219 KO Updates 7-29 2

8/14/2019 219 KO Updates 7-29 2

1/22

DDI 2008 1KO lab Updates

KO updates, 7-29-08

KO updates, 7-29-08.......................................................................................................................................................1US STRONG SUPPORTER OF NUCLEAR INCENTIVES NOW..............................................................................2US STRONG SUPPORTER OF NUCLEAR INCENTIVES NOW..............................................................................3Corn ethanol =/= food inflation......................................................................................................................................4

DOE Bad.........................................................................................................................................................................5AT: Menand/Tetlock Study.............................................................................................................................................6A2: Kato..........................................................................................................................................................................8Mass Transit decreases FF..............................................................................................................................................9Hemp unpopular............................................................................................................................................................102AC Heidegger Frontline (1/).......................................................................................................................................112AC Heidegger Frontline (2/).......................................................................................................................................122AC Heidegger Frontline (3/).......................................................................................................................................142AC Heidegger Frontline (4/).......................................................................................................................................162AC Heidegger Frontline (5/).......................................................................................................................................18Mass transit PIC solvency.............................................................................................................................................19A2: NASA tradeoff DA.................................................................................................................................................20Sovereignty K links.......................................................................................................................................................21

Sovereignty K links.......................................................................................................................................................22

8/14/2019 219 KO Updates 7-29 2

2/22


US STRONG SUPPORTER OF NUCLEAR INCENTIVES NOW

Federal government is a strong supporter for nuclear energy nowWorld Nuclear Association, June 8 "Nuclear power in the USA" http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html[JWu]

After much preliminary debate the Energy Policy Act 2005 comfortably passed both houses - 74-26 in the Senateand 275-156 in the House. It included incentives for the nuclear power industry including:

* production tax credit of 1.8 c/kWh from the first 6000 MWe of new nuclear plants in their first 8 years ofoperation (same as for wind power on unlimited basis),

* federal risk insurance of $2 billion to cover regulatory delays in full-power operation of the first six advancednew plants,

* rationalised tax on decommissioning funds (some reduced),* federal loan guarantees for advanced nuclear reactors or other emission-free technologies up to 80% of the

project cost,* the Price Anderson Act for nuclear liability protection extended for 20 years.* support for advanced nuclear technology.

Also $1.25 billion was authorised for an advanced high-temperature reactor (Next Generation Nuclear Plant) at theIdaho National Laboratory, capable of cogenerating hydrogen. Overall more than $2 billion was provided forhydrogen demonstration projects.

In 2006 it was spelled out that the 6000 MWe eligible for production tax credits would be divided pro-rata amongthose applicants which filed COL applications by the end of 2008, which commence construction of advanced plantsby 2014, and which enter service by 2021.

In October 2007 DOE announced that it would guarantee the full amount of loans covering up to 80% of the cost ofnew clean energy projects including advanced nuclear power plants under the 2005 Energy Policy Act. The firstround of loan guarantees will go to renewable energy and advanced gas (eg IGCC) projects, those for nuclear stillneeded to be authorised by Congress.

Federal government providing strong incentives for nuclear now

IPS 1-14-08 Matthew Cardinale, http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-7377468/U-S-GOVERNMENT-INCENTIVES-SPUR.html [JWu]

WAYNESBORO, Ga., Jan. 14, 2008 (IPS/GIN) -- More than a dozen corporations have filed or are planning to filethe paperwork required to open new nuclear power plants, primarily in the southern United States.Residents and environmental activists have become in a locked bitter dispute with large U.S. energy corporationsand the federal government over the safety of nuclear power, even as nuclear power incentives offered under theGeorge W. Bush Administration have drawn the interest of energy giants such as Southern Company, Entergy, andFlorida Power and Light."There's a whole suite of incentives being pumped out by the federal government to try and cajole the utilities backinto the game," said Glenn Carroll of Nuclear Watch South.

The U.S. Congress last month passed $38.5 billion in loan guarantees to the nuclear industry. "If they can't pay backthe loan or don't want to pay back the loan, the government will guarantee the banks up to 80 percent," Carroll said.

8/14/2019 219 KO Updates 7-29 2

3/22


US STRONG SUPPORTER OF NUCLEAR INCENTIVES NOW

Federal government providing strong nuclear support now

UPI 7-2-08 "Government invests in clean tech" energy-daily.com/reports/Analysis_Government_invests_in_clean_tech_999.html [JWu]

Department of Energy officials said Monday the department will provide $30.5 billion in loan guarantees for cleantechnology, a quick follow-up to an announcement at the end of June that the department will invest $90 million ingeothermal technologies. The U.S. Department of Agriculture also recently awarded $1.5 million for energyefficiency projects.

The Energy Department's loan-guarantee program is designed to encourage advanced energy projects that avoid,reduce or sequester greenhouse gasses and other air pollutants. Renewable energy or energy efficiency projects,nuclear power plants and nuclear fuel production facilities are all eligible for the program.

The loan guarantees will make it possible for a number of companies to finance new nuclear plants that wouldotherwise be too expensive, said Adrian Heymer, senior director for new plant deployment at the Nuclear EnergyInstitute, a policy organization that promotes pro-nuclear legislation.

"It lowers the overall cost of the project, eases the financing, reduces your risk and enables projects to go forward,"Heymer told United Press International.

8/14/2019 219 KO Updates 7-29 2

4/22


Corn ethanol =/= food inflation

Corn ethanol is only responsible for a negligible rise in food prices

Reuters, December 11, 2007, Corn Ethanol not Culprit for Food Inflation,(http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/45923/story.htm)CHICAGO - US food inflation is rising but don't blame the ethanol-based boom in corn prices, the head of global agriculture and food-industry

research firm Informa Economics said Monday.Memphis, Tennessee-based Informa, formerly called Sparks Companies, said a study based on 20 years of price data shows thatcorn prices have minimal impact on the US ConsumerPrice Index for food, which has been on the rise.The study, released on Monday, "debunks the concept that the ethanol expansion is the underlying and main significantreason for food price increases," Bruce Scherr, Informa's chief executive, told Reuters in an interview."We're not saying that corn prices are cheap, that ethanol hasn't helped underpin the growth in the corn economy," Scherr said. "What we are

saying isto blame corn and corn-based ethanol for all of the inflation associated with food and food prices ... isto grossly under-consider all the other forces at work."The CPI for food, a broadly used gauge for inflation, is up almost 6 percent for the first nine months of 2007, with the food inflation pace at a 25-year high, industry analysts said.

