession to recovery, but at least early on, it’s not going to feel like one,” said the chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com, Mark Zandi. “For economists, this is a seminal part in the business cycle, but for most Americans, it won’t mean much.” That is because the job market is expected to remain dismal even after the economy resumes growing. As business picks up after a recession and companies start receiving more orders and restocking their shelves, employers will still resist hiring new full-time workers, and instead pay overtime or rely on part-time employees. To make a dent in the 9.5 percent unemployment rate, economists say, the economy needs to grow at a 3 percent clip and add 300,000 to 400,000 jobs a month — a difficult task after so many months of a recession. Many economists expect an arduous recovery marked by high unemployment and unsteady growth. Not only does the specter of a jobless recovery presage more pain for the country’s 15 million unemployed workers. It could pose a significant political challenge for President Obama, who has asked Americans to be patient as the government’s $787 billion economic stimulus plan takes effect. “The bar’s pretty high to make people outright happy about the economy,” said the chief economist at Action Economics, Michael Englund. The Commerce Department’s quarterly assessment offered a tour through a bleak year. The economy withered during each of the last four quarters, its longest contraction since the 1940s. Businesses cut their investments and laid off millions of workers. Imports and exports tumbled. The country’s gross domestic product fell to $14.15 trillion in the second quarter, from $14.5 trillion in the second quarter of 2008. In interviews, small-business owners across the country say the ground is slowly reforming under their feet, and that business no longer seems to be careening downward.
    3. U.S. action irrelevant – evidence says U.S. downturn caused the recession, not that U.S. growth would end it.
    4. Food stamps not enough – even doubling the amount of people covered wouldn’t inject enough capital into the economy to produce sufficient economic growth.
    Economic problems don’t increase the likelihood of war
    Bennet and Nordstrom, 2k (D. Scott and Timothy Nordstrom, dept of political science @ the University of Penn, 2000,“Foreign Policy) Substitutability and Internal Economic Problems in Enduring Rivalries”, Journal of Conflict resolution, vol.44 no.1 p. 33-61, jstor
    Conflict settlement is also a distinct route to dealing with internal problems that leaders in rivalries may pursue when faced with internal problems. Military competition between states requires large amounts of resources, and rivals require even more attention. Leaders may choose to negotiate a settlement that ends a rivalry to free up important resources that may be reallocated to the domestic economy. In a "guns versus butter" world of economic trade-offs, when a state can no longer afford to pay the expenses associated with competition in a rivalry, it is quite rational for leaders to reduce costs by ending a rivalry. This gain (a peace dividend) could be achieved at any time by ending a rivalry. However, such a gain is likely to bemost important and attractive to leaders when internal conditions are bad and the leader is seeking ways to alleviate active problems. Support for policy change away from continued rivalry is more likely to develop when the economic situation sours and elites and masses are looking for ways to improve a worsening situation. It is at these times that the pressure to cut military investment will be greatest and that state leaders will be forced to recognize the difficulty of continuing to pay for a rivalry. Among other things, this argument also encompasses the view that the cold war ended because the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics could no longer compete economically with the United States. Hypothesis 2: Poor economic conditions increase the probability of rivalry termination. Hypotheses 1 and 2 posit opposite behaviors in response to a single cause (internal economic problems). As such, they demand are search design that can account for substitutability between them.
    No growth for a long time – even with a recovery.
    Bobbie Wood, San Francisco Examiner Staff Writer, 7-10-2009 ____http://www.examiner.com/x- 9404-Menlo-Park-Progressive- Examiner~y2009m7d10-Economist- says-recession-will-last-6- months-longer-outlines-what- to-expect-in-2012____
    Thirdly, Roubini sees a difficult time ahead as Americans adjust to the new economy post-recession: We’ve been growing through a period of time of repeated big bubbles,” he said. “We’ve had a model of ‘growth’ based on overconsumption and lack of savings. And now that model has broken down, because we borrowed too much. We’ve had a model of growth in which over the last 15 or 20 years, too much human capital went into finance rather than more-productive activities. It was a growth model where we overinvested in the most unproductive form of capital, meaning housing. [...] the potential for our future growth is going to be lower, because of the excesses we’ve had. Sustainable growth may mean investing slowly in infrastructures for the future, and rebuilding our human capital. Renewable resources. Maybe nanotechnology? We don’t know what it’s going to be. There are parts of the economy we can expect to lead to a more sustainable and less bubble-like growth. But it’s going to be a challenge to find a new growth model. It’s not going to be simple.”
    Relations resilient – prevent war
    Kenneth Lieberthal, Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and Senior Director for Asia at the National Security Council during the Clinton Administration, 2007, “China’s March on the 21st Century,” __http://www.aspeninstitute.org/ atf/cf/%7BDEB6F227-659B-4EC8- 8F84-8DF23CA704F5%7D/ CMTCFINAL052307.PDF__
    Second, the current U.S.-China relationship is not fragile. Indeed, it has become extraordinarily wide ranging, complex, and deeply embedded in the political and economic systems of both societies. Structurally, the financial, economic, and trade relationship is the most well-developed leg of our current bilateral engagement. It has produced a situation of such deep interdependence that only a very traumatic crisis could significantly change this in the short run. However, such disruption would palpably affect the standards of living in both countries. Despite well-known frictions, therefore, neither side is prepared to damage itself by taking steps to fundamentally disentangle this economic interdependence. China has shown, moreover, that economic cooperation with the United States is sufficiently important to warrant serious concessions when necessary to keep this part of our relationship in reasonably good working order. The existing U.S.-China engagement extends far beyond classic foreign policy and economic spheres. Indeed, almost every major agency in the U.S. government has serious programs and frequent contacts with its Chinese counterpart. This includes such bodies as the Department of Education, Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Energy, the Center for Disease Control, the Environmental Protection Agency, and so forth. In short, the overall U.S.-China relationship is mature: even very significant problems in any one issue area will not disrupt the entire relationship, and a very solid base already exists for future cooperative efforts. Considerable interests in each country have gelled around the specific forms of engagement that the two countries have developed.
    10. Chinese recovery now.
    AFP 8-7-2009 ____http://www.google.com/ hostednews/afp/article/ ALeqM5jH0JMQBrdJOrwF78T8vlISWM r1wQ____
    China's government said Friday it will stick to policies aimed at boosting growth despite tentative signs of recovery in the world's third-largest economy, and will not impose quotas on bank credit. "Promoting steady and fast growth will remain the top priority of our economic work," said Zhu Zhixin, a vice minister at the National Development and Reform Commission, China's top economic planning agency. "We will continue to implement our active fiscal policy and moderately loose monetary policy" to consolidate "economic stabilisation and recovery," he told reporters at a briefing in Beijing. Government policy was still crucial in maintaining growth due to the volatile world economy, while private investment and consumption remained sluggish in China, he said.
    11. Chinese economic collapse inevitable
    Shan ’04 (Wei-jen, managing director at Newbridge Capital & worked at World Bank,“China’s Peaceful Rise?” Federal News Service, 11-21, ln)
    I think there are three hurdles, time hurdles, that China will have to overcome. The first one being that in about three years, Chinese under WTO will have to open the banking market to foreign competition. At that time, foreign banks will be able to conduct local-currency banking business which will end the virtual state monopoly on the banking system, which means it will be very difficult for the state banks to channel all the savings rate into inefficient producers, and most of them are state-owned companies. And when that happens, this massive investment in fixed assets and this massive capacity expansion will likely stop, and therefore having a large (stunting ?) effect on the continuous economic growth that China is seeing today.
    Relations high now – arms deal and diplomacy.
    Mihir Oza, 7-31-2009 __http://media.www.thetriangle. org/media/storage/paper689/ news/2009/07/31/EdOp/U.s- Grows.Closer.To.India-3753656. shtml__
    A growing alliance between the United States and India has been demonstrated during this past month. Much of the change has been due to the gregarious efforts of our very own Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton. Since the new Obama administration took office, she has been making bold moves as one of our best resources at rekindling and fostering our international relations. Earlier in July, Clinton spent some time with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and various other political leaders in India. Clinton "with both poetry and pose" announced at a local university in New Delhi, India that we pledge to "embark on a new era of deeper relations with India," according to a recent New York Times article. Above all else, I pondered whether this newfound friendship was due to any financial or military gain by both nations. Apparently the Obama administration has struck a deal that "will open the door to lucrative military sales by the United States to India." This new covenant allows for the establishment of "two sites where American companies [could] build nuclear power plants." Although I dislike this power sharing game supplied by countries handling nuclear warfare, I'm at ease with the strategy employed by our political leaders for it "is a symbolic acknowledgment of India's rising role in the world," according to a New York Times article. However, Clinton makes it clear that the growing ties between the two nations go further than a nuclear alliance.
    There is no root cause of terrorism—attempts to rationalize reflect narrow understanding
    Micheal Radu – P.h.D, senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. 2002 “the futile search for the root causes of terrorism” __http://www.unc.edu/depts/ diplomat/archives_roll/2002_ 07-09/radu_futile/radu_futile. html__
    It is hubris to attempt to explain terrorism in general, let alone in its many different forms across time and place. The following observations are therefore intended only to refocus the debate, not to "explain" terrorism. The desire to identify "root causes" and so be able to correct them is natural. Root causes "have" to be there—at least in the American mind. There must be an explanation for the inexplicable: why a teenaged Palestinian girl would blow herself up in an attempt to kill as many Jews as possible, or privileged young men of the Arab world plot to kill themselves while murdering thousands of American civilians. But much as the frequently asked question this past fall, "Why do they hate us?" had flawed premises and yielded flawed answers, framing the question as "What are the root causes of terrorism?" leads too easily to looking at the usual suspects: "poverty," "injustice," "exploitation," and "frustration." Like the man in the parable who looks for his lost keys under the streetlight instead of where he lost them because "the light's better," it's easier to look in these familiar areas than to face and address the real problems.