Many have blamed the rising price of food on raw commodity prices which have soared to multiyear highs in 2007.Chicago Board of Trade corn futures rose to US$4.37-1/4 in February, the highest level in a decade. The catalyst was President George W. Bush'sState of the Union speech in January, which called for a more than five-fold expansion of US biofuels like corn-based ethanol to some 35 billiongallons by 2017.Scherr does not see the upward price trend "to be broken in the near future" given the world's demand for rawcommodities. But outlooks for bigger corn yields due to increased seed technology will push world production by 2015 to 2020 to levels thatwill be better able to keep up with demand, he said.The Informa study was funded by the Renewable Fuels Foundation, which is linked to the Renewable Fuels Association that groups ethanol

producers. But Scherr and Informa Senior Vice President Scott Richman said consumer food costs are far more complex in the long US foodchain than just corn costs.For every dollar an American consumer spends on food, only 19 cents goes to a farmer, according to the US Department of Agriculture. The

balance -- 81 cents -- goes to labor, fuels, transportation, packaging, and other non-farm costs.

The study said greater impacts on food inflation than the price of corn have been these soaring non-farm costs,including record oil prices and soaring consumer demand from the world economy, notably the emerging middleclass in Asia. The United States is the top world exporter of food, including wheat and corn."There's no one culprit ... that is causing an uptick in food price inflation this year," said Richman. "An uptick in theprice of corn is not causing people to have to pay substantially more overall at retail."Ethanol demand has boosted corn prices. But given the competitive nature of the retail industry, much of the higher price of corn isbeing absorbed into the margins of food processors and livestock producers, Richman said.

Of the projected record 2007 US corn crop of 13 billion bushels, about 43 percent will fed to livestock to produce meat and dairy products and 24percent will be turned into ethanol.Two years ago, feed demand took 55 percent of the crop while ethanol consumed only 14 percent.

But the Informa study said that historical and statistical data simply does not bear out a significant tie between cornprices and food inflationas measured by the CPI."There has historically been very little relationship between corn prices and consumer food prices," the study says."It's a David and Goliath; the ethanol business is a David. The world economy and the shifting of demand curves --that's what caught up in the pricing to the consumer far more than a 7 billion gallon corn-based ethanol industry,"Scherr said.

8/14/2019 219 KO Updates 7-29 2

5/22


DOE Bad

1. CP HAS ONLY 60% SOLVENCYDOE IS INEFFICIENT

John S. Barry, 95 Heritage Foundation, "how to close down the DOE"http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1061.cfm

The Department of Energy not only has strayed from its original mission of energy oversight, but also has failed toconduct efficiently the services it now provides. Vice President Al Gore's National Performance Review reportedthat due to inefficiencies as high as 40 percent within DOE's Environmental Management program, more than $70billion could be lost over the next 30 years.2 Victor Rezendes testified that "DOE suffers from significantmanagement problems, ranging from poor environmental management... to major internal inefficiencies rooted inpoor oversight.... "3. These management problems and the inefficiencies that flow from them have been causedlargely by DOE's continual efforts to re-align itself and justify its existence.

2. DOE IS TOO BUREACRATIC AND WASTEFUL TO SOLVE

National Taxpayers Union, 2-21-03 Issue brief 142http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release.php?PressID=210&org_name=NTU

A good start might also include the abolishment of the entire Department of Energy. Originally conceived as a wayto both unite energy-related agencies and eliminate superfluous programs, the DoE now stands as "one of the mostinefficient organizations in the federal government," according to the National Research Council.[7] Ironically, theSecretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, Spencer Abraham, was once a proponent of doing away with the DoEand its $19 billion budget. As a Michigan Senator, Abraham had some very good reasons for his stance reasonswhich seem to have become less compelling since he was appointed Secretary. What Secretary Abraham no longerseems willing to contemplate is that the functions of the DoE can easily be transferred to other departments and/oragencies or the private sector. For instance, the DoE has responsibilities relating to nuclear weapons laboratories thatshould instead be transferred to the Department of Defense. While in the Senate, Abraham vigorously supportedlegislation in support of that goal: "Energy oversees everything from nuclear waste disposal to energy conservationto corporate welfare . . . What is not unneeded or harmful in this would be better secured without Energy's wastefulumbrella organization."[8] Now Secretary Abraham believes that "improved agency management" will correct theproblems of the redundant department.

3. FAILURE AND INEFFICIENCY MEANS YOU SHOULD PREFER NASA

John S. Barry, 95 Heritage Foundation, "how to close down the DOE"http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1061.cfm

There are two ways to close down a federal department. The first is simply to shift the department's responsibilitiesto other agencies and throw the old letterhead into the trash. The alternative is to eliminate, devolve, or privatizeresponsibilities whenever possible, and transfer only essential responsibilities to other departments. This latterapproach is the one that should be used with the Department of Energy. DOE's history of failure and ineffectivenessdemands nothing less.

8/14/2019 219 KO Updates 7-29 2

6/22


AT: Menand/Tetlock Study

No link to Menand - Tetlock only criticizes the experts who are qualified in only one field-

we use multiple varied source- at best we lose marginal probability

Daneil Drezner, Associate professor of international, Tufts University, 2005,http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/002441.html

It was no news to Tetlock... that experts got beaten by formulas. But he does believe that he discovered somethingabout why some people make better forecasters than other people. It has to do not with what the experts believe butwith the way they think. Tetlock uses Isaiah Berlins metaphor from Archilochus, from his essay on Tolstoy, TheHedgehog and the Fox, to illustrate the difference. He says: Low scorers look like hedgehogs: thinkers who knowone big thing, aggressively extend the explanatory reach of that one big thing into new domains, display bristlyimpatience with those who do not get it, and express considerable confidence that they are already prettyproficient forecasters, at least in the long term. High scorers look like foxes: thinkers who know many small things(tricks of their trade), are skeptical of grand schemes, see explanation and prediction not as deductive exercises butrather as exercises in flexible ad hocery that require stitching together diverse sources of information, and arerather diffident about their own forecasting prowess. A hedgehog is a person who sees international affairs to beultimately determined by a single bottom-line force: balance-of-power considerations, or the clash of civilizations,or globalization and the spread of free markets. A hedgehog is the kind of person who holds a great-man theory ofhistory, according to which the Cold War does not end if there is no Ronald Reagan. Or he or she might adhere to

the actor-dispensability thesis, according to which Soviet Communism was doomed no matter what. Whatever itis, the big idea, and that idea alone, dictates the probable outcome of events. For the hedgehog, therefore, predictionsthat fail are only off on timing, or are almost right, derailed by an unforeseeable accident. There are always littleswerves in the short run, but the long run irons them out. Foxes, on the other hand, dont see a single determiningexplanation in history. They tend, Tetlock says, to see the world as a shifting mixture of self-fulfilling and self-negating prophecies: self-fulfilling ones in which success breeds success, and failure, failure but only up to a point,and then self-negating prophecies kick in as people recognize that things have gone too far. Tetlock did not find, inhis sample, any significant correlation between how experts think and what their politics are. His hedgehogs wereliberal as well as conservative, and the same with his foxes. (Hedgehogs were, of course, more likely to be extremepolitically, whether rightist or leftist.) He also did not find that his foxes scored higher because they were morecautiousthat their appreciation of complexity made them less likely to offer firm predictions. Unlike hedgehogs,who actually performed worse in areas in which they specialized, foxes enjoyed a modest benefit from expertise.Hedgehogs routinely over-predicted: twenty per cent of the outcomes that hedgehogs claimed were impossible or

nearly impossible came to pass, versus ten per cent for the foxes. More than thirty per cent of the outcomes thathedgehogs thought were sure or near-sure did not, against twenty per cent for foxes. The upside of being ahedgehog, though, is that when youre right you can be really and spectacularly right. Great scientists, for example,are often hedgehogs. They value parsimony, the simpler solution over the more complex. In world affairs, parsimonymay be a liabilitybut, even there, there can be traps in the kind of highly integrative thinking that is characteristicof foxes. Elsewhere, Tetlock has published an analysis of the political reasoning of Winston Churchill. Churchill wasnot a man who let contradictory information interfere with his ides fixes. This led him to make the wrongprediction about Indian independence, which he opposed. But it led him to be right about Hitler. He was neverdistracted by the contingencies that might combine to make the elimination of Hitler unnecessary. (emphases added)I'll need to read the book to see the methodology by which Tetlock distinguished hedgehogs from foxes, but let'sassume that his finding is correct. What does this imply for the study of international relations? Potentially a lot --from my vantage point, the incentives in the IR discipline are heavily skewed towards the hedgehogs.Methodologically, the growing sophistication of formal, statistical, and even qualitative techniques make it

increasingly difficult for any one scholar to keep up their abilities in more than one area. Professionally, our fieldrewards the hedgehogs, the ones who come up with "the big idea" that can explain it all. As a result, my field has alot of hedgehogs, which means that we may not be of much use when it comes to policy relevance. Is this a badthing? I'm sure that many commenters will instinctively say, "yeah!" but it's not so clear cut. First, if the point of theacademy is to nourish unpopular but important ideas, then it's a good thing we have a lot of hedgehogs, becauseevery once in a while they will produce the kind of insight that helps to understand Really Big Truths. Second,asking IR scholars for accurate predictions about the future might be like asking meterologists for an accurateweather forecast three months ahead. That's impossible -- there are just too many variables. It might be that whatpolitical scientists do best is not predicting future events but rather explaining the past and present in a way thatprovides limited but useful insights into the very near future.
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/002441.htmlhttp://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/002441.html

8/14/2019 219 KO Updates 7-29 2

7/22


AT: Kato

Risk in the international system is inevitablethe goal should be to weigh the impacts of actionvs inaction in the face of a particular threat.Harvard Nuclear Study Group, 1983, Living with Nuclear Weapons, p.16-7

When President John F. Kennedy was shown irrefutable evidence of the Soviet missileemplacement U-2 photographs of the missile bases in Cube he and his advisors discussed thematter for six days before deciding on an American response to the challenge. The decision, toplace a naval blockade around the island, was not a risk-free response. This, Kennedy honestlyadmitted to the nation the night of October 22, 1962: My fellow citizens, let no one doubt this isa difficult and dangerous effort on which we have set out. No one can foresee precisely whatcourse it will take But the great danger of all would be to do nothing. Why did the presidentbelieve that to do nothing about the missiles in Cuba would be an even greater danger thanaccepting the difficult and dangerous course of the blockade? He accepted some risk of war inthe long run, by discouraging future Soviet aggressive behavior. Inaction might have led to aneven more dangerous future. This the president also explained that night in his address to the

nation: [This] sudden, clandestine decision to station weapons for the first time outside Sovietsoil is a deliberate provocative and unjustified change in the status quo which cannot beaccepted by this country if our courage and our commitments are ever to be trusted by eitherfriend or foe. The 1930s taught us a clear lesson: Aggressive conduct, if allowed to growunchecked and unchallenged, ultimately leads to war. The American government managed the1962 crisis with skill and restraint offering a compromise to the Soviets and giving themsufficient time to call back their missile-laden ships, for example and the missiles werewithdrawn from Cuba. The president carefully supervised American military actions to ensurethat his orders were not misunderstood. He did not push his success too far or ignore the realrisks of war. The point here is not, to make the blockade a model for American action in thefuture: different circumstances may call for different policies. Rather the point is to underline the

persistence of risk in international affairs. Every proposed response to the Soviet action doingnothing, enforcing the blockade, or invading Cuba entailed some risk of nuclear war.Kennedys task and we think his success was to weigh accurately the risks entailed in eachcourse and decide on policy accordingly.