    4. Terrorists wont use WMDs—Operational risks to high
    Brian Jenkins, senior advisor to the president of the RAND Corporation, 2006 “Unconquerable Nation: Knowing our Enemy, Strengthening Ourselves,” ____http://www.rand.org/pubs/ monographs/2006/RAND_MG454. pdf____
    Showmanship in carrying out spectacular attacks demonstrates prowess. Operations therefore must be successful. It is not necessary that the attackers survive—martyrdom demonstrates their commitment and adds to the enemy’s alarm—but the operation must not be seen to fail. Ambitious operations must be weighed against risks of failure, since failure brings humiliation to the attackers and embarrasses the enterprise. Even more seriously, jihadists believe that God’s will is expressed in success and failure. To succeed is to have God’s support. Failure signals God’s disapproval. As a consequence, jihadist planners are conservative. Typical of terrorist planning, the suitability of the operation comes first, feasibility second. Considerations for operational feasibility include access to relevant information, the accessibility of the target, the level of security, the availability of reliable people, physical requirements, complexity, and costs. Old playbooks predominate. Catastrophic attacks with unconventional weapons remain jihadist ambitions, but determined fighters with conventional explosives remain the most reliable weapons. Multiple attacks increase death and destruction, but operations with too many moving parts risk failure. Jihadist planners continue to think big but execute conservatively.
    1. Food stamps count IRA’s as assets discouraging saving – the program incentives wasteful spending and limits its ability to expand.
    David C. John Senior Research Fellow with the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation September 22, 2007 “Passing the Asset Test for Food Stamps” __http://www.heritage.org/Press/ Commentary/ed092207a.cfm__
    Imagine a government policy that punished people for doing the right thing, or one that forced workers in financial straits to so deplete their assets that they end up permanently dependent on federal assistance. Actually, there's no need to imagine: the Food Stamp program does both. The problem is in the program's asset test rules. Because of these rules, the Food Stamp program, which provides monthly food assistance to nearly 25 million low-income workers, punishes many workers who have already saved for retirement -- and it may end up discouraging future workers from saving at all. This is exactly the reverse of what's needed. Welfare reform has helped move thousands of families into employment and onto a path to full participation in the economy. But these reforms are incomplete as long as we discourage working families from engaging in the very behaviors that lift them out of poverty. Policies that penalize saving need to be changed, and the current Food Stamp asset test should top the list. The Food Stamp program wisely includes asset tests to make sure that the people who receive assistance really need it. Since 2002, though, those asset tests have specifically excluded money held in 401(k)-type retirement plans. This makes sense: Workers who drain their retirement savings due to a temporary income problem will just need more federal assistance once they retire. Plus, workers who spend money in a 401(k)-type retirement account must both pay income taxes on that money and a 10 percent penalty for using it before they reach retirement. Unfortunately, the exemption for 401(k) plan retirement savings doesn't go far enough. Individuals who are laid off or in the process of changing jobs regularly have their 401(k) savings automatically rolled into an IRA. Retirement savings in an IRA are not automatically exempt from the Food Stamp asset test despite the fact that early withdrawal of those savings results in the same tax penalties as an early withdrawal from a 401(k). So if a worker is forced to turn to food stamps because he or she lost a job when a factory closed, and the company rolls his or her retirement savings from a 401(k) to an IRA, they become subject to the Food Stamp asset test. This is a widespread problem. Significant numbers of moderate- to low-income workers who don't have access to employer-sponsored retirement plans, including many small-business employees, the self-employed and independent contractors, are also more likely to have their retirement savings in an IRA than in a 401(k). Take the story of Linda Jean George, a former substitute teacher from Arcade, N.Y. Six years ago, Linda left her job to raise her two children and help her husband run the family's dairy farm. Following the recommendation of a financial advisor, she rolled her 401(k) money into an IRA. With falling milk prices, their family income dropped to about $10,000 in 2006, where it remains. When Linda applied for food stamps, her family was turned down because of her IRA savings. She was told that her family wouldn't be eligible for food stamps unless she liquidated her IRA (paying both taxes and a penalty for early withdrawal) and spent that money. The long-term effect will be that today's temporary financial problem becomes tomorrow's retirement crisis.
    2. Alt causes to people accessing food stamps.
    Abramsky, senior fellow at the New York-based think tank Demos, 5-18
    (Sasha Abramsky, senior fellow at the New York-based think tank Demos, May 18, 2009, “America's hunger crisis,” ____http://www.guardian.co.uk/ commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/ may/18/us-economy-food-stamps- hunger-poverty____)
    People are afraid to apply, embarrassed to apply, can't take time off from work to go to aid offices during the week or don't know about the programme – a problem likely to worsen as funding for state outreach programmes takes a hit because of state budget crises. That means there are at least 10 million more people now poor enough for aid who don't receive it.
    0.1_0.1__Toc236912651Solvency Frontline [1/2]
    3. Turn – increasing the number of people with access to the program kills effectiveness of the program.
    Alfred Lubrano Inquirer Staff Writer 7-31-2009 __http://www.philly.com/ inquirer/local/pa/20090731_Pa_ _broadens_eligibility_for_ food_stamps.html__
    "Remember," Chilton said, "half of food-stamp recipients are children." But, she added, "while food stamps are good medicine, the dosage is not enough." She said food stamps still were not keeping up with the cost of food in the Philadelphia area. "By the middle of the third week of the month, many Philadelphia families are out of food stamps," she said, adding that the change in food stamps "is not going to solve hunger." Further complicating matters is an ongoing strain on the system: More people need food stamps than ever before, but there are fewer state workers to process the claims, meaning many applicants miss out on benefits, antihunger advocates say. With the boost in eligible families, those stresses will only increase, advocates add. Ironically, Meeks said, many DPW caseworkers who help administer the food-stamp program are now applying for food stamps because their paychecks have been cut while the state's budget is in limbo.
    4. Quality control accountability critical to preventing waste.
    Haskins, Senior Fellow, Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution, 01
    (Ron Haskins, Senior Fellow, Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution, June 27, 2001, “The U.S. Federal Food Stamp Program and Its Relationship to Welfare Reform,” __http://www.brookings.edu/ testimony/2001/0627welfare_ haskins.aspx__)
    And hanging over all the federal Food Stamp rules and regulations is the federal Quality Control (QC) system. The QC system, of course, is necessary because Food Stamp benefits are paid for entirely by federal funds but states administer the program. If there were not some mechanism to hold states accountable for their administrative accuracy, there could be substantial waste in the program—and big increases in federal spending. However, the problem arises because, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (2000) has shown, in virtually every state Food Stamp cases that include a worker have higher error rates than cases in which no one works. The reason for this difference is clear enough. Especially among low-income families, there are frequent changes in earnings because low-income workers experience frequent changes in hours and even jobs. Thus, it is very difficult for states to know about, let alone keep track of, these frequent changes in earnings. As a result, state Food Stamp calculations for working families are often based on outdated information and are therefore in error. These errors are detected by the Quality Control program and often result in fines against the state.
    Food Insecurity
    Food stamps don’t solve hunger – fraud etc.
    Jon HOBBS 2004 , American Institute for Full Employment, Steps to Employment Prosperity and Success, Spring, __http://www.fullemployment.org/ pdf/STEPS%20SPRING%20O4.pdf__
    Food Stamps—one of the largest federal welfare programs, with annual costs approaching $24 billion—are intended to help low-income families purchase nutritious food. So, how effective are Food Stamps in meeting its goal? Not very, according to experts. Depending on one study, only between 17 and 47 cents of each Food Stamp dollar are used to increase the amount of food a family purchases. The rest effectively supplements recipients’ other income, allowing them to increase purchases of non-food items. In other words, from half to four-fifths of Food Stamp dollars aren’t even spent on food. The program also continues to be vulnerable to fraud. Although attempts have been made to curb the flagrant abuses in the 70s and 80s, where it was not uncommon to see Food Stamp coupon discount rates openly advertised in inner cities, the program is still susceptible to fraud. For example, an electronic benefit transfer (EBT) card has replaced Food Stamp coupons, but implementing regulations do not require an individual to present picture identification when using the card.
    Security
    The construction of the world as violent absent growth re-entrenches the need to violently re-order the world
    Mark Neocleous, Professor of Critique of Political Economy at Brunel University (UK), 2008 (“Critique of Security.” Pg. 101-102. )
    In other words, the new international order moved very quickly to reassert the connection between economic and national security: the commitment to the former simultaneously a commitment to the latter, and vice versa. As the doctrine of national security was being born, the major player on the international stage would aim to use perhaps its most important power of all – its economic strength – in order to re-order the world. And this re-ordering was conducted through the idea of ‘economic security’. Despite the fact that ‘economic security’ would never be formally defined beyond ‘economic order’ or economic well-being’, the significant conceptual consistency between economic security and liberal order-building also had a strategic ideological role. By playing on notions of ‘economic well-being’, economic security seemed to emphasize economic and thus ‘human’ needs over military ones. The reshaping of global capital, international order and the exercise of state power could thus look decidedly liberal and ‘humanitarian’. This appearance helped co-opt the liberal Left into the process and, of course, played on individual desire for personal security by using notions such as ‘personal freedom’ and ‘social equality’. Marx and Engels once highlighted the historical role of the bourgeoisie in shaping the world according to its own interests. “The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the glove. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere… It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them… to become bourgeois in themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.” In the second half of the twentieth century this ability to ‘batter down all Chinese walls’ would still rest heavily on the logic of capital, but would also come about it part under the guise of security. The whole world became a garden to be cultivated – to be recast according to the logic of security. In the space of fifteen years the concept ‘economic security’ had moved from connoting insurance policies for working people to the desire to shape the world in a capitalist fashion – and back again. In fact, it has constantly shifted between these registers ever since, being used for the constant reshaping of world order and resulting in a comprehensive level of intervention and policing all over the globe. Global order has come to be fabricated and administered according to a security doctrine underpinned by the logic of capital-accumulation and a bourgeois conception of order. By incorporating within it a particular vision of economic order, the concept of national security implies the interrelatedness of so many different social, economic, political and military factors that more or less any development anywhere can be said to impact on liberal order in general and America’s core interests in particular. Not only could bourgeois Europe be recast around the regime of capital, but so too could the whole international order as capital not only nestled, settled and established connections, but also ‘secured’ everywhere.
    The construction of “terrorist” threats re-entrench these power structures that eradicate dissenting populations
    Alexander Marcopoulos, J.D. from Tulane, BA in Economics and Philosophy, 2009 (“Terrorizing Rhetoric: The Advancement of US Hegemony Through the Lack of a Definition of ‘Terror’”. __http://works.bepress.com/ context/alexander_marcopoulos/ article/1000/type/native/ viewcontent__. Google Scholar. )
    In (perhaps strategically) failing to provide a static, comprehensive definition of “terrorism,” the U.S. has been able to construct terrorism as an existential threat in much the same way it constructed the threat of communism during the Cold War. During the Cold War, the U.S. engaged in ideological warfare with the Soviet Union and in doing so, constructed a threat out of all that was related to communism or the Soviets. This nebulous existential threat was not immediately grounded in a fear of invasion or direct harm, but began as a fear of a different ideological system coming to dominate the world’s thought and politics. By implementing the manipulation of fear into its politics, the U.S. was able to supercharge its already dominant position in the world by persuading countries to come under its protective umbrella or else face the threat of communism. This section of the Paper will compare the U.S.’s treatment of the word “terror” to U.S. rhetoric during the Cold War in order to explain the inner-workings of how power is derived from language. The Paper will then proceed to an explanation of how the lack of a static U.S. definition of “terror” has allowed the Bush Administration to use fear as a political tool. In doing so, it will attempt to draw parallels between the U.S. War on Terror and the Cold War in order to demonstrate how language was used in each to create fear and exert power. In declaring a general War on Terror, President George W. Bush arguably started a cold war of his very own. Just as during the Cold War, the U.S. now finds itself in an era defined by an almost complete commitment of resources to a fight against a “vast, unseen and malignant adversary.” Both the Cold War and the current U.S. War on Terror are based on the fear of a foreign, ideologically different, and thus unpredictable other. However, instead of a pervasive fear of Soviet communists taking over the world and infiltrating American society, the War on Terror is based on an equally pervasive fear of religious fundamentalists willing to do anything to destroy Western ideals and the Western way of life. In both the Cold War and the current War on Terror, the use of language as a tool of power functioned to create a sense of fear as a vehicle for commanding the formation of policy. Language is most certainly a form of power. While language usually typifies form in the form/content distinction, language also serves to impact content by affecting people’s conceptions of truth. To be able to affect the way people think must have at least some impact on the way people act, if not a tremendous one. By giving meaning to the words people use, he who controls language can alter a person’s idea of truth. Though not an act of forceful bullying, the manipulation of language nonetheless constitutes an exertion of power and control. According to French philosopher Michel Foucault: Each society has its regime of truth, its ‘general politics’ of truth: that is, the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true; the mechanisms and instances which enable one to distinguish true and false statements, the means by which each is sanctioned; the techniques and procedures accorded value in the acquisition of truth; the status of those who are charged with saying what counts as true. While Foucault speaks primarily of governments and those in positions of dominance exerting control over individual people, his characterization of the effect of shaping truth is applicable in the context of nation states. By equating the word “communism” with godlessness and malevolence, Americans during the Cold War turned a clash of ideology into a fight between good and evil. In this way, the dominant voice in American politics gave no meaning to the word “communism” and thereby constructed people’s conceptions of the truth regarding that word. Much like the Cold War, the War on Terror employs a logic that labels people and groups in a way that characterizes them as categorically evil. By invoking the word “terror,” a word that has come to connote evil, U.S. policymakers have been able to create an element of fear sufficient to justify the eradication of those people or groups it terms “terrorist.” Fear created by language that operates in that regard is a “political commodity [that] has no practical limits.” During the Cold War, fear was used to influence people to support the U.S., or else face losing their freedom to the spread of communism. Termed the “red scare,” this tactic involved the use of rhetoric through propaganda campaigns to draw a line between the righteous, moral self (the United States), and the evil, godless other (the Soviet Union). To the “Western” world, Soviet leaders, citizens, and organizations lost their identity as such and came to be seen only as communists. Their mere existence was constructed as a threat through the rhetoric of U.S. policymakers. In a highly effective, albeit twisted fashion, the U.S. was thus able to maintain its hegemony, as it could justify policies of expansion, including the stationing of U.S. troops abroad, the formation of certain alliances, and the participation in foreign wars all in the name of containing communism. Whereas the word “communism” functioned as a trump card in justifying U.S. action during the Cold War, the word “terror” has come to serve U.S. policy in the U.S. War on Terror in quite the same way. During the Cold War, the U.S. employed a policy whereby it targeted communism as an existential threat. In doing so, the U.S. justified the exertion of its influence (militarily and otherwise) in almost every region of the world. It is by such means that the U.S. engaged in conflicts in North Korea and Vietnam and provided economic assistance to Eastern European nations through programs such as the Marshall Plan. In a like manner, the U.S. has recently used its vague, definition-less concept of “terror” to link the existential threat of terrorism to what it refers to as “rogue states” in projecting its power globally. Perhaps the best example of this power projection lies in U.S. influence over Southeast Asia following the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGEThe U.S. employed its almost limitless War on Terror to act as a hegemon in Southeast Asia in a few ways. First, just as it did so elsewhere, the U.S. pushed hard for support from nations in Southeast Asia in carrying out its anti-terror operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. By not having a static definition of “terror,” the U.S. arguably made it apparent to the nations it approached that failure to cooperate could mean the risk of being labeled “terrorist,” and then being targeted as such. Additionally, the invocation of the word “terror” also led to an exertion of “hard power” hegemony by the U.S. in Asia, as the U.S. increased its military presence there in order to contain and eradicate groups in the region that it deemed “terrorist.” As submitted above, the lack of a definition of “terror” has given the U.S. much latitude in engaging in the practice of labeling certain groups as terrorist according to its strategic needs. Finally, the U.S. used that same tactic to take the lead as a “soft power” hegemon in eliciting the cooperation of ASEAN member states in rooting out terrorist organizations in Southeast Asia. There is no reason to believe that the coalition-building initiatives discussed by the coming Obama Administration will not use the word “terror” to garner support for, e.g. operations in Afghanistan, in like fashion. The absence of a static U.S. definition of “terror” is the key vehicle for the U.S. to employ the politics of fear in its War on Terror. There are a few critical reasons why this is true. First of all, people often exhibit an innate fear of the unknown. Without a definitive, concrete archetype establishing what constitutes a terrorist act and what does not, there is a certain mystery created around the terrorist. The construction of the terrorist as the unknown other provides an incentive for countries to jump on the U.S.’s bandwagon against terrorism, as it gives them an opportunity to define themselves as coherent and righteous versus the incoherent, immoral terrorist other. The U.S. employed the same tactic during the Cold War, as it characterized the Soviet Union as an “evil empire” and invited other countries to support it in a system of alliances pitting the capitalist, morally-upright, free world against the idea of communism. This approach was effective in terms of establishing a sphere of influence during the Cold War and appears to be so in the context of the War on Terror, as evidenced by the quickness with which the international community allowed UN Security Council Resolution 1373 to pass.
    Security discourses create a state of permanent warfare
    Mark Neocleous, Professor of Critique of Political Economy at Brunel University (UK), 2008 (“Critique of Security.” Pg. 115-117)
    One of the ways this fear was put to work and the citizenry ‘aroused’ was through the elision of the differences between war and peace. The movers and shakers in the US state claimed that, in theory at least, democracies generally separate peace from war as distinct periods and processes, and that this distinction tends to be obliterated by ‘totalitarian’ regimes. And yet they also claimed that since we live in an age of ‘permanent antagonism and conflict’ (with ‘no lasting abatement of the crisis’), as the NSC-68 put it – ‘the smaller the gap between peacetime and wartime purposes, the greater is the likelihood that a successful military effort will be politically successful as well’. NSC-20/1 noted that ‘a democracy cannot effect, as the totalitarian state sometimes does, a complete identification of its peacetime and wartime objectives’, but nonetheless suggested that the US needed to ‘reduce as far as possible the gap between them’. Indeed, one Policy Planning Staff Memo of May 1948 suggested that liberal democracies had been ‘handicapped’ by ‘attachment to the concept of a basic difference between peace and war’ and claimed that what was needed was the idea of ‘political warfare’ as ‘the logical application of Clausewitz in time of peace’. NSC-20/1 thus cites Clausewitz’s claim that ‘war is a continuation of policy, intermingled with other means’. The intent was clear: ‘the basic objective outlined…is one which would be valid for peace as well as for war’. Hence it is ‘essential that this government formulate general objectives which are capable of sustained pursuit both in time of peace and in the event of war’. In other words, since the enemy is as much within as without, and since the objectives, gears and insecurities running through the body politic are present in times of both peace and war, the distinction between the two is, in essence, obliterated. War and politics become a unity, and ‘political warfare’ is set in place mobilizing ‘all the means at a nation’s command’. In this sense, the national security state sought to legitimize the exercise of war powers during periods of peace by transforming the concept of ‘peace’ as applied to liberal democracy. ‘Such a peace as the United States is experiencing is not a peace; it is, in fact, as war’. This transformation was effected through the notion of security, especially in its ideological circuit with emergency. Herein lies a further reason to explain the emergence of ‘national security’ rather than ‘national defense’ beyond that discussed at the beginning of Chapter 3. As Eyal Weizman has noted, the logic of ‘defense’ deals with wars and seeks to constitute with borders and barriers a clear distinction between ‘inside’ and ‘outside’, between the territory within the state and that which is exterior to it. “The logic of ‘security’, on the other hand, presupposes that the danger is already inside, presented by a population in which the subversive elements exist…if defense engages directly with the concept of war, security engages with the temporarily ill-defined and spatially amorphous ‘conflict’ not only between societies, but within them as well.” Eliding the distinction between military practice and the everyday political administration of civil society thereby helps in ‘securing’ a general willingness among the citizenry to submit to wartime discipline and emergency powers on a permanent basis.