8/14/2019 219 KO Updates 7-29 2

8/22


A2: Kato

Fear and securitization of war is good leads to social unity and peace

J. A. H. Futterman, Ph.D. from UT-Austin and Physicist at the University of California's Lawrence Livermore

National Laboratory, Obscenity and Peace: Meditations on the Bomb, 1990-94,http://www.dogchurch.com/scriptorium/nuke.html

, UK: FisherBut the inhibitory effect of reliable nuclear weaponsgoes deeper than Shirer's deterrence of adventurer-conquerors. Itchanges the way we think individually and culturally, preparing us for a future we cannot nowimagine. Jungian psychiatrist Anthony J. Stevens states, [15]"History would indicate that people cannot rise abovetheir narrow sectarian concerns without some overwhelming paroxysm. It took the War ofIndependence and the Civil War to forge the United States, World War I to create the League ofNations, World War II to create the United NationsOrganization and the European Economic Community. Onlycatastrophe, it seems, forces people to take the wider view.Orwhat aboutfear? Can the horror which weall experience when we contemplate the possibility of nuclear extinction mobilizeinussufficient libidinalenergyto resist the archetypes of war? Certainly, the moment we become blas about the possibilityof holocaust we are lost. As long as horror of nuclear exchange remainsuppermost we can recognize that nothing isworth it. War becomesthe impossibleoption. Perhaps horror, the experience of horror, the consciousness of horror, is our only hope. Perhapshorror alone will enable us to overcome the otherwise invincible attraction of war." Thus I alsocontinue engaging in nuclear weapons work to help fire that world-historical warning shot I mentioned above,namely, that as our beneficial technologies become more powerful, so will our weapons technologies, unlessgenuine peace precludes it. We must build a future more peaceful than our past, if we are to have a future at all, withor without nuclear weapons a fact we had better learn before worse things than nuclear weapons are invented. Ifyou're a philosopher, this means that I regard the nature of humankind as mutable rather than fixed, but that I thinkmost people welcome change in their personalities and cultures with all the enthusiasm that they welcome death

thus, the fear of nuclear annihilation of ourselves and all our values may be what we require inorder to become peaceful enough to survive our future technological breakthroughs.[16]Of course,we could just try for a world-wide halt to scientific research and technological change. This is obviously notdesirable because technological change serves humanity like biological diversity serves life in general -- it gives usways to cope with new challenges to our existence. For example, medical scientists deliberately forced the smallpox

virus into virtual extinction. Nor is halting technological change possible, because the demand for such change is sogreat people want the new stuff so much that they actually buy it. The fearof nuclear annihilation may bewhat we require in order to become peaceful enough to survive our futuretechnologicalbreakthroughs.In other words, when the peace movement tells the world that we need to treat each other morekindly, I and my colleagues stand behind it (like Malcolm X stood behind Martin Luther King, Jr.) saying, "Or else."We provide the peace movement with a needed sense of urgency that it might otherwise lack.
http://www.dogchurch.com/scriptorium/nuke.htmlhttp://www.dogchurch.com/scriptorium/nuke.html

8/14/2019 219 KO Updates 7-29 2

9/22


Mass Transit decreases FF

Mass transit decreases fossil fuel consumptionWarren Redlich, Albany lawyer elected to Guilderland Town Board, 7-3-06, http://www.wredlich.com/stop-wasting-money/2006/09/global-warming-gas-taxes-mass-transit.html, [CXia]

Mass transit has many benefits. Heavy use of mass transit dramatically reduces our consumption ofgasoline. Japan and Europe are, again, great examples of this. It's one thing to discourage consumptionby raising taxes or otherwise making life more difficult for drivers, butit also helps a lot to give them analternative.

Mass transit reduces fossil fuel consumptions and help solve globalwarming.Robert Reich, professor of public policy @ University of California-Berkeley, 6-4-08, Lets Get Serious about

Public Transit, http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/06/04/reich_public_transit/, [CXia]For years, policy makers have wondered just how high gas prices would have to go before drivers

switch to public transportation. Now we know: it's around $4 a gallon, because millions of Americansare switching to buses, trains and subways to go to work. Rather than bemoaning the spike in gas prices,we should be celebrating. Public transit not only reduces congestion but also reduces the nation's energyneeds and cuts carbon emissions that bring on global warming.

8/14/2019 219 KO Updates 7-29 2

10/22


Hemp unpopular

hemp unpopularNational Families in Action, 2000, "A Guide to the Drug Legalization Movement",http://www.nationalfamilies.org/legalization/legalization_from_here.htmlNow, chances are very good we're going to win all these initiatives and on top of two other medical marijuana

initiatives, hopefully in November we're going to have seven victories. And, we think it's very important to projectthat kind of "we win every time on this issue." Because that puts increasing pressure on the Federal Government.That's what got Al Gore to talk about medical marijuana when Dick [Evans] and his friends put it to him in NewHampshire.So, that leads me to an unpleasant conclusion. What is the impact of another kind of initiative that didn't go throughthis process and that is going to lose overwhelmingly in November on the same day that all these carefully craftedinitiatives win? And I'm unfortunately referring to an initiative that Jack's going to talk about in a couple of minutes.It's on the ballot in Alaska. That initiative is not strategic, because that initiative can't possibly win, based on public-opinion polling that's been available there for some time.So, what's going to happen? The government's going to say, "well, people are split on drug reform. You know theymight want a few initiatives over here, but then they lost that other one up there." And, if we continue to putinitiatives on the ballot that are unpopular and lose, if we continue to have demonstrations that occur in BostonCommons every year in which fifty to seventy thousand people get together and smoke dope in a public park -- and

everybody else in Massachusetts who might be thinking of coming over to our side on an initiative vote that willoccur six weeks after the next demonstration thinks to themselves, well this is just a bunch of junkies in the park -that's not going to help any of us get to a goal as fast as we want to get to it.