    It is this project of total war, total security and permanent emergency that requires the constant reiteration of the existence of fear and danger. Key figures in the national security state such as Nitze and Acheson came to use the various drafts of NSC documents, and especially NSC-68, to simultaneously promote more aggressive foreign policies and to frighten Americans into supporting those policies. By 1949 one Cold Warrior could openly employ a Kierkegaardian frame and state that the ‘reign of insecurity’ means that ‘anxiety is the official emotion of our time’. This anxiety permeated all the way through the national security state in the early Cold War and after. From panic over the Soviet Union to concern over the ‘loss’ of China all the way down to ‘the posture of the world’s most powerful state in the 1980s, a sumo wrestler, as it were, perched on a chair at the sight of a socialist Nicaraguan mouse appearing “on its doorstep” (which is to say, approximately the distance which separates London from Albania)’, the national security state has constantly exhibited one insecurity, fear or anxiety after another, turning the entire social symbolic system surrounding national security into the alter image of a collectively anticipated spectacle of disaster. In peddling the fear of disintegration and crisis, the ideology of security is the paranoid style in politics writ large.
    This security framing culminates in perpetual apocalypse in the name of survival
    Peter Coviello, Asst Prof of English – Bowdoin, ‘1 (Queer Frontiers, ed. Boone, author’s italics)
    Perhaps. But to claim that American culture is at present decisively postnuclear is not to say that the world we inhabit is in any way post-apocalyptic. Apocalypse, as I began by saying, changed – it did not go away. And here I want to hazard my second assertion: if, in the nuclear age of yesteryear, apocalypse signified an event threatening everyone and everything with (in Jacques Derrida’s suitably menacing phrase) “remainderless and a-symbolic destruction,”6 then in the postnuclear world apocalypse is an affair whose parameters are definitively local in shape and in substance, apocalypse is defined now by the affliction it brings somewhere else, always to an “other” people whose very presence might then be written as a kind of dangerous contagion, threatening the safety and the prosperity of a cherished “general population.” This fact seems to me to stand behind Susan Sontag’s incisive observation, from 1989, that, “Apocalypse is now a long-running serial: not ‘Apocalypse Now’ but ‘Apocalypse from Now On.’”7 The decisive point here in the perpetuation of the threat of apocalypse (the point Sontag goes on, at length, to miss) is that apocalypse is ever present because, as an element in a vast economy of power, it is ever useful. That is, through the perpetual threat of destruction – through the constant reproduction of the figure of apocalypse – agencies of power ensure their authority to act on and through the bodies of a particular population. No one turns this point more persuasively than Michel Foucault, who in the final chapter of his first volume of The History of Sexuality addresses himself to the problem of a power that is less repressive than productive, less life-threatening than, in his words, “life-administering.” Power, he contends, “exerts a positive influence on life … [and] endeavors to administer, optimize, and multiply it, subjecting it to precise controls and comprehensive regulations.” In his brief comments on what he calls “the atomic situation,” however, Foucault insists as well that the productiveness of modern power must not be mistaken for a uniform repudiation of violent or even lethal means. For as “managers of life and survival, of bodies and the race,” agencies of modern power presume to act “on the behalf of the existence of everyone.” Whatsoever might be construed as a threat to life and survival serves to authorize any expression of force, no matter how invasive or, indeed, potentially annihilating. “If genocide is indeed the dream of modern power,” Foucault writes, “this is not because of a recent return to the ancient right to kill; it is because power is situated and exercised at the level of life, the species, the race, and the large-scale phenomena of population.”8 For a state that would arm itself not with the power to kill its population, but with a more comprehensive power over the patterns and functioning of its collective life, the threat of an apocalyptic demise, nuclear or otherwise, seems a civic initiative that can scarcely be done without
    Our alternative is to affirm full employment while criticizing the security discourse of the 1AC. Only by criticizing the assumptions of the 1AC can we break down totalitarian power structures.
    Mark Neocleous, Professor of Critique of Political Economy at Brunel University (UK), 2008 (“Critique of Security.” Pg. 185-186)
    The only way out of such a dilemma, to escape the fetish, is perhaps to eschew the logic of security altogether – to reject it as so ideologically loaded in favor of the state that any real political thought other than the authoritarian and reactionary should be pressed to give it up. That is clearly something that cannot be achieved within the limits of bourgeois thought and thus could never even begin to be imagined by the security intellectual. It is also something that the constant iteration of the refrain ‘this is an insecure world’ and reiteration of one fear, anxiety and insecurity after another will also make it hard to do. But it is something that the critique of security suggests we may have to consider if we want a political way out of the impasse of security. This impasse exists because security has now become so all-encompassing that it marginalizes all else, most notably the constructive conflicts, debates and discussions that animate political life. The constant prioritizing of a mythical security as a political end – as the political end – constitutes a rejection of politics in any meaningful sense of the term. That is, as a mode of action in which differences can be articulated, in which the conflicts and struggles that arise from such differences can be fought for and negotiated, in which people might come to believe that another world is possible – that they might transform the world and in turn be transformed. Security politics is, in this sense, an anti-politics, dominating political discourse in much the same manner as the security state tries to dominate human beings, reinforcing security fetishism and the monopolistic character of security on the political imagination. We therefore need to get beyond security politics, not add yet more ‘sectors’ to it in a way that simply expands the scope of the state and legitimizes state intervention in yet more and more areas of our lives. Simon Dalby reports a personal communication with Michael Williams, co-editor of the important text Critical Security Studies, in which the latter asks: if you take away security, what do you put in the hole that’s left behind? But I’m inclined to agree with Dalby: there is no hole. The mistake has been to think that there is a hole and that this hole needs to be filled with a new vision or revision of security in which it is re-mapped or civilized or gendered or humanized or expanded or whatever. All of these ultimately remain within the statist political imaginary, and consequently end up re-affirming the state as the terrain of modern politics, the grounds of security. The real task is not to fill the supposed hole with yet another vision of security, but to fight for an alternative political language which takes us beyond the narrow horizon of bourgeois security and which therefore does not constantly throw us into the arms of the state. That’s the point of critical politics: to develop a new political language more adequate to the kind of society we want. Thus while much of what I have said here has been of a negative order, part of the tradition of critical theory is that the negative may be as significant as the positive in setting thought on new paths. For if security really is the supreme concept of bourgeois society and the fundamental thematic of liberalism, then to keep harping on about insecurity and to keep demanding ‘more security’ (while meekly hoping that this increased security doesn’t damage our liberty) is to blind ourselves to the possibility of building real alternatives to the authoritarian tendencies in contemporary politics. To situate ourselves against security politics would allow us to circumvent the debilitating effect achieved through the constant securitizing of social and political issues, debilitating in the sense that ‘security’ helps consolidate the power of the existing forms of social domination and justifies the short-circuiting of even the most democratic forms. It would also allow us to forge another kind of politics centered on a different conception of the good. We need a new way of thinking and talking about social being and politics that moves us beyond security. This would perhaps be emancipator in the true sense of the word. What this might mean, precisely, must be open to debate. But it certainly requires recognizing that security is an illusion that has forgotten it is an illusion; it requires recognizing that security is not the same as solidarity; it requires accepting that insecurity is part of the human condition, and thus giving up the search for the certainty of security and instead learning to tolerate the uncertainties, ambiguities and ‘insecurities’ that come with being human; it requires accepting that ‘securitizing’ an issue does not mean dealing with it politically, but bracketing it out and handing it to the state; it requires us to be brave enough to return the gift.
    We should do the plan without its security logic
    Mark Neocleous, Professor of Critique of Political Economy @ Brunel University (UK), 2008 (“Critique of Security.” Pg. 9-10. )
    To this end, the aim of the critique of security is not a set of proposals for democratizing security, humainizing security, balancing security with liberty, or any other policy proposal to improve the wonderful world of security. There are more than enough security intellectuals for that. The aim is to play a part in freeing the political imagination from the paralysis experienced in the face of security – to free ourselves from security fetishism by provoking and intriguing others to try and think politics without security. It is often said that security is the gift of the state; perhaps we ought to return the gift.

    (view changes)
    3:45 pm
  4. page BY Blank-Yeh edited ... Rd. 6 vs. LO Saha-Shrestha Rd. 8 vs. SS Kang-Madsen Octos
    ...
    Rd. 6 vs. LO Saha-Shrestha
    Rd. 8 vs. SS Kang-Madsen
    Octos
    (view changes)
    3:45 pm
  5. page PorterRothfeld Aff Food Stamps v. CJ Murayama-Werner edited Contention 1: Inherency Despite the stimulus, food stamp provisions re still inadequate. Murray,…
    Contention 1: Inherency
    Despite the stimulus, food stamp provisions re still inadequate.
    Murray, Staff Writer, The New Hampshire, 4-10
    (Brittney Murray, Staff Writer, The New Hampshire, April 10, 2009, “Nationwide food stamp increase not enough, say local experts,” http://media.www.tnhonline. com/media/storage/paper674/ news/2009/04/10/News/ Nationwide.Food.Stamp. Increase.Not.Enough.Say.Local. Experts-3705745.shtml)
    "It's a supplemental program," said Terry Smith, director of family assistance for New Hampshire's Department of Health and Human Services. "[Recipients will] be getting a bigger supplement but it still won't meet all of their food needs. "The increase, which is a part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, gives a household of four a maximum balance of $688 a month, or $1.85 per person, per meal. But according to Smith, the across-the-board approach to food stamps wasn't the most helpful way to reach those in need. "It doesn't matter if you're in Alaska where the cost of food is very high or if you're in Florida where shipping costs are almost nothing and food is a lot cheaper," said Smith, who finds food costs in New Hampshire to be about average compared to other states. "The increase was the same for all states." Durham, which has a low assistance need when compared to other towns in the state, still has families that rely on the assistance they receive from the food stamp program." There's no question that Durham doesn't have the same magnitude of need compared to other towns," said Larry Brickner-Wood, who serves as both the University of New Hampshire's campus minister as well as the executive director of the Cornucopia Food Pantry. "But people think that affluent towns don't have a need at all, and that's not the case." Like Durham, New Hampshire overall has a relatively low assistance need. But according to Smith, those needs are increasing.
    AND - 1/3 of eligible families don’t receive food stamps.
    Abramsky, senior fellow at the New York-based think tank Demos, 5-18
    (Sasha Abramsky, senior fellow at the New York-based think tank Demos, May 18, 2009, “America's hunger crisis,” http://www.guardian.co.uk/ commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/ may/18/us-economy-food-stamps- hunger-poverty)
    Yet, before we pat ourselves too heartily on the back, let's examine what this means: the latest estimates are that about 32 million Americans (more than one in 10) are now receiving government food stamps. Texas alone has approximately three million people on food stamps. Nationally, however, the food stamp programme routinely misses about one-in-three of those who are poor enough to qualify - and in states like California that number's closer to one-in-two. People are afraid to apply, embarrassed to apply, can't take time off from work to go to aid offices during the week or don't know about the programme - a problem likely to worsen as funding for state outreach programmes takes a hit because of state budget crises. That means there are at least 10 million more people now poor enough for aid who don't receive it.
    1AC - Food Insecurity (1/3)
    Contention 2: Reality
    First, 36 million Americans are food insecure.
    Berg, served for eight years in the Clinton Administration in senior executive service positions at USDA, 08
    (Joel Berg, served for eight years in the Clinton Administration in senior executive service positions at USDA, November 1, 2008, “Introduction - Hunger Amidst Plenty: A Problem as American as Apple Pie,” http://joelberg.net/book/all- you-can-excerpt/)
    When people look at the facts for themselves, they discover the shocking reality: hunger amidst a sea of plenty is a phenomenon as American as baseball, jazz, and apple pie. Today in the United States-because tens of millions of people live below the meager federal poverty line and because tens of millions of others hover just above it - 35.5 million Americans, including 12.6 million children, live in a condition described by the federal government as “food insecurity,” which means their households either suffer from hunger or struggle at the brink of hunger. Primarily because federal anti-hunger safety net programs have worked, American children are no longer dying in significant numbers as an immediate result of famine-like conditions - though children did die of malnutrition here as recently as the late 1960s. Still, despite living in a nation with so many luxury homes that the term “McMansion” has come into popular usage, millions of American adults and children have so little ability to afford food that they do go hungry at different points throughout the year-and are otherwise forced to spend money on food that should have been spent on other necessities, like heat, health care, or proper child care. Most alarmingly, the problem has only gotten worse in recent years.
    Second, These numbers are rising - soon 1 in 10 Americans will live in food insecure households
    Dorothy Rosenbaum - Center on budget and policy priorities - July 12, 2006 “The Food Stamp Program is Growing to Meet Need” http://www.cbpp.org/files/6-6- 06fa.pdf
    During the current economic recovery, the number and percentage of Americans living in poverty has remained high; in fact, poverty has risen now for four straight years (2001-2004). In 2004, the most recent year for which Census data on income and poverty are available, 37 million people were poor, an increase of 17 percent since 2000. The number of Americans living in deep poverty -- with family income below half of the poverty line -- rose even faster, by 24 percent from 2000 to 2004. In no other economic recovery of the past 45 years did poverty increase between the second and third full years of the recovery. Poverty has persisted during this recovery in part because the recovery has not increased real earnings at the lower end of the income distribution. During the current recovery, real wages and salaries have grown at less than half their average annual rate in other recoveries since the end of World War II. Real median wages for the bottom one- fifth of full-time workers fell in 2003, 2004, and 2005. This also is the only recovery in the past 45 years in which the income of the typical household did not grow between the second and third years of the recovery. Food insecurity, as well, has continued to grow in recent years. According to USDA, some 38 million Americans lived in households that were “food insecure” in 2004, meaning they had difficulty affording food.3 The number of individuals facing food insecurity increased by almost two million people between 2003 and 2004 and has increased by more than 6 million people since 1999. In 2004, more than one in ten American adults -- and nearly one in five American children -- lived in food-insecure households. Thus, despite relatively low overall unemployment in recent years, the need for food stamps has continued to rise.
    Third, Quality controls exacerbate this.
    Mariana Chilton et al ‘9 -- PhD, Assistant Professor of Public Health @ Drexel University “A Rights-Based Approach to Food Insecurity in the United States” American Journal of Public Health. July. Vol. 99, Iss. 7; pg. 1203, 9 pgs. Proquest
    A human rights framework applied to the right to food can interpret how food-related policies affect one's ability to purchase food and how such policies affect health and wellbeing. For instance, research demonstrates that changes in food stamp laws are associated with altered health and well-being of families and children.73,74 Other research shows that the odds of food insecurity for those cut off from food stamp benefits were 2 times higher than for families who had no change in food stamps. The same study showed that the loss of food stamps was also associated with a 40% increase in the odds of fair or poor health.75 A rights analysis would include an assessment of the ill health and greater vulnerability that sanction policies-i.e., those that disallow families to participate in federal programs such as food stamps, TANF, and Medicaid-might create.
    Fourth, This traps individuals in a ruthless cycle of poverty and illness
    Dix, former assistant editor at U.S. Catholic, freelance Chicago-based writer, 07
    (Tara K. Dix, former assistant editor at U.S. Catholic, freelance Chicago-based writer, October 2007, “Recipe for a hungry planet,” http://uscatholic.claretians. org/site/News2?page= NewsArticle&id=12729&news_iv_ ctrl=0&abbr=usc_)
    Sen. George McGovern, former ambassador to the United Nations’ food agency and coauthor of Ending Hunger Now (Augsburg Fortress), puts it in blunt terms: “If we fail to do this, we will stand condemned before the bar of history. In that case, shame on you, and shame on me.” The biggest problem facing the hungry is the poverty trap: the cyclical combination of no money, no food, and no health care. Malnutrition leads to illness; illness drains financial resources; drained finances lead to malnutrition. Factor in a lack of access to education, financial services, or credit--all of which prevent upward economic mobility--and you’ve got a person who is--in a word--trapped.
    Fifth, Food stamps are necessary to break individuals from the cycle of food insecurity
    Buffalo News - opinion section -- November 28, 2008 “Ease childhood hunger Improvements in food stamp program and other efforts could boost nutrition” http://www.buffalonews.com/ 149/story/507058.html
    The Agriculture Department presented an alarming report charting those hungry children, and highlighting the fact that close to one in eight Americans struggles for adequate food. To make matters worse, that was before the economic downturn.As groceries and gas prices rose, so did the number of empty stomachs. Overall, 36.2 million adults and children struggled with hunger last year, which was a slight increase from 35.5 million in 2006. The problem boils down to a lack of money or assistance to get enough food, and especially to get enough nutritious food. Little, including learning, gets done on an empty stomach. Educational initiatives, vital to breaking the cycle of poverty, are harder to implement with a classroom of hungry children .Obama pledged to expand food aid in an effort to alleviate childhood hunger by 2015, an ambitious goal. Any new initiative needs to be launched immediately, as suggested by the Food Research and Action Center, an anti-hunger group. The group recently called for a boost in food stamp benefits. The food stamp program is a strong one, but inadequate to provide a healthy diet for a month. As a person’s income increases, he or she receives fewer benefits. The average is $3 to $4 in food stamps a day per person. Even at the maximum, the benefit is just not enough. Particularly in big cities, it costs 25 percent to 30 percent more than food stamp benefits to purchase a minimally adequate diet.Journalists and members of Congress who have taken the “food stamp challenge” and attempted to live on the benefit for a week have shared their experiences -- the difficulties in planning, mood swings and general fatigue. Imagine a child going through the same thing, except it’s not a “challenge.” It’s a way of life.In the context of the recession, economists from both the left and right agree that the single best stimulus is food stamps because people spend them so quickly. Extended unemployment benefits are also necessary, but food stamps tend to be more helpful than tax rebates. The Food Research and Action Center is pushing hard for a temporary boost, six to 18 months, to be put in the next stimulus package.
    Sixth, Food stamps act as a legislative catalyst - alleviates food insecurity
    Mariana Chilton et al ‘9 -- PhD, Assistant Professor of Public Health @ Drexel University “A Rights-Based Approach to Food Insecurity in the United States” American Journal of Public Health. July. Vol. 99, Iss. 7; pg. 1203, 9 pgs. Proquest
    The lack of acceptance of social and economic rights is related to a common misperception that they indicate direct provision of services and food for everyone.17,77 But this is not the primary intention of these rights. Economic, social, and cultural rights are rights that Henry Shue defines as ''subsistence rights.''77 They are predicated on the idea that social, economic, and political structures should tangibly support populations and individuals in providing for themselves. In more precise terms, the right to food means the right to expect reasonable opportunities to provide food and good nutrition for oneself.17 The government's role is to facilitate these opportunities. In the event that someone is incapable of providing for himself or herself, then the government should make provisions to provide food directly. A second misperception is that acceptance of these positive rights implies that the government must instantly solve all social ills related to poverty and deprivation.17 This is not the case. The rights approach helps to identify ways of codifying a national will to end poverty and hunger, to provide a framework for continued progress in this area, and to provide a means for monitoring this progress. To overcome these misperceptions, understanding is needed of the importance of basic rights (i.e., food, shelter, and water) to the health and well-being of the population, to the capacity of the population to participate in the workforce, and for the fulfillment of other freedoms, such as participating in civic life and cultural institutions.69,78 But this understanding involves a cultural shift and likely requires media attention, widespread education, and community participation activities. More federal legislation is needed that protects safety net programs as entitlement programs, as is the case for the Food Stamp Program. More investments are needed in social programs that have been proven to reduce poverty rates. In the same way that civil rights legislation, over time, changed culturally dominant views on race and racism, legislative and administrative action that incorporates rights language related to health promotion and income support policies may have a tangible effect on food insecurity.