8/14/2019 219 KO Updates 7-29 2

11/22


2AC Heidegger Frontline (1/)

Turn - Technological thought is only bad because of a lack of the right kind of rationality

the plan allows a reflection of ends that is able to counter the hegemony of instrumental

reason.

Wolin, 90 - Distinguished Professor of History at the City University of New YorkGraduate Center (Richard Wolin, The Politics of Being, P. 167)

Heidegger's theory of technology ultimately collapses under the weight of itsown self-imposed conceptual limitations. And thus, the intrinsic shortcomings ofhis theoretical framework prevent him from entertaining the prospect thatthe problem of technological domination owes more to the dearth of reasonin the modern world rather than an excess. For in modern life, theparameters of rationality have been prematurely restricted: formal or

instrumental reason has attained de facto hegemony; practical reason-reflection on ends-has been effectively marginalized.Instead of the"overcoming" of reason recommended by Heidegger, what is needed is anexpansion of reason's boundaries, such that the autonomous logic ofinstrumental rationality is subordinated to a rational reflection on ends.Similarly, Heidegger's incessant lamentations concerning the "will to will-the theoretical prismthrough which he views the modern project of human self-assertion in its entirety- only serve toconfuse the problem at issue?7 That the forces of technology and industry follow an independentlogic.

Maintaining human survival doesnt lead to management over life, its a pre-requisite to

ontology A. Survival is key to ontology because the ontological structure of rethinking

relies on human agency; B. Reacting to death can bring responsibility back to human

existence which forms our ethical obligation to save lives. This is particularly true for

health assistance.

Brent DeanRobbins, doctoral student in clinical psychology at Duquesne University, 1999[Medard Boss,http://mythosandlogos.com/Boss.html]

"Death is an unsurpassable limit of human existence," writes Boss (119). Primarily, however,human beings flee from death and the awareness of our mortality. But in our confrontation with deathand our morality, we discover the "relationship" which "is the basis for all feelings of reverance, fear, awe, wonder,sorrow, and deference in the face of something greater and more powerful." (120). Boss even suggests that "the mostdignified human relationship to death" involves keeping it--as a possibility rather than an actuality--constantly in

awareness without fleeing from it. As Boss writes: "Only such a being-unto-death can guarantee theprecondition that the Dasein be able to free itself from its absorption in, its submission andsurrender of itself to the things and relationships of everyday living and to return to itself." (121)Such a recognition brings the human being back to his responsibility for his existence. This is notsimply a inward withdrawal from the world--far from it. Rather, this responsible awareness ofdeath as the ultimate possibility for human existence frees the human being to be with others in agenuine way. From this foundation--based on the existentials described above--Boss is able to

8/14/2019 219 KO Updates 7-29 2

12/22


articulate an understanding of medicine and psychology which gives priority to the freedom ofthe human being to be itself. By freedom, Boss does not mean a freedom to have all the possibilites, for we arefinite and limited by our factical history and death. Yet within these finite possibilities, we are free to be who we areand to take responsibility for who we are in the world with others and alongside things that matter.


Turn Letting beings be permits ultimate violence to occur. Heidegger ignores the fact

that not reacting in the face of nuclear escalation makes the Alt culpable for annihilation.

Nuremberg proves we need international action to stop genocidal arms races. This evidence

assumes your authors and answers the argument that ontology outweighs nuclear war.

Ronald E. Santoni, Phil. Prof @ Denison, 1985, Nuclear War, ed. Fox and Groarke, p.156-7

To be sure, Fox sees the need for our undergoing certain fundamental changes in our thinking, beliefs, attitudes,

values and Zimmerman calls for a paradigm shift in our thinking about ourselves, other, and the

Earth. But it is not clear that what either offers as suggestions for what we can, must, or shoulddo in the face of a runaway arms race are sufficient to wind down the arms race before it leads toomnicide. In spite of the importance of Foxs analysis and reminders it is not clear that admitting our (nuclear) fearand anxiety to ourselves and identifying the mechanisms that dull or mask our emotional and other responsesrepresent much more than examples of basic, often. stated principles of psychotherapy. Being aware of thepsychological maneuvers that keep us numb to nuclear reality may well be the road to transcending them but it mustonly be a first step (as Fox acknowledges), during which we Simultaneously act to eliminate nuclear threats, breakour complicity with the ams race, get rid of arsenals of genocidal weaponry, and create conditions for international

goodwill, mutual trust, and creative interdependence. Similarly, in respect to Zimmerman: in spite of thechallenging Heideggerian insights he brings out regarding what motivates the arms race, manyquestions may be raised about his prescribed solutions. Given our need for a paradigm shift inour (distorted) understanding of ourselves and the rest of being, are we merely left to prepare

for a possible shift in our self-understanding? (italics mine)? Is this all we can do? Is itnecessarily the case that such a shift cannot come as a result of our own will? and work butonly from a destiny outside our control? Does this mean we leave to God the matter ofbringing about a paradigm shift? Granted our fears and the importance of not being controlled by fears, aswell as our anthropocentric leanings, should we be as cautious as Zimmerman suggests about out disposition towant to do something or to act decisively in the face of the current threat? In spite of the importance of our

taking on the anxiety of our finitude and our present limitation, does it follow that we should be willing forthe worst (i.e. an all-out nuclear war) to occur? Zimmerman wrongly, I contend, equatesresistance with denial when he says that as long as we resist and deny the possibility of nuclear war, that

possibility will persist and grow stronger. He also wrongly perceives resistance as presupposing aclinging to the order of things that now prevails. Resistance connotes opposing, and striving to

defeat a prevailing state of affairs that would allow or encourage the worst to occur. I submit,against Zimmerman, that we should not, in any sense, be willing for nuclear war or omnicide to occur. (This is notto suggest that we should be numb to the possibility of its occurrence.) Despite Zimmermans elaborations and

refinements his Heideggerian notion ofletting beings be continues to be too permissive in this regard.In my judgment, an individuals decision not to act against and resist his or her governmentspreparations for nuclear holocaust is, as I have argued elsewhere, to be an early accomplice tothe most horrendous crime against life imaginable its annihilation. The Nuremburg traditioncalls not only for a new way of thinking, a new internationalism in which we all become co-nurturers of the whole planet, but for resolute actions that will sever our complicity with nuclear

8/14/2019 219 KO Updates 7-29 2

13/22


criminality and the genocidal arms race, and work to achieve a future which we can no longerassume. We must not only come face to face with the unthinkable in image and thought (Fox) but must act now - with a new consciousness and conscience - to prevent the unthinkable, by cleansing theearth of nuclear weaponry. Only when that is achieved will ultimate violence be removed as the final arbiter of ourplanets fate.

8/14/2019 219 KO Updates 7-29 2

14/22



Turn Authenticity A. The Alt is based on a notion of authenticity that separates

practical reason from true being-in-the-world.

Wolin, 90 - Distinguished Professor of History at the City University of New York

Graduate Center - 1990 (Richard Wolin, The Politics of Being, P. 33-34)Although an understanding of Heidegger's political thought should in no way be reduced to the concrete political

choices made by the philosopher in the 1930s, neither is it entirely separable therefrom. And while the strategy ofhis apologists has been to dissociate the philosophy from the empirical person, thereby suggesting thatHeidegger's Nazism was an unessential aberration in the hope of exempting thephilosophy from political taint, this strategy will not wash for several reasons. To begin with,Heidegger's philosophy itself would seem to rule out the artificial, traditionalphilosophical separation between thought and action. In truth, much ofBeing andTime is concerned with overcoming the conventional philosophical division betweentheoretical and practical reason; a fact that is evident above all in the "pragmatic"point of departure of the analytic of Dasein: "Being-in- the-world" rather than the

Cartesian "thinking substance." More importantly, though, what is perhaps the central

category of Heidegger's existential ontology-the category of "authenticity''-automatically precludes such a facile separation between philosophicaloutlook and concrete life-choices. As a work of fundamental ontology, Being and Timeaims at delineating the essential, existential determinants of human Being-in-the-world.Heidegger refers to these structures (e.g., "care," "fallenness," "thrownness," "Being-toward-death") as Existenzialien.The category of authenticity demands that theontological structures of Being and Time receive practical or ontic fulfillment;that is, the realization of these categorial determinations in actual, concrete lifecontexts is essential to the coherence of the Heideggerian project. This conclusion follows

of necessity from the nature of the category of authenticity itself: it would be nonsensical to speak of an"authentic Dasein" that was unrealized, existing in a state of mere potentiality. Authenticity

requires that ontic or practical choices and involvements-concrete decisions,engagements, and political commitments-become an essential feature of anauthentic existence.

B. The Impact This leads to totalitarianism and explains the relationship between

Heidegger and National Socialism. Authenticity can be used to justify a spiritual mission to

rule those who arent capable of living authentic lives. This proves the Alt will be

misappropriated, which is especially true in Africa given the history of colonialism.Wolin, 90 - Distinguished Professor of History at the City University of New York Graduate Center - 1990 (RichardWolin, The Politics of Being, P. 46)

The political philosophical implications of this theory are as unequivocal as

they are distasteful to a democratic sensibility. On the basis of thephilosophical anthropology outlined by Heidegger, the modernconception of popular sovereignty becomes a sheer non sequitur:for those who dwell in the public sphere of everydayness are viewedas essentially incapable of self-rule. Instead, the only viable politicalphilosophy that follows from this standpoint would be brazenlyelitist: since the majority of citizens remain incapable of leadingmeaningful lives when left to their own devices, their only hope for

8/14/2019 219 KO Updates 7-29 2

15/22


"redemption" lies in the imposition of a "higher spiritual mission"from above. Indeed, this was the explicit political conclusion drawn by Heidegger in 1933. In thisway, Heidegger's political thought moves precariously in thedirection of the "Fuhrerprinzip"or "leadership principle." In essence, he reiterates, inkeeping with a characteristic antimodern bias, a strategem drawn from Platonic political philosophy: since the

majority of men and women are incapable of ruling themselves insofar asthey are driven by the base part of their souls to seek after inferiorsatisfactions and amusements, we in effect do them a service by rulingthem from above.77To date, however, there has never been a satisfactory answer to the question Marxposes concerning such theories of educational dictatorship: "Who shall educate the educator?

8/14/2019 219 KO Updates 7-29 2

16/22

8/14/2019 219 KO Updates 7-29 2

17/22


the elementary ideological gesture of maintaining an inner distance towards the ideological text - of claiming thatthere is something more beneath it, a non-ideological kernel: ideology exerts its hold over us by means of this veryinsistence that the Cause we adhere to is not 'merely' ideological. So where is the trap? When the disappointed

Heidegger turns away from active engagement in the Nazi movement, he does so because the Nazi movement didnot maintain the level of its 'inner greatness', but legitimized itself with inadequate (racial) ideology. In other words,

what he expected from it was that it should legitimize itself through direct awareness of its 'inner

greatness'. And the problemlies in this very expectation that a political movement that will directly refer to itshistorico-ontological foundation is possible. This expectation, however, is in itself profoundly metaphysical, inso far as it fails to recognize that the gap separating the direct ideological legitimization of amovement from its 'inner greatness' (its historico-ontological essence) is constitutive, a positivecondition of its 'functioning'. To use the terms of the later Heidegger, ontological insight necessarilyentails ontic blindness and error, and vice versa - that is to say, in order to be 'effective' at the ontic level,one must disregard the ontological horizon of one's activity. (In this sense, Heidegger emphasizes that 'sciencedoesn't think' and that, far from being its limitation, this inability is the very motor of scientific progress.) In other

words, what Heidegger seems unable to endorse is a concrete political engagement that wouldaccept its necessary, constitutive blindness - as if the moment we acknowledge the gapseparating the awareness of the ontological horizon from ontic engage ment, any ontic

engagement is depreciated, loses its authentic dignity.