    We isolate a two impacts
    First, We ought to reject Food insecurity and poverty
    Udayakumar, director of the South Asian Community Center for Education and Research, 95(S.P Udayakumar, “The Futures of the Poor,” Futures Vol. 27, no. 3 pp 339-351, 1995)
    Although race, ethnicity, gender, generation and political powerlessness all contribute to poverty, the ‘economic worth’ factor forms the basis in ‘poorcide,’ the genocide of the poor. It is an economic group (or class) discriminated against in poorcide. A particular group of people is massacred in genocide, but poverty kills indiscriminately, irrespective of the group.
    Genocide just kills you, but poverty tortures and condemns you to a slow and painful death. Poverty degrades human beings, negates human dignity and wastes human resources, genocide prompts physical elimination, but poverty causes physical pain, mental agony, moral degradation and spiritual dissipation. Extending the analysis of physical violence and structural violence to genocide, we can distinguish between direct and indirect or physical and structural, genocide. Genocide means not just massive killing (which we can call direct or physical genocide) but also includes calculated attacks on and constant efforts at undermining the basic human dignity and life-support systems of a particular group of people (which may be described as the indirect or structural genocide). Poorcide may not be actual physical elimination of the poor in a massive scale, but it’s a slow-pace silent holocaust.
    Genocide takes place in pockets of human polity, but poverty afflicts humanity all over the world. Unlike genocide, poverty is widespread, systematically rooted and popularly accepted. However fickle and fragile, the victims, or potential victims, of genocide may be able to take some precautions. But the victims of poverty can only watch themselves being taken for granted, or even worse, being taken advantage of by the privileged. In a genocidal act, only those with prejudices and biases participate, but we are all complicit in the poverty crime. Leading a ‘rich lifestyle; or letting the problem persist is the definite complicity in the crime of poorcide.
    Second, Poverty exacerbates domestic violence
    Healthwise is leading a new trend in health care--information therapy. With Healthwise Information Therapy, hospitals, health plans, and disease management companies can give consumers the right information at just the right time, to help them make better health decisions. No one knows information therapy better than Healthwise. March 20th 2008 (“Domestic violence” http://www.health.com/health/ library/topic/0,,te7721_ te7724,00.html)
    Domestic violence affects all types of people, regardless of gender, ethnicity, race, sexual identity, socioeconomic status, and religion. Many people have experienced domestic violence. It is estimated that 25% of women and 8% of men in the United States have been physically and/or sexually abused by an intimate partner at some point in their adult lives.1 Domestic abuse is also a significant problem among the elderly. It is estimated that between 1.5% and 6.4% of people over 60 years old are mistreated by a caregiver, family member, spouse, or friend.6 For more information, see Elder Abuse. While domestic violence can affect men, the large majority (85%) of its victims are women.7 Domestic violence occurs among all socioeconomic groups, but poverty increases the likelihood it will occur.8 Poverty can raise the level of stress and conflict within a relationship, which then becomes more prone to violence. Poverty can also make some men feel as though they are powerless and inadequate. This sense of failure may trigger violence toward their partners.
    AND-Domestic violence dehumanizes victims and prevents their sufferings from being heard.
    Jennifer Wilson, Centre for Peace and Social Justice, Southern Cross University, 2008, “Domestic Violence as Human Rights Abuse: Reframing Intra-Familial Violence against Women and Children,” http://www.scu.edu.au/ research/cpsj/human_rights/ AHRP2008_Proc_Final_v2.pdf
    Domestic violence against women and children creates a radical objectification of them by those with whom they are most intimate. This objectification situates its victims as nonhuman. This dehumanising objectification is furthered by a human rights discourse that continues to exclude their suffering from its commentaries and actions. It is my contention that there can be no categories of suffering such as public and private: suffering is universal, it is a condition of embodiment that Turner quite rightly states renders us vulnerable to one another for as long as we are alive. Levinas also insists on the ethics of respecting the humanity of other, based solely on the recognition that we are beings-in-common. Women and children cannot continue to be excluded from this category of beings-in-common, by virtue of the maintenance of the public/private dyad that protects the perpetrators of domestic violence.
    1AC - Plan Text
    PLAN: The United States federal government should substantially increase the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to include all eligible persons, including those excluded by quality controls.
    1AC - Solvency [1/3]
    Contention 3: Solvency
    Despite reform, current federal quality control standards decrease eligibility and participation in food stamp programs.
    Greenstein, executive director, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, former Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service, 07
    (Robert Greenstein, executive director, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; former Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service, January 30, 2007, Statement of Bob Greenstein Executive Director Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Federal Food Assistance Programs,” Lexis)
    Food stamp participation by eligible households, especially households with children, declined significantly in the 1990s. According to USDA, participation rates among eligible individuals fell from about 75 percent in 1994 to about 60 percent in 2000; among children, participation fell from some 90 percent of those eligible to 72 percent during that period. A primary reason for the participation decline, according to policymakers, was the burdensome procedural requirements imposed by states, partly because of various federal requirements and partly as a result of the food stamp quality control (QC) penalty system. Many of these requirements fell disproportionately on working families, which states viewed as more likely to add to the state's error rate because their incomes were more likely to fluctuate than the incomes of non-working families. This posed a particular problem because working-poor families' schedules can make it especially difficult for them to make frequent visits to the welfare office to respond to repeated requests for additional paperwork. The 2002 Farm Bill gave states numerous options to streamline paperwork requirements and deliver benefits more effectively to eligible households, especially working families and those who have recently worked their way off welfare. States have overwhelmingly embraced the new options as ways to reduce administrative burdens on both food stamp participants and state agencies. For example: -- some 40 states have coordinated their food stamp definitions of income and resources with the definition they use for TANF cash assistance or family Medicaid coverage; -- almost 20 states have opted to provide five months of transitional food stamps to families that leave welfare, making it easier for such families to move from welfare to work successfully; -- more than 45 states have adopted the option to provide food stamp benefits for six-month intervals with reduced paperwork requirements; and -- more than 40 states have simplified their food stamp "standard utility allowance" to reduce the amount of paperwork required from participants. In addition, Congress included a major reform of the food stamp performance measurement or quality control system. The QC rules were reconfigured to penalize states with persistently high errors rather than every state with an above-average error rate. In addition, performance awards were expanded to reward states with high or improved participation rates and customer service, in addition to high payment accuracy. The combination of new state flexibility and a reformed QC system has contributed to improved participation. Between 2003 and 2004 (the most recent years for which data are available), USDA estimates that food stamp participation rose from 56 percent to 61 percent. Participation rose both among eligible working families (from 47 percent to 51 percent) and among eligible children (from 74 percent to 82 percent). It is likely that participation rates have continued to increase since 2004. Even more impressive, payment accuracy has improved dramatically even as participation rates have increased. In 2000, the most recent year for which error rates were available when Congress was considering the 2002 farm bill, the combined food stamp error rate -- i.e., the sum of the percentage of benefits issued to ineligible households, the percentage of benefits overissued to eligible households, and the percentage underissued to eligible households -- was almost 9 percent. It has fallen every year since then, to 5.84 percent in 2005. In 2000, 15 states (including some of the largest states) had combined error rates over 10 percent; in 2005, none did. Conversely, in 2000, 13 states had error rates below 6 percent (a level that at the time entitled states to enhanced administrative funding); by 2005, fully 32 states did. Moreover, in 2005, fewer than 2 percent of benefits were issued to households that were not eligible for food stamps, which means that more than 98 percent of the benefits issued went to households that were fully qualified. In addition, the percentage of benefits that either were issued to ineligible households or overissued to eligible households that received too many benefits was 4.5 percent. (This figure is lower than the 5.84 percent total error rate cited above because that figure also includes underpayments -- that is, benefits that should have been issued but were not.) However, despite the impressive progress of the last few years in improving program participation among certain populations, the Food Stamp Program still is missing a large share of eligible households. In particular: -- Only about 50 percent of eligible low-income working families participate in the program. This means 9 million people in working families are missing out on food assistance that could help them make ends meet and provide a nutritionally adequate diet for their children. -- Fewer than 30 percent of eligible low-income seniors participates in the program. Some of these individuals and couples would qualify for relatively low benefits because they receive Social Security and/or SSI income. But most eligible food stamp elderly households either have sufficiently low income or qualify for food stamp deductions (based on their medical and shelter expenses), with the result that they would qualify for about $70 or more per person per month in food stamp benefits. That could help them obtain more nutritionally adequate diets.
    In addition, measuring state error rates in comparison to the national average puts increased pressure on states to reduce error rates.
    Nilsen, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues at the General Accounting Office, 07
    (Signurd Nilsen, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues at the General Accounting Office, January 30, 2007, Statement of Sigurd Nilsen Director Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues GAO, “Federal Food Assistance Programs,” Lexis)
    Improper food stamp payments and trafficking of benefits have declined in a time of rising participation, and although progress has been made, ensuring program integrity will continue to be a fundamental challenge facing the program. We found that payment error rates have declined substantially as FNS and states have taken steps to improve payment accuracy and that future reductions may prove challenging. Attention from top USDA management as well as continued support and assistance from FNS will likely continue to be important factors in further reductions. In addition, if error rates continue to decrease, this trend will continue to put pressure on states to improve because penalties are assessed using the state's error rate as compared with the national average. We also found that FNS, using EBT data, has made significant progress in taking advantage of new opportunities to monitor and disqualify traffickers. However, a more focused effort to target and disqualify these stores could help FNS meet its continuing challenge of ensuring that stores are available and operating in areas of high need while still maintaining program integrity. Given the size of the Food Stamp Program, the costs to administer it, and the current federal budget deficit, achieving program goals more cost-effectively may become more important. FNS and the states will continue to face a challenge in balancing the goals of payment accuracy, increasing program participation rates, and the need to contain program costs. To reduce program vulnerabilities and better target its limited compliance-monitoring resources, we recommended in our October 2006 report on trafficking that FNS develop additional criteria to identify stores most likely to traffic; conduct risk assessments, using compliance and other data, to systematically identify stores and areas that meet these criteria, and allocate resources accordingly; and provide more targeted and early oversight of stores determined most likely to engage in trafficking. To provide further deterrence for trafficking, we recommended that FNS work to develop a strategy to increase the penalties for trafficking, working with the Inspector General as needed, and consider developing legislative proposals if the penalties entail additional authority. To promote state efforts to pursue recipients suspected of trafficking and thereby reduce the pool of recipient traffickers, we recommended that FNS ensure that FNS field offices report to states those recipients who are suspected of trafficking, and revisit the incentive structure to encourage states to investigate and take action against recipients who traffic. Department of Agriculture officials generally agreed with our findings, conclusions, and recommendations but raised a concern regarding our recommendations on more efficient use of their compliance- monitoring resources. They stated that they believe they do have a strategy for targeting resources through their use of EBT transaction data to identify suspicious transaction patterns. We believe that FNS has made good progress in its use of EBT transaction data. However, it is now at a point where it can begin to formulate more sophisticated analyses. For example, these analyses could combine EBT transaction data with other available data, such as information on stores with minimal inventory, to develop criteria to better and more quickly identify stores at risk of trafficking. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to answer any questions that you or other members of the Committee may have.
    This results in bureaucratic measures that deter individuals from applying for and receiving benefits. Only removing quality controls allows for adequate provision of food stamp services.
    Gundersen et. al., Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois, 09
    (Craig Gundersen, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois, Dean Jolliffe and Laura Tiehen, Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, August 2009, “The challenge of program evaluation: When increasing program participation decreases the relative well-being of participants,” Volume 34, Issue 4, Pages 367-376, ScienceDirect)
    In determining eligibility for program benefits, administrative errors frequently arise. As a consequence, to monitor the delivery of benefits the USDA annually constructs an error rate for each State. The error rate is calculated as the percentage of total dollars incorrectly given to or taken from food stamp recipients. That is, it is the value of benefits given to ineligible households plus the under-issuance of benefits to eligible households as a percent of total value of food stamps distributed. States are subject to a financial penalty if their error rates exceed the national average. In response, some States have taken actions to reduce these error rates. For example, States have increased the amount of paperwork needed to verify eligibility and the consequent benefit level and States have increased the frequency with which a household has to recertify their eligibility status (US GAO, 1999). These and other actions can lead to a more cumbersome application process and this has been associated with a fall in the number of people receiving food stamps because of the higher transactions costs associated with navigating the application process (See Kabbani and Wilde (2003) for more on the relation between changes in administrative practices, error rates, and changes in participation rates. Also see Rosenbaum, 2000 and Ziliak et al., 2003).
    Food stamps create an economic demand for more stores
    Beatrice Lorge Rogers, Ph.D. & Jennifer Coates ‘2, M.S. “Food-Based Safety Nets and Related Programs” September
    Another rationale for providing food stamps is that it strengthens the private sector food market. Direct distribution of food commodities establishes a parallel marketing system that draws some demand away from the private sector. Food stamps give purchasing power to poor consumers that they can use in private sector food stores, adding to overall demand. However, if the private food retailing system is inaccessible or thin in certain areas, a food stamp program may provide the demand needed to strengthen and improve the system, but until this happens, beneficiaries will need to incur the costs of traveling to places where stores are available. Direct distribution of food can cause problems for the beneficiaries in transporting the bulky foodstuffs home. This problem is avoided with food stamps. Beneficiaries can purchase manageable quantities as needed (assuming the stamps are in small denominations) in conveniently located stores rather than at centralized distribution points.
    Quality controls prevent people from being eligible for food stamps
    Hanratty, Associate Professor at the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, 06
    (Maria J. Hanratty, Associate Professor at the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, June 7, 2006, “Has the Food Stamp program become more accessible? Impacts of recent changes in reporting requirements and asset eligibility limits, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,” Volume 25 Issue 3, Pages 603 - 621)
    Throughout the 1990s, increases in sanctions under the federal government’s Quality Control system have increased the administrative barriers to enrolling to receive Food Stamps (Rosenbaum, 2000). This system monitors the accuracy of Food Stamp payments and imposes financial sanctions on states that fall below national error-rate targets. Because the measured error rate gives more weight to overpayments than to failure to enroll eligible participants, many states responded to the increased sanctions during the 1990s by increasing reporting requirements for program participants.
    Contention 5- The truth
    First, The Judge should view impacts through the lenses of probability- minute possibilities get rounded down to zero.
    Nicholas Rescher, University of Pittsburgh Professor of Philosophy, “Risk: A Philosophical Introduction to the Theory of Risk Evaluation and Management” 1983
    A probability is a number between zero and one. Now numbers between zero and one can get to be very small indeed: As N gets bigger, 1/N will grow very, very small. What, then, is one to do about extremely small probabilities in the rational management of risks? On this issue there is a systemic disagreement between probabilists working in mathematics or natural science and decision theorists who work on issues relating to human affairs. The former take the line that small numbers are small numbers and must be taken into account as such. The latter tend to take the view that small probabilities represent extremely remote prospects and can be written off. (De minimis non curat lex, as the old precept has it: there is no need to bother with trifles.) When something is about as probable as it is that a thousand fair dice when tossed a thousand times will all come up sixes, then, so it is held, we can pretty well forget about it as worthy of concern.
    The "worst possible case fixation" is one of the most damaging modes of unrealism in deliberations about risk in real-life situations. Preoccupation about what might happen "if worst comes to worst" is counterproductive whenever we proceed without recognizing that, often as not, these worst possible outcomes are wildly improbable (and sometimes do not deserve to be viewed as real possibilities at all). The crux in risk deliberations is not the issue of loss "if worst comes to worst" but the potential acceptability of this prospect within the wider framework of the risk situation, where we may well be prepared "to. take our chances," considering the possible advantages that beckon along this route. The worst threat is certainly something to be borne in mind and taken into account, but it is emphatically not a satisfactory index of the overall seriousness or gravity of a situation of hazard.
    Second , Failure to reject small possibilities results in decisional paralysis making their impacts inevitable
    Nicholas Rescher, University of Pittsburgh Professor of Philosophy, “Risk: A Philosophical Introduction to the Theory of Risk Evaluation and Management” 1983
    The stakes are high, the potential benefits enormous. (And so are the costs - for instance cancer research and, in particular, the multi-million dollar gamble on interferon.) But there is no turning back the clock. The processes at issue are irreversible. Only through the shrewd deployment of science and technology can we resolve the problems that science and technology themselves have brought upon us. America seems to have backed off from its traditional entrepreneurial spirit and become a risk-aversive, slow investing economy whose (real-resource) support for technological and scientific innovation has been declining for some time. In our yearning for the risk-free society we may well create a social system that makes risk-taking innovation next to impossible. The critical thing is to have a policy that strikes a proper balance between malfunctions and missed opportunities - a balance whose "propriety" must be geared to a realistic appraisal of the hazards and opportunities at issue. Man is a creature [We are] condemned to live in a twilight zone of risk and opportunity. And so we are led back to Aaron Wildavski's thesis that flight from risk is the greatest risk of all, "because a total avoidance of risks means that society will become paralyzed, depleting its resources in preventive action, and denying future generations opportunities and technologies needed for improving the quality of life. By all means let us calculate our risks with painstaking care, and by all means let us manage them with prudent conservatism. But in life as in warfare there is truth in H. H. Frost's maxim that "every mistake in war is excusable except inactivity and refusal to take risks" (though, obviously, it is needful to discriminate between a good risk and a bad one). The price of absolute security is absolute stultification.
    All disads are non-unique- Food stamp funding has just increased- 350 million because of milk prices
    ANDREW TAYLOR Brattleboro Reformer staff writer 8-6 2009 (“Senate boosts food stamps, adds $350M for milk prices” http://www.reformer.com/ localnews/ci_12994164?source= rss)
    More than two-thirds of the measure, $86 billion, goes for domestic food programs, including $61 billion for food stamps. The legislation provides the money for the program, though the cost is set by how many eligible families participate.
    The average monthly food stamp benefit for a family was $295 in April. The bill is the fourth of the 12 annual spending bills for agencies whose budgets are set by Congress each year. There’s little hope Congress will meet the Oct. 1 deadline to complete the bills by the start of the 2010 budget year, although Senate leaders are hoping to avoid yet another "omnibus" appropriations bill that wraps all the remaining spending measures into one giant piece of legislation. House passed companion agriculture spending legislation last month. Tuesday’s action by the Senate sends the measure into talks between the two chambers to resolve differences. In a surprising development, the Senate voted to add $350 million to the measure to lift milk price supports -- the amount the government pays for surplus milk products -- by an estimated $1.50 per hundredweight, which should inch milk prices higher.
    Next- Diplomacy has made major power wars OBSOLETE!