8/14/2019 219 KO Updates 7-29 2

18/22



8. No impact and the alternative fails Either the Alt opposes all action and the

permutation solves or it only opposes the plan which doesnt spillover. Dont believe the

hype the plan does not justify all forms of violence. Heideggers critique is sloppy whenit lumps Stalinism together with Western rationalism, and this makes the Alt critically

useless.

Ferry and Renaut, 90 Professor of Political Science at the Sorbonne and Professor ofPhilosophy at Nantes 1990 (Luc Ferry and Alain Renaut,Heidegger and Modernity,trans. Franklin Philip, P. 87-88)

From this viewpoint, it is first of all clear, as we have noted, that this criticism oftechnology as the global concretization of an idea of man as consciousness and will implies,like it or not, a deconstruction ofdemocratic remains on and hence, in some sense, of

humanism. It is also clear, however, that Heidegger's thinking, even fixed up this way,continues in some odd way to misfire because of its one-dimensionality. Just as,on the strictly philosophical level, it leads to lumping the various facets ofmodem subjectivity together in a shapeless mass and to judging that theprogression from Descartes to Kant to Nietzsche is linear and in factinevitable;just as, on the political level, it leads to the brutal inclusion ofAmerican liberalism in the same category with Stalinist totalitarianism. Nowthis is no mere matter of taste: anyone has the right to loathe rock concerts, Disney World, andCalifornia. Nonetheless, no one may-Hannah Arendt and Leo Strauss, who lived in the UnitedStates, did not make this mistake - identify, in the name of a higher authority, the barbarism ofthe Soviet gulags with the depravities of a Western society whose extraordinary political, social,

and cultural complexity allows areas of freedom that it would be wholly unwarranted to judge apriori as mere fringes or remnants of a world in decline.

8/14/2019 219 KO Updates 7-29 2

19/22


Mass transit PIC solvency

Mass transit reduces the amount of pollution by being an alternative to private transport.

Stephanie Corson, philosopher at USF.No date. Private Transportation vs. Mass Transit:

The Environmental Aspects, Mass Transit in Tampa.http://www.cas.usf.edu/philosophy/mass/Stephanie.html [Takumi

Murayama]

For the last few decades, air pollution has become an increasingly evident problem. Many of the pollutantsin the air such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons are produced byautomobiles. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare has estimated that automobiles account forapproximately 48% of the carbon monoxide, 32% of the nitrogen oxides, and 59% of the hydrocarbons in theatmosphere. These pollutants have an adverse effect on the environment and on humans. A mass transitsystem is more beneficial to the environment because it reduces the amount of pollution released into

the air by providing an alternative to private transport that can be used by many. Mass transit systemsare also more energy efficient modes of transportation than automobiles.

Alternative energy not keyautomobiles contribute to more than a half of smog

Stephanie Corson, philosopher at USF.No date. Private Transportation vs. Mass Transit:The Environmental Aspects, Mass Transit in Tampa.

http://www.cas.usf.edu/philosophy/mass/Stephanie.html [Takumi

Murayama]

Smog is an urban air pollution composed of exhaust emissions, smoke, and other gases. It containspollutants which affect people's health. Some, such as carbon monoxide, are toxic enough to cause seriousillness. Others can cause coughing, wheezing, and chest discomfort at relatively high concentrations. It is

also harmful to crops and reduces visibility. Higher temperatures in the surrounding atmosphere, such aswould be produced by the greenhouse effect, could lead to higher levels of smog. Smog itself can create ablanket over cities that traps heat, thus producing a kind of mini-greenhouse effect. In the United States,automobiles contribute more than one half of the pollutants that form smog.
http://www.cas.usf.edu/philosophy/mass/Stephanie.htmlhttp://www.cas.usf.edu/philosophy/mass/Stephanie.htmlhttp://www.cas.usf.edu/philosophy/mass/Stephanie.htmlhttp://www.cas.usf.edu/philosophy/mass/Stephanie.html

8/14/2019 219 KO Updates 7-29 2

20/22


A2: NASA tradeoff DA

Science Daily, 6-23-08,http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080622001251.htm,Junaid

NASA-French space agency oceanography satellite launchedJune 20 from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., on aglobe-circling voyage to continue charting sea level, avital indicator of global climate change. The mission willreturn a vast amount of new data that will improve weather,climate and ocean forecasts. With a thunderous roar andfiery glow, the Ocean Surface Topography Mission/Jason 2satellite arced through the blackness of an early centralcoastal California morning at 12:46 a.m. PDT, climbing intospace atop a Delta II rocket. Fifty-five minutes later,OSTM/Jason 2 separated from the rocket's second stage, andthen unfurled its twin sets of solar arrays. Groundcontrollers successfully acquired the spacecraft's signals.

Initial telemetry reports show it to be in excellent health."Sea-level measurements from space have come of age," saidMichael Freilich, director of the Earth Science Division inNASA's Science Mission Directorate, Washington. "Precisionmeasurements from this mission will improve our knowledge ofglobal and regional sea-level changes and enable moreaccurate weather, ocean and climate forecasts." Measurementsof sea-surface height, or ocean surface topography, revealthe speed and direction of ocean currents and tellscientists how much of the sun's energy is stored by theocean. Combining ocean current and heat storage data is keyto understanding global climate variations. OSTM/Jason 2'sexpected lifetime of at least three years will extend intothe next decade the continuous record of these data startedin 1992 by NASA and the French space agency Centre Nationald'Etudes Spatiales, or CNES, with the TOPEX/Poseidonmission. The data collection was continued by the twoagencies on Jason 1 in 2001.