    G John Ikenberry Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University “The Rise of China and the Future of the West” Foreign Affairs January/February 2008 http://www.foreignaffairs.org/ 20080101faessay87102/g-john- ikenberry/the-rise-of-china- and-the-future-of-the-west. html
    That course, however, is not inevitable. The rise of China does not have to trigger a wrenching hegemonic transition. The U.S.-Chinese power transition can be very different from those of the past because China faces an international order that is fundamentally different from those that past rising states confronted. China does not just face the United States; it faces a Western-centered system that is open, integrated, and rule-based, with wide and deep political foundations. The nuclear revolution, meanwhile, has made war among great powers unlikely -- eliminating the major tool that rising powers have used to overturn international systems defended by declining hegemonic states. Today's Western order, in short, is hard to overturn and easy to join.
    Continues…
    The most important benefit of these features today is that they give the Western order a remarkable capacity to accommodate rising powers. New entrants into the system have ways of gaining status and authority and opportunities to play a role in governing the order. The fact that the United States, China, and other great powers have nuclear weapons also limits the ability of a rising power to overturn the existing order. In the age of nuclear deterrence, great-power war is, thankfully, no longer a mechanism of historical change. War-driven change has been abolished as a historical process.
    The international system prevents nuclear war--economic, military, and ideological trends have changed. Christopher Fettweiss, April prof security studies - naval war college, Comparative Strategy 22.2 April 2003 p 109-129
    Mackinder can be forgiven for failing to anticipate the titanic changes in the fundamental nature of the international system much more readily than can his successors. Indeed, Mackinder and his contemporaries a century ago would hardly recognize the rules by which the world is run today--most significantly, unlike their era, ours is one in which the danger of major war has been removed, where World War III is, in Michael Mandelbaum’s words, “somewhere between impossible and unlikely.”25 Geopolitical and geo-strategic analysis has not yet come to terms with what may be the central, most significant trend of international politics: great power war, major war of the kind that pit the strongest states against each other, is now obsolete.26 John Mueller has been the most visible, but by no means the only, analyst arguing that the chances of a World War III emerging in the next century are next to nil.27 Mueller and his contemporaries cite three major arguments supporting this revolutionary, and clearly controversial, claim. First, and most obviously, modern military technology has made major war too expensive to contemplate. As John Keegan has argued, it is hard to see how nuclear war could be considered “an extension of politics by other means”--at the very least, nuclear weapons remove the possibility of victory from the calculations of the would-be aggressor.28 Their value as leverage in diplomacy has not been dramatic, at least in the last few decades, because nuclear threats are not credible in the kind of disagreements that arise between modern great powers. It is unlikely that a game of nuclear “chicken” would lead to the outbreak of a major war. Others have argued that, while nuclear weapons surely make war an irrational exercise, the destructive power of modern conventional weapons make today’s great powers shy away from direct conflict.29 The world wars dramatically reinforced Angell’s warnings, and today no one is eager to repeat those experiences, especially now that the casualty levels among both soldiers and civilians would be even higher. Second, the shift from the industrial to the information age that seems to be gradually occurring in many advanced societies has been accompanied by a new definition of power, and a new system of incentives which all but remove the possibility that major war could ever be a cost-efficient exercise. The rapid economic evolution that is sweeping much of the world, encapsulated in the “globalization” metaphor so fashionable in the media and business communities, has been accompanied by an evolution in the way national wealth is accumulated.30 For millennia, territory was the main object of war because it was directly related to national prestige and power. As early as 1986 Richard Rosecrance recognized that “two worlds of international relations” were emerging, divided over the question of the utility of territorial conquest.31 The intervening years have served only to strengthen the argument that the major industrial powers, quite unlike their less-developed neighbors, seem to have reached the revolutionary conclusion that territory is not directly related to their national wealth and prestige. For these states, wealth and power are more likely to derive from an increase in economic, rather than military, reach. National wealth and prestige, and therefore power, are no longer directly related to territorial control.32 The economic incentives for war are therefore not as clear as they once may have been. Increasingly, it seems that the most powerful states pursue prosperity rather than power. In Edward Luttwak’s terminology, geopolitics is slowly being replaced by “geoeconomics,” where “the methods of commerce are displacing military methods--with disposable capital in lieu of firepower, civilian innovation in lieu of military-technical advancement, and market penetration in lieu of garrisons and bases.”33 Just as advances in weaponry have increased the cost of fighting, a socioeconomic evolution has reduced the rewards that a major war could possibly bring. Angell’s major error was one that has been repeated over and over again in the social sciences ever since--he overestimated the “rationality” of humanity. Angell recognized earlier than most that the industrialization of military technology and economic interdependence assured that the costs of a European war would certainly outweigh any potential benefits, but he was not able to convince his contemporaries who were not ready to give up the institution of war. The idea of war was still appealing--the normativecost/benefit analysis still tilted in the favor of fighting, and that proved to be the more important factor. Today, there is reason to believe that this normative calculation may have changed. After the war, Angell noted that the only things that could have prevented the war were “surrendering of certain dominations, a recasting of patriotic ideals, a revolution of ideas.”34 The third and final argument of Angell’s successors is that today such a revolution of ideas has occurred, that a normative evolution has caused a shift in the rules that govern state interaction. The revolutionary potential of ideas should not be underestimated. Beliefs, ideologies, and ideas are often, as Dahl notes, “a major independent variable,” which we ignore at our peril.35 “Ideas,” added John Mueller, are very often forces themselves, not flotsam on the tide of broader social or economic patterns . . . it does not seem wise in this area to ignore phenomena that cannot be easily measured, treated with crisp precision, or probed with deductive panache.36 The heart of this argument is the “moral progress” that has “brought a change in attitudes about international war” among the great powers of the world,37 creating for the first time, “an almost universal sense that the deliberate launching of a war can no longer be justified.”38 At times leaders of the past were compelled by the masses to defend the national honor, but today popular pressures push for peaceful resolutions to disputes between industrialized states. This normative shift has rendered war between great powers “subrationally unthinkable,” removed from the set of options for policy makers, just as dueling is no longer a part of the set of options for the same classes for which it was once central to the concept of masculinity and honor. As Mueller explained, Dueling, a form of violence famed and fabled for centuries, is avoided not merely because it has ceased to seem ‘necessary’, but because it has sunk from thought as a viable, conscious possibility. You can’t fight a duel if the idea of doing so never occurs to you or your opponent.39 By extension, states cannot fight wars if doing so does not occur to them or to their opponent. As Angell discovered, the fact that major war was futile was not enough to bring about its end--people had to believe that it was futile. Angell’s successors suggest that such a belief now exists in the industrial (and postindustrial) states of the world, and this “autonomous power of ideas,” to borrow Francis Fukuyama’s term, has brought about the end of major, great power war.40
    Terrorists wont use WMDs--Operational risks to high
    Brian Jenkins, senior advisor to the president of the RAND Corporation, 2006 “Unconquerable Nation: Knowing our Enemy, Strengthening Ourselves,” http://www.rand.org/pubs/ monographs/2006/RAND_MG454.pdf
    Showmanship in carrying out spectacular attacks demonstrates prowess. Operations therefore must be successful. It is not necessary that the attackers survive--martyrdom demonstrates their commitment and adds to the enemy’s alarm--but the operation must not be seen to fail. Ambitious operations must be weighed against risks of failure, since failure brings humiliation to the attackers and embarrasses the enterprise. Even more seriously, jihadists believe that God’s will is expressed in success and failure. To succeed is to have God’s support. Failure signals God’s disapproval. As a consequence, jihadist planners are conservative. Typical of terrorist planning, the suitability of the operation comes first, feasibility second. Considerations for operational feasibility include access to relevant information, the accessibility of the target, the level of security, the availability of reliable people, physical requirements, complexity, and costs. Old playbooks predominate. Catastrophic attacks with unconventional weapons remain jihadist ambitions, but determined fighters with conventional explosives remain the most reliable weapons. Multiple attacks increase death and destruction, but operations with too many moving parts risk failure. Jihadist planners continue to think big but execute conservatively.
    Nuclear terrorism will never happen
    Dr. Ian Storey is a Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), Singapore. His research interests include ASEAN’s relations with external powers, particularly China and the United States, maritime security, and the insurgency in southern Thailand. Dr. Storey has published articles in Contemporary Southeast Asia, Parameters, Naval War College Review, Jane’s Intelligence Review, Harvard Asia Quarterly, Yale Global Online, China Brief, Terrorism Monitor, and Terrorism Focus.He has held positions at the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies (APCSS) in Hawaii and Deakin University in Australia. Dr. Storey received his bachelor’s degree from Hull University, England; his master’s degree from the International University of Japan; and his Ph.D. from the City University of Hong Kong. 1/24/08 (“Nuclear terrorism: Not going to happen” http://totalwonkerr. com/1584/nuclear-terrorism- not-gonna-happen
    In this paper we will argue that the likelihood of nuclear terrorist attackis so slim as to render it virtually unthinkable. Contrary to contemporary conventional. false equivalences and a fundamental misreading of the way that recent events implicate our broader understanding of terrorist strategy. Building on a combination of organization theory and recent empirical work on the basic rationality of terrorist groups and strategies, we propose an approach to terrorist strategy that describes in formal and informal terms the process of strategic choice (and particularly choice of certain strategic tools over others, a variable almost universally neglected in current approaches) during terrorist campaigns and suggests that nuclear terrorism remains improbable in the extreme. Although the names of actors have changed and terrorism has come to dominate strategic thought across the globe, America’s metropolitan centers have no more to fear than they ever have from the possibility of nuclear terrorism. In this paper we will argue that the likelihood of nuclear terrorist attacks is so slim as to render it virtually unthinkable. Contrary to contemporary conventional wisdom, our theorizing demonstrates that there is no one-to-one linkage between acquisition and “use”.

    (view changes)
    3:22 pm

More