8/14/2019 219 KO Updates 7-29 2

21/22


Sovereignty K links

State granted sovereignty remains something to be taken away at willplan is no exception

Peter d'Errico, Legal Studies Department, University of Massachusetts/Amherst, 97"American indian sovereignty: now you see it, now you don't." umass.edu/legal/derrico/nowyouseeit.html

When we enter into the realm of "federal Indian law," we need to keep in mind that we are traveling in a semanticworld created by one group to rule another. The terminology of law is a powerful naming process. In working withthis law, we will use the names that it uses, but we will always want to keep in mind that the reality behind thenames is what we are struggling over.According to the theory of sovereignty in federal Indian law, "tribal" peoples have a lesser form of "sovereignty,"which is not really sovereignty at all, but dependence. In the words of Chief Justice John Marshall in CherokeeNation v. Georgia (1831), American Indian societies, though they are "nations" in the general sense of the word, arenot fully sovereign, but are "domestic, dependent nations." The shell game of American Indian sovereignty -- the"now you see it, now you don't" quality -- started right at the beginning of federal Indian law. The foundation offederal Indian law is the assertion by the United States of a special kind of non-sovereign sovereignty.In 1973, the federal district court for the district of Montana stated the underlying principle in the case of UnitedStates v. Blackfeet Tribe, 364 F.Supp. 192. The facts were simple: The Blackfeet Business Council passed a

resolution authorizing gambling on the reservation and the licensing of slot machines. An FBI agent seized fourmachines. The Blackfeet Tribal Court issued an order restraining all persons from removing the seized articles fromthe reservation. The FBI agent, after consultation with the United States Attorney, removed the machines from thereservation. A tribal judge then ordered the U.S. Attorney to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt ofthe tribal court. The U.S. Attorney applied to federal court for an injunction to block the contempt citations. TheBlackfeet Tribe argued that it is sovereign and that the jurisdiction of the tribal court flows directly from thissovereignty. The federal court said:No doubt the Indian tribes were at one time sovereign and even now the tribes are sometimes described as beingsovereign. The blunt fact, however, is that an Indian tribe is sovereign to the extent that the United States permits itto be sovereign -- neither more nor less. [364 F.Supp. at 194.]

US granted sovereignty is not sovereignty at allit's colonialism

Peter d'Errico, Legal Studies Department, University of Massachusetts/Amherst, 97"American indian sovereignty: now you see it, now you don't." umass.edu/legal/derrico/nowyouseeit.html

The fundamental premise of "American Indian sovereignty" as defined in federal Indian law is that it is notsovereignty. Federal power truncates "tribal sovereignty" in myriad ways too numerous to list here. Federal Indianlaw is perhaps the most complex area of United States law (including tax laws). In civil and criminal law both, therange and scope of "tribal sovereignty" is fragmented into overlapping and contradictory rules premised on onefoundation: the "plenary power" of the United States. That such "plenary power" is nowhere stated in the U.S.Constitution is no more than a small nuisance to the judges who have declared its existence. Administrative agenciesand Congress alike grasp firmly to their judicially-created prerogatives of total power over their "wards," in whose"trust" they act as they see fit.

Federal Indian law is the continuation of colonialism. On the basis of a non-sovereign "tribal sovereignty," theUnited States has built an entire apparatus for dispossessing indigenous peoples of their lands, their socialorganizations, and their original powers of self-determination. The concept of "American Indian sovereignty" isuseful to the United States because it denies indigenous power in the name of indigenous sovereignty.

8/14/2019 219 KO Updates 7-29 2

22/22


Sovereignty K links

State power prevents any sovereignty and excludes Native lifestyles

Peter d'Errico, Legal Studies Department, University of Massachusetts/Amherst, 97

"American indian sovereignty: now you see it, now you don't." umass.edu/legal/derrico/nowyouseeit.html

Indigenous peoples around the world are attacking the supremacy of state governments. From an indigenousperspective, state sovereignty is a claim that violates their own pre-existing self-determination. Westernjurisprudence has done a great deal to exclude "non-state societies" from the domain of law, because they lackhierarchical authority structures. If indigenous peoples follow the model of state sovereignty -- which they are beingtold they cannot do because they are not states -- they may find that when they attain this goal they have sacrificedthe underlying goal of self-defined self-determination.

STATE ACTION DESTROYS INDIAN SOVEREIGNTY AND REPLICATES THEIR DESTRUCTION

Peter d'Errico, Legal Studies Department, University of Massachusetts/Amherst, 97

"American indian sovereignty: now you see it, now you don't." umass.edu/legal/derrico/nowyouseeit.html

In this crisis it is tempting for a people to take on the ways of the state. These ways can be taught. They are in factthe most basic part of the curriculum of the modern state education system. It is not accidental that "education" hasbeen a primary vehicle for destruction of indigenous peoples. "Education" defined by colonizing states has aimed ateradication of indigenous traditions, at destruction of "confidence and commitment between persons who recognizeand affirm" indigenous communities. When such education is complete, it is safe for the state to allow a"recognition" of "traditions," because "traditions" have become static relics of the past, no longer part of everydayrelations. "Ethnic diversity" then becomes window-dressing, decoration, new clothes for the emperor. The Americanstate can tolerate and even promote the "diversity" of Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, African-Americans, and,yes, Native-Americans. It would be possible for the American state to exist even if there were no "Americans" at alland everyone was a hyphen-American.

Ultimately, it is land -- and a people's relationship to land -- that is at issue in "indigenous sovereignty" struggles. Toknow that "sovereignty" is a legal-theological concept allows us to understand these struggles as spiritual projects,involving questions about who "we" are as beings among beings, peoples among peoples. Sovereignty arises fromwithin a people as their unique expression of themselves as a people. It is not produced by court decrees orgovernment grants, but by the actual ability of a people to sustain themselves in a place. This is self-determination.

Self-determination of indigenous peoples will be attained "through means other than those provided by a conqueror'srule of law and its discourses of conquest." [Williams, 327.] The "anachronistic premises" [Id.] of the current systemof international law -- "discovery" and "state sovereignty" -- must be discarded in order to understand self-determination clearly and see a way to manifest it. This is the real struggle of indigenous peoples: "to redefineradically the conceptions of their rights and status.... to articulat[e] and defin[e] [their] own vision within the globalcommunity." [328.] On the plus side for all of us, this struggle has the "potential for broadening perspectives on ourhuman condition." [Id.] As Phillip Deere said, "It is a mistake to talk about an American Indian way of life. We aretalking about a human being way of life." [Deere.]

219 KO Updates 7-29 2

Documents

Transcript of 219 KO Updates 7-29 